Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First, Sam, I do not believe in "animal rights," other than believing that animals have the 'right' not to be abused. Second, I think that spending $5,000 on an operation for a pet is a bit nuts. Third, I have two dogs and two cats, and am undoubtedly too devoted to the dogs and one of the cats - the other is a nasty pest who has been foisted on me ;-) However, I also believe that - As Doug notes, expending money and emotions on pets does not exclude expending both on improving the lot of humans; The fact that some people treat their pets better than some other people treat their children suggests that some people should have children, not that some people shouldn't have pets; It takes far more effort, commitment, and risk to oneself to travel to Africa to photograph the fly covered child - even if one is returning to a Volvo and pet - than it does to write a check to Save The Children; While I wonder what magnet is buried beneath the moral compass of those who devote their lives to the welfare of chickens, literally equating pigs and human children, I also wonder about those who make sweeping moral judgments about people devoted to pets. Mankind, after all, has had pets of one sort or another almost as long there has been mankind. And there has also been poverty and injustice all that time. Somehow, I don't think one is in any way the cause of the other. B. D. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Sam Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:31 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven I did not say they were not giving. I implied the $5000 pet operation is immoral because it's being spent on a beast rather than a human being. A beast who exists merely to amuse its owners. I would further state that bloated babies have a moral right to the $5000 in lieu of the beast. Sam S Douglas M. Sharp wrote: > ... > I'm sure whoever can afford $5000 for a vet and drive a Volvo is > financially well enough off to donate to charities too. Who says > that the pet owners are not giving too, does one exclude the other ?? > Douglas > > > Sam schrieb: > >> To some, the death of a pet is akin to the death of a child, and to >> others the emotional resources and money spent on animals is a >> scandal. If the time and energy spent taking care of pets was >> expended on visiting the abandoned sick and aged, or the money spent >> on having a pet operated on was paid into the medical account of an >> uninsured sick and needy human being, so much suffering could be >> alleviated. It baffles me when someone fains concern (many times via >> documentary photography) for, example, a bloated, fly covered, >> starving African child, and then rushes in the Volvo to the Vets to >> have the dog operated on for cancer at a cost of $5,000. Vanity pets >> have no place in a world of suffering human beings. >> >> Sam S >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information