TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Dear Prudie: Don't to Pay For MIL's New Pet

FNW · Guru

Admittedly I am not familiar with the difference between a rescue pup vs. adoption pup vs. breeder pup stuff. The last time we got a pup we went to the pound and picked one up. Returned to have her fixed and that was that.

That being said, as the fiancee, I would stay out of it. If I were the fiance, I would do nothing. I made a generous offer. They created this situation by not consulting me. They're not speaking to me. So be it. I might write back (or call) and ask whether they have considered the offer, because soon it will be off the table and the funds offered will go towards my wedding.

The fiancee needs to accept the fact that she is marrying into a family that has its problems.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, that's nice they want to support rescue animals but you don't get to impose that on everyone else. There is nothing wrong with buying a puppy from a breeder, so you don't get to control everyone else with that particular opinion. However, unless he agreed to help pay for the dog, which it doesnt' sound like he did, then the sisters are being bitchy just expecting him to pony up. And, offering to pay some of the vet bills seems like a reasonable compromise. However, the fiancé needs to get the hell OUT of his relationship with his sisters and stop the "With my encouragement, he spoke to his sisters about ...." type of thing.

FNW · Guru

I agree, LGS. And I know from experience that she needs to stay out of it. I encouraged DH to have a relationship with his family for too many years and it always backfired There was a reason he moved away from them, and it took me years to figure it out.

Divine Geek · Guru

My answer depends on a few things. What is their objection to breeder pups? Are they worried about puppy mills? General over population of dogs? Or was it a cost thing?

If they are worried about supporting a puppy mill, first research the breeder. Not all breeders are puppy mills. There are many responsible breeders. If this is a responsible breeder, cough up the money. If it's a puppy mill, continue with the offer of puppy care.

If they are worried about the number of homeless dogs in general, continue with the offer of puppy care.

If they wanted to go with a rescue pup because of cost, tell the sisters that he had budgeted a certain amount for the gift. And since they spent more without consulting him, he is only about to give the amount he has budgeted.

If they wanted a rescue pup because it's the "in" thing to do and fear their friends are going to judge them for buying a dog from a breeder.......get over yourself and pay for the dog.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Divine Geek wrote:

My answer depends on a few things. What is their objection to breeder pups? Are they worried about puppy mills? General over population of dogs? Or was it a cost thing?

If they are worried about supporting a puppy mill, first research the breeder. Not all breeders are puppy mills. There are many responsible breeders. If this is a responsible breeder, cough up the money. If it's a puppy mill, continue with the offer of puppy care.

If they are worried about the number of homeless dogs in general, continue with the offer of puppy care.

If they wanted to go with a rescue pup because of cost, tell the sisters that he had budgeted a certain amount for the gift. And since they spent more without consulting him, he is only about to give the amount he has budgeted.

If they wanted a rescue pup because it's the "in" thing to do and fear their friends are going to judge them for buying a dog from a breeder.......get over yourself and pay for the dog.

It isn't their dog. So, their feelings on breeders or rescue dogs are irrelevant. The only question is did he agree to help pay for the dog or did the sisters just decide this is "your share"? If the sisters made that decision, then they can go pound salt. They dont' get to decide that for another sib.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Rescue dogs are great. Wonderful if that's what you want to do. Kudos for you.

But lots of people want puppies. Cute, no baggage or retraining puppies.

The siblings agreed to getting a new dog.

The LW doesn't like where it came from.

Big deal, shut up, keep your word.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Exactly. Brother probably isn't as passionate about it as is meddling fiancé.

FNW · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Exactly. Brother probably isn't as passionate about it as is meddling fiancé.

And I get that. She wants one big happy family. She probably has a good relationship with hers, and doesn't understand why he can't just talk to them about it. But she needs to let it go and let DH handle his family.

NAOW · Vette's SS

I don't think where it came from matters in this instance, you don't purchase a group gift on your own and then tell someone else else how much they owe you.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Why not?

