|
17425. wonkers2 - 11/7/2005 6:01:03 PM I don't think so. Good point! 17426. thoughtful - 11/7/2005 6:34:51 PM well i've mourned heartily for many pets i've owned over the years. esp since we have no children, our pets are part of our family. I've spent more on them than i ever thought i would, though even I have my limits.
Old cat had detached retina and vet started talking about laser treatments on her eye by a cat ophthamologist...I said What??? like she can't see to drive or read the phone book? That clearly didn't happen
17427. Ms. No - 11/7/2005 6:58:44 PM Scottloar,
I'm sorry for your family's loss. Be assured that there are many more of us who understand and empathize than feel the need to ridicule that which they simply don't understand. 17428. judithathome - 11/7/2005 7:35:39 PM Ditto.
Maybe Pelle and Wonkers need to get a pet. On second thought, scratch that. 17429. wonkers2 - 11/7/2005 8:11:21 PM FYI, I have a 17-year old cat named Sparky that I care a lot for. But when he begins to fail I don't plan on any big vet bills. And when he dies we aren't planning to have a funeral, cremation, etc. The growing prevalence of big vet bills (medical bills, also, perhaps) for pets, let alone pet funeral rituals, are a sign of a society that has more than its share of the world's income. Feeling sad about the death of a pet is one thing, big spending to prolong its life is something else. 17430. PelleNilsson - 11/7/2005 8:16:41 PM We have had pets. When they have gone we have missed them. and we still have fond memories of them. But I think words like "mourn" and "grief" are too emotionally loaded and too important to use about animals, who briefly shared our lives. Perhaps this has to do with my farm background. The good farmer loves his animals and tries to give them as good a life as possible. But when the time comes to send them to slaughter he is not sentimental about it. It is part of the cycle. 17431. Ms. No - 11/7/2005 9:38:42 PM How you do or don't feel about your own pets is your business, what I object to is telling someone else that they ought not to feel as they do when they lose a pet.
That's pointless and rude at the very least. 17432. PelleNilsson - 11/7/2005 10:28:12 PM I haven't told anyone "what they ought not to feel". In my first post on the matter I said (emphasis added) "I don't understand this maudlin agonizing over the death of animals. Later I amplified on why I hold this view. Please explain how my "not understanding" something in your mind mutates into into my "telling someone else" how they should react to this something, and why my views on this are "pointless and rude", and, by implication, your own are just and objective.
17433. Ms. No - 11/7/2005 11:26:39 PM A lack of understanding that asks for enlightenment or explanation is entirely different from a stated lack of understanding that implies the view isn't worth being understood because it's ridiculous or was that not your intent in agreeing with Wonkers?
What a bunch of maudlin whining over a pet cat that lived a long life! Get another cat. Get another life. Cremating a cat and saving the ashes. Get real!
followed by
I'm with wonkers. I don't understand this maudlin agonizing over the death of animals.
If you don't get it, then fine, but what is the point in telling someone else that their pain is laughable? Explain to me how that isn't both pointless and rude? Was it any skin off your nose to simply not comment?
What Wonkers said was cruel. By agreeing with him what you said was also cruel. If you find that a meaningful and civil way to behave toward friends I hardly see why you'd object to me pointing out what I thought about it. 17434. Max Macks - 11/7/2005 11:40:32 PM My vote is with wonkers and Pelle
I have grieved over the loss of a pet
but to spend thusands of dollars on an animal
is understandable but IMO wrong. 17435. wonkers2 - 11/8/2005 12:13:57 AM Ms. No, what I said was not cruel. It would have perhaps been impolite if the pet had been Loar's. I didn't say to to Loar's daughter, and I wouldn't unless I knew her pretty well. 17436. Ms. No - 11/8/2005 12:48:32 AM It was his pet. Had you read his posts with any comprehension at all you'd have seen that.
It was a crappy thing to say whether the cat was Loar's or his daughter's alone. Or would you think it perfectly okay for someone here to mock your child's grief over a loss? 17437. arkymalarky - 11/8/2005 1:46:36 AM Go No!
Calling someone's feelings "maudlin" is the same as telling them how they should or shouldn't feel, and disrespecting someone else's personal feelings is cold in any sense. "Get over it" is easy enough to spout when it's not your own feelings being dismissed.
Scott, I thought your daughter and mine were the same age. Someone else here has a daughter that age--Rick Nelson. And he and his wife have a new son, who must be about a year old. 17438. judithathome - 11/8/2005 2:04:00 AM But I think words like "mourn" and "grief" are too emotionally loaded and too important to use about animals, who briefly shared our lives.
Briefly share our lives? Fifteen years is a long time...I'd grieve over losing a LAMP that old.
If you love something and that somethiong loves you back, "mourn" and "grief" are no where near too important to use when that something is no longer part of your life.
And who in hell was talking about spending thousands of dollars on saving a pet? Loar said very explicitly that the cat was old and had died in her sleep. And if anyone wants to spend their money on a pet cremation, that's their business. No one is asking YOU for the money with which to do it.
Get ready to ridicule me when the time comes to have my dog put to sleep...I'm glad I've been forewarned that Wonk and Pelle and whomever else will think I'm an idiot for feeling something after having to say goodbye to a loving friend. 17439. arkymalarky - 11/8/2005 2:08:52 AM I hope it's a long time before that, Judith. Klaus is such a sweetie. 17440. judithathome - 11/8/2005 2:11:10 AM I hope so, too, but realistically, he's going to be 17 in December. Even though he's in great health now, I know it's coming. 17441. arkymalarky - 11/8/2005 2:11:24 AM Oh Macnas! Where are you? ;-)
Farming background may have something to do with views toward pets. Bob is still trying to resolve the idea of having an animal in the house--and that's been the case for about ten years now. 17442. judithathome - 11/8/2005 2:14:26 AM In Hawaii, they have a bit of advice..."Don't name the animals you're going to eat." 17443. wonkers2 - 11/8/2005 2:24:26 AM Ms. No, perhaps I was influenced by Loar's own tactless, blunt, confrontational style. That's not normally my style unless provoked. I thought the cat was Loar's daughter's. I wasn't aware it was his. That makes it even more maudlin--for a grown man, when his cat dies, to weep as if it were his child or parent. If we weep over pets what does that leave for our relatives and friends? Like Pelle, my background is the farm (ranch, actually) where animals are valued and treated humanely, but not mourned as if they were human. Do you think John Wayne or Gary Cooper would have whimpered over the death of a cat? Perhaps a horse or dog. But a cat? Real men don't cry for pet cats or eat kiech. 17444. wonkers2 - 11/8/2005 2:27:18 AM Arky, my experience conforms to Bob's--on farms or ranches, dogs and cats aren't allowed in the house. They get along fine outdoors and in the barn in cold weather. Maybe that's why the attachment may be less than with a pet that sleeps on the foot of your bed.
|
