MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

Clive_Woody

Enchantica wrote: »

It is common sense that a debate like this is going to upset some people and go down a bad road, as it is. I have no idea what possessed someone to put this up at all. Debates about trying on clothes and ripping them etc isn't going to cause upset, whereas this is. I doubt the idea of MSE is to cause upset to its members with discussions like this. Which only have one answer at the end of the day, do the RIGHT thing and take them to a shelter. I don't care if people say "oh that's just your opinion". I can't comprehend the other option, it's just utterly insane and makes no sense when there are shelter all over the country.

Some people can debate without getting upset.

Clive_Woody

aliasojo wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not the case with MSE though. People are fine discussing giving up a seat on a train, but with something as emotive as this, things change, people can be thoughtless or just downright nasty and someone will get hurt or upset.

It also seems a tad hypocritical to delete posts or threads on emotive subjects previously, yet MSE themselves start one which is obviously going to evoke similar heated comments.

Imo.

I find it difficult to understand the mindset of those who get all upset if everybody doesn't agree with them. Real life must be very challenging for them.

aliasojo

Clive_Woody wrote: »

So you are saying because donkeys can't talk it is wrong for them to be put down. This is getting quite surreal.

Do you not think maybe you're the one making it so?

Enchantica

Clive_Woody wrote: »

You said it was wrong to kill defenseless animals, I was wondering what level of defence would be required before your statement did not apply. Is it okay to kills tigers, they are far from defenceless?



So you are saying because donkeys can't talk it is wrong for them to be put down. This is getting quite surreal.



How about an obese cat that is getting no exercise and whose health is quite frankly appalling?

Other people do not share your opinion, does that make them wrong because they do not agree with you?

I don't get why you aren't reading my posts correctly? I said any animal, even the toothy ones are defenceless against humans. But we are talking about pets here, also defenceless against humans. None should be put down if they are healthy.

I have no clue what you are going on about with talking donkeys, seriously, I never said anything about that. IF animals could talk they would ask not to be put down I imagine, which is all I said. Seriously, read my posts properly before you comment.

An obese cat can be exercised and fed on a special diet food that you can get from a vet (I am an ex vet nurse trainee so I do have some knowledge of diets for animals). I have dealt with obese animals and they can live a great life if they are treated correctly with the right food and exercise. If the owner is keeping them obese, then the right procedure is to educate them and if they are unwilling to change then the RSPCA have the right to remove the animal from that situation and get it into proper care.

Any more questions? I consider myself very knowledgeable about animals and can answer most questions.

Enchantica

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the mindset of those who get all upset if everybody doesn't agree with them. Real life must be very challenging for them.

Its not that fact that everyone doesn't agree, it is the comments they make and the WAY in which they disagree, with disturbing and ugly comments. THAT is what upsets folk.

PhiltheBear

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I added that quote to add balance to those who started comparing euthansing animals to killing children.

The basic point of this is that Anne kept those animals for a reason. If it was for food then the question posed doesn't arise. However, the implication of the question is that she has an emotional attachment to the animals - hence the dilemma.

I'm pretty sure that many people are as emotionally attached to their animals as they would be to a child (some more so) - therefore the idea of killing either is repugnant. The issues of people giving more money to animal charities than children's charities is irrelevant.

I find this topic objectionable because the question boils down to "is it OK to kill"? People who start by killing animals needlessly are often those who go on to kill people needlessly. And what is occurring here is that there are 2 broad categories of contributor - those who say 'don't kill' and those who say 'kill'. Those in the second category, who can't be bothered to look at any other solution, are seriously worrying.

Clive_Woody

Enchantica wrote: »

I don't get why you aren't reading my posts correctly? I said any animal, even the toothy ones are defenceless against humans. But we are talking about pets here, also defenceless against humans. None should be put down if they are healthy.

I have no clue what you are going on about with talking donkeys, seriously, I never said anything about that. IF animals could talk they would ask not to be put down I imagine, which is all I said. Seriously, read my posts properly before you comment.

An obese cat can be exercised and fed on a special diet food that you can get from a vet (I am an ex vet nurse trainee so I do have some knowledge of diets for animals). I have dealt with obese animals and they can live a great life if they are treated correctly with the right food and exercise. If the owner is keeping them obese, then the right procedure is to educate them and if they are unwilling to change then the RSPCA have the right to remove the animal from that situation and get it into proper care.

Any more questions? I consider myself very knowledgeable about animals and can answer most questions.

I was really just pointing out how your use of emotive language was adding nothing to the debate, very much like those who compare pets to children.

You have your opinions based perhaps on your time spent as an 'ex vet nurse trainee', but others do not share that opinion. You should maybe make an effort to try and understand this quirk of debating.

Some people feel quite comfortable with the idea that if one was unable to afford to look after an animal then an appropriate course of action would be to have that animal put down. Clearly you disagree, but that does not make them wrong.

HTH

aliasojo

Clive_Woody wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the mindset of those who get all upset if everybody doesn't agree with them. Real life must be very challenging for them.

Well you can be as disparaging as you like about other people, but the fact is we are not all the same. It's not the views that are the problem, it's the lack of tolerance towards other people's views that cause the upset. (As demonstrated by your 'difficult to understand' remark above.) You don't need to understand, you just need to accept.

It would be good if debates could go on in a friendly fashion but I'm sure you've been around long enough to know that's not the case round here. < Why are we constantly grinning btw?

Anyway, I don't care to argue about it all that much, my main point was that the MSE team picked a bad topic and that it made them a tad hypocritical in my eyes.

jpbowley

i read the first two pages of this thread and got sick of seeing the same old tired arguments being repeated.

it's a simple situation.

if she truly has no money left to live, and has truly exhausted all possible avenues in her search for alternative care for these animals, then logic dictates that we accept she has no remaining options.

she could of course starve herself to death to keep feeding them, after which point they too would be left in a position with no food and no one to supply food.

she could also starve the animals to death by not feeding them, and look after herself.

or she could terminate their lives in a humane and (as far as i am aware) painless manner

i don't see what the problem is here. why are people claiming it is evil and/or selfish to terminate an animal's life?

it is not as though the woman is some heartless thoughtless chav who has grown tired of her cute little puppy and no longer wants the hassle. it's a matter of life and death.

call me old fashioned (i'm only 25), but i for one am glad that i live in a world where human life is still valued more highly than animal life.

that doesn't mean we mistreat or abuse animals, only that we place priority on human life. we are after all the imago dei.

so what do you all propose, given that the dilemma has already stated that nobody will take the animals. suggesting shelters, the PDSA, neighbours, friends, etc. is not helpful, because as far as we know, there is nobody willing to take the animals. given this restrictive set of circumstances, what do you propose the woman does?

Enchantica

Right I'm done, I will reitterate - IF ANYONE IS ACTUALLY IN THIS SITUATION PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH ME BECAUSE I HAVE OTHER SOLUTIONS FOR YOU AND CAN FIND YOU A NO-KILL SHELTER. IF YOU ARE IN SCOTLAND AND HAVE UNWANTED RATS PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH ME BECAUSE I WILL GIVE THEM A LOVING HOME.

Can't be bothered repeating myself over and over again.

Killing a healthy pet is wrong. If you can do that and live with no regrets... well... take a look at yourself in the mirror and see what you have become.

Goodbye and goodnight 'debate'.