I agree with you fully that they have every right to no longer want the dogs. However they must give proper and just reasons if they wanna get rid of them. No longer wanting the dogs is one thing, but getting rid of them is another. You may have said that the parents could have handled it differently, but you also have mentioned that you find them to be completely reasonable. Where was the reasoning between all of this? If there was any reasoning between any of this, i could easily get beyond the means, but for now i base my judgment on what i am provided with until any further ignorance is dealt with. And how do you know rejected doesn't pay some bills as well? What if he comes on here and mentions that he does pay some of the bills or a percentage of the mortgage? I hope the parents took names and addresses of the people they gave them away to. A dog is a man's best friend—and in this case there were two. I don't recall any proverbs about cats being a person's best friend. Perhaps we should think about making one.

Reply

I don't know about "wise", TF. I mean, I did imply above that they could've made a better choice about how to go about making the dogs go away. The means they used, waiting for the kid to leave for a week then giving the dogs away, were underhanded and not conducive toward future trust in their relationship with thier son. That being said, don't you think they have the right to say what animals can be in their household? They pay the bills after all... Get beyond the means for a second and put on a pair of their shoes and tell me you don't think they had any right to not want the dogs.

Reply

What a bummer....I don't understand how a parent could do that... o_O

Reply

Um. A jer is a jer, add a "k." And thats a jer. Um. Shouldn't have explained that.... uh oh I'm gonna get in trouble with Buffalohelp, the admin I'm sure you know.

Reply

I think he meant j3rk, but he omitted the last 'k' to avoid getting warned/banned for foul language or something.

I do agree with him, though; it's just plain wrong. While it may be true that you, living under their roof, are subject to their rules and whims, they have no right to take away something that is yours. What if it weren't dogs? What if it were your money or jewelry? What if they said, "Money is the root of all evil so we freed you from its curse by giving it to, lessay, Eur Yvelle C. Sterr?" or "Necklaces and bracelets aren't for boys so we gave 'em to Eur Yvelle C. Sterr."

It's not merely about who's the master and who's the subordinate. The king, from Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince, once said, "Hum! Hum!" which is completely pointless and irrelevant to this topic. However, he also said,



Now, while it is presently beyond me to judge with complete finality whether rejected's parents were reasonable in their decision, I do think that it is wrong for them to do just that simply because rejected is their child and he/she lives under their roof. They may have other reasons too but I do think that the very least they should have done is talk it over. There are many ways to skin a cat, y'know? (pun intended)

I, for one, am proud of my parents in that they know when they are wrong. While pride and dignity prevents them from accepting defeat, they just turn silent, wave a hand and say, "Fine, have it your own way."

Also, I overheard my mom telling my dad, "You can't expect our son to bow down and be dumber than you; he has a spine of his own. He studied computers all throughout college while you just touched lightly on the subject. If they just said 'yes' to everything we say, then we have failed, as parents, to educate them as we must. What will happen, then, when we are gone?"

Enough of rubbing salt into open wounds, though. I do think you should have a good talk with your parents, preferably, something about basic human rights, invasion of privacy and material property rights

Reply