What is a pet worth?

[Valsuelm]

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

 

I was actually thinking similar, as if I find myself in a situation where some irrational and hysterical humans are telling me it's one of them or my ~20 pound dog in a boat, that's not a group of humans I want to be with in a life or death situation, nor a group of humans I'd deem worthy of saving, so I may hurry their demise along right quick to ensure my own well being as well as those I care about.

 

Not all strangers would be worth saving even without the dogs in the picture. Some actually would be quite detrimental to one's own health. Queue some 'Walking Dead' episodes for some hypothetical examples. In fact, this week's 'Fear the Walking Dead' is looking to contain such an example in spades.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

Well I certainly hope I'm in the boat with GD, and not Vals.  

is unlikely hurl and val would ever be on the same boat... 'cause val would no doubt refuse a berth on what is obviously a cia front meant to ship weapons, drugs and human slaves to _________, with the military-industrial complex using its control o' the media to camouflage hurl's ship o' fools from public view... but you would know all o' this if you would just read the Constitution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

What is the one lesson the Walking Dead has taught us? Your Tribe > Their Tribe! 

[Guard Dog]

 

Well I certainly hope I'm in the boat with GD, and not Vals.  

is unlikely hurl and val would ever be on the same boat... 'cause val would no doubt refuse a berth on what is obviously a cia front meant to ship weapons, drugs and human slaves to _________, with the military-industrial complex using its control o' the media to camouflage hurl's ship o' fools from public view... but you would know all o' this if you would just read the Constitution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yep, it's true. It's all right there in Article 8. Go see for yourself! 

[BruceVC]

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

I'm glad some people are saying " they would save there dog ", its not  a ridiculous question as there are numerous examples of people leaving there inheritances to there pets and not to any members of there families. I'm fairly sure people who would consider there pets more important than there families would definitely throw a stranger out a boat instead of there pets

 

http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/pets-that-inherited-a-fortune

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11354682/Woman-leaves-1m-to-pet-dog-in-will-instead-of-her-two-sons.html

[Guard Dog]

Well, I haven't left any money to my dogs but I have made provisions for them if I die in my will. My lawyer is to act as their agent and try to place them with a rescue group. If a group will take them they get a $10k donation from my insurance so long as they will not be boarded. Foster homes only. That's the best I could do for them. My brother and his family get everything else. 

[Valsuelm]

 

I'm glad some people are saying " they would save there dog ", its not  a ridiculous question as there are numerous examples of people leaving there inheritances to there pets and not to any members of there families. I'm fairly sure people who would consider there pets more important than there families would definitely throw a stranger out a boat instead of there pets.

Some kids aren't deserving of a penny of inheritance. That said, some parents are total Fwads.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Well I certainly hope I'm in the boat with GD, and not Vals.  

is unlikely hurl and val would ever be on the same boat... 'cause val would no doubt refuse a berth on what is obviously a cia front meant to ship weapons, drugs and human slaves to _________, with the military-industrial complex using its control o' the media to camouflage hurl's ship o' fools from public view... but you would know all o' this if you would just read the Constitution.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yep, it's true. It's all right there in Article 8. Go see for yourself! 

 

 

I see ignored ogreboy is still trying to troll me.

 

He is right in that I likely wouldn't ever be on a boat with Hurl, at least not one that had strangers on it. As fond as I am of boating and the ocean, I am not fond of such things as 'cruises'. In the unlikely event I was ever on a boat with Hurl and my dog, chances are very high we'd know everyone on board. As for the rest, well... lala land.

[Valsuelm]

Well, I haven't left any money to my dogs but I have made provisions for them if I die in my will. My lawyer is to act as their agent and try to place them with a rescue group. If a group will take them they get a $10k donation from my insurance so long as they will not be boarded. Foster homes only. That's the best I could do for them. My brother and his family get everything else. 

 

You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a foster group to accept them if such a donation is given. My sister has been involved with one that certainly would take them. Tis a shame you don't have anyone in your life that could/would take them. Hopefully you don't predecease your dogs. Hopefully you can trust your lawyer and your lawyer is resourceful enough to do what would need to be done.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

 

Well, I haven't left any money to my dogs but I have made provisions for them if I die in my will. My lawyer is to act as their agent and try to place them with a rescue group. If a group will take them they get a $10k donation from my insurance so long as they will not be boarded. Foster homes only. That's the best I could do for them. My brother and his family get everything else. 

 

You shouldn't have too much trouble finding a foster group to accept them if such a donation is given. My sister has been involved with one that certainly would take them. Tis a shame you don't have anyone in your life that could/would take them. Hopefully you don't predecease your dogs. Hopefully you can trust your lawyer and your lawyer is resourceful enough to do what would need to be done.

