I often wander into complex threaded discussions in places like Newsvine but feel completely overwhelmed by the number of comments that scream out for replies, but daunted by the amount of time necessary to reply individually to each one.
This story about a couple that paid $155,000 in an auction to clone their dead dog spawned a conversation that covered a wide range of topics, although a number of recurring themes arose.
"I sure can think of a lot of things I could do with a $155,000, and cloning my pet is not one of them!"
Many of the users claimed that it was bad to spend this amount of money on cloning a dead pet because the money could be better spent on other things, mostly charitable works. Some were very specific and pointed out that if one was interested in giving a home to an animal, there are many animals scheduled for euthanization that could be saved for that amount of money, or even better still, clinics that could perform spaying/neutering operations on animals to prevent the birth of unwanted animals.
Whether this is valid or not depends primarily on the context of the criticism, and in nearly all of the posts, the context was missing. One author supplied it, pointing out that nobody was advocating a law to prevent this couple from having done this, or from legally exploiting their own property (in this case, cash) for a legal purpose (in this case, cloning their pet). Rather the intent was simply to point out that a more positive and socially responsible act might have been to use the money for something else, something beneficial for a wider range of individuals than themselves and their dead pet.
While this is laudable, actually I wonder if that commenter is right: at least some of the comments I think were advocating some kind of restriction, or at best suggesting that there was something morally reprehensible about what they had done.
Not always doing the best, most right thing, does not make the thing which is done wrong or evil. These things are a continuum, not a dichotomy. As others pointed out, had this couple purchased an expensive car or other consumer item, not only would they not have been criticized, but the story would not have existed, as it would not have been notable.
