5 ms·

That's an extremely easy thing to say from a place of privilege, and of course there is some truth to it. On the other hand, how many chronically broke and mise

That's an extremely easy thing to say from a place of privilege, and of course there is some truth to it. On the other hand, how many chronically broke and miserable people out there are only hanging on for love of a pet (perhaps the only consistent source of love and meaning in their adult or entire lives)? I'll bet its a lot. But fuck them, they're poor so I guess they should either tough it out alone or die. Sorry to be so harsh about it, but your comment lacks basic empathy so I figured I'd give you a little dose of same.

phone8675309 3y ago
Back when I was broke I owned a cat. There were literally times in my life that the only reason that I didn't paint the ceiling with my brains was because I was worried what would happen to that cat.
yakubin 3y ago
I'd love to have a pet too, but I don't have the conditions for that (including financial conditions), so I don't. Even though I'd love to. But having a pet is responsibility, which includes financial responsibility. So yes, you shouldn't have a right to have a pet, when you can't afford it. That it may even be controversial is bewildering to me. Animals aren't things which exist for your pleasure.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  Pets are companions who you steward because you're the name on the lease and the one with the bank account. Like all living things, they're usually healthy without intervention as long as their basic needs are met. If you can fulfill that stewardship 100% of the time for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but then can't pull things together in some exceptional case at the end, that's not a failing. That's just one of those sad things that happens in life.
- zeku 3y ago
  As long as you can afford basic care for a pet, then you can have a pet. food, water, bedding, the ability to keep it safe, vaccines(they're pretty cheap mostly and often done by animal shelters for free--neutering too). There are so many pets in shelters who could live good happy lives but no one is there to adopt them. Better a pet to live with an owner who cant afford their chemo when theyre 14 years old than to be euthanized at 2 years old.
yuhaj 3y ago
Who are you proposing should carry the cost then? Society?
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Well decades before people didn't graduate with hundreds of thousands in debt. If you follow that chain and look at the colleges which have been replacing highly paid professors with adjunct professors paid little more per hour than people who make french fries its not professors sucking up those costs. It looks more like trying hard to minimize money paid to professors while charging what the market will bear wherein the price the market will bear is inherently distorted by huge piles of government money available that people are in turned obliged to borrow in order to break into their desired profession. As with everything else we are currently screwing up we could do well to look at what smarter countries are doing.
  - yuhaj 3y ago
    Smarter countries are providing pet care for people who can't afford it? Which country do you mean exactly?
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      Smarter countries make education affordable instead of a government sponsored bonanza for the financial class leading to greater supply of vets who haven't had to front load their life with 200-400k in debt to reach the starting line of their profession. This leads to more supply per capita in theory and in fact. Having enough supply means that when fuzzball junior has a health problem you don't have to choose between going into hock for $500-$1000 for an emergency vet, paying rent, or waiting a month for your regular vet who is also obliged to bill at a level that will pay costs, and repay their lender plus interest. This is to say that actual cost of service is even worse than it looks due to the necessity of relying on emergency vets to plug massive hole in supply. This encourages individual practices to price discriminate by offering the same services on an emergency basis for much more which further decreases the already scarce vet hours for non-emergency situations. All of this makes perfect sense from a market perspective but none of it was normal 20 years ago here nor in most of the world so its not fate its a scrape we have gotten ourselves into.
lazide 3y ago
Anyone who has to say ‘from a place of priviledge’ over a comment like that is just being an asshole. Which is what you’re doing. If you can’t afford to take basic care of a pet, don’t get one. Period. Life is already harsh enough to not add more misery to it for someone else.

phone8675309 3y ago

Back when I was broke I owned a cat. There were literally times in my life that the only reason that I didn't paint the ceiling with my brains was because I was worried what would happen to that cat.

yakubin 3y ago

I'd love to have a pet too, but I don't have the conditions for that (including financial conditions), so I don't. Even though I'd love to. But having a pet is responsibility, which includes financial responsibility. So yes, you shouldn't have a right to have a pet, when you can't afford it. That it may even be controversial is bewildering to me. Animals aren't things which exist for your pleasure.

swatcoder 3y ago
Pets are companions who you steward because you're the name on the lease and the one with the bank account. Like all living things, they're usually healthy without intervention as long as their basic needs are met. If you can fulfill that stewardship 100% of the time for 5 or 10 or 20 years, but then can't pull things together in some exceptional case at the end, that's not a failing. That's just one of those sad things that happens in life.
zeku 3y ago
As long as you can afford basic care for a pet, then you can have a pet. food, water, bedding, the ability to keep it safe, vaccines(they're pretty cheap mostly and often done by animal shelters for free--neutering too). There are so many pets in shelters who could live good happy lives but no one is there to adopt them. Better a pet to live with an owner who cant afford their chemo when theyre 14 years old than to be euthanized at 2 years old.

yuhaj 3y ago

Who are you proposing should carry the cost then? Society?

michaelmrose 3y ago
Well decades before people didn't graduate with hundreds of thousands in debt. If you follow that chain and look at the colleges which have been replacing highly paid professors with adjunct professors paid little more per hour than people who make french fries its not professors sucking up those costs. It looks more like trying hard to minimize money paid to professors while charging what the market will bear wherein the price the market will bear is inherently distorted by huge piles of government money available that people are in turned obliged to borrow in order to break into their desired profession. As with everything else we are currently screwing up we could do well to look at what smarter countries are doing.
- yuhaj 3y ago
  Smarter countries are providing pet care for people who can't afford it? Which country do you mean exactly?
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    Smarter countries make education affordable instead of a government sponsored bonanza for the financial class leading to greater supply of vets who haven't had to front load their life with 200-400k in debt to reach the starting line of their profession. This leads to more supply per capita in theory and in fact. Having enough supply means that when fuzzball junior has a health problem you don't have to choose between going into hock for $500-$1000 for an emergency vet, paying rent, or waiting a month for your regular vet who is also obliged to bill at a level that will pay costs, and repay their lender plus interest. This is to say that actual cost of service is even worse than it looks due to the necessity of relying on emergency vets to plug massive hole in supply. This encourages individual practices to price discriminate by offering the same services on an emergency basis for much more which further decreases the already scarce vet hours for non-emergency situations. All of this makes perfect sense from a market perspective but none of it was normal 20 years ago here nor in most of the world so its not fate its a scrape we have gotten ourselves into.

lazide 3y ago

Anyone who has to say ‘from a place of priviledge’ over a comment like that is just being an asshole. Which is what you’re doing. If you can’t afford to take basic care of a pet, don’t get one. Period. Life is already harsh enough to not add more misery to it for someone else.