i cant figure out how to comment on this

[Heresson]

My Mexican tortoises would've survived Kathrina.
One of them is named Kate.

[MrFun]

good for them

[Mr. Harley]

Just one thought. Kids are pretty traumatized by natural disasters such as this, poor kids even more so. To force them unnecessarily to give up their pets, often their closest (or only) friend (some people treat their pets better than some of these kids are treated), is cruel.

Cruelty can be necessary, as in the actual case where it comes down to a choice between a person and a pet. That seldom actually happens, and the law, if properly worded, could keep power hungry little dictators in control of recovering people from making little Jenny leave the cat she is cradling in her arms on the rooftop.

Saving people first.
Artificial dichotomies.
Saving the pets of children.

edit - and I forgot - gefelti fish

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I dont think I understand decadant? But I am almost sure there is not one person here that can even start to begin to decide whos life is worth saving regardless if it is human or non human. To judge a person for saving their animal is just as bad as labeling folks as racists. Oh and by the way i said i would help said neighbor but i would treat him as he has treated me through out the years. Not to mention If i was in a boat and what have I am sure Id go back to help the folks I couldnt help the first trip. There is no reason to let folks perish if could be helped. Most adults in flood situations are able to fend for themselves. Now if there was a child of said neighbor that child will be on the boat . Reading to much into a statement and then judging one by said statment with out clarification is well Crap if you ask me

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
is cradling in her arms on the rooftop.

Saving people first.
Artificial dichotomies.
Saving the pets of children.

edit - and I forgot - gefelti fish

Babel Fish

[Q Classic]

All I'm really saying is that if people want to save their pets, they ought to do it on their own dime, on their own time, with their own resources--NOT the government's.

While the government does indeed have a responsibility to protect its citizens' property, its primary responsibility is to those citizens themselves. No matter how you dress up your relationship with your pets, their current legal status, it is my understanding, lies closer to that of property than citizens.

Thus, the government shouldn't--and needn't--be required to save such property under situations of duress, especially when other citizens--other people are at risk.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

While the government does indeed have a responsibility to protect its citizens' property, its primary responsibility is to those citizens themselves. No matter how you dress up your relationship with your pets, their current legal status, it is my understanding, lies closer to that of property than citizens.

Can you get governmental subsidized flood insurance for your pets?

[Q Classic]

That, I do not know.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Seriously for a second, I see the other sides point, not that I agree for a second. It ultimately comes down to your and my assessment that pets are simply property. The other side will llikely claim "Thats a sentiment shared by slaveowners back in the day". I however do not think society has gone so deeply 'round the bend to think of pets as more than simple posessions and as such you are dead nuts on when describing them as property.

[Q Classic]

Like I said, that's where we'll have to disagree. I think I'm more rational here--they're closer to property than they are to citizenry, and thus, less deserving of Federal aid.

[Wezil]

You can sell your dog. Try selling your child.

Pets are considered property under the law.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Interesting if one were to apply a dollar figure to a pet say a dog worth $600. Does that entitle non pet owners to have the government rescue $600 worth of their property in order to be fair?

[Q Classic]

That solution would be more amenable to me, actually.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It would be more fair but equally inane when the finite resources should be spent saving actual HUMAN lives.

[Q Classic]

Exactly.

The fact that you can put a monetary price on a pet's life, as well as the fact that the language used by some people in describing pets as what they'd pack, not with whom they'd travel, suggests that they are, in some aspects closer to property than citizenry.