Pet owners who consider themselves 'mummy' and/or 'daddy' to their pets - Weird?

[ch33zw1z]

I understand how people get attached to animals.
I don't believe these people understand that there is a world of difference between being attached to an animal vs. their own child. They don't have kids, so they don't know. Look at the 4 stages of knowledge. They are in stage 1. They simply don't know what they don't know and there is no convincing them of this.

Meanwhile we have some douchebag who would prefer to sit on his Italian Leather Sofa, alone, watching a pointless game on his Vizio 52" LCD while listening on his Bose surround hooked up with only the finest Monster cables, and he thinks he has the good life. 🙂

I don't disagree. I never felt the way about our pets as I do about my two kid's.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Why does anyone say this on the internet? It may be true or it may not be true, but there is no way for either party to be sure, so it's just worthless bragging with nothing to back it up.

 

[waggy]

Why does anyone say this on the internet? It may be true or it may not be true, but there is no way for either party to be sure, so it's just worthless bragging with nothing to back it up.

for the same reason people brag about there kids (heh and i know i do it often).

we all have diffrent wants/needs in life. his is items. no big deal it is his choice. I have friends the same way. they work long hours and spend there money on things they enjoy. from artwork to hundred+ dollar bottles of wine. they travel A LOT. they do not want kids.

me? i would rather work less and spend more time with my kids.


am i right and them wrong? no. we have different wants and desires in life.

 

[Elganja]

for the same reason people brag about there kids (heh and i know i do it often).

we all have diffrent wants/needs in life. his is items. no big deal it is his choice. I have friends the same way. they work long hours and spend there money on things they enjoy. from artwork to hundred+ dollar bottles of wine. they travel A LOT. they do not want kids.

me? i would rather work less and spend more time with my kids.


am i right and them wrong? no. we have different wants and desires in life.

+1

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

for the same reason people brag about there kids (heh and i know i do it often).

we all have diffrent wants/needs in life. his is items. no big deal it is his choice. I have friends the same way. they work long hours and spend there money on things they enjoy. from artwork to hundred+ dollar bottles of wine. they travel A LOT. they do not want kids.

me? i would rather work less and spend more time with my kids.


am i right and them wrong? no. we have different wants and desires in life.

I completely agree with this. My brother and I have different lives and we are both happy. what I find funny is that he talked about his fancy Italian Leather Sofa. That is like talking about how you only drive the finest sports cars and then try to show off your Mustang GT. It is...cute, I suppose, that he thinks his sofa is so luxurious because it is Italian Leather and acts as if people with kids can't afford a nice Walmart couch like he can.

It is still fucking weird when people act like their pets lives are more important than a human life.

 

[waggy]

It is still fucking weird when people act like their pets lives are more important than a human life.

it's not weird it's fucking stupid. Anyone that would let a child die to save a pet is disgusting.

I love my pets. they are a part of my family. But if it came between saving a child and saving my dog it really is not a choice.

 

[JoeyP]

it's not weird it's fucking stupid. Anyone that would let a child die to save a pet is disgusting.

I love my pets. they are a part of my family. But if it came between saving a child and saving my dog it really is not a choice.

How about if it was between saving your dog and saving an Italian Leather Sofa? 😎

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

it's not weird it's fucking stupid. Anyone that would let a child die to save a pet is disgusting.

I love my pets. they are a part of my family. But if it came between saving a child and saving my dog it really is not a choice.

What if the choice was to save a child's life or receive a FREE Italian Leather Sofa from Aaron's Home Furnishings? Now the lines start to blur...

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

How about if it was between saving your dog and saving an Italian Leather Sofa? 😎

Bahahahahaha!

 

[dud]

As a result of something posted on FB I looked at dogshaming.com again. Any thoughts on the topic?

If you're not sure what I mean, check this out as an example:

http://www.dogshaming.com/2012/11/frosting-tastes-so-good/

I am not currently a pet owner but voted that this behavior is not "weird".


