i cant figure out how to comment on this

[chequita guevara]

People would also say they'd take or pack their kids, not travel with them. I've traveled with my pets. Packing for an evacuation isn't the same.

Even if we allow for the consideration of the pets being property, people weren't forced to leave their luggage or documents behind, just their pets. Pets can be put in traveling cases and packed under the bus with the rest of the luggage, and since they don't people down underneath in the first place, no person will be displaced. Pet's can also sit in your lap, and since they aren't requiring people to double up in seats, I don't see how that stops any person from evacuating. Most people don't have Irish wolfhounds, so space isn't a consideration.

The only real consideration is allergies, and allowances can be made for that by having pet and non-pet buses.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Exactly.

The fact that you can put a monetary price on a pet's life.

You can put a monetary value on a person's life. We do it all the time. What do you think tort judgements are?

And finally, as to what the government's job is or isn't, the government's job is to do what it's citizens tell it to do. If the people of the U.S. say we want the government to help us save our pets in an emergency, guess what, it's the government's job to do that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Even if we allow for the consideration of the pets being property, people weren't forced to leave their luggage or documents behind, just their pets. Pets can be put in traveling cases and packed under the bus with the rest of the luggage, and since they don't people down underneath in the first place, no person will be displaced. Pet's can also sit in your lap, and since they aren't requiring people to double up in seats, I don't see how that stops any person from evacuating. Most people don't have Irish wolfhounds, so space isn't a consideration.

Luggage doesn't defecate and drink ohhh sooo precious water.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You can put a monetary value on a person's life. We do it all the time. What do you think tort judgements are?

Hats off you Sir, thats spot on!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You can put a monetary value on a person's life. We do it all the time. What do you think tort judgements are?

Tort judgements = punishments typically.


Monetary value of life was outlawed for purposes of commercial exchange of humans ohh about the time of the Civil war.

[Odin]

Helping pets:

[chequita guevara]

http://bcegov2.broward.org/newsrelease/viewscreen.asp?MessageID=873

[Q Classic]

And finally, as to what the government's job is or isn't, the government's job is to do what it's citizens tell it to do. If the people of the U.S. say we want the government to help us save our pets in an emergency, guess what, it's the government's job to do that.

I know this~

What I'm saying is that this is a horrible, wasteful, decadent law should it pass.

[Darkstar]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I'm under no illusions that folks are throwing lifelines to the dog first. However, I don't see why resources should be squandered at places like the Superdome or the Convention Center on pets, which are replaceable, more or less, instead of humans.

If you're capable of evacuating with your pet, then do it on your own dime.

I don't see why we should stop at the pets. Why are we wasting resources on humans at all? Humans are just as replaceable as pets.

Indeed, some animals are proving to be smarter then humans. Just we are lucky to have opposable thumbs and fire. While they, don't.

If you want to live, get out on your own dime. Otherwise, why waste money on that human?

It's the same logic. There isn't anything that makes a human more valuable then any other animal on the planet. Other then our own arrogance, of course.

[Snotty]

Perhaps more care should be put into rescueing pets. They are after all helpless, unlike their owners.were

[Q Classic]

Darkstar, perhaps you missed my first point, where I quite clearly stated that I am a speciesist.

While you might merrily be all for duplicating this administrations behavior (though, your rather extremist and tongue-in-cheek point of view doesn't seem to be a real point), you forget that while I draw the line at pets, I don't see a problem with spending resources on saving humans, no matter how deserving they may or may not be.

Since humans, in general, are scum, you might have a point in not expending the effort or resources; however, I tend to feel that as much as I despise our species, it's still one that we belong to, and it's our responsibility to ensure that it survives, warts and all.