- Dec 1, 2011
- 22,355
- 18,315
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
And we spend more, orders of magnitude more in some cases, on other nonessentials, why the focus on pets?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And we spend more, orders of magnitude more in some cases, on other nonessentials, why the focus on pets?Never said pets should cease to exist. I simply said we got our priorities wrong it seems if we spend more money on dog and cat food than we do on feeding the starving people of this world. Think about it carefully. What I said is a fact.
If world hunger could be solved with 30 billion dollars, then it begs the question why some people have more than 30 billion dollars or why the world's most wealthy and powerful governments don't spend the money to truly address world hunger.
For one, it's certainly far more complicated than that. Assuming the 30 billion dollar figure is true, it's still going to be more complicated than just having the money and spending it.
For another, why does the US government spend 30 times more than that every year on the military, there is a truly exorbitant amount of money that goes into military spending that far exceeds what any other nation spends, an absurd amount of money. We could cut military spending by half and we'd still be spending more than any other country, we'd still have the world's strongest military.
That I'm over here buying food for my dog isn't the problem, morally, as it pertains to the needs of the hungry. That those with the wealth and the power and the means do nearly nothing is the issue--and that's always been the issue throughout history. Wealth and power are in the hands of the very few, while the majority struggle to survive.
Passing the buck to the little people who are struggling to get by is just an example of the tools the powerful use to absolve themselves of responsibility.
-CryptoLutheran
Never said pets should cease to exist. I simply said we got our priorities wrong it seems if we spend more money on dog and cat food than we do on feeding the starving people of this world. Think about it carefully. What I said is a fact.
I also got a free cat tree given to me that fits perfectly in my studio apartment, etc, but after almost five years of use now, I am going to have to re-carpet it at some point, etc...I have two cats, and they use about a 30 dollar (now) large bag of cat food that I buy, and they go through, about every two months, etc, and about a 15 dollar bucket of cat litter about every month and a half between the two of them, and I don't have to buy them much anything else, except maybe about 10 small cans of canned cat food that I give them only as a special treat, about every two or three days, and they are 70 cents a piece I think, so 7 dollars a month, and luckily, with cats, in the toy department, etc, they seem to love cardboard boxes and paper bags a whole heck of a lot more than any other kinds of toys you could get them at walmart or at the pet store, that they quickly tire of anyway, whereas cardboard boxes and paper bags, and maybe string sometimes, etc, never gets old for them, etc, and it's basically free, etc, oh, and I have also experimented with a cheap laser toy with them, which they still go nuts for, etc, so, if we do the math...?
30 times 6 is 180, and 15 times 9 is 135, and 7 times 12 is 84, that's about 400 dollars a year, rounding up by 1 dollar, etc, which is also 33-34 dollars a month or so, etc...
Well, well, worth it to me for the companionship/entertainment they provide, and the love they show me, and the peace and joy and happiness they bring into my life, etc...
They are indoor cats, so I have only had to take only one of them to the vet only one time in the whole of the five years I've had them now so far, and the whole thing was only about 60-65 dollars total that one time, etc...
I will take care of them when they get old or until they die however, animals, or any other life you take on personally in your own life, etc, is a lifetime commitment to me in my life, etc...
I think my priorities, are just fine, etc...
God Bless!
I also got a free cat tree given to me that fits perfectly in my studio apartment, etc, but after almost five years of use now, I am going to have to re-carpet it at some point, etc...
Oh, and they also have to have a scratch post also, etc, which is about 30 dollars or so every few years, etc...
God Bless!
I've done raised kids already, who all want nothing to do with me right now, (they are too busy and live kind of far away right now, etc) and I did give them the experience of having both cats and dogs, and of puppies and kittens being born, and taking care of them, etc, even had a couple of rats as pets, etc, you'd be surprised how good of pets rats actually are, or can be, or can make, etc, they are very gentle, etc, but, since they (my kids) are all too busy for dad anymore right now, and dad and mom split up, etc, it's just me and my animals right now, and that's just fine by me right now, etc...This is another good point. I love my dogs and cats as I said and sometimes I love them more than I would love humans (easily). But the facts are the facts. God desires humans more than he desires animals. He would rather we be taking care of children and raising children than to be pampering dogs and cats like royalty spending all our time and money on them.
Never said pets should cease to exist. I simply said we got our priorities wrong it seems if we spend more money on dog and cat food than we do on feeding the starving people of this world. Think about it carefully. What I said is a fact.
Naturally you consider it a personal decision because you are an individualist first and not a Christian.
Children are a consolation for most and have been throughout most of history. It's what's given men and women meaning in their lives and perhaps the greatest lasting accomplishment they will ever have in their lives.
Also, why should I respect modern people's thoughts on this subject above the ancient and venerable tradition which has been handed on to us since the bronze age? You seem to think that because this attitude is old it's wrong.
The government spends how many trillions on war?But I once heard that all it would take is about 30 billion dollars a year and we'd end world hunger but americans
alone spend 30 billion a year on pet food (dog/cat).
And if there has been a drought with no rivers to fish or to water crops, then they should move to the rainforest. God will provide.The government spends how many trillions on war?
