My father once left his dogs in his vehicle when he got home from work. Some kid was sneaking into our house and my Dad ran and caught him. He sent the kid on his way, but was obviously a bit surprised at having come home to see someone breaking into his house. Unfortunatly during this distraction he forgot that he had left the animals in the vehicle.

Cut to me sitting at my office getting a call that I should head home immediatly. I arrive at my father's house to hear him absolutely wailing and sobbing that he had forgotten his dogs. Let me tell you that that scene is something that will never leave me for the rest of my life. His dogs were as dear to him as sons and I sincerely thought that my Dad wouldn't pull through that period. For months later he woke up crying from nightmares.

So would he have been upset if someone had come along and smashed his window and gotten the dogs out? Not a chance. He probably would have taken him out to dinner.

danlpoon

He probably has a housefull of Papillons and is about as threatening.

Papillons are mean little farkers.

Jst3p

While I disagree with the original statement, I don't think you have a jury at a civil trial...

Both sides in a civil case have the right to demand a jury in most places.

/I like pie.

queezyweezel

I think more of the incite was caused by the fact that he threatened to sue and possibly assult anyone that broke the window to save the dogs life.

Well that makes sense, but people sue over things all of the time and win. Look at the McDonalds Coffee Lady and Tobacco Companies and thieves who break into houses then break a bone inside.

I kinda agree with the whole "you break my car window and I will sue" ideology. It's simple, there are ways around the whole breaking windows. As I have stated earlier, I believe that the store workers should call the car owner over the intercom just before/after calling the cops. That way, you can save a window.

To restate, I do not understand the mentality of bringing your dog with you to the store just to leave it in the car. Makes no farking sense.

/ Will someone think of the windows?

spleef420:

That's why the exterminators use "pet safe" poisons. won't harm the dog/cat/hamster but decimates the insect population. Besides, roaches and many other home insects (ants, flies, silverfish etc) do considerable damage to property and your health.

Right. Roaches, home insects, and rats are all animals that have no right to life. My statement was in response to the person who said that all animals' lives are equally sacred. Bullshiat. My life is worth *at least* ten million roach lives.

Tommy Moo

He also gave an example if this same situation applied to a different circumstance. (i.e. What if I think you're all a bunch of murderers because 95% of you don't give blood to the Red Cross?) By the way, no one addressed that problem in lieu of joing the mob beating of Tommy Moo.

That's because it's called a "false analogy", and is an accepted logical fallacy. Therefore, no need to attack it - he shoots himself in the foot.

Wow... just, wow.

Look, I think it's stupid and inhumane to leave a dog in a hot car. I would never ever do it. Where we digress is that I believe that an appropriate response would be a ticket and a stern lecture, whereas you hyperactive wannabe vigilantes believe that an appropriate response would be the death penalty. If you look back at my original post, the issue I take is with people who actually want to murder irresponsible pet owners. Some of these people I recognize from other threads, where they complain about army interrogators making some terrorists stand on their feet for eight hours. If you feel compassion for a terrorist but honestly want to bludgeon a guy who may or may not have hurt an animal, your priorities are screwed up.

Let's get to what this is really about: you just want an excuse to smash some guy's window so you can feel righteous and mighty. Hell... I'd bet most of you would smash a window before checking if the door was unlocked.

I'm losing my faith in Fark. A quick survey of this thread shows that I have all of maybe two or three constructive opponents and at least a dozen bandwagoners who can't think of anything more crushing to my cause than "You're a jerk because I disagree with you." Hell... I'd be willing to bet that most of you hung back to see which side of the issue the majority of posts would fall on before picking me to bash. To you I say: I'm sorry to report that I won't be committing suicide over a freaking Fark thread.

If you own an animal and let it die through your own negligence (to go out on a ledge here, even walking that dog near traffic without a leash), I believe you should be held accountable and subject to criminal charges.

Quoted for truth.

What brandoj is missing is the fact that the law recognizes negligence for what it is: Something bad happened, it was not your intent, but you should have known better.

For example, reach down to pick up a CD while driving and hit a kid on a bike. You didn't mean to kill the kid, but you will probably (in most states) be charged with "negligent homicide". You should have known better.

Same thing applies to animals. Sure you didn't mean to kill fido, but leaving him in the car for an hour in the hot sun? You should have known better. You probably wont get the same punishment as the kid in Denver lighting dogs on fire to watch them burn, but you aren't walking away scott free either.

AdrienneEE

I think the reason this bothers me is that, truth be told, I really don't like most people. If the worst dog I ever met and the worst human I ever met were locked in separate, baking cars, I'd save the dog.

/likes your dog more than you.

I agree, save the dog...people just suck...this means YOU TOMMY MOO

A7r3ides

I believe that life is the most valuable thing in the world. I don't think that life should be taken casually. Killing in order eat and survive is acceptable as long as it's done without intentionally causing more pain than necessary. I may think Hitler was a horrible human being, but I don't presume to judge the value of his life.

But you did, you said they were all equal. Judging something equal is still judging rather you like it or not.

The bottom line is that we were speaking in generalities, then you brought in Hitler, which is ridiculous. It could be argued (I am open to the idea) that a person could devalue themselves, so a crackhead is worth less than a retarded guy who feeds ducks, in which case you could argue that Hitler is worth less than duckman. But I wasn't talking specifics, I was speaking on a species level, trying to bring to individuals is meaningless.

Cardinal

I disagree--as have jurists as far back as 1887

Stephens v. State of MS:

...the enforcement or observance of laws, for the protection of dumb brutes from cruelty, are, in my judgment, among the best evidences of the justice and benevolence of men. Such statutes were not intended to interfere, and do not interfere, with the necessary discipline and government of such animals, or place any unreasonable restriction on their use or the enjoyment to be derived from their possession. The common law recognized no rights in such animals, and punished no cruelty to them, except in so far as it affected the rights of individuals to such property....

To disregard the rights and feelings of equals, is unjust and ungenerous, but to willfully or wantonly injure or oppress the weak and helpless, is mean and cowardly. Human beings have at least some means of protecting themselves against the inhumanity of man, - that inhumanity which makes countless thousands mourn, but dumb brutes have none. Cruelty to them manifests a vicious and degraded nature, and it tends inevitably to cruelty to men. Animals whose lives are devoted to our use and pleasure, and which are capable, perhaps of feeding as great physical pain or pleasure as which are capable, perhaps, of feeling as great physical pain or pleasure as ourselves, deserve, for these considerations alone, kindly treatment. The dominion of man over them, if not a moral trust, has a better significance than the development of malignant passions and cruel instincts. Often their beauty, gentleness, and fidelity suggest the reflection that it may have been one of the purposes of their creation and subordination to enlarge the sympathies and expand the better feelings of our race. But, however this may be, human beings should be kind and just to dumb brutes; if for no other reason than to learn how to be kind and just to each other.


I agree with this entirely, and it is not contradictory to what I have been saying, which is that animal cruelty is wrong because you are depravedly violating a loving relationship intentionally -- NOT because the animal has some innate right to exist. See hunting exception. This indicates that you are willing to be heinous to your fellow man and should be policed via criminal statute. If you kill such an animal negligently that is not an indication of your depravity toward a loving relationship