Once you agree that everyone will share the cost, what difference does it makes who actually finds it and gets it?

Ohfour · Hooker

lilyofcourse wrote:
Why not?

Once you agree that everyone will share the cost, what difference does it makes who actually finds it and gets it?

It make a lot of difference.

Lets say my sister and I decided to get my mother a luggage set for Christmas. I'm thinking $300-$400 that we would split. Well then my sister goes out and buys a Yves Saint Laurent set that's over $1000.

You should ALWAYS confirm the price with someone before you purchase...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Ohfour wrote:

lilyofcourse wrote:
Why not?

Once you agree that everyone will share the cost, what difference does it makes who actually finds it and gets it?
It make a lot of difference.
Lets say my sister and I decided to get my mother a luggage set for Christmas. I'm thinking $300-$400 that we would split. Well then my sister goes out and buys a Yves Saint Laurent set that's over $1000.
You should ALWAYS confirm the price with someone before you purchase...

Yup!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Wouldn't that be discussed before shopping?

And the LW isn't concerned with the amount of money. LW is concerned with where the money is going.

It's not about money, it's about teaching a lesson at this point.

Ilumine · Regular

lilyofcourse wrote:
Wouldn't that be discussed before shopping?

And the LW isn't concerned with the amount of money. LW is concerned with where the money is going.

It's not about money, it's about teaching a lesson at this point.

And Brother told his sisters that he wanted to go through a rescue. He even gave them names of general and breed specific rescues. His agreement of purchase was dependent on using a rescue. THEY broke the contract.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I would not be OK with my sister calling me and saying, Oh, we decided to do such and such and now you owe X, unless that was something I agreed to. And, maybe brother is not assertive enough either and just vaguely agrees. So, he needs to look at what he agreed too.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

The best approach is to just not comingle buying things in the first place. Or, you have an AGREED upon amount BEFORE you purchase anything. One sister doesn't get to say "oh this cost 10x more than we thought so I choose to buy it anyway, now pay up". And, now that he knows this is how they operate, you simply do not agree to any more group gifts. If that comes up, you just say, Oh, I am going to get my own gift for mom, or whatever.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
Why not?

Once you agree that everyone will share the cost, what difference does it makes who actually finds it and gets it?

You need to also agree on the cost. And in this instance, he specifically told them he did NOT want to get it from a breeder. Therefore, they ignored everything he said, and they never discussed how much they were spending.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.

So, you agree to go in on a gift and expect to spend $100 and they come back and say you owe $500 and that's not a big deal? You are not being truthful if you say it's not.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:

I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.

Fine, so they should have called Brother and said. We found the perfect dog and it costs X, so your share is .2X. Is that ok with you? It isn't a 911 emergency to bring home a new dog. It could have waited until that phone call, especially if it was an expensive dog.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.

I don't see that in the letter.

flan

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, that's nice they want to support rescue animals but you don't get to impose that on everyone else. There is nothing wrong with buying a puppy from a breeder, so you don't get to control everyone else with that particular opinion. However, unless he agreed to help pay for the dog, which it doesnt' sound like he did, then the sisters are being bitchy just expecting him to pony up. And, offering to pay some of the vet bills seems like a reasonable compromise. However, the fiancé needs to get the hell OUT of his relationship with his sisters and stop the "With my encouragement, he spoke to his sisters about ...." type of thing.

He did agree to pay. the letter says "my fiancé and his sisters decided to surprise their mother for christmas"--NOT "my fiances sisters unilaterally decided to buy mom a dog and now expect my fiancé to help pay".

Yes, they wanted a rescue--but it doesn't sound like the sisters necessarily agreed to that, it's just what the LW and her fiancé preferred. The money isn't even an issue since they said they would pay for some other stuff. They are just pissed the sisters didn't do what they wanted them to.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 20th of November 2015 10:18:11 AM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan

I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.

So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

To me, the over riding principle is, people don't get to spend other people's money without express permission,

and especially when they've been told not to.

