401–410 of 493 posts
If he care the dog so much, the question is why is he trusting it to some stranger ?
Maybe he loves his dog such that he is willing to go out of his way and even pay someone to walk the dog when life outside of home happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't argue with an opinion, but this is just mind-blowing to me. Judging by everyone else's comments, it doesn't appear like yours is an isolated opinion either. I'm just at a total loss for words. I had no idea so many people value animal life above human life.
Please tell me - where exactly do you draw the value of human life from? What exactly makes human life more valuable than any other life? I'm asking honestly, in the hopes that it's something less delusional than appeal to "soul" or "god" (which would immediately terminate all discussion, FWIW)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's not what "first world problems" means. That's for people making a big deal about trivial problems. This isn't trivial, it's terrible.
Why I agree this is terrible, you might want to reconsider your comment also. Pets are a luxury for well-off people. It is in no way a necessity of life like food, or a basic shelter.
We had a similar (but thankfully, less serious) thing happen with Rover. We booked a dog sitter for 4 days with a woman named "Leslie". When we showed up to "Leslie's" place, the lady who we met did not match the person in the photo, and barely spoke any english. We were on our way to the airport, so I really didn't have a choice at that point but to leave our dog (I realize now I should have done more vetting, or me…
> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point…
The vetting is 'crowd-sourced' with customer reviews, no? If 'Bill' thinks 'Leslie' is a great walker... what more should wag or rover need to do? Vet Bill now too!? That's just crazy talk...
there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.
We had a similar (but thankfully, less serious) thing happen with Rover. We booked a dog sitter for 4 days with a woman named "Leslie". When we showed up to "Leslie's" place, the lady who we met did not match the person in the photo, and barely spoke any english. We were on our way to the airport, so I really didn't have a choice at that point but to leave our dog (I realize now I should have done more vetting, or me…
> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate you responding and explaining your perspective, even though we may disagree on the issue. > 1/2 the world treats dogs as family Do you think that half the world, if given the choice between saving either their dog or a stranger's child in a disaster situation (e.g. a house fire), would choose their dog?
I'm going to say after reading some of the other responses that there's something seriously fucked up about the idea that you would save your dog. If you even, for a minute, thought that saving a dog with a life expectancy of 10-20 years tops living as a pet for someone's indulgence is remotely comparable to saving a child - who might live to 80 as an independent being - give yourself an uppercut. I'm a dog lover and…
Why don't people feel that they should sacrifice themselves and carry their grief and their emotional loss, and save the child?
I agree with some others in this thread, those that would save their pet are selfish beyond my wildest imagination. To save themselves the grief of losing a subjective family member they sacrifice human life for what is to outside observers just an animal.
Be as you want to be, but in this I feel justified in judging those people most harshly indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These services like Wag and Rover have literally one job, and that is to make sure you trust the individuals watching your pet. I think this is where the key incentive misalignment is. These companies are rent-seeking, meaning they have a strong incentive to lower marginal costs. Vetting has to be the largest component of that so it's likely to be cut (or just dropped entirely). But the vetting is the entire point…
That's not what rent-seeking means; I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't surprise me at all. My dog is part of my family. She comes before any stranger.
I can't argue with an opinion, but this is just mind-blowing to me. Judging by everyone else's comments, it doesn't appear like yours is an isolated opinion either. I'm just at a total loss for words. I had no idea so many people value animal life above human life.
Many people manifestly value inanimate property, as long as it is theirs, over human life outside of close friends and family, so is it really a surprise that that is also true of family pets?