MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

1…1617192122…24

Comments

  • Clive_Woody
    Clive_Woody Posts: 5,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    PhiltheBear wrote: »
    ??? The 'definition' of dilemma is "is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable." You offered two solutions only - this wasn't a discussion of other solutions, it was a stark choice between two alternatives.

    Actually, I can see all the points of view. My argument is that this was a sloppily researched question which didn't allow for any 3rd alternatives. If it had been posed as a question - e.g. "What should Anne do in this situation?" that would have been completely different. But it wasn't. It was simply a question which was always going to provoke an intense argument.

    The question posed: Should Anne put the animals down?

    Two possible answers, yes or no, but there are countless variations on what she could do if the anwser is no. Many people have managed to respond without restricting their answers to one word responses.

    This wasn't a yes or no poll, it was a discussion, the only limitations being those of the people involved in the discussion.
    Your reputation as an investigative journalist is now tarnished. If you couldn't be bothered to show that the question posed isn't restricted to one answer then that's just laziness. To cop out by saying 'it allows people to express their point of view' is just a weak excuse for that laziness.

    With all due respect please try to avoid being a drama queen. Clearly you are getting quite emotional about this subject but getting hysterical will add nothing to the debate.
    The result - there are a number of people who've posted real, viable alternatives (although they don't answer the yes or no question posed) and there are a number of people who have posted 'troll' type messages simply for the sake of being annoying.

    Judging from some of the responses this thread has upset a fair number of people - and it brings this whole forum into disrepute. That's sad.

    So as you state many people managed to avoid yes/no responses and posted reasoned arguments, that kind of kills off your claim that this debate was limited to two options.

    If people get upset discussing issues such as this then perhaps they should turn off the internet and go and look at pretty flowers in the garden instead. If grown ups cannot manage to discuss difficult issues without becoming overly emotional then we really are in a sad state.

    :D
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • pippitypip_2
    pippitypip_2 Posts: 1,018 Forumite
    Clive_Woody wrote: »
    If people get upset discussing issues such as this then perhaps they should turn off the internet and go and look at pretty flowers in the garden instead. If grown ups cannot manage to discuss difficult issues without becoming overly emotional then we really are in a sad state.

    :D

    Clive, whilst I totally agree with you on this point, :eek: :D the fact remains that threads on this forum do get deleted all the time for exactly those reasons - offence taken, abuse, overly emotive reactions and troll comments.

    I think this was always going to be an emotional topic but wording the OP slightly differently and more open ended, would have been a bit more responsible coming from the MSE team, that's all.

    pippitypip
    I know I'm in my own little world, but it's ok - they know me here! :D
  • Clive_Woody
    Clive_Woody Posts: 5,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    pippitypip wrote: »
    Clive, whilst I totally agree with you on this point, :eek: :D the fact remains that threads on this forum do get deleted all the time for exactly those reasons - offence taken, abuse, overly emotive reactions and troll comments.

    I think this was always going to be an emotional topic but wording the OP slightly differently and more open ended, would have been a bit more responsible coming from the MSE team, that's all.

    pippitypip

    I agree and know how keen our mods are to hit the delete button, but the number of people who immediately posted on here demanding the thread be closed/deleted really was disappointing.

    I personally have no issue with how the question was phrased and feel that some people have tried to play the 'outraged' card to try and avoid allowing the discussion to go ahead.

    Good for Martin for sticking with it and not being disuaded by the hysterical fluffy bunny mob.


    :D
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • itsclair
    itsclair Posts: 21 Forumite
    Putting the animals down would just get you even more in debt, do you know how much it costs!

    A dog costs around £100 hate to think how much for the larger animals!

    If me if things were that bad, I would do everything possible to keep my animals, jumble sales, car boot sales etc to raise the money for them.
  • jamesyy
    jamesyy Posts: 2 Newbie
    edited 8 April 2010 at 1:13PM
    Let me suggest that loving your animals/pets is not the same as caring for them. I know many cases where people have literally loved their pets to death. I am a farmer and have lived on my farm all my life and have pets too.

    Having an emotional response to a situation like this (as many here seem to be) often leads to the worst decisions being made for the animal. An emotional response is satisfying what YOU want, which is not always the same as what the animal needs. If you can give an elderly and/or frail animal an instant death (or as near as possible), is that not better than giving it the stress of rehoming (possibly twice - from home to shelter to new home) and in the case of a pack animal like a dog separating it from it's owner before dying anyway?

    You may not want to have your pet put down but that is not the issue. What would be the best outcome for the animal? If this woman had some healthy animals then by all means try and rehome them otherwise lethal options should be considered, ask your vet for their opinion if you can't make one yourself.

    To the people who are saying this woman shouldn't have had pets because she couldn't look after them, get real. Loosing a job would have been unexpected. Besides, some people make bad decisions in life, even if she shouldn't have had these animals and she has them, the decisions are the same. Also you can get people who do free putting-downs.

    :rotfl:

    PS. [random flame meant to be light hearted if possible;)] To the animal lovers I hope you don't watch the grand national at the weekend, are vegetarians (definitely don't eat fish), don't eat kit kats, don't drink milk or eat chocolate (...what was in that easter egg I just ate?), definitely don't have anything leather and don't have a cat (it eats birds/frogs/rabbits). Otherwise you are literally paying for the death of animals. :/. [/end of random flame]
  • aliasojo
    aliasojo Posts: 23,053 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Clive_Woody wrote: »
    I agree and know how keen our mods are to hit the delete button, but the number of people who immediately posted on here demanding the thread be closed/deleted really was disappointing.

    I personally have no issue with how the question was phrased and feel that some people have tried to play the 'outraged' card to try and avoid allowing the discussion to go ahead.

    As you know (or at least would have if you'd been paying attention ;)) I was one of the ones who thought this thread shouldn't have been here in it's original guise.

    I just wanted to clarify that my reason for this was because the topic (imo) was a magnet for troll comments and argument. It's incredibly boring these days as things do tend to follow the same route usually. I know a number of people feel the same way about MSE 'discussions', they've lost their appeal since they're now usually just a playground for bored people. In the case of train seat discussions, it's no big deal...who can get emotional over a train seat? But in the case of much loved animals, it's a different story and could invite more emotional responses rather than reasoned discussion, hence the disapproval.

    I felt MSE were being hypocritical, given their stance on certain topics that are discouraged from being discussed simply because the nature of them invites 'heated' discussion, yet this could easily fall into the same category and it was initiated by MSE themselves. How many times has it been mentioned that the Arms might simply shut due to arguments? It kinda seemed like the MSE team handed over the loaded gun and sat back. (Yeah ok, I'm indulging in a little dramatising here but it illustrates my point. :rotfl:)

    I wasn't outraged at you put it, I just thought it was something that may have had merit as a worthy discussion but was initially poorly thought through and could have been posted in a better way. A point that's been made by several people.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope I've posted my thoughts fairly and not in an 'outraged' manner. :D

    Anyway, as it happens, I'm happy to accept I was being too cynical. Apart from a couple of near knuckle comments, by and large the thread has been less antagonistic than I had expected.
    Herman - MP for all! :)
  • Clive_Woody
    Clive_Woody Posts: 5,852 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Photogenic First Post
    aliasojo wrote: »
    As you know (or at least would have if you'd been paying attention ;)) I was one of the ones who thought this thread shouldn't have been here in it's original guise.

    I just wanted to clarify that my reason for this was because the topic (imo) was a magnet for troll comments and argument. It's incredibly boring these days as things do tend to follow the same route usually. I know a number of people feel the same way about MSE 'discussions', they've lost their appeal since they're now usually just a playground for bored people. In the case of train seat discussions, it's no big deal...who can get emotional over a train seat? But in the case of much loved animals, it's a different story and could invite more emotional responses rather than reasoned discussion, hence the disapproval.

