[SoCal Pubbie]

I was sort of thinking Democrat mentality in another way. Dem's think of the economy as a zero sum game. In a world of finite resources, any amount spent on A by definition takes funds away from B, and so on.

In reality, spending on A can actually BENEFIT B, as new technologies are developed from the investment that benefit all, or new capital is developed that allows new investments that benefit group B, and so on.

Furthermore, to use your logic, ALL spending on pets is immoral. Any money spent on pet food, for example is evil because it could be spent on feeding poor humans around the world. The same for veterinarians, who could better be serving human patients.

Where would you like your reasoning to end?

[dsc]

"Where would you like your reasoning to end?"

As is the mode in the real world, it doesn't "end."

There is an area of things that are clearly okay, a gray area of hard calls, and an area of things that are clearly not okay.

Take your dog in for a rabies shot: clearly okay.
A $5,000 operation: hard call, lots of things to think about.
A $50,000 prosthesis for a dog that lost a leg: clearly immoral.

One thing is certain: the reductio ad absurdum is often abused in our day and age. Sometimes it is valid and applicable, but often, as here, it is not.