Commies want to kill your dog?

[FlyersFan]

I don't know what you are talking about.

It's not complicated.
If you can't afford to properly take care of a pet, then you can't own one.
Woke idiots saying everyone should be able to have a pet no matter if 
they can properly take care of them or not is ABUSE OF ANIMALS.

[PorkChop96]

Well the township eventually agreed that it was their responsibility too, so, yes, whatever the reasons behind the problem, the problems need to be dealt with was their end position.

That reply was not about the township taking care of feral cats......


Why should I be responsible for someone else's animals? 

If I can't afford a car, I don't get a car. If I can't afford a home, I don't get to own a home. If I can't afford to take care of a child, I don't have one. If you can't afford to take care of an animal, do the right thing and don't get one until you can.

[FlyersFan]

Communities should provide help to owners/pets, and not tell them what they can and cannot do. 

You really are a communist, aren't ya'?
No ... it's not the responsibility of tax payers to pay for poor people to be able to have pets.
It's the responsibility of the pet owner ... PERIOD.
If you can't afford to properly have a pet then you can't have one.
Otherwise, it's animal abuse.
Woke idiots trying to fill a quota on skin color/economic background of animal owners are animal abusers.

[quintessentone]

It's not complicated.
If you can't afford to properly take care of a pet, then you can't own one.
Woke idiots saying everyone should be able to have a pet no matter if 
they can properly take care of them or not is ABUSE OF ANIMALS.

It is very complicated, the animal/human connection and nobody has any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do.

As I said, animal abuse and cruelty come from all types of people, in many different forms.

[quintessentone]

That reply was not about the township taking care of feral cats......


Why should I be responsible for someone else's animals? 

If I can't afford a car, I don't get a car. If I can't afford a home, I don't get to own a home. If I can't afford to take care of a child, I don't have one. If you can't afford to take care of an animal, do the right thing and don't get one until you can.

If you can't afford a car you simply won't be able to get a car. If you can't afford a home the government will provide a subsidized one for you, if not, then the streets will be your new home. If you can't afford a child well that stops nobody from having a child and again the government will step in to assist. If you can afford to feed an animal but not the over-priced vet bills, that stops nobody from giving an animal a home and love. If an elderly person gets a pet to stave off loneliness then dies, then again the government is there for the animal (or our tax dollars are there). But this thread is about bashing minorities who are the culprits and abusers of animals, right?

[quintessentone]

You really are a communist, aren't ya'?
No ... it's not the responsibility of tax payers to pay for poor people to be able to have pets.
It's the responsibility of the pet owner ... PERIOD.
If you can't afford to properly have a pet then you can't have one.
Otherwise, it's animal abuse.
Woke idiots trying to fill a quota on skin color/economic background of animal owners are animal abusers.

Well then all Western governments must be communists because there are, and have been for a while, programs in place to handle abandoned, stray, sick, abused etc. animals with our tax dollars. All these programs are in place because it was realized long ago that responsibility as a pet owner goes only so far and that is just the reality of the situation and still the problems need to be dealt with. Always has, always will. It's the way it is in Western societies.

Cruelty and abuse come in many different ways from many different kinds of people, with many different kinds of mental illnesses no matter their skin color/economic background.

[FlyersFan]

It is very complicated, the animal/human connection and nobody has any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do.

No it's not complicated.   If a person can't afford to properly own a pet then they can't have one.  Very simple.  Anything else other than that is animal abuse.   And yes, people have a right to tell others what they can and can not do when it comes to abuse of animals and other humans.   The law says so.   So does the higher law ... Gods law.  

You advocate animal abuse all in the name of woke politics.   Horrifying.

[FlyersFan]

Well then all Western governments must be communists ...

FAIL.
You advocate people having pets who can't afford to properly take care of them.
That's advocating for abuse of animals.
Tax payers should not be burdened with taking care of pets for poor people.
That's absurd and it's communism.

[Oldcarpy2]

I used to prosecute animal cruelty cases when in private practice for the RSPCA.

Some horrible cases.

I still do now for farm animals.

I like to think I am doing good for critters that can't speak for themselves.

[quintessentone]

FAIL.
You advocate people having pets who can't afford to properly take care of them.
That's advocating for abuse of animals.
Tax payers should not be burdened with taking care of pets for poor people.
That's absurd and it's communism.

I never said I advocated for people who can't afford pets to own pets, I said it's a societal reality that people who can't afford the vet bills still have the lawful right to have pets. That's why there are government programs in place because we all in society are expected by our governments (via their use of our tax dollars) to deal with each others needs and problems. That's how a responsible government and society works. So Western governments with animal welfare programs in place are then communist by your definition.