The Cat Megathread

[Darth Wagtaros]

Put her down tonight.  Am sad. Very sad

[sbr]

Sorry wags.

RIP Cosmic Creepers

[CountDeMoney]

Put her down tonight.  Am sad. Very sad

[katmai]

Sorry to hear that Wags.

[LaCroix]

Owning a pet is generally not a purely rational decision. Neither is the choice to care for that pet. Both are in part based on the desire for, and actual, emotional ties with the animal in question.

Those emotional ties are of course far weaker than those between humans, but they are there, and they explain why people are willing to spend lots of money on pet care - even though one can 'rationally' get another dog or cat from the pound at a minimal cost or even for free.

(directed at garbon, too)

i understand. my argument is that regardless of one's love for an animal, one should be responsible with their finances. if they can afford the surgery, perfect. many, however, cannot afford that surgery, yet do it anyway. i'm not saying every decision regarding the animal should be a cost-benefit analysis. i'm saying the major decisions, like whether to place a cat on chemotherapy, for example, at the cost of thousands, should be undertaken by someone who lives below the poverty belt or otherwise simply cannot afford it due to other obligations (such as children, house payments, whatever)

granted, my post was in response to barrister's "why pay for an expensive medical procedure when you can just pick up a new one at the pound," so that might have been unclear

[CountDeMoney]

LaCroix, Certified Animal Bereavement Counselor

[Beenherebefore]

Put her down tonight.  Am sad. Very sad

Sorry to hear that.

[Viking]

http://bogleech.tumblr.com/post/76445444351/i-know-garfield-minus-garfield-was-the-one-that

a blogpost about garfield strips with the garfield thought balloons removed, basically, he is as verbose as opie. Bizzarely enough, with garfields balloons John sounds just like a regular cat owner.

[garbon]

Owning a pet is generally not a purely rational decision. Neither is the choice to care for that pet. Both are in part based on the desire for, and actual, emotional ties with the animal in question.

Those emotional ties are of course far weaker than those between humans, but they are there, and they explain why people are willing to spend lots of money on pet care - even though one can 'rationally' get another dog or cat from the pound at a minimal cost or even for free.

(directed at garbon, too)

i understand. my argument is that regardless of one's love for an animal, one should be responsible with their finances. if they can afford the surgery, perfect. many, however, cannot afford that surgery, yet do it anyway. i'm not saying every decision regarding the animal should be a cost-benefit analysis. i'm saying the major decisions, like whether to place a cat on chemotherapy, for example, at the cost of thousands, should be undertaken by someone who lives below the poverty belt or otherwise simply cannot afford it due to other obligations (such as children, house payments, whatever)

granted, my post was in response to barrister's "why pay for an expensive medical procedure when you can just pick up a new one at the pound," so that might have been unclear

Seems less like an argument and really just your point of view.

[Malthus]

Owning a pet is generally not a purely rational decision. Neither is the choice to care for that pet. Both are in part based on the desire for, and actual, emotional ties with the animal in question.

Those emotional ties are of course far weaker than those between humans, but they are there, and they explain why people are willing to spend lots of money on pet care - even though one can 'rationally' get another dog or cat from the pound at a minimal cost or even for free.

(directed at garbon, too)

i understand. my argument is that regardless of one's love for an animal, one should be responsible with their finances. if they can afford the surgery, perfect. many, however, cannot afford that surgery, yet do it anyway. i'm not saying every decision regarding the animal should be a cost-benefit analysis. i'm saying the major decisions, like whether to place a cat on chemotherapy, for example, at the cost of thousands, should be undertaken by someone who lives below the poverty belt or otherwise simply cannot afford it due to other obligations (such as children, house payments, whatever)

granted, my post was in response to barrister's "why pay for an expensive medical procedure when you can just pick up a new one at the pound," so that might have been unclear

Well, sure. Everything should be subject to some sort of reasonable limits. Neglecting your children to pay for your cat's chemo sounds like going too far.

There is, as you note, a difference between acknowledging with sorrow that you can't afford expensive treatment for your pet, and simply going "Vet bills? Eh, I can just get another at the pound". 

[Malthus]

Put her down tonight.  Am sad. Very sad

I'm sorry to hear that - a very difficult decision. 

[KRonn]

Put her down tonight.  Am sad. Very sad

Sorry to hear that Wags.   

[Beenherebefore]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/tim-bernerslee-on-creating-the-web-i-never-expected-all-these-cats-9189946.html

Made World Wide Web, did not foresee number of cat nuts and lonely people.

[Brazen]

So sorry Wags

I had a late one with work colleagues last night so the cats didn't get their dinner until bed time. They had their revenge this morning - emptying a litter tray with a hangover is a job for sinners.

[Brazen]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/tim-bernerslee-on-creating-the-web-i-never-expected-all-these-cats-9189946.html

Made World Wide Web, did not foresee number of cat nuts and lonely people.