My brother once had a company send me a bill for $1000 for something I hadn't authorized and had had no input on.

Nope, not my responsibility.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

To me, the over riding principle is, people don't get to spend other people's money without express permission,
and especially when they've been told not to.

My brother once had a company send me a bill for $1000 for something I hadn't authorized and had had no input on.
Nope, not my responsibility.

He had input. He gave input. They agreed to get a dog. They didnt agree to get one exactly where he wanted. He doesn't get to veto that just because they got one where he didn't like.

Tinydancer · Guru

Yes he does. He did not agree to the extra money THEY spent. I wouldn't pay it either.

-- Edited by Tinydancer on Friday 20th of November 2015 10:38:20 AM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

It's called a contingency. If someone agrees to pay for something "only if", then if that contingency isn't met, the payment is not due. He made it clear he did not want to pay for a dog from a breeder, therefore he did not agree to what they did. You don't get to read just the first sentence and ignore the rest.

If I say I'll go in on buying mom new sneakers as long as they are not NIKE and then they buy NIKE, I'm not paying for those.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tinydancer wrote:
Yes he does. He did not agree to the extra money THEY spent. I wouldn't pay it either.

-- Edited by Tinydancer on Friday 20th of November 2015 10:38:20 AM

Seriously. Nobody gets to unilaterally spend my money but me.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

If they want his money, he needs to agree. He did not. Look at it the other way - why do the sisters get to dictate where the dog is gotten from?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

If they want his money, he needs to agree. He did not. Look at it the other way - why do the sisters get to dictate where the dog is gotten from?

Majority vote.

Ohfour · Hooker

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

If they want his money, he needs to agree. He did not. Look at it the other way - why do the sisters get to dictate where the dog is gotten from?
Majority vote.

Nope. If you don't get permission from me, I'm not ponying up...

Ohfour · Hooker

Husker, use my example. Would you really be comfortable with that?

Lets say my sister and I decided to get my mother a luggage set for Christmas. I'm thinking $300-$400 that we would split. Well then my sister goes out and buys a Yves Saint Laurent set that's over $1000.

You should ALWAYS confirm the price with someone before you purchase...

Dogs from breeders can run into the thousands of dollars...

huskerbb · Guru

Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Husker, use my example. Would you really be comfortable with that?

Lets say my sister and I decided to get my mother a luggage set for Christmas. I'm thinking $300-$400 that we would split. Well then my sister goes out and buys a Yves Saint Laurent set that's over $1000.

You should ALWAYS confirm the price with someone before you purchase...

Dogs from breeders can run into the thousands of dollars...

MeH. No big deal. My mom is worth it.

thats not the issue here, though. The money is irrelevant. The issue would be if I had some moral objection to that brand of luggage and think everyone else should too.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.

Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

If they want his money, he needs to agree. He did not. Look at it the other way - why do the sisters get to dictate where the dog is gotten from?
Majority vote.

No. I don't live my life and spend my money by other people's dictates.

This is a double whammy - lots more money, and morally objectionable. All without his consent. No way.

And as for the dog - they can give it. He can choose to give his mother another gift he doesn't find to be either of those.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...

It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.

I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
I don't see it that way.

I see siblings who agreed to getting a dog and after several attempts at trying it his way, the sisters found a pup. And because it wasn't a rescue, the brother and his fiance are pitching a fit.

It's a gift for his mom. Don't be a douche.
I don't see that in the letter.
flan
I don't see that, either. In fact, it was only TWO DAYS and they had a dog from a breeder. They didn't try the local rescues at all. And he made it clear he did not want a dog from a breeder, therefore he DID NOT agree to a dog from one.
So what? Why does he get to dictate where the dog is gotten from? Why is it of ultimate importance that he agree to the place to get the dog--but not his sisters?

If they want his money, he needs to agree. He did not. Look at it the other way - why do the sisters get to dictate where the dog is gotten from?
Majority vote.
No. I don't live my life and spend my money by other people's dictates.
This is a double whammy - lots more money, and morally objectionable. All without his consent. No way.

And as for the dog - they can give it. He can choose to give his mother another gift he doesn't find to be either of those.

If we were talking about in general, sure, but for a couple of hundred bucks for a gift for a parent--it shouldn't be a big deal. The LW isn't really even concerned about the money. It's only incidental because they didn't want a dog from a breeder and it just happened to cost more. It could have been cheaper and theyd still complain.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.
I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.

And that's what makes it even more stupid. His having an objection seems to translate into entitlement to make everyone else act the way he wants them to.

Ohfour · Hooker

And he has that right. It's his money, he gets to spend it the way he wants.

Tinydancer · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.
I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.
And that's what makes it even more stupid. His having an objection seems to translate into entitlement to make everyone else act the way he wants them to.

He has every right to not buy from a breeder and he told his sisters this. They are not able to just make that decision for him. I don't think you'd go for it if someone wanted you to pay for something you found morally objectionable and I won't believe you if you say otherwise...lol

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lawyerlady wrote:
It's called a contingency. If someone agrees to pay for something "only if", then if that contingency isn't met, the payment is not due. He made it clear he did not want to pay for a dog from a breeder, therefore he did not agree to what they did. You don't get to read just the first sentence and ignore the rest.

If I say I'll go in on buying mom new sneakers as long as they are not NIKE and then they buy NIKE, I'm not paying for those.

This. It is his money. If I say I'll pitch in a hundred dollars on Uncle Fred's Christmas gift as long as it's not alcohol because he always drinks it and gets plastered in one day and then my siblings go out and buy alcohol I am NOT giving money. I have given you the way in which I will spend MY money and that is MY right. End of story. And the sisters sound petty and juvenile because most places make you have a dog fixed, shots up to date, and micrchipped now. THOSE are valid concerns.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

So husker, if your son asked for money for his g/f to get an abortion would you give it to him?

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
So husker, if your son asked for money for his g/f to get an abortion would you give it to him?

Not remotely the same thing. These are dogs, not humans.

huskerbb · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.
I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.
And that's what makes it even more stupid. His having an objection seems to translate into entitlement to make everyone else act the way he wants them to.
He has every right to not buy from a breeder and he told his sisters this. They are not able to just make that decision for him. I don't think you'd go for it if someone wanted you to pay for something you found morally objectionable and I won't believe you if you say otherwise...lol

But this is a stupid moral objection.

Ohfour · Hooker

huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.
I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.
And that's what makes it even more stupid. His having an objection seems to translate into entitlement to make everyone else act the way he wants them to.
He has every right to not buy from a breeder and he told his sisters this. They are not able to just make that decision for him. I don't think you'd go for it if someone wanted you to pay for something you found morally objectionable and I won't believe you if you say otherwise...lol
But this is a stupid moral objection.

Not to a LOT of people. There is a huge movement about this right now...

huskerbb · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Then you will look like the jerk when the sisters give mom the puppy.

This isn't about money. They are just pissed they didn't get a rescue. The dog from the breeder could have been cheaper and they'd still be pissed. The money issue is irrelevant.
Nope. My money, my decision. Too bad if the sisters don't like it. The money is only irrelevent to you...
It's also irrelevant to the LW. She mentions it ONLY because it was more expensive from a breeder, not because the money is the real issue.
I think the moral objection is more important and relevant, anyway. He said no to a breeder for a reason.
And that's what makes it even more stupid. His having an objection seems to translate into entitlement to make everyone else act the way he wants them to.
He has every right to not buy from a breeder and he told his sisters this. They are not able to just make that decision for him. I don't think you'd go for it if someone wanted you to pay for something you found morally objectionable and I won't believe you if you say otherwise...lol
But this is a stupid moral objection.
Not to a LOT of people. There is a huge movement about this right now...

A lot of people are stupid.