Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Asgardian
Just now, RiRi said:

Um, yeah, that was not meant in a negative way .... 😣

I know, just an observation. "Thinking autistic" is hardly surprising on here is all I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiRi
Just now, Asgardian said:

I know, just an observation. "Thinking autistic" is hardly surprising on here is all I am saying.

Yeah, I just hope people can be tolerant of all of our possible quirky ways. I've noticed that @Myrtonos is always thinking logically, that is an autistic trait and it can vary from person to person, the extent of it. Sometimes people can be extremely logical and don't realize there are feelings involved, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asgardian
Just now, RiRi said:

Yeah, I just hope people can be tolerant of all of our possible quirky ways. I've noticed that @Myrtonos is always thinking logically, that is an autistic trait and it can vary from person to person, the extent of it. Sometimes people can be extremely logical and don't realize there are feelings involved, etc. 

I understand what you mean.

@Willow If I am understanding correctly you have lost one or more pets recently. If so, I am sorry for your loss. I have never had a pet, but I imagine it must be very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Willow
3 minutes ago, Asgardian said:

I understand what you mean.

@Willow If I am understanding correctly you have lost one or more pets recently. If so, I am sorry for your loss. I have never had a pet, but I imagine it must be very difficult.

Yes I lost two this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asgardian
Just now, Willow said:

Yes I lost two this week.

I see. I am sorry to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Willow

It is flawed logic to assume that if you have many and you lose one that the pain will be less than if you have only one and lose it. Maybe this logic is better suited to something like sweets/candy. If you have lots of candy and you drop one, it's not so bad because you still have plenty left to enjoy. Pets are full of personality and losing one is not comforted by the fact you have more, because the others are all different. So, you had one like that, and you lost the only one like that. Yes you have more, but none that are like the one you lost, so it's not comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asgardian
4 minutes ago, Willow said:

It is flawed logic to assume that if you have many and you lose one that the pain will be less than if you have only one and lose it. Maybe this logic is better suited to something like sweets/candy. If you have lots of candy and you drop one, it's not so bad because you still have plenty left to enjoy. Pets are full of personality and losing one is not comforted by the fact you have more, because the others are all different. So, you had one like that, and you lost the only one like that. Yes you have more, but none that are like the one you lost, so it's not comparable.

Yes, good analogy. I can understand where @Myrtonos is coming from because I have very rigid thinking in some respects, but on this occasion I believe he is incorrect.

Edited by Asgardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nesf
9 hours ago, Myrtonos said:

Reply to @Asgardian as well. If you have one pet and you lose it, you end up with no living pets. But if you have a lot of them and lose just one, you still have plenty.

 

9 hours ago, Asgardian said:

So by that logic if you have one child and lose them you should grieve more than if you have three children and lose one. This logic is surely flawed 🤨

 

9 hours ago, Willow said:

It is flawed logic to assume that if you have many and you lose one that the pain will be less than if you have only one and lose it. Maybe this logic is better suited to something like sweets/candy. If you have lots of candy and you drop one, it's not so bad because you still have plenty left to enjoy. Pets are full of personality and losing one is not comforted by the fact you have more, because the others are all different. So, you had one like that, and you lost the only one like that. Yes you have more, but none that are like the one you lost, so it's not comparable.

Actually, @Myrtonos does have a point, and I understand what he is saying. In the past, and even today in some cultures, people had very different attitudes towards pets and children. The infant mortality rate was a lot higher, and it was common for families to have many children in the knowledge and expectation that not all will survive to adulthood. Also, those children would also be expected to work in the family business, school was not compulsory so fewer would go school. They had a much more pragmatic, practical approach to raising children. I'm not saying that they didn't love or care for their children, I'm just saying that families had different priorities and attitudes to those which exist today. Nowadays, in most Western cultures, this would be inconceivable; children are the continuation of genes and not labourers or ecomomic commodities. However, I do see some evidence for this kind of thinking when it comes to pets. For example, my parents always had dogs, and always more than one, and I think partly for this reason. It is easier to bear the loss of a pet when there are more pets surviving, and harder when you only have one pet. If you lose your only pet, you may become lonely, but if you have another pet, then you still have a companion. When my grandmother lost her only dog, the first thing my dad did was to buy her another pet. I think it did help her to overcome the loss of her pet.

There is no life without death, death is the inevitable conclusion to life and it's something we all have to accept, be it in humans or in pets. We know that pets have a shorter lifespan than humans and when we get a pet, we know that at some time in the future we are going to lose the pet, and must prepare ourselves for this inescapable reality and accept it.

Edited by Nesf
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myrtonos
11 hours ago, Asgardian said:

I can understand where @Myrtonos is coming from because I have very rigid thinking in some respects, but on this occasion I believe he is incorrect.

If you look back, I didn't actually make a statement, I just asked a question about this. And indeed I asked because one is more likely to feel lonely after losing a pet having only had one than having plenty of pets and losing only one of them. Not that losing the pet closest to the owner would hardly be comforted by the fact they the owner has others not nearly as close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HalfFull

I'm sorry to hear of your loss Willow. Losing any pet is always sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.