Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[modest]

Originally Posted by REASON

That isn't saying much.

No, It's not

I'm reminded of Turner and Hooch which was a French "bull" Mastiff I believe:

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

I....no, but this is a recuring theme in Turtles responces.

Ah, I see

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by modest

Pets being “wasteful” is subjective and a matter of opinion. The only proper way to evaluate such a thing is to assign value to the pet itself.

I'll roll with that a while.

Originally Posted by Modest of the Massif

If a responsible adult rents a stable and keeps a horse only to ride it a few times a year then what usefulness is that horse to that rider? This is subjective and it would in fact be rude to tell such an adult that this is a waste of his/her money. Are we going to tell people what hobbies on which they should spend money? Are we going to tell them where they are allowed to find enjoyment?

As you say, we ought to assign a value to the pet-in other words each individual pet-and in your story we need more from the horses mouth, as it were. Over that period of time, how much property damage did the horse do? How many times did it get out and run into the highway & cause wrecks? How many ferriers did it kick to death?

Originally Posted by Modist

If keeping a dog (which I do) gives me pleasure and enhances my life then how exactly is this reprehensible? My dog:

Awwwwww! Here boy.... You might not think so, but good dogs like me.

I am am not telling anyone what to do, or think. I am saying this looks like some problems here, and let's have a closer look.

Originally Posted by Moddust

No - I'm a responsible adult and able to support the things that give me enjoyment. In my opinion, my pets are as useful to me as an Amish person's horse. This is a free country and no one is capable of placing a value on that which I enjoy. A counter example to this would be a 17th century puritan society which all-to-often engaged in reprehensible acts of torture and murder.

~modest

Well...you just placed a value on it. I don't know what the opposite of a strawman is, but I'd say it applies to comparing a call to discussion/debate, with torture & murder.
As Buffy pointed out, we currently have many laws restricting pet ownership. Why do you think that is? Mmmmm...maybe because many facets of keeping pets are so reprehensible as to move legislators to enact laws?

Certainly something to think about.

PS Interesting to note from that one link I posted that horses kill more people than dogs by several factors.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

As you say, we ought to assign a value to the pet-in other words each individual pet-and in your story we need more from the horses mouth, as it were.

As I say: it is impossible for anyone but the pet-owner to assign such a value.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Over that period of time, how much property damage did the horse do?

It burned down three barns and stole a farmer's tractor.

The stable that the owner rents is not our concern. The trail for which horses are designated incur no grater damage than an ATV or dirt bike trail.

Notice your argument here (despite the title of the thread) is not that keeping pets is reprehensible. For instance, saying golf carts damage the grass on a golf course may well be true. But, that's not really an argument that the people who play golf or the game of golf itself are/is reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Turtle

How many times did it get out and run into the highway & cause wrecks? How many ferriers did it kick to death?

Ok, It didn't kill the farrier - it held him hostage is all. I know this sounds harsh, but it's really no different from taking a manicurist hostage which I'm sure people do all the time. Also the highway incident wasn't so much the horse's fault. The gate on the trailer came open and the horse fell out. There was a wreck and there were some fatalities, but honestly... If they wanted the horse to stay in the trailer they shouldn't have made it so easy for it to pick the lock.

Also, plane crashes kill people and I've yet to hear anyone call the aviation club reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Awwwwww! Here boy.... You might not think so, but good dogs like me.

Opposed to the reprehensible ones?

Originally Posted by Turtle

I am am not telling anyone what to do, or think. I am saying this looks like some problems here, and let's have a closer look.

Yes, let's all take a closer look at the rampaging horses terrorizing our highways.

I don't mean to give you too hard of a time here, Turtle - I just strongly disagree with you on this topic.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Well...you just placed a value on it.

Yes, I just placed a value on my pets. As I said, my pets are worth more to me than the cost of keeping them. No one can say what they are worth to me. If someone were to say it is not useful to have pets they would be placing a value on something that is rightfully mine to value.

Originally Posted by Turtle

I don't know what the opposite of a strawman is, but I'd say it applies to comparing a call to discussion/debate, with torture & murder.

The opposite of saying puritanical society has a history of torture is saying keeping pets is reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Turtle

As Buffy pointed out, we currently have many laws restricting pet ownership. Why do you think that is?

Usually to protect the pets. But, there are other reasons. If you think some particular law implies that pet ownership is reprehensible then you should present it.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Mmmmm...maybe because many facets of keeping pets are so reprehensible as to move legislators to enact laws?

You'll have to be more specific. Cock-fighting is illegal in 49 states. Does this or any other law make reprehensible my ownership of one dog, two cats, and an assortment of fish? If so, how so?

Originally Posted by Turtle

PS Interesting to note from that one link I posted that horses kill more people than dogs by several factors.

People die falling off horses. Considering about 6,000 americans die each year from falls at home and only about 200 from horses, I'm not sure which is more reprehensible - horses or houses. Since we're not really making an argument but just making observations then that'll do

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by modest

As I say: it is impossible for anyone but the pet-owner to assign such a value.
...
Yes, I just placed a value on my pets. As I said, my pets are worth more to me than the cost of keeping them. No one can say what they are worth to me. If someone were to say it is not useful to have pets they would be placing a value on something that is rightfully mine to value.
...
The opposite of saying puritanical society has a history of torture is saying keeping pets is reprehensible.
...
Usually to protect the pets. But, there are other reasons. If you think some particular law implies that pet ownership is reprehensible then you should present it.

... Homeowners and renters policies provide liability protection to defend you in court if your dog bites someone and they decide to sue. However, because dog bites cost the insurance industry $3.5 billion a year, most homeowners insurance policies exclude dogs that have a history of biting and aggressive behavior. ...

III - Press Releases

Originally Posted by Modest

I don't mean to give you too hard of a time here, Turtle - I just strongly disagree with you on this topic.
...
People die falling off horses. Considering about 6,000 americans die each year from falls at home and only about 200 from horses, I'm not sure which is more reprehensible - horses or houses. Since we're not really making an argument but just making observations then that'll do

~modest

I intentionally chose a topic that I felt held strong opinions, and worded the title so as to elicit them. Nothing like a hot thread eh? Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory.

I love my dogs. Put a value on that.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

III - Press Releases

From your link:

There are over a 150 million pets in the U.S., many of them considered a valued member of the family, and the cost of pet ownership is increasing—Americans spent $40 billion dollars on their pets in 2005 alone. But pet owners can now choose from a variety of insurance options in order to provide coverage for their beloved animals, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

“Pet owners today want the very best for their animals, and that includes insurance coverage to protect the financial as well as emotional investment in their pets,” said Jeanne Salvatore, senior vice president and consumer spokesperson for the I.I.I.

Modern veterinary medicine can detect and treat diseases and conditions unheard of just a few years ago. Everything from kidney transplants to radiation therapy and MRIs are now performed at state-of-the art veterinary clinics. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, Americans spend more than $20 billion dollars a year on veterinary care.

“Not that long ago, pet owners had little choice but to put their animals down when they became seriously ill,” said Salvatore, “but not any more; today’s dogs and cats can receive costly procedures and treatments formerly reserved for their human companions. And increasingly, pet owners are purchasing health insurance to help pay the veterinary bills,” says Salvatore.

Pet health policies are similar to human health insurance policies. They include annual premiums, deductibles, co-pays and caps. The cost of coverage is based on the animal’s age, health profile and the level of care the owner chooses to buy. Generally, the older the animal the higher the annual premium will be. There may also be exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and some will deny coverage to certain breeds such as German Shepherds and setters, which are prone to hereditary conditions such as hip dysplasia.

If you are trying to say insurance companies make money off pet ownership then I'd agree.

Originally Posted by Turtle

I intentionally chose a topic that I felt held strong opinions, and worded the title so as to elicit them. Nothing like a hot thread eh?

Yeah, I got that. I also assume you support the topic.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory.

1 - I did not declare victory.
2 - I did not compare the cost of pets in America to the benefit of pets in America
3 - You have yet to point to the actual cost of keeping pets in america. It would be very difficult to do. How many industries make profit from pets? A lot. You would have to factor in the wage that someone makes at a plastics company that produces plastic bones for dogs. I doubt there are such figures. Saying pet owners spend x dollars is a far, far cry from objectively evaluating the costs / benefits of an entire industry.
4 - I don't have to demonstrate the value of pets. Why?
a. Such a thing is perfectly legal where I live
b. I didn't title a thread with such a claim.

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by modest

From your link:

If you are trying to say insurance companies make money off pet ownership then I'd agree.

No; I was trying to say here is another cost of pet ownership to society. Lawsuits raise the premiums of everyone.

Originally Posted by Modestino

Yeah, I got that. I also assume you support the topic.

I may occasionally overstate my opinions for the sake of debate; call it subjective license.

Originally Posted by Modest

- I did not declare victory.

My bad.

Originally Posted by Modestino

- I did not compare the cost of pets in America to the benefit of pets in America

Yes; but I am trying to.

Originally Posted by Modestino

- You have yet to point to the actual cost of keeping pets in america. It would be very difficult to do. How many industries make profit from pets? A lot. You would have to factor in the wage that someone makes at a plastics company that produces plastic bones for dogs. I doubt there are such figures. Saying pet owners spend x dollars is a far, far cry from objectively evaluating the costs / benefits of an entire industry.

I agree it is difficult, but disagree I have pointed to no costs. That's why I am putting up links indicative of these other costs, such as fuel expended, hospital treatment, insurance, lawsuits, poop pollution (ooopppss....that one is Freezys!), etcetera. .

Originally Posted by Modest

- I don't have to demonstrate the value of pets. Why?

No you don't have to, but I thought it would be handy to compare to the costs.

Originally Posted by Modest

Such a thing is perfectly legal where I live

Sorry? I lost you on this one.

Originally Posted by Modest

I didn't title a thread with such a claim.

No, but you are free to do so, the same as you are free to keep a pet.

Originally Posted by Modest

~modest

~Turtle

Originally Posted by Reason

I love my dogs. Put a value on that.

Modest says I can't and that you have to do it yourself.

PS I wasn't intending to propose legislation, but how about if pet owners were required to carry insurance the same as vehicle owners? Just a thought.

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by Turtle
That's what I'm curious about; what are the hidden costs of keeping pets.

Though I love my pets dearly, 2 dogs, 2 cats, and a aquatic turtle, I have to admit that the actual financial cost of care can be pretty dang high.

Here's a breakdown for each species:
Dog food: 65.00 per month
Dental products: 18.00 per month
Toys: 15.00 per month
Treats, etc: 10.00 per month
Monthy medications for my Shih Tzu's Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (produces no tears) 95.00
Vet care annually including shots, heartguard, grooming, and boarding: 1000.00

Total Annual cost for 2 Dogs: 3436.00 +

Cat Food: 65.00 per month
Dental: 10.00 per month
"Green" Flushable Cat Litter: 70.00 per month
Toys: 10.00 per month
Treats (canned food, tuna, chicken) 8.00 per month
Vet Care annually including shots, grooming (nail caps) 550.00

Total Annual cost for 2 Cats: 2506.00 +

Turtle Food: 8.00 per month
Fresh water for 45 gallon pool (pond) 2x per week x 6 months: 65.00
Annual heater: 37.00
Annual 30 gallon tank for 6 months: 35.00
Aqua filter system for 6 months and new pads monthly x 6 months: 110.00

Total Annual cost for 1 Turtle: 343.00

Grand total out of pocket annually: $6285.00 +

All my pets are male and all have been neutered, except the turtle of course..though I would neuter him too if I could and it would help change his aggressive nature towards other males in general.
He never snaps at me and comes to the side of the pool to greet me when I come out. He'll also allow me to "pet" him and follows me around the yard when I'm gardening...albeit, it's another story when it comes to men. He snaps and hisses when they come near him.

I know it seems like an awful lot to spend each year, but the love, comfort and devotion I receive daily from all of them is absolutely priceless...their my kids, and worth every single dime.

PS...to add to the strawdogs , my daughter pays $15,600.00 annually in Childcare alone for my 2 grandkids. I think I'll stick to my "furry and shellyscally kids", thank you.

[Zythryn]

I simply don't believe that the logic works outside of a subjective framework.

Turtles argument (please correct this if I am wrong).

A) Waste is reprehensible.
B) Owning a pet is a waste.
therefore
C) Owning a pet is reprehensible.

There are assumptions that must be made for this argument to work (logically).

1. Anything that costs money which has benifits that can't be quantified as giving monetary benifits that are more than or equal to is 'waste'.
2. This is all black and white, no neutral. Once something is not monetarily worthwhile, it immediately becomes reprehesible.

I disagree with both assumptions and therefore B. as well.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Celeste

All my pets are male and all have been neutered, except the turtle of course..though I would neuter him too if I could and it would help change his aggressive nature towards other males in general.
He never snaps at me and comes to the side of the pool to greet me when I come out. He'll also allow me to "pet" him and follows me around the yard when I'm gardening...albeit, it's another story when it comes to men. He snaps and hisses when they come near him.

I know it seems like an awful lot to spend each year, but the love, comfort and devotion I receive daily from all of them is absolutely priceless...their my kids, and worth every single dime.

PS...to add to the strawdogs , my daughter pays $15,600.00 annually in Childcare alone for my 2 grandkids. I think I'll stick to my "furry and shellyscally kids", thank you.

Love ya Celeste! There is nothing worse than a turtle without stones in his pond. We do have nerve endings in our scutes, and so can feel the petting. (PS:OT What's the story on your cloud pic? )

If you're comfortable with your pet balance that's good enough for me.

Originally Posted by Zythrn

I simply don't believe that the logic works outside of a subjective framework.

No worries; the other posters say it's a subjective question, therefore....well, you know; whatever works. Can we be objective about subjectivism? Does a subjective view ever change in an individual? If so, under what circumstances?