“’For the Dogs’ Has a Whole New Meaning”

I think Andrew Martin did an excellent job presenting his article “’For the Dogs’ Has a Whole New Meaning”.  I am the type of person that has a difficult time reading certain things that I don’t find interesting.  This article, however, successfully retained my attention all the way to the very end.  One particular reason I think it succeeded was because it sprinkled little bits of humor, especially towards the end, to keep the audience interested and attentive. 

Strangely enough, last semester I was in an ethics class, and we talked a bit about animal rights.  We learned of the idea that animals would have rights, but they would not be the same as humans as they don’t have the same necessities or ways of life.  Relating that to Professor Hollars’ question of whether or not I was persuaded of the value of pet luxury items, I would say no mainly for the following reason.  Unlike humans, I doubt most, if any, pets care for many luxurious items such as the fancy toys or outfits.  I doubt there will be much difference between getting a cheap toy and an expensive one in the eyes of a dog or cat.  Relating back to my time in my ethics class, pets don’t have the same kind of needs or wants as humans, and I think there is no point in overspending on something that will have the same effect.  Though, this is slightly different from my opinion of food for pets. 

I also have a response to what Miranda Spartz posted about human food versus dog food.  I honestly see no problem with humans and dogs having a similar diet or eating some of the same foods.  Other animals eat the same thing as each other, so why can’t humans?  Additionally, they would not sell “human food” as “dog food” if they knew it was toxic for the pets.  After all, it’s not like they are doing this randomly.  I believe that they are just using the same process as when they are making human food.