| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
Last time I checked they were human. I would rather have limited resources going to rescuing them than pets. That's my only point. We can never bring an ideal number of resources to bear in any disaster. Pets should be at the bottom of the list. That's the whole of it. |
Sure, pets go first. Then the aged and infirmed. Why use resources on people who will die in the near future anyways? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a fairly tough old bird too, but in my situation it's more likely that my pets would be feasting on my carcass after they plunder thru the cat and dog food hampers helping themselves. I don't think even Baggins could open a can though, but he would try to wake me up if I was in a coma or something.
But they make great doorbells, alarm clocks, and fire alarms. They always warn me when I'm burning something on the stove. And they all get lots of chicken treats so they definitely have a taste for bird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll be damned before anyone laid a hand on my cats with a mind towards eating them. I've been paying good money for years to fatten them up, so I'll be the only one chowing down on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| This is why I have a pet rock. Grape Nuts. Yum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
Last time I checked they were human. I would rather have limited resources going to rescuing them than pets. That's my only point. We can never bring an ideal number of resources to bear in any disaster. Pets should be at the bottom of the list. That's the whole of it. |
Sure, pets go first. Then the aged and infirmed. Why use resources on people who will die in the near future anyways? |
Fallacy, slippery slope.
Pets are defined, under law, as property. We tend to worry first about human life before saving property.
Humans are not property under law. Will there ever be a time we go back to treating some people like property? Does my suggestion we worry about human life before property necessarily lead to your slippery slope?
You'll need to apply some logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pets are defined, under law, as property. We tend to worry first about human life before saving property. |
Sure, pets go first. But after that, other options should be on the table, so to speak. Fido and Fluffy are only going to feed so many people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To the OP, do you have any evidence that pets were ever "rescued" at the expense of human lives?
As someone pointed out earlier, pets can help people deal with the stress and turmoil they will be facing.
As the quote goes, "The more I learn about people, the more I like animals"..... I think a lot of people would tend to agree.
I didn't see anywhere in the article that pets should be saved before people. Please correct me if I am wrong though, but I think it's only saying that pets should be brought with their owners if and when possible.
I think you are making something out of nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pets are defined, under law, as property. We tend to worry first about human life before saving property. |
Sure, pets go first. But after that, other options should be on the table, so to speak. Fido and Fluffy are only going to feed so many people. |
You're just being stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| To the OP, do you have any evidence that pets were ever "rescued" at the expense of human lives? |
That's not my claim.
| Quote: |
| I didn't see anywhere in the article that pets should be saved before people. Please correct me if I am wrong though, but I think it's only saying that pets should be brought with their owners if and when possible. |
Clearly resources are needed to rescue pets. In a disaster I would prefer those resources are maximized to save humans. That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Clearly resources are needed to rescue pets. In a disaster I would prefer those resources are maximized to save humans. That's all. |
Then your thinking is too linear. As has already been pointed out, rescuing pets is rescuing people in a lot of instances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
So come a major disaster, MM2 would be trying to eat pussy, and you would be rushing over to the nearest nursing home for a tasty treat. Good heavens. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive either. |
Oh really? Then feel free to look me up...in about 50 years.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Pets are defined, under law, as property. We tend to worry first about human life before saving property. |
Sure, pets go first. But after that, other options should be on the table, so to speak. Fido and Fluffy are only going to feed so many people. |
You're just being stupid. |
Ever heard of the Donner Party? I'm not saying it should be the first option. But there should be a contingency plan in place. Livestock obviously goes first, then other farm animals such as horses, then dogs, followed by cats and birds (due to their generally smaller dimensions). I'd favor the aged as the next course, as those beset with diseases could pose a health risk. But there should be some sort of ranking system whereas people are slated for consummation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
So come a major disaster, MM2 would be trying to eat pussy, and you would be rushing over to the nearest nursing home for a tasty treat. Good heavens. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive either. |
Oh really? Then feel free to look me up...in about 50 years. |
Why? Are you interested in going out in style? Maybe Bernd Brandes style with Fluffy in tow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I submit that in a time of disaster, pets should be a source of food, not fed emergency food supplies. |
The aged and infirmed could also be a valuable source of protein. |
So come a major disaster, MM2 would be trying to eat pussy, and you would be rushing over to the nearest nursing home for a tasty treat. Good heavens. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive either. |
Oh really? Then feel free to look me up...in about 50 years. |
Why? Are you interested in going out in style? Maybe Bernd Brandes style with Fluffy in tow? |
Tut tut. I wasn't alluding to the German translation of 'eating'....
But you'll probably enjoy this little song by Rammstein then: Mein Teil
Inspired by that Grimm tail... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: Re: In a disaster pets should be emergency food, not fed foo |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Tut tut. I wasn't alluding to the German translation of 'eating'.... |
Did you look up Bernd Brandes and uncover his fate? We can certainly kill two birds with one stone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
