More N.O stupidity - won't evacuate witout pets

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

More N.O stupidity - won't evacuate witout pets

Postby kiryan » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:27 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/ ... index.html

pets... if your too stupid to evacuate without your pet, i'm not going to get worked up that you died...

p.s. i'm sure a lot of people would evacuate if they could take their house. federal government to investigate serious deficienies in the ability for rescue workers to move buildings.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:44 pm

Now you hate animals?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: More N.O stupidity - won't evacuate witout pets

Postby ssar » Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:41 am

kiryan wrote:if your too stupid to evacuate without your pet,


Exactly. People that are too stupid to not cater for thier (real) pets (i.e. dogs, horses, budgies - not pet rocks, mice etc.) and take them with them when they evacuate should not have had those pets in the first place.

That's all a part of having a pet - being able and prepared to take them with you when you have to, especially when lving in an area somewhat prone to risks that may lead to evac.

Get those defense forces in there and ship as many animals as poss away from the danger zone too!
Bilraex
Sojourner
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Bilraex » Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:20 pm

but it wasnt that easy to get pets out, most of the buses would'nt let people bring their small pets with them. I can understand not having the room to bring a bull mastiff with you but not allowing people to bring their 2 lb terrier was just stupid. I have 3 small dogs and they take up less room, less food and behave better than 90% of those whining brats in the superdome
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:38 pm

ssar,

I so agree. people who can't take care of themselves or their kids have no business with pets.

they should make it illegal for people on welfare to have pets.

---

bilraex,

pets cause problems. with a huge and chaotic task such as evacuating a large population you need to eliminate extra work. the government should not have to waste its time with people's pets.

you couldn't possibly allow people to bring their small pets with them. you would have to put them in cages, and probably transport them separately or people would be letting them out of the cages. Without caging them you have a whole host of issues with pets jumping off laps, barking or meowing, pissing and sh*ting, mildly injuring fellow passengers, severe allergies, rabies, ect ect ect... you just can't do it effectively.

Lets say you allow pets to come on board, what do you do when the first person dies as a failry direct result of a pet? like someone calls someones pet something stupid then gets stabbed. one pet kills another pet and the owners kill one another? or a pet gets away from the owner and the owner gets trampled. or someone dies from an allergy attack? what do you do then? have the government sued for wrongful death? chalk another dead person up in the died so people could save their pets column?
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:18 am

I kind of have to agree with Kiryan here. If people were allowed to take unrestrained (not caged) pets onto the bus, there would be several safety issues. At the same time, I can understand people not wanting to leave their pets behind. Some pets become children to some people. They are part of the family and they could no more leave them than they could leave behind a toddler.

At the same time, people need to realize that in the U.S. we put more value on human life than we do upon animals.

At the same time, people who think animals are as important as humans tend to underestimate an animal's instincts. When the tsunami hit in Southeast Asia, not 1 zoo animal died. They had all made higher ground well before the wave was even visible to humans.

If pet owners had let their animals out when the animals wanted to go out, there probably would not need to be a way to evacuate them.

Just my 2 cents.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:55 am

PETA kills thousands of animals each year.

Enough said.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Arilin Nydelahar
Sojourner
Posts: 1499
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Virginia Beach
Contact:

Postby Arilin Nydelahar » Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:05 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:PETA kills thousands of animals each year.

Enough said.


That has dick to do with this argument. PETA is a nutball group.

Last I checked, this thread was about people not taking pets with them when they were leaving town and why some people don't like that. Bringing PETA up has absolutely nothing to do with that.

And for the record, if you can't afford to take your dog or whatever with you, if you live in an area that gets hurricanes every year then you shouldn't have the dog in the first place.

You damn well know at somepoint you're going to have to evacuate and if you can't take the dog or cat or whatever(well, maybe not cats, no one likes cats) then you shouldn't own one.
Shevarash OOC: 'what can I say, I'm attracted to crazy chicks and really short dudes'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:35 pm

Apparantly, what's enough for most people isn't enough for Arilin.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Postby kiryan » Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:43 pm

To some degree I can understand and appreciate people's attachment to their pets. I can understand programs and diversity training that calls for people to come to an understanding that some people regard their pets as children and treat them with sympathy and consideration when their pets die.

However, when it comes to emergency, chaos, general public, consideration goes out the window. the means justify the ends.
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:49 pm

I guess they'd have to have separate busses for the people who are allergic and asthmatic of for people who just dont care for animals.

I get waaaay too addicted to my pets, they become my children. In an evacuation situation I dont know what I'd do. If I could take my pets, I'd make every best effort to get the pet out. If it was between a human life and my pet, no contest (unless it was Larim:P)
"When a child is born, so is a grandmother."

-Italian Proverb
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:35 pm

Ambar wrote:I guess they'd have to have separate busses for the people who are allergic and asthmatic of for people who just dont care for animals.

I get waaaay too addicted to my pets, they become my children. In an evacuation situation I dont know what I'd do. If I could take my pets, I'd make every best effort to get the pet out. If it was between a human life and my pet, no contest (unless it was Larim:P)


Exactly. human life vs pet life. that's what it comes down to.

in reference to poor people not being allow to have pet, it might be asking poor people not to have lots of kids. people will do whatever they want to and i dont forsee a law thats going to discriminate poor people from owning pet or breeding for more kids. unless we're in china, where more pet equal a more balance diet.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:48 pm

OMG sok

i have spent YEARS trying to convince my friends and everyone else that poor people should not be allowed to keep breeding. being poor is like a disease, it spreads like wildfire and it is nearly impossible for most to overcome. in all honesty, i myself would not be alive under my criteria, as my parents were poor, but it would be a worthy sacrifice!
Llaaldara
Sojourner
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Dobluth Kyor

Postby Llaaldara » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:56 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Now you hate animals?


He just wants to be left at home a lone.
Verarb
Sojourner
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Verarb » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:36 pm

sok wrote: unless we're in china, where more pet equal a more balance diet.


Hahah that cracks me up.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest