Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 985098" data-attributes="member: 8439"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />  I hate to break it to you, but almost everyone who owns a pet goes against its basic evolutionary needs. It can considered good pet ownership in fact. You should not have a pet if you endanger or harm the animal whether or not you are going against those needs.The most basic of all evolutionary needs is to reproduce. Its the whole point of evolution. And yet, with few exceptions, preventing that from happening is a hallmark of responsible pet ownership. We do it for our own convinience as individuals and a society. Now if a pet owner decided that the way thay wanted to impose this change was by performing a home abortion on their dog or cat each time it became clear she was pregnant, that would be irresponsible pet ownership. If a pet owner decided they wanted their cats to be vegitarian and did it by feeding them a vegitarian dog food and malnurishing it, that would also be irresponsible pet ownership. But neither would be irresponsible due to "going against a basic evolutionary need" it would because they were damaging their pet's health.Thats leaving aside the fact that my cat (and many others) doesn't ever "consume flesh". She comsumes a dry kibble that she likes very much. Her lifestyle wouldn't be impacted in the slightest if I switched her over to the diet my friends use. It was strongly impacted by my decision to spay her. So the idea that this says anything about a persons qualifications to own a pet... I'd say brings your qualifications for the same strongly into question.Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

Verification