Can they do this?

Meepster · Sep 24, 2008 9:00 PM

Ok, so my mom goes to CVS, and lately she's been seeing a black cat outside. It's pretty sick, but we assumed someone was gonna pick it up.

That was a week ago.

The cat is still there, and is dying. My mom went to the store today. She saw the cat sleeping, and thought it was dead. Yeah, it's that bad. We called the Animal Services, but they won't pick it up from there. (They only pick up stray dogs) Tomorrow my dad and I are gonna pick it up and take it to the Services.

Does anyone here think it's fair that they don't pick up the cat just because it's not a dog, even if the cat is on the verge of death?

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 9:04 PM

Maybe the shelter you called only handles dogs. I'm not sure why, but it's a possibility.

When you're picking it up to bring to the Services is it the same place that didn't pick up the cat themselves? If it is, yes I think that's unfair.

Meepster · Sep 24, 2008 9:09 PM

The guy my mom talked to said they only picked up cats that were dead, and took care of cats brought to them. Why they can't just go and get the cat first, I don't know why.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 9:12 PM

Yeah, that does seem pretty dumb. I can't see any logical reason why they would pick up a dog but not a cat. :\

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Sep 24, 2008 9:22 PM

Woops. Accedently voted yes. I ment no. Its unfair. What the *BEEP* is wrong with them!? Pick up the cat anyway. How would they like it if it was their cat dying and we wouldn't help it cause its not a dog! (and we knew how to cure it and stuff)

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 9:30 PM

It's because dogs are better than cats.

This is an inarguable fact. I think it's in the Bible, actually.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 9:37 PM

Atresac wrote:

It's because dogs are better than cats.
This is an inarguable fact. I think it's in the Bible, actually.

Wow. -_- Even if more people like dogs better doesn't mean cats don't need to be helped.

Kazoobie64 · Sep 24, 2008 9:40 PM

I think it has something to do with the fact that cats have more street smart.

SpyroandCynder4EVAH · Sep 24, 2008 9:42 PM

I don't like either one better. 50, 50 for me. (I know you didn't mean me exactly)

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 9:43 PM

Kazoobie64 wrote:

I think it has something to do with the fact that cats have more street smart.

True, but if a cat is dying you'd think they would come and pick it up.

Kazoobie64 · Sep 24, 2008 9:45 PM

Might have something to do with budget, they put it towards the more important animal, so they might not have enough workers to go out there and get both animals. Unfortunately, it happens. I think it's alright to do that if you're allowed to take the cat over there yourself.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 9:59 PM

DDR_Maniac wrote:

Atresac wrote:
It's because dogs are better than cats.
This is an inarguable fact. I think it's in the Bible, actually.
Wow. -_- Even if more people like dogs better doesn't mean cats don't need to be helped.

No, not more people like dogs, they're just genetically better.

Read an encyclopedia i think it's like the first sentence when you look up "dog" in the 2004 World Book.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Atresac wrote:

DDR_Maniac wrote:
Atresac wrote:
It's because dogs are better than cats.
This is an inarguable fact. I think it's in the Bible, actually.
Wow. -_- Even if more people like dogs better doesn't mean cats don't need to be helped.
No, not more people like dogs, they're just genetically better.
Read an encyclopedia i think it's like the first sentence when you look up "dog" in the 2004 World Book.

Okay. I don't care if they are genetically better. I was just saying that they should be treated equally.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 10:05 PM

DDR_Maniac wrote:

Atresac wrote:
DDR_Maniac wrote:
Wow. -_- Even if more people like dogs better doesn't mean cats don't need to be helped.
No, not more people like dogs, they're just genetically better.
Read an encyclopedia i think it's like the first sentence when you look up "dog" in the 2004 World Book.
Okay. I don't care if they are genetically better. I was just saying that they should be treated equally.

Well I wouldn't treat a lobster dinner the same as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I mean one is clearly superior to the other and should thus be treated as such.

Are you suggesting the rescue of pb&j sandwiches?

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:06 PM

Atresac wrote:

DDR_Maniac wrote:
Atresac wrote:
No, not more people like dogs, they're just genetically better.
Read an encyclopedia i think it's like the first sentence when you look up "dog" in the 2004 World Book.
Okay. I don't care if they are genetically better. I was just saying that they should be treated equally.
Well I wouldn't treat a lobster dinner the same as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I mean one is clearly superior to the other and should thus be treated as such.
Are you suggesting the rescue of pb&j sandwiches?

PB&J sandwiches aren't living. Neither are lobster dinners. Bad example.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 10:10 PM

DDR_Maniac wrote:

Atresac wrote:
DDR_Maniac wrote:
Okay. I don't care if they are genetically better. I was just saying that they should be treated equally.
Well I wouldn't treat a lobster dinner the same as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I mean one is clearly superior to the other and should thus be treated as such.
Are you suggesting the rescue of pb&j sandwiches?
PB&J sandwiches aren't living. Neither are lobster dinners. Bad example.

The point still stands, you're just avoiding the subject now.

Just answer whether or not you want to rescue sandwiches over lobsters.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:11 PM

You don't rescue food. -__- I'm not answering because your example isn't relevant to cats and dogs.

Kazoobie64 · Sep 24, 2008 10:14 PM

Yeah, I don't know what it is with people giving bad examples to demonstrate the standings of animals but I'll give you one.

An animal clinic has the choice to save someone's pet cat, or someone's pet rat because of limited medicine. Which do you think they'll choose?

I know there's a lot of cat lovers out there, (I used to have a cat but left it behind with my parents) but dogs are considered more important because they have the minds and emotions that are closer to humans than cats. They also bring the stronger psychological attachment. That's just the way it is.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 10:17 PM

DDR_Maniac wrote:

You don't rescue food. -__- I'm not answering because your example isn't relevant to cats and dogs.

I find your stance extremely racist.

I have forwarded this thread to the NAACL (National Association for the Advancement of Crabs and Lobsters) for review, as this is in direct violation of the 31st amendment.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:21 PM

Atresac wrote:

DDR_Maniac wrote:
You don't rescue food. -__- I'm not answering because your example isn't relevant to cats and dogs.
I find your stance extremely racist.
I have forwarded this thread to the NAACL (National Association for the Advancement of Crabs and Lobsters) for review, as this is in direct violation of the 31st amendment.

That doesn't even exist, and there is no 31st amendment. Is this your idea of a joke?

Kazoobie64 · Sep 24, 2008 10:23 PM

Yeah, he's just joking around with you, heh.

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:24 PM

Yeah, he's just joking around with you, heh.

Yeah, I thought so.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 10:25 PM

DDR_Maniac wrote:

Atresac wrote:
DDR_Maniac wrote:
You don't rescue food. -__- I'm not answering because your example isn't relevant to cats and dogs.
I find your stance extremely racist.
I have forwarded this thread to the NAACL (National Association for the Advancement of Crabs and Lobsters) for review, as this is in direct violation of the 31st amendment.
That doesn't even exist, and there is no 31st amendment. Is this your idea of a joke?

Wow, you obviously need to brush up on your politics. You really do need an encyclopedia set.

Or you can just try wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_association_for_the_advancement_of_crabs_and_lobsters

Paranoia · Sep 24, 2008 10:26 PM

Atresac wrote:

DDR_Maniac wrote:
Atresac wrote:
DDR_Maniac wrote:
You don't rescue food. -__- I'm not answering because your example isn't relevant to cats and dogs.
I find your stance extremely racist.
I have forwarded this thread to the NAACL (National Association for the Advancement of Crabs and Lobsters) for review, as this is in direct violation of the 31st amendment.
That doesn't even exist, and there is no 31st amendment. Is this your idea of a joke?
Wow, you obviously need to brush up on your politics. You really do need an encyclopedia set.
Or you can just try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_association_for_the_advancement_of_crabs_and_lobsters

You are hilarious.

Kamineko · Sep 24, 2008 10:27 PM

I know.

I make jokes hurrrrr

#1 Sep 24, 2008 9:00 PM

Can they do this?

#2 Sep 24, 2008 9:04 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#3 Sep 24, 2008 9:09 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#4 Sep 24, 2008 9:12 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#5 Sep 24, 2008 9:22 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#6 Sep 24, 2008 9:30 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#7 Sep 24, 2008 9:37 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#8 Sep 24, 2008 9:40 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#9 Sep 24, 2008 9:42 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#10 Sep 24, 2008 9:43 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#11 Sep 24, 2008 9:45 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#12 Sep 24, 2008 9:59 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#13 Sep 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#14 Sep 24, 2008 10:05 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#15 Sep 24, 2008 10:06 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#16 Sep 24, 2008 10:10 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#17 Sep 24, 2008 10:11 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#18 Sep 24, 2008 10:14 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#19 Sep 24, 2008 10:17 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#20 Sep 24, 2008 10:21 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#21 Sep 24, 2008 10:23 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#22 Sep 24, 2008 10:24 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#23 Sep 24, 2008 10:25 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#24 Sep 24, 2008 10:26 PM

Re: Can they do this?

#25 Sep 24, 2008 10:27 PM

Re: Can they do this?

Board footer