Sure would.
What was the crisis again?
And “pets” is code for “kids”, right?
If they’re requesting it, no.
If they’re ordering it (and at this point it must be assumed that they’ve already got my guns), then, um, who says I have a dog and cat?
Now if they can prove that my pets have something lethal and contagious, then okay. But they have to prove it. I don’t actually have a lot of faith in what the CDC says.
Certainly
I don’t have any pets, but I’ll gladly kill other people’s pets on the off-chance it might stop the spread of something.
I’d have to kill my husband first, they’re his cats.
Let me think about it.
I’d prefer we wait until my neighbors actually get ebola from their cat before we kill the cat.
We already know humans are carriers of the disease. So after all humans are euthanized I’ll start thinking about the dog.
Yeah, this is kind of a dumb hypothetical. Indoor-only cats have no chance of picking up the disease, so the order makes no sense.
Change it around a bit: say that there’s a new parasite carried by stinkbugs, show that part of the parasite’s life cycle is in cats, and that it’s deadly in humans. Show that many cats in my county have tested positive for the parasite already. Show that by the time a cat tests positive for the parasite, everyone in the house is infected. Show that there’s no way to keep stink bugs out of the house (which is a pretty easy thing to show, nasty little fuckers that they are). And finally show that there are no facilities to house cats until the epidemic passes. Now you’ve got a situation where it’d break my heart, but I’d probably euthanize the cats.
No.
Further, we’d be barricaded with them firing on any official looking trespassers. Zombies as well.
Ask stockmen how they feel about putting down hundreds of head of valuable cattle, by direction of authorities, to stop the spread of livestock diseases. They don’t like it, but they know it has to be done, and in the long run, it is in their own best interests.
The death of one head of cattle is a tragedy. The death of hundreds of head of cattle is a statistic.
Not to mention that those stockmen intended to kill all those cattle later on anyway.
Not really. Many cattle are sold for breeding. And when the cattlemen do sell cattle to be killed (**sell **them, not kill them), they get paid. When they have to wipe out their herd to prevent disease spread, they go broke. Sort of different and pretty much a tragedy for the farmer. Or perhaps the bankruptcy of a bunch of farmers is just a statistic.
I realize that, but the stockmen are primarily mourning the loss of their money. I’m not saying they don’t care about the cattle, but it is different than killing someone’s pet.
I’d be waiting for the guy to show up trying to sell apes as servants…
How is that different from knowing you will outlive your pet anyway (unless it is a parrot) and will eventually have to deal with its death later on? And you chose voluntarily to be a pet owner, in spite of that near-certainty.
It’s different when you are raising animals to be used as food and you intend to kill them while still healthy some day.
Wouldn’t happen–hypothetical is too big a stretch. Let’s bring in all the people instead. It would solve a lot of problems.
the CDC or USA doesn’t control the planet, even if such could be done.
until pets are shown that they are not possible carriers then killing or quarantining (if all the precautions done with humans are done) those pets that ebola victims have come in contact with would be OK by me.
Way ahead of ya.