Posted on 12/17/2005 6:16:37 PM PST by NYer
Ping
VW K-9
Enjoyed your post. Pet's are family. But you gotta work on that cat thing. Go Doggie's !
people who have pampered pets don't have hungry kids. most don't even have kids. hence pampered pets. part of the dying of the west....
Gosh -- has it been that simple all along? I knew I was doing something wrong! LOL.
I want to hire you to be my financial advisor!
LOL. I hardly use credit cards so that way I don't get into debts. I pay cash and if I don't have it, I don't buy it.
Our pets have food, water, shelter, and basic medical care as needed. That's all the law or morality requires.
That's what we should provide for the "poor."
No more, no less.
I feel bad this year. In good years, a big part of our Christmas is finding a working family with kids who are trying to make ends meet, and are too proud to ask for help.
These are the folks who really deserve help, and really appreciate it.
Unfortunately, this year we're barely breaking even ourselves.
If anybody here at FR has enough extra for a few thoughtful gifts and a gift certificate to the local supermarket, you're welcome to fill in for us this year.
And a note to those folks who are spending megabucks on themselves and their pets:
While I believe that no one should be forced by "redistribution of wealth" to give up their hard-earned money, this does not absolve one of the moral responsibility to do what's right.
Especially this time of year.
Doubly so if you call yourself a Christian.
I can't tell this guy how to spend his money, but 93 million could go a long way in promoting the well-being of - dare I say it - PEOPLE BEFORE PETS!! What a shame.
That's very smart of you. You're probably rich, anyway -- so you've got plenty of cash lying around. ;-)
Yeah right!
This logic would dictate that no one should EVER spend money on pets, since there will always be human misery somewhere.
The fact is, much of the money spent on human relief goes down political rat holes in third world countries, and to overhead of bloated charities.
Find and support those charities that truly do good work (like Food for the Poor and the Salvation Army).
My charitable donations for Katrina went EQUALLY to the Salvation Army and other charities for humans, but also Operation Kindness and Best Friends, for animals.
The Catholic Church has yet to contemporize its understanding of the value of pets in the lives of human beings. One day it will do so, and realize the important value they have to their human companions.
LOL.
I remember when the elder Forbes threw himself a birthday party that cost a million dollars and the world was scandalized and I just thought it was wonderful that he let that money go. It fed a lot of children, paid for their homes and who knows what else.
"Hey, if they earned the money legally, they can spend it any way they want."
I agree.
Excuse me? It's suddenly a bad thing that pet owners have a choice in what to feed their dogs/cats/birds/etc.....? It's horrible that people are taking care of their animals and not treating them as non-sentient slabs of meat?
Is there really a need for 30 different cat foods, some costing more than high grade beef. You can but pet food gravy at $4.00 per bottle. Mind you I am not thinking there is anything wrong with providing for our pets either, but I think it just points to placing too high a value on pets.
I must have cheap cats. I spend about $200 per year, including food and vet bills, on each of them. If they live 20 years, I'm only out $4,000 each. If I factor in the value of their companionship--arbitrarily set by me at $1 per day--I actually come out ahead. ;-)
>>But No. 2418 warns it is "unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery." Moreover, the text explains, while one can love animals, "one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons." Spoil the beast, maybe, but first spare the child.<<
I don't know what to make of that statement. There's nothing that says that the money that people spend on pets would automatically be directed to hungry children if those people didn't spend it on their pets. Reminds me of my dad telling me to eat all my dinner because there were children starving in africa.
And as far as I'm concerned, pets are the only ones worthy of being spoiled. They accept what you give them and, whether it's a little or a lot, they love you. Their attitudes don't change because you bought them a $1.00 toy instead of a $10 one. My dog doesn't care if I take her to Petsmart and don't buy her a toy. All she cares about is that she gets to go bye bye with me.
Our dogs freely give us an enormous amount of joy and we'll spend a bit on them for Christmas, but we're also sponsering two families who got laid off, food and presents. Not to mention that I can't pass by a salvation army person without donating at least $10 a pop.
The most generous people I've met have been animal owners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.