You don't end world hunger. The problem is the mentality of people: give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man how to fish, feed him for life. And some people do not, will not, or cannot be taught how to fish. Poverty and world hunger will never end because some people have a slave mentality. They would rather be taken care of than to take care of themselves; and I'm not taking care of someone who refuses to take care of themselves.
I'll feed my cats, they at least will bring me mice to offer their gratitude. I don't get that from people. No. I've heard how they throw food away at the food banks.
Helping people in a tragedy is different than ending world hunger. But to answer your question, if their resources are exhausted and not coming back anytime soon, then yes, they need to move. That seems pretty self-explanatory.And if there has been a drought with no rivers to fish or to water crops, then they should move to the rainforest. God will provide.
Sadly there is too much corruption and logistical issues that prevent world.hunger.to be addressed even if all the world pitched.in. It's really a stain on humanity that we have such unnecessary suffering.I'm a huge animal lover. I must even confess that I probably love animals more than I do most people.
I love cats, dogs, just about anything cute and furry.
But I once heard that all it would take is about 30 billion dollars a year and we'd end world hunger but americans
alone spend 30 billion a year on pet food (dog/cat).
So we are essentially choosing to take care of dogs and cats more than our fellow human beings.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this? Do you think God would be displeased that we care more and spend more money
on our own dogs and cats than we do for hungry and dying human beings?
Also, my part time pastor has 2 cats and spends more time with them than he does with his actual congregation because
he spends 0 time with us. He's not a bad guy. I do like him still, and I realize he's just part-time cuz that's all the church
can afford to pay him but I find it odd that he actually spends more time, energy, and money on his cats than he does his
own sheep at church. Is this concerning?
If world hunger could be solved with 30 billion dollars, then it begs the question why some people have more than 30 billion dollars or why the world's most wealthy and powerful governments don't spend the money to truly address world hunger.
For one, it's certainly far more complicated than that. Assuming the 30 billion dollar figure is true, it's still going to be more complicated than just having the money and spending it.
For another, why does the US government spend 30 times more than that every year on the military, there is a truly exorbitant amount of money that goes into military spending that far exceeds what any other nation spends, an absurd amount of money. We could cut military spending by half and we'd still be spending more than any other country, we'd still have the world's strongest military.
That I'm over here buying food for my dog isn't the problem, morally, as it pertains to the needs of the hungry. That those with the wealth and the power and the means do nearly nothing is the issue--and that's always been the issue throughout history. Wealth and power are in the hands of the very few, while the majority struggle to survive.
Passing the buck to the little people who are struggling to get by is just an example of the tools the powerful use to absolve themselves of responsibility.
-CryptoLutheran
not everyone deserves, needs or wants children. I am not God, but I would certainly whether a child be wanted and cared for as opposed to just here to have people on this Earth. For example, as someone with a moderate case of CP I cannot care for myself do I need to be bringing children into this world that would be a STRONG no. For this reason I really do not "like" children either ( mostly because I do not have the patience for things that children just do as children. I mean they are OK and I certainly would not abuse them or tolerate such abuse from others, However, I am also not likely to be helping out with children in a volunteer setting and heavens no I am not going to babysit your child.I think God is more displeased that people are willing to have pets before having children these days.
The love for animals is crazy. I have seen people who claim that animals and humans are equal. I have seen people rejoicing how animals killed humans. This is not normal.I'm a huge animal lover. I must even confess that I probably love animals more than I do most people.
I love cats, dogs, just about anything cute and furry.
But I once heard that all it would take is about 30 billion dollars a year and we'd end world hunger but americans
alone spend 30 billion a year on pet food (dog/cat).
So we are essentially choosing to take care of dogs and cats more than our fellow human beings.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this? Do you think God would be displeased that we care more and spend more money
on our own dogs and cats than we do for hungry and dying human beings?
Also, my part time pastor has 2 cats and spends more time with them than he does with his actual congregation because
he spends 0 time with us. He's not a bad guy. I do like him still, and I realize he's just part-time cuz that's all the church
can afford to pay him but I find it odd that he actually spends more time, energy, and money on his cats than he does his
own sheep at church. Is this concerning?
Helping people in a tragedy is different than ending world hunger. But to answer your question, if their resources are exhausted and not coming back anytime soon, then yes, they need to move. That seems pretty self-explanatory.
And if the US government pulled out of countries and stopped causing trouble every where we went and spent our money to help people rather than sell weapons and start wars, these people would better off and far more capable of survival. There are multiple reasons for world hunger; corrupt government is at the top of the list, weather is next, and individual incompetence next. You might be able to solve the first two problems, but you'll never fix the last.
not everyone deserves, needs or wants children. I am not God, but I would certainly whether a child be wanted and cared for as opposed to just here to have people on this Earth. For example, as someone with a moderate case of CP I cannot care for myself do I need to be bringing children into this world that would be a STRONG no. For this reason I really do not "like" children either ( mostly because I do not have the patience for things that children just do as children. I mean they are OK and I certainly would not abuse them or tolerate such abuse from others, However, I am also not likely to be helping out with children in a volunteer setting and heavens no I am not going to babysit your child.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?