Latest post of the previous page:
The affirmative posters on this topic may be horrified, the positive posters will probably be amazed at the technology, half hour video. (maybe only available in the UK)The bionic vet.
Latest post of the previous page:
The affirmative posters on this topic may be horrified, the positive posters will probably be amazed at the technology, half hour video. (maybe only available in the UK)Wouldn't dream of it. Yes, there is enough money in the world for both. It's not shared fairly, but refusing to spend money on veterinary treatment for pets (or insurance for pets) is not going to help redistribute it. Let's assume that humans are more important than other animals. Let's assume that owning a pet is a luxury. Virtually everyone in the developed world spends more money than they actually need to. We all have our luxuries. David House talks about "travelling much further around the world". Would it be too cheeky of me to suggest that being able to do that is something of a luxury? That in general we don't need to travel abroad at all? Many of us spend far more than we need to on holidays, cars, televisions, computers, iPods, mobile phones, clothes, shoes, haircuts, cosmetics, jewellery, meals out in restaurants, alcohol, theatre tickets, sports tickets, books, objets d'art, home furnishings and ornamental plants. Why pick on veterinary treatment for pets? Only the saintliest of people could be expected to give up all their income beyond what is needed for food and shelter and the very basic social and psychological needs. If we allow people to spend the bulk of their income on what they want, as well as what they need, then obviously they get to choose what they spend it on, and what business is it of anyone else, unless what they are doing is harmful to others? And if people pay tax, and especially if they donate a decent chunk of their income to charities that help sick children and tackle poverty and support other causes deemed sufficiently worthy, then what more can reasonably be expected of them? Well ... actually, I think there's a strong case for redistributing wealth a fair bit more, and I would be happy to pay more tax if everyone else (who could afford it) did too. But a person's income after tax is for that person to dispose of.Marian wrote:Isn't there enough money in this world for both?
Yeah, go ahead, call me a dreamer...
Bingo. This.Emma Woolgatherer wrote: .... refusing to spend money on veterinary treatment for pets (or insurance for pets) is not going to help redistribute it. ......
Is anyone here really suggesting that people should spend their income only on what they really need, and donate all of what's left to the world's poor? Is anyone really advocating sainthood?
Oh, it would be very cheeky but I like that!! I think you've hit the nail on the head. I would go on to suggest that pets are even more valuable than the luxuries. Pets provide us with companionship that far outweighs anything material, imo.Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Would it be too cheeky of me to suggest that being able to do that is something of a luxury? That in general we don't need to travel abroad at all? Many of us spend far more than we need to on holidays, cars, televisions, computers, iPods, mobile phones, clothes, shoes, haircuts, cosmetics, jewellery, meals out in restaurants, alcohol, theatre tickets, sports tickets, books, objets d'art, home furnishings and ornamental plants. Why pick on veterinary treatment for pets?