• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Would one more year really have been long enough though?

    Longer would be better, sure, but would you have ever gotten to a point where you would have been okay to lose that dog?

    • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, it would have been better. A longer healthier life for a dog, who says you have to get to that point? Maybe we will bring a whole new meaning to the word family dog, passed down generations.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I didn’t ask if it would be better.

        Of course it would be better.

        Would it be long enough? I doubt it. At least I know that no matter how many years any of my dogs lived, even if it was 50 years, if I outlived, them it wouldn’t be long enough.

        Long enough means you would be okay if they died.

    • twistypencil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not about how much is enough, that is a weird way to think about it. Would I have liked to have another year with him? Absolutely, he died too early.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s literally what the article said, so blame the article. It says, “The biggest tragedy of pet ownership is that they just don’t live long enough.” It’s right there at the top of the post. That’s what I was commenting on.