Both of your posts said exactly what I was thinking. Pet owners are not allowed to love their pets as much as any other family member for some reason. We’re sick or deranged.
:rolleyes:
Life is life, whether it is the child you brought here or the pets you chose to take care of, you are providing a safe and loving environment for another living being. At least you all have the option of just popping out another kid. I don’t, so I have to live with the life I’ve been given and I choose to fill my life with love via pets.
But you know what they say, opinions are like assholes . . .
Not to speak for Excalibre, but seems to me he (she?) isn’t saying that loving a pet is a mental illness, but equating the relationship of pet-owner with child-parent is. I love my cats. I worry about them when I haven’t seen them in a while; I don’t let them outside for their own safety; I buy good-quality cat food and make sure they get their yearly vet visits; and their deaths will be very painful for me. As much as they are capable, they do return the feeling, but it’s very much a selfish love.
But I will never choose their lives over those of another human, even a stranger. The same could not be said of my child, if I had one.
That said, I think the dog owner should’ve been fined, and the woman should’ve been compensated some, but $45K is too much.
Debaser, only if they forbid him to ever own another dog (or large potentially dangerous animal) again. I do believe this has happened in severe cases of animal hoarding and severe abuse/neglect cases in New York at least, if I recall that Animal Cops show correctly.
I don’t think that “I guess some people just don’t understand that our cats are our children” is actually saying that a cat is biologically indistinguishable from a human. The charge of pathology is unwarranted.
[/QUOTE]
My $.02: 45,000 is excessive, but a hefty fine was in order for this guy. He clearly was being very irresponsible. More importantly, his dog should be put down. That would solve some of the problem at least.
[/QUOTE]
Why punish the dog just because it was being a dog? Maybe it’s the owner that should be put down. Or confined. Or at least forced to give up his own furbabies.
I’m sure that nobody here thought you couldn’t tell the difference between a human child and a pet cat. That’s not the point.
You equated a cat (small, furry animal that doesn’t care much for humans and makes many of us sneeze) with a child (human offspring of two parents that grows up to be an adult who can read and vote and is intelligent). This is just nuts. I’m sorry, but it is.
The law on the value of pets is in flux now, according to the article:
If you read the full text of that article you’ll discover the factual basis for the judge’s determination that the cat had extraordinary value to its owner. Enough to sustain the decision on appeal? I dunno.
If I break one of your possessions what do I owe you? The replacement cost? Okay, if it’s from Wal-Mart, I dig out the spare change. If it’s a Ming Dynasty vase, obviously I owe you a hell of a lot more. But if it’s a simple little stoneware vase, nothing special except to you, that’s been handed down in your family since Colonial days and means a great deal to you; if you’d asked me to be careful about handling it; if I’d ignored your warnings and carelessly flipped it into a stone wall; if you saw me do it, and I blew it off as no big deal – what would I owe you? Should it be the replacement value? How do you replace something like that?
I found this comment from the dog’s owner quite revealing:
Bullshit. He had the ability and the legal duty to be responsible for controlling his dog.
The dog in question is a chow. Not a breed of dog for everyone, or even most people. Check out the warnings here. A dog like that should never be owned by someone with the attitude displayed by the guy in this story, and indeed could easily move on to attacking poeple, in fact I’m amazed it didn’t turn on the woman when she was rescuing her other cat.
Doesn’t wash. I am very attached to my cat and was also attached to the cat I had earlier. I even love my fish–they give me great pleasure, although they don’t know me from Adam.
the depth of feeling-visceral, primal, instinctual-felt for kids is exponentially higher than what I feel for any animal, no matter how treasured. And that is how it should be, since I am human. Equating pets to children does the children a disservice and lowers them to the level of a pet. Not a nice thought.
No cat, dog or similiar is worth $45K.
There are too many cats (and dogs) that need good homes. And while some may call me callous, I am with Airman here–yes, of course, you grieve the loss of a beloved pet. But don’t tell me that you cannot (and do not) go down to the Humane Society/breeder and procure yourself another one.
Most folks don’t do that when their child dies.
Yes, you remember the quirks of personality that each pet had and also the times in your life when that pet helped you thru. But in the end, the pet is replaceable and no child is.
The dog owner sounds like a jerk, but I hope the decision is overturned because of the outrageous amount involved. Stray thoughts: the dog should be put down and the owner should not be able to own another dog. Also, he should pay for the removal expenses of both animals and some type of fine–but not 45K.
So is reading and voting the metric by which we judge something as lovable? A child with severe birth defects will be able to do neither. Is it pathological to love such a child as much as one that may someday grow up to be a book-reading voter? Or does it have to do with life span? I know of a woman who dearly loved a daughter who was expected to die by that age of 5. Pathological?
What I suspect that what you really mean is that we should love our own species more than other species. This seems intuitive, but who is the final arbiter on this? If someone violates this natural order of who deserves love the most, should I call the Love Police?
Karp said the $45,480 award is significant partly because it’s the first to indicate that feline companions are as valuable as canines. Americans’ tendency to value dogs more than cats “is just completely insane,” he said.
Apparently this kind of damages have previously been awarded for dogs, but not for cats … interesting.
My girlfriend has already spent $18,000 on vet bills for one of her cats, and I know she’d gladly do it again. So to her the cat is worth at least $36,000 to her. At what monetary value is it no longer worth keeping? Is there a given bluebook value for this particular cat?
And yes, her cats are her children. They are no less so just because you love your flesh babies.
(terribly un-PC comment that will surely get me in trouble) True, most folks don’t even have to leave the house to get another child, they just have to stop taking birth control. If we’re talking just about the cost of replacement, that is.
Let’s also not kid ourselves into thinking that a wrongful death suit for a child is going to net anything remotely as small as $45K. Especially if the defendant already went to jail for his actions and didn’t bother to mount any defense at trial.
Many dogs are worth $45k or more. You could begin by asking your local police department how much they spend on a K-9 police dog. Not just the initial purchase, but the ongoing training, health care, and equipment over the life of the dog. SAR, drug detection, explosive detection and service dogs often fetch a very high price due to the training they receive.
Did you mean to say “no common house pet is worth $45K”?
No, this guy should never be allowed to own another pet, except maybe a goldfish. He has clearly demonstrated that he is not a responsible dog owner. He has also displayed a degree of callousness that is disturbing.