 

LOL. me too considering one of them is almost 11! But knowing me, if it happens in 10 years or 40 years odds are I'll have at least one dog when the end does come. I would sleep better knowing they will be cared for.  As for the laywer, I don't like her much but I do trust her and her partners. 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

I dont know dude, dogs may not be able to write a  symphony but they also not condescending, unfaithful, cruel, malicious or judgmental? You dont think that is a fair trade?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

 

I dont know dude, dogs may not be able to write a  symphony but they also not condescending, unfaithful, cruel, malicious or judgmental? You dont think that is a fair trade?

 

No, I don't. A dog has no demonstrable capacity to judge on a meaningful level, so its preferences are autonomic and hollow. This is both true for choice of food as it is for people. Have you seen a cuddly house cat viciously maim an smaller creature then leave it to slowly die once it bored of its novelty? Can the fidelity of a toy with no respectable judgement be compared to the cognizant loyalty of a human?

 

You're projecting qualities that don't exist, then making arbitrary pardons for, or outright ignoring what does exist.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

Some dogs certainly do appreciate symphonies. One of mine loves classical music, not so much most other music. The other isn't really phased either way, at least not obviously, other than I can tell he'd like me to turn it down sometimes. My mother has a dog that absolutely loves to watch TV. Dogs aren't going to write them though, you're right on that. But neither will the vast majority of other humans out there. Also, hypothetical symphony writer might be an all around ugly human in every other way. Some dogs have abilities humans do not, and vice versa. And as for providing insight into the nature of reality, one of my dogs did once, though not in a manner where he said 'yo Vals, here's the thing'. I learned something important by watching him. One can learn important things by watching people, animals, and other things, then reflecting. Truth is, the vast majority of people are just as incapable of providing me with any more insight on reality via conversation as my dog is.

 

Humans are not equal. That's a culturally Marxist aberrant contortion of the idea of equal rights under the law (something I agree that humans should have). Dogs are not equal either. Both species comes in all shapes, sizes, levels of intelligence, qualities of being, etc.. Some dogs should be put down. So should some humans. At the very heart of the definition of a 'stranger' is one does not know what one is dealing with. And when one does not know, humans on average by far pose a greater potential threat than dogs on average.

 

So, in light of that, in a generic situation where I'm faced with saving 6 strange humans or a dog I know, I'm more than likely going to go with the dog I know. It'd really be a situational thing though. It'd have to be a judgement call on the fly, and perhaps said strange humans might give me a compelling reason where I'd want to save them. I can also say that I'd probably save one strange human over six strange dogs, though again, I'd have to be in the situation, and read the individual as best I could as well as the dogs. I may try and save everyone, but as I said in a previous post, depending on the situation, I may try and save no one.

 

There is no self loathing involved in such thinking, at least for most. On the contrary, self love and self preservation are likely involved in such thinking for most. Valuing individuals of one species, particularly one where a relationship exists, over individuals of another, where a relationship does not exist, is not the same as valuing the whole of one over the whole of another. You're making a correlation where one does not exist for most.

 

Also, you're a fool if you think that dogs are as simplistic as plants, or equate much to them. There might be some individuals that do, as there might be some humans that do as well, but overall, no. And that said, there's been studies that show apparently even some plants like music.

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

Some dogs certainly do appreciate symphonies. One of mine loves classical music, not so much most other music. The other isn't really phased either way, at least not obviously, other than I can tell he'd like me to turn it down sometimes. My mother has a dog that absolutely loves to watch TV. Dogs aren't going to write them though, you're right on that. But neither will the vast majority of other humans out there. Also, hypothetical symphony writer might be an all around ugly human in every other way. Some dogs have abilities humans do not, and vice versa. And as for providing insight into the nature of reality, one of my dogs did once, though not in a manner where he said 'yo Vals, here's the thing'. I learned something important by watching him. One can learn important things by watching people, animals, and other things, then reflecting. Truth is, the vast majority of people are just as incapable of providing me with any more insight on reality via conversation as my dog is.

 

Humans are not equal. That's a culturally Marxist aberrant contortion of the idea of equal rights under the law (something I agree that humans should have). Dogs are not equal either. Both species comes in all shapes, sizes, levels of intelligence, qualities of being, etc.. Some dogs should be put down. So should some humans. At the very heart of the definition of a 'stranger' is one does not know what one is dealing with. And when one does not know, humans on average by far pose a greater potential threat than dogs on average.

 

So, in light of that, in a generic situation where I'm faced with saving 6 strange humans or a dog I know, I'm more than likely going to go with the dog I know. It'd really be a situational thing though. It'd have to be a judgement call on the fly, and perhaps said strange humans might give me a compelling reason where I'd want to save them. I can also say that I'd probably save one strange human over six strange dogs, though again, I'd have to be in the situation, and read the individual as best I could as well as the dogs. I may try and save everyone, but as I said in a previous post, depending on the situation, I may try and save no one.

