Skip to main content

Euthanasia Theory

Why is it that most people are fine with the idea of putting a pet to sleep, but they find it immoral and unacceptable to do something similar with people?

I have a theory as to why this is. Many of us see our pets like little kids. They're sweet, innocent and uncorrupted by the world in which they live. You can have the best or worst day of your life and they'll run up to you and sit on your lap or give you a kiss, with their tail wagging perhaps. It doesn't even matter what you say to them. It all depends on the tone of your voice. You could speak to them in four different languages in a two-minute span and they wouldn't know the difference. They'd continue to love you. There's no obligation to go out and buy them a bouquet of flowers on Valentine's Day or to get them something expensive for their birthday. All they want is some food, water and attention and they'll be happy. Due to all this, I think it pains most people to see pets suffer, because we don't feel that they deserve that. They're innocent, sweet, have not been corrupted, are loving and the only time they made you mad is when they made a statement about not getting enough attention. So, when they don't seem happy anymore, don't move around much, don't eat a whole lot and seem to have lost all love for life, we're not as hesitant to say, "Maybe we should put him/her to sleep. I hate to see him/her suffer like that."

But with people, it's a different story. We're all the same species, know that none of us are innocent, that we've been corrupted in one way or another and in an odd way, I think somewhere deep down inside, we believe that humans deserve to suffer, in knowing all that we do about our species. Maybe dogs have the same outlook on dogs as we do about humans, they see their owners as superior to all others, so they don't believe that euthanasia should exist in the human world.

It's also possible that many humans believe that we're the superior species, so the lives of our pets are less important than our own. Some may even compare it to suicide and giving up on life.

I doubt too many people would admit to the first potential reason I listed, but I can see more admitting to the second and third potential reasons. It's just difficult for many people to compare pets with humans and that's understandable for a variety of reasons, but pets are like children in many ways. They can brighten our lives on any given day with a simple smile or wag of the tail.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...