Well, Jim, I love my pets more than their own parents love them. Does that help? 
(We had to separate my daughter’s cat [the parent] from my son’s cat [the offspring] to prevent them from killing each other)
My car is more valuable than any deer.
Antler rats, they are.
I’m NOT and obstetrician!
Tune in next week for another exciting installment of:
DR. Mark 2000, Nihilist Obstetrician and NOT
No, no. That’s “NOT and obstetrician.” Sort of like a crime fighting duo. Not & the obstetrician. Together they deliver babies and obfuscate threads. Coming to NBC this fall.
Alright just to be clear. What I’m getting from you and Hentor is that the objection is that you both feel that, while pet owners may love their kids as much as parents love their children, it is a different sort of love. Not necessarily a lesser love but “a different flavor” if you will.
As Hentor said, Qualitative not quantitative.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but what I’m hearing is that the issue is you would both prefer pet lovers to say, “I love my pet as much as you love your kid” rather then “I love my pet like you love your kid.” Or, “my pet is loved as much as a child” rather then “my pet is my child.”
If that’s your point I don’t really have a problem with it, but it seems like a rather pointless semantic objection.
Of course, on a totally different subject, the idea that there are qualifiably different forms of love is fairly debatable in itself. My personal feeling is that there are no qualifieable differences between loves, but there are qualifiable differences between the relationships in which those loves are expressed. However, as I said it’s more of a philosophical point and more appropriate to Great Debates.
We must be careful not to lose track of the bottom line.
In any thread like this (and there have been many), it all comes down to one thing.
No matter how much pleasure, satisfaction and emotional fulfillment we may get out of any interest, cause, or occupation, it is selfish and wrong - because there are other, more important interests, causes and occupations out there. And it is the job of people with those more important interests and superior value systems to remind us to tone it down about the things we care about and to make us feel appropriately guilty that we do not value the right things.
Because, of course, every bit of attention given to something that is not of supreme importance denies that supreme thing the attention it needs and deserves.
And we must all agree on what that thing is.
The topic of discussion is the assertion that pets are like children, not just that pets and children are both loved. You understand that a parental relationship with a child involves far more than love, right? I have tried to make this point, without success apparently, several times. My point is that the relationship, and the feelings within that relationship, are qualitatively different. I haven’t at all intended to narrow it down to love. I suspect that is what pet owners who wish to link the concept of pet and child may feel that they are simply labeling the degree of love they feel in some meaningful way for them.
I would prefer that they did not feel it necessary to link pet and child in any way whatsoever. To me, it sounds a bit like saying: “The Steelers are my children.” “My computer is my pet.” “A reuben sandwich with warm, but not hot, thinly-sliced corned beef and a nice fresh soft rye bread is my wife.” Why do you need to tell me how much you love your pets, and suggest that it is equivalent, or even equatable in any way, to my love for my children? I’m the one accused of egotism? Frankly, I really don’t care what you equate your love for your pets with. Value them in any way you choose. Just realize, again, that you sound at best naive and foolish, and at worst either desperate to lay claim to someone else’s feelings or like you think someone’s child is an animal.
I’ve grown far too repetitious for my contributions here to be worth anything further, and they apparently haven’t reached a clear point in any event. I apologize for that, and for any offense I may have caused.
Tune in next week for another exciting installment of:
DR. Mark 2000, Nihilist Not, and the Obstetrician
Well Shit, this whole thing got surreal in a hurry and just continued to degenerate from there.
What a complete waste of emotion,since when is one individuals personal feelings or views the fodder for the masses judgement as long as it harms no one.
If the bulk of humanity spent as much time in personal introspection as they do in other’s business maybe they wouldn’t be so insensitive to their own species.
Basically, I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK, so please be so kind as to return the favor.
No, not my wife. One-night-stand on the other hand…
It’s a good question and I agree that in most cases it should never come up. However, if it does come up I would imagine it’s because they feel you don’t grasp the role their pet plays in their lives and are attempting to give an easily accesible frame of reference.
Now, why they feel you need to grasp the role their pet plays in their lives is another question and depends entirely on the context of the situation.
Hey, wow, I got pitted! Cool.
I believe I was quoted in the OP as “She’s my kid.”
As was noted by others, it’s a metaphor.
Would it make it better if I phrased it as a simile?
Stupid git.
In regards to your series of questions, none of those have anything to do with love. They are matters of concern that are associated with the remarkable responsibility associated with parenting. Given that paradigm, I can understand how you would feel upset if someone tried to claim that their level of responsibility to a pet was equal to a child.
I actually think we agree on many things. The nature of a child is distinct from the nature of a pet. I could not agree more. Maybe I am not understanding the argument of many people here.
So, I will sum up my assertion in this way. I am simply saying that the statement, “I love my pet like it was one of my children”, is perfectly acceptable because it is a measure of how much the person loves that particular creature.
In no way, shape or form, am I stipulating that a pet and a child are equals. Nor am I saying the relationship that you have with your child is the same as the relationship a person has with their pet. In fact, your relationship with your child, is not the same as any other parents relationship to their child. There are just far too many variables that lie within the human psyche to assert this. I am simply speaking of the emotional sense of love, that is all.
That is what I refer to when I speak of egoism. To believe that someone is not capable of a strong sense of love towards an animal. Love, is an emotional response, it is not rational. Henceforth, that is what I assert is futile to try and separate.
Hopefully I have made myself clear and with that I wish you all well.
Holy offenderati.
When did it become acceptable to find offense in how other people get through life? And I use ‘find’ deliberately, because some real effort is required. IMO those with such exquisitely sensitive feelings that even register strangers burbling inanities to critters would be better advised to save their strength for real challenges. Toddlers and particularly hormonally whipsawed teenagers come to mind.
Looking for offense is arrogant, not to mention pretty damned close to puritanical snoopiness. So what if somebody lavishes affection on an animal, car, sports team or nearly life-life inflatable figure mailed in a plain brown wrapper? It doesn’t reflect on anyone else, and it’s nobody else’s damned business in the first place.
Of course anybody can be as offended as they choose over anything they choose, but deliberate huffiness is a fairly pitiless mirror. Bent out of shape as a parent and adult because strangers act ga-ga over pets? Get a life.
Excuse me-why would you think I would be thrilled with that? Slam was not appreciated by me–but I am now on a whole nother thought process. Why would you think that I would be in favor of property destruction? Frankly, if it were a child who was visiting and (not tied of course, children after a certain age can be relied on to stay in a yard) dug holes in my yard, I’d be just as pissed. The difference is that I would be more polite about it to the mother of the child; with the “mother” of the dog–I would be more forthright. No, I wouldn’t expect the “mother” to go fill in the holes. I would more likely roll my eyes mentally at the whole thing.
Certainly I understand that many dogs are not accustomed to staying outside, but how long do you plan to visit me? How demanding of constant human contact is your dog? How do you go to work, if dog can’t be left alone for 2 hours or so? What happens on business trips? My sister and mother use trusted kennels and it works fine for them. I am totally serious here: if the dog cannot be left to its own devices in its own home for a few hours or secured in a fenced yard or tie line–how do you cope with life in general?
Parents get babysitters when warranted. Some people get dog sitters for short trips out of town. There are other solutions to the “problem” of not being able to leave Fido. Somehow I suspect that that is not the issue–it’s more I don’t want to leave my dog and I shouldn’t have to. And you’re a cold unfeeling person for not wanting to be with my dog as much as I do etc. That seems to be the attitude, but sometimes it’s hard to read attitude online.
Dogs are commonly tied outside, temporarily. Many dogs live outside, although in colder and hotter climes this is not recommended. Many dogs are adapted to living outside–and there’s not a one of them that wouldn’t prefer the life of Riley in the softest chair, in the warmest room (their humanlike in that way!).
And I have to question your last statement–“she’d have all these people around to occupy her and she wouldn’t get into trouble.”
--now you’re a guest in my home and I have to entertain your dog? Should I offer him crudites? Water in the Waterford goblets? How about a seat near the fire, so we can all listen to him talk about the war? 
I do think I’ve had some insight into the “I love my dog like you love your kid” advocates. Dogs (pets) are the new spoiled rugrats. These are the “parents” who will insist on taking their “kid” (aka dog aka spoiled, can’t be left alone, must be with me always) well, everywhere! No matter that the “kids” weren’t invited or even not welcome–this “kid” is a part of me, so where I go, it goes. Sorry, but society and culture has not yet given a total green light to this entitled outlook.
Parents of humans who do this type of thing (oh, I brought Timmy and Juliet with me-we never get a sitter!) are talked about, their kids pitied until they reach the age where they should know better etc. There are places for kids and there are places for “kids”. NEITHER is welcome at all times, depending on the social event in question. I no more want your child at a cocktail party than I want your dog there either.
Curmedgeon that I am, I am off to work.
Last thought: someone upthread mentioned that valuing children over pets was species-centric, like that was a bad thing. I ahve thought alot about that and I disagree. If anything, it makes us MORE like animals–I wouldn’t want to get between a dog and new pups or a bear and her cubs. Mamas all over have very strong feelings and instincts when it comes to their offspring. I dont’ think that humans are in all ways superior to animals–I think it’s apples and oranges. Just like children and pets. A dolphin is a dolphin becuase it’s a dolphin, a dog is a dog because it’s a dog and a human child is a…you get the idea.
Gah-that should read “they’re humanlike” not their.
And it’s a generic “you” in my post, not Guin or Lissa.
off to make the money to pay the Man…
Bolding mine. A brilliant explanation and the section I bolded gets, for me, to the heart of the matter.
eleanor, I used “thrilled” sarcastically.
To be fair, I would never take my dog to someone’s home without asking permission first. I was just pointing out that leaving the dog tied up might not be such a hot idea.
And when I said there would be all kinds of people to occupy her, you wouldn’t have to do anything. She’d be happy just being around people. When she was a puppy, we brought her to a few family functions, (asking first, in one case my aunt suggested it first), and we kept her on a leash most of the time. She was so well-behaved I couldn’t believe it. Christmas time at my aunt’s-she spent the day playing with my uncle’s dog. They had a blast chasing each other around the fenced in backyard. At the time, she was still a puppy, and we couldn’t leave her at home all day.
I’m just saying that dogs left alone and tied up all the time tend to be problem dogs. They need exercise, socializing, stimulation, etc.
Now we CAN trust her to be by herself, and this past Christmas, we did just that. But tying animals up outside isn’t always such a hot idea.
You are completely gutless. You respond to my post with flippancy because you are afraid of the information contained therein. That much is understandable. You’re whistling past the graveyard.
Yes, that’s pretty much it.
I actually don’t find it objectionable. A little conceited and self involved, but not objectionable. As I said earlier, I thought the OP was talking about the small minority of people who delude themselves into believing their “furbabies” are people. Buying them Christmas presents, interpreting meows for speech, etc. More than a little bit sad. And although Dainel and…crap, I can’t remember who else mentioned that most people realize the whole Santa pic thing is silly, there are some people who take it very seriously.