If you had added an option for "sad" ... I would have voted for that. The world is full of people who are desperate, need housing, food and love ... yet this kind of madness pervades.

These people should look without and not within. this type of myopic behavior is just selfish ...

 

[Ns1]

How does it make no sense? They said that they value things that affect them more than a kid they will never meet. At what point do they draw a line? Surely the keyboard they purchased and are typing on has more of an impact in their life than an unknown child living 3000 miles away.

well, is it a mechanical keyboard or a shitty dell keyboard? facts like that matter.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

This thread is now about items that people think are luxurious or top-of-the-line and really aren't.

Bose
Monster Cable
Shit cars like Camaro, Mustang, Charger
Italian Leather Sofas
Citizen watches

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

well, is it a mechanical keyboard or a shitty dell keyboard? facts like that matter.

Indeed they do. It is a Logitech G19 with a custom-made monster USB cable for better data transfer to the computer.

 

[Ns1]

Indeed they do. It is a Logitech G19 with a custom-made monster USB cable for better data transfer to the computer.

in that case, fuck kids I will never meet.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

This thread is now about items that people think are luxurious or top-of-the-line and really aren't.

Bose
Monster Cable
Shit cars like Camaro, Mustang, Charger
Italian Leather Sofas
Citizen watches

And I'm the one that acts like a child? Please don't hit me with an internet meme..

 

[waggy]

How about if it was between saving your dog and saving an Italian Leather Sofa? 😎

depends. does the sofa have cup holders?

 

[torpid]

I can't imagine a lot of situations where I have to choose a random stranger's life over my pet's life. One would be a fire. I guess I'd probably choose the stranger if for some reason I had to assist them. On the other hand I would have minimal qualms about killing someone who was going to kill my pet if I didn't.

 

[darkewaffle]

Really? Pets aren't possessions? The law doesn't look at it that way.

I get why people love pets. I understand that you can be attached. My kids are attached to their cat. It is when people start treating animals like people and say stupid shit about sacrificing a human life for that of an animal that I shake my head.

An Illinois court compared the loss of a dog to the loss of other unique and irreplaceable items, such as family heirlooms or photographs. Because these objects, which are not bought and sold, have no meaningful market value, the court ruled, damages are measured by their "actual value to the owner." (Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hospital, Ltd., 510 N.E. 2d 1084 (Ill. App. 1987).)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted that "[l]abeling a dog 'property' fails to describe the value human beings place upon the companionship that they enjoy with a dog," but nevertheless refused to allow a woman whose dog had been shot and killed by police to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Rabideau v. City of Racine, No. 99-3263 (Wis. 2001).)

A Minnesota court, for example, cited an 1890 court ruling that because pets are property, market value is the proper measure of the owner's loss. (Soucek v. Banham, 524 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. App. 1994).) Other courts give up because of the difficulty in putting a dollar amount on the loss: "It is impossible to reduce to monetary terms the bond between man and dog," said one, limiting a dog owner's recovery to the cost of veterinary treatment. (Zager v. Dimilia, 524 N.Y.S.2d 968 (Vill. Ct. 1988).)

This change in attitude is shown by courts' willingness to let people sue for the mental anguish they suffer when they lose a pet because of malicious or extremely reckless acts. The legal theory is similar to the one that lets people sue when a child or spouse is injured; they can sue not only for lost income, but for the emotional anguish the death triggers.

Just some interesting things from NOLO. The law on pet "value" is murky at best and highly subjective, not really a great example.

Your child's life is only "special" to you, your family, and his/her friends. I fall into none of those three categories. In much the same way, my pets are only "special" to myself, my family, and some of the people they've 'befriended'. We both choose what matters most to us. As I said, we self-preserve.

Again though, if these lines are drawn so clearly in black and white, would you kill your cat to save a human behind a curtain? A starving child? A serial killer? The president? A rapist? Gandhi? Mussolini?

 

[Ns1]

Just some interesting things from NOLO. The law on pet "value" is murky at best and highly subjective, not really a great example.

Your child's life is only "special" to you, your family, and his/her friends. I fall into none of those three categories. In much the same way, my pets are only "special" to myself, my family, and some of the people they've 'befriended'. We both choose what matters most to us. As I said, we self-preserve.

Again though, if these lines are drawn so clearly in black and white, would you kill your cat to save a human behind a curtain? A starving child? A serial killer? The president? A rapist? Gandhi? Mussolini?

+100

 

[waggy]

I can't imagine a lot of situations where I have to choose a random stranger's life over my pet's life. One would be a fire. I guess I'd probably choose the stranger if for some reason I had to assist them. On the other hand I would have minimal qualms about killing someone who was going to kill my pet if I didn't.

agreed. IF i had a choice between someones life and my dog i would be sad after it was over. I love my pets and would miss it.

Now if someone was going to kill my pet (i guess it does depend on why. was the dog attacking someone for some reason?) I would not hesitate to shoot them.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

And I'm the one that acts like a child? Please don't hit me with an internet meme..

Haha, I am just poking a little fun at what your idea of excellence is. Don't be angry. For me, if I could even fathom ever affording something as luxurious as $1500 ITALIAN LEATHER SOFA from Sam's club, I would never leave the house. Cold beverages and basketball all day long.

Tell me, what is it like to be so rich? Did the Italians stuff your sofa with hundred dollar bills? I bet they did. Do you have a square vase from Pier 1 next to your sofa?

I want to be you.
I want to be inside of you.

 

[SKORPI0]

Weird, I have those kind of people in the family. One even wants to add their pet as their "daughter" to the family tree. Pet name includes their last family name. Some people are just full of themselves. But to each their own. 😵

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Just some interesting things from NOLO. The law on pet "value" is murky at best and highly subjective, not really a great example.

Your child's life is only "special" to you, your family, and his/her friends. I fall into none of those three categories. In much the same way, my pets are only "special" to myself, my family, and some of the people they've 'befriended'. We both choose what matters most to us. As I said, we self-preserve.

Again though, if these lines are drawn so clearly in black and white, would you kill your cat to save a human behind a curtain? A starving child? A serial killer? The president? A rapist? Gandhi? Mussolini?

I see the appeal of existential nihilism. Life has no objective meaning. HOWEVER - I am well adapted enough to give meaning to most life and to realize that animals are completely replaceable and most humans are not. Kill a dog to save a child? Any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Yet, a lot of lives are worthless and I wouldn't save a rapist if given the option, even if it was a simple "yes" from my mouth to save his life.

Indeed, what does your life mean if you are nothing more than a 9-5 working man whose escape is sitting on a couch watching a game? If that is all one has ever aspired to be then I would put on my nihilistic goggles and say that their life is worthless as well... unless they are one of my tenants and their purpose is to work to pay rent to me so I can make my mortgage payment and one day sell my property, that they paid for, and further fill my retirement fund.

Have kids, don't have kids. But at least do something fucking awesome with your life and live it up. Don't tell me how great the silence of your living room is, because that really isn't anything special to grown-ups.

 

[Ns1]

Humans arent replaceable? Lol

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Humans arent replaceable? Lol

All animals are pretty much the same. Most animals are predictable. Most animals live the same lives as all the other animals. Yes, some may be hyper, or kid friendly, or aggressive, but when it comes down to it animals don't have the wide range of experiences that humans do. So no, you cannot simply replace a human with another human. I know many animal lovers that go out and buy a new animal when theirs passes. That is the definition of replaceable.

Humans have experiences, memories, and the ability to communicate these things. Animals do not. They have instincts and conditioned behavior and nothing more. You obviously don't have a high opinion of yourself if you are on equal footing with a fucking dog that never grows as an individual or changes and that eats its own shit and vomit when given the chance. Do you also piss on the floor?