 

There is no self loathing involved in such thinking, at least for most. On the contrary, self love and self preservation are likely involved in such thinking for most. Valuing individuals of one species, particularly one where a relationship exists, over individuals of another, where a relationship does not exist, is not the same as valuing the whole of one over the whole of another. You're making a correlation where one does not exist for most.

 

Also, you're a fool if you think that dogs are as simplistic as plants, or equate much to them. There might be some individuals that do, as there might be some humans that do as well, but overall, no. And that said, there's been studies that show apparently even some plants like music.

 

 

This is an interesting post and I agree with some of the points you raise 

[ShadySands]

Wow this has really gone off the rails

 

I thought the issue was about if the law should allow for recouping expenses incurred beyond market value if someone else is responsible for injuries or death to your pets. I agree with that but I'm not so sure about pain and suffering.

 

Anyway, I'll just see myself out

[HoonDing]

I'd sure choose my dog over any rapefugee daily entering Cuckrope.

[Guard Dog]

Wow this has really gone off the rails

 

I thought the issue was about if the law should allow for recouping expenses incurred beyond market value if someone else is responsible for injuries or death to your pets. I agree with that but I'm not so sure about pain and suffering.

 

Anyway, I'll just see myself out

Bah, few threads are still OT after page 3. Namutree hit the opposition argument pretty well. I just disagree. And to reiterate we are discussing actual damages. The plaintiff spent $67k to treat a dog worth nothing in the eyes of the law. But the value of the item should not be considered if the injured party spends more than the value to right the wrong. As I pointed out, if someone damaged my car and it cost $500 to fix and I spent the $500 it does not matter if my car was worth less than $500. If the plaintiff had not spent the money already and sued for the cost then the value of the dog becomes an issue. I think this case is a no-brainier. The money was spent, the negligence is not in dispute. Next case. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

I have no kind, I am the creative nothing and everything is my property. I will value my property as I see fit, if that means throwing over an ape to save a hound then I will act upon my desire.

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

 

To sort of co-opt an argument Hurlshot made in a different thread: in the modern, Western world, we are given the opportunity to not need to kill or hurt anyone else to survive, and to survive at least well enough...generally speaking. When that changes, when our civil society falls apart, when we're no longer afforded that luxury...it's foolish to we'd be the same people: we won't be. We will look to our own. If by "[something] gone awry with our species", you mean "something that all other tribalistic species BESIDES humans do", then okay, sure, I guess you can say that.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Valsuelm]

Wow this has really gone off the rails

 

Not really. The argument is still over a dog's worth for the most part. It's just expanded a bit, which is the natural result of discussion.

 

I'd say this is one of the most on topic threads there are at page 4 in WoT.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

I'd sure choose my dog over any rapefugee daily entering Cuckrope.

 

 

 

 

 

But now the  hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard"

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not

 

This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species.

 

A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua.

 

When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre.

 

I have no kind, I am the creative nothing and everything is my property. I will value my property as I see fit, if that means throwing over an ape to save a hound then I will act upon my desire.

 

Funny enough I was going to raise something similar 

 

I am being deadly serious when I say with no sense of guilt, if there was me and my pet and 6 members of ISIS in my boat I would throw the 6 ISIS people overboard without a pause ...in fact I would throw 6 ISIS members overboard even if I didn't have a pet 

 

So in summary I am saying there are people in this world whose life value I would consider less than a pet because of the horrendous deeds and actions they have committed 

[Hiro Protagonist]

I would pick 6 babes over a pet that's attacked somebody. There have been pets who have attacked family and the public. I'm deadly serious when I say I have no guilt throwing Cujo overboard to make room for 6 members of a cheer leader squad. So in summary, I am saying there are pets in this world whose life I would consider less than people because of the horrendous deeds and actions those pets have committed.

[BruceVC]

I would pick 6 babes over a pet that's attacked somebody. There have been pets who have attacked family and the public. I'm deadly serious when I say I have no guilt throwing Cujo overboard to make room for 6 members of a cheer leader squad. So in summary, I am saying there are pets in this world whose life I would consider less than people because of the horrendous deeds and actions those pets have committed.

You so clever Hiro comparing what horrific deeds a pet can do to group like ISIS

 

You insight never ceases to amaze 

[Zoraptor]

If there's even a 1% chance that Bruce is trolling, you must take it as an absolute certainty.

 

Really though, why throw the pet overboard. In a few days you'll be wishing you did the sensible thing and, uh,

 

 

ate it.