Excuse me, how is this not a “severe psychiatric emergency?” You do realize there has been at least one suicide at the Superdome already, right?
These are people who have lost everything they had-it’s possible there are people down there without the psychiatric medicine they need, people undergoing a severely traumatic experience. After they’re rescued and stabilized, they sure as hell will need someone “playing therapist.” (Nice phrase, btw) :rolleyes:
Again, I ask Unregistered Bull, what about service animals?
If your experiencing a moral crisis about some stray dog pissing on your porch that you don’t want to keep but can’t find a no-kill shelter (in a world with a pet explosion), do I think you are daft. Yes.
If you have multiple cats that aren’t working out for various family reasons, then get rid of them. Animal control is the easiest way.
Someone kills your cat after it’s been harassing songbirds on your property. Well tough shit. Don’t let your cat out. Going after the lady legally is a chickenshit thing to do.
I’m pretty sure that Ted wouldn’t have a high opinion of people wasting resources at this time for animals when humans are in need of those resources. Just a guess.
I stand corrected, but I’m confused. UB has a hatred of people who are choosing to do something to help non-human animals; he has called us, among other things, evil and vile. I assume that, like me, UB thinks that the world would be a better place if there were less evil and vileness in it.
Then we have non-human animals, which you are proposing UB does not hate as much as he hates humans who want to help them.
So, among the humans needing help in N.O. there are undoubtedly some who are trying to help animals or would like to see them helped. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rescue the animals (who are less vile and evil than the humans who want to rescue them) than to rescue the vile and evil humans who would like to see the animals rescued?
Weird. Very weird. But let’s turn that around, you are walking out the disaster with a dog with a broken leg. You come across child with a broken leg. Do you leave the dog and carry the child out? Or, do you leave the child behind and continue carrying the dog out?
Of course, it would have. Which doesn’t mean that he should have kept it if there was any reason not to do so (I assume that the people in charge didn’t do that just for the sake of being mean).
What I was stating is that I can’t understand how someone could not relate to all the misery shown to us, but suddenly could when a dog appear on screen. It’s not like there was a lack of heartbreaking footages, even of children. The “what difference does it make” didn’t refer to the kid’s feelings, but to the person watching the scene’s feelings.
Oh for crying out loud! I don’t think anyone here is arguing you should take the damned dog. Heck, I’d take even the obnoxious, bratty neighbor kid over my own dogs. But no one here is making that choice.
How about this:
You have a small van. You aren’t trained to deal with human storm victims. You can’t house or support human victims. You’re not even allowed into the effected area to get to the human victims.
However, you can get to surrounding areas that have already been evacuated and remove some animals from unstaffed or overloaded shelters. In doing so, you can also bring supplies for humans and drop them off at a staging area or human shelter.
Why would taking some animals back with you in your van mean you value animal life more than human? How is it wasting taxpayer dollars if you are a private citizen?
Besides the fact that you probably don’t actually know what you would do in a dire situation, I must ask :
Why, pray tell? Wouldn’t this man statement be very sensible? You’d rather him say : “You’re right, let’s pick the dog, and the next human being can go fuck himself?”. “And by the way, there’s another dog over there, please go out so that I can rescue it too?”
This just doesn’t make sense. Of course, the seat should be reserved to the next human being. How can one states otherwise?
See, this is where your problem is: you’re not actually smart enough to make that distinction, because in not one of your outbursts on this subject, has anyone suggested anything like that.
What resources are being wasted? PF’s husband is taking food, water, clothes, and other emergency supplies to an area that needs them. He is volunteering to do this.
He has the ability to bring back some animals and put them in a shelter. That’s it.
Is it a waste of resources for him to take supplies down? And on the return trip, remove pressure from animal control?
Sure, it should be reserved for the next human. But what if you don’t meet another human who needs help for the rest of the drive? Pick up the dog, take it as far as you can, if the space becomes needed for a human, then you can kick the dog out. There’s no doubt in my mind that, if PinkFreud’s husband found himself in a position to help more humans with his van, he would. There’s a very good chance, however, that that’s simply not feasible, given the conditions in NO. So, instead, he’s helping some animals. Nothin’ wrong with that at all.
But I’m not him.