    I felt MSE were being hypocritical, given their stance on certain topics that are discouraged from being discussed simply because the nature of them invites 'heated' discussion, yet this could easily fall into the same category and it was initiated by MSE themselves. How many times has it been mentioned that the Arms might simply shut due to arguments? It kinda seemed like the MSE team handed over the loaded gun and sat back. (Yeah ok, I'm indulging in a little dramatising here but it illustrates my point. :rotfl:)

    I wasn't outraged at you put it, I just thought it was something that may have had merit as a worthy discussion but was initially poorly thought through and could have been posted in a better way. A point that's been made by several people.

    I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hope I've posted my thoughts fairly and not in an 'outraged' manner. :D

    Anyway, as it happens, I'm happy to accept I was being too cynical. Apart from a couple of near knuckle comments, by and large the thread has been less antagonistic than I had expected.

    I didn't include you in the outraged gang.

    :D
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • aliasojo
    aliasojo Posts: 23,053 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Clive_Woody wrote: »
    I didn't include you in the outraged gang.

    :D

    I assume nothing around these parts. ;):rotfl:
    Herman - MP for all! :)
  • BigMummaF
    BigMummaF Posts: 4,281 Forumite
    I've only read the first page but have to put an opposing thought to these particular statements. Apologies if I am repeating something already stated, but I am quite worked up about this one!
    Hokie97 wrote: »
    ....*Anyone who puts their pet to sleep because they don't want it anymore is heartless. That's all there is to it. **There are options out there, even if it is rehoming or a sanctuary.
    *Agreed, but that is NOT the case here. There is no suggestion that the person is deliberately & wilfully disposing of a bundle of fur bought on a whim!
    **Again, agreed but read the story-line again--nobody will take them!
    katehesk wrote: »
    If you are unemployed and on some form of benefits try the PDSA.

    *To even pose this question I actually think is disgusting.

    An animal is not a disposable burden. It is a living creature. Would you dispose of your baby if you were struggling to manage?! (I know many people will feel that isn't a fair comparison, but to me it is - I tend not to differentiate between the value of a life, regardless of species).

    People need to realise when they take animals on that they have to be responsible for them, in any eventuality.
    Again I agree with [mostly] everything you say but please read the original post again.
    I can speak with a little authority on this as I have had many similar family discussions concerning decisions made, when money was not so much of an issue as it is now.
    The fact is, at the time, anyone can take on a commitment that is comfortable & manageable but NO-ONE can see into the future. It is a sad fact of adult life, that $H1t Happens for whatever reason & can destroy the very foundation of everything you treasure & hold dear.
    It is very fortunate indeed if you can still hold an opinion such as this * without ever having to consider the other side of the story. If nothing else, the recent reports on charity events such as Sport Relief are graphic records of just how some people's lives can change in the blink of an eye.

    "Walking a mile in another's shoes" seems a very appropriate saying for this one...
    Full time Carer for Mum; harassed mother of three;
    loving & loved by two 4-legged babies.

  • get_me_out
    get_me_out Posts: 295 Forumite
    NO Anne should not put the animals down!!

    Perhaps continue to try to rehome or in case of horse's loan out. Which would help with upkeep.

    As for dogs they and cats can be fed very cheaply, if you know which foods to use. Not the tinned stuff, I mean complete foods ok some bags are 30 quid plus. But others are only 13, which is a huge saving. Just read the contents first.

    Smaller pets don't need sawdust and paper bedding, in fact it's better for them to be off sawdust as that can cause health problems. Shread that junk mail and they will love you for it. Just not glossy stuff.

    Keeping pets can be low cost if you know what to look for, and how to save money while keeping them happy.

    I would'nt be without mine, I don't drink/smoke so my pets are my hobby. Currently have 2 dogs, 1 rabbit, 3 g.pigs, 6 hamsters, 5 rats, and fish. Costs about 7 quid a week for all of them. Thats a few pence more than a packet of cig's to many.
    BSC No: 186 There is always light at the end of the tunnel. Unless someone's nicked the candle !
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards