mopgoblin on 26/11/2007 at 03:20
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
It's just the priority I have an issue with, as BEAR says.
So far I haven't seen you express a similar sentiment regarding luxury spending in general. Where does that stand in your priority queue?
Papy on 26/11/2007 at 04:06
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Have fewer kids. That goes for all of us.
I agree (I don't have kids), but children do bring happiness to people who have them. Some people dream of having a big family. I don't see how living in a world where they can't have four children would make the world a better place for them. That's why this idea of living in a better world is impossible.
Subjective Effect : Do you mean that because she spent money to save her cat (which certainly bring here more happiness than a 52" TV), she should not have the right to benefit from her own health care insurance? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in that.
Anyway, do you have a car? A TV? A computer? Don't you think instead of wasting money for these useless things you should have helped save someone else's life? Who are you to judge people and say their priorities are not "right"?
Of course I don't blame you for being selfish and buying a computer for yourself. I do the same. I will give some money from time to time to charity, I sometimes offer free services to non-profit organizations, but I also keep most of my money for myself. Today I bought some ice cream, knowing I could have gave that money to a homeless person instead. I am selfish, I know it, but I also don't blame people for spending their own money the way they want.
That Blue Cross is not sick, it's just that some people think giving their own money to help SOMEONE ELSE be happy by saving their pets is better than buying a 52" TV for themselves. To me, those persons got their priority right. Do you disagree?
SubJeff on 26/11/2007 at 04:13
Quote Posted by Papy
Subjective Effect : Do you mean that because she spent money to save her cat (which certainly bring here more happiness than a 52" TV), she should not have the right to benefit from her own health care insurance? I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in that.
This case happened in the UK. Very few people have private healthcare, or insurance as you may call it. I'm talking about being treated on our nation health system.
Quote:
That Blue Cross is not sick, it's just that some people think giving their own money to help SOMEONE ELSE be happy by saving their pets is better than buying a 52" TV for themselves. To me, those persons got their priority right. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. Why aren't they giving the money to charities that help
people. Animals are way down on the priory list to people imho.
mopgoblin on 26/11/2007 at 04:20
And where are luxury goods?
Papy on 26/11/2007 at 04:51
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yes, I disagree. Why aren't they giving the money to charities that help
people. Animals are way down on the priory list to people imho.
But they help
people! That's the point! For a lot of persons, losing a pet is something psychologically very hard. I wouldn't really give a shit if I didn't had a car anymore, I would just take my bicycle and public transport more often, but if my cat died I would be very depressed, particularly if I knew I could have saved it with some money. If my cat died simply because of a money problem, I would directly blame myself. As I am someone who have a tendency to be suicidal, it could be enough to make me end my life.
There is a lot of elderly people for whom their pet is their only companion. They don't care about people giving them money, they just want a way to no be alone. And you are telling those people : screw your pet (which loves you), give to people (who won't give a shit about you anyway) instead.
Edit: regarding the health care system, it really doesn't change anything if it is managed by the government or a private company, it doesn't matter if it is paid with income taxes or monthly premium. She paid for it.
Swiss Mercenary on 26/11/2007 at 05:13
Quote Posted by Papy
I don't see how living in a world where they can't have four children would make the world a better place for them.
I'm sure they'd prefer living in one as opposed to a world where there wouldn't be any room to breathe. That's where we'd all be if we followed their example. At least, sooner, rather then later.
Ko0K on 26/11/2007 at 05:32
Even if the operation was paid for by the public, I don't see what the issue is here. Wasn't the system set up to accommodate operations such as this because the public agreed to it in the first place? I mean, the vets wouldn't have done the operation if they were not authorized, right? So, it seems that it's the policy you have an issue with and not the perceived frivolity of the situation itself, really. All I can tell you is that you seem to be in the minority, SE, and democracy is a good thing in this case.
jay pettitt on 26/11/2007 at 08:30
To be honest I think if you're going to argue against pet welfare you need to argue against pet ownership in the first place. (Which I'm happy to do.)
Fingernail on 26/11/2007 at 10:18
Yeah but as mopgoblin says we all spend money on consumer goods and services which aren't even alive; money which could so easily instead be spent saving other people's lives.
Seriously, if people have more of problem with people keeping pets than, say, smokers, I think it's a little odd.
hopper on 26/11/2007 at 13:16
Well, I never heard of people keeping smokers, so I think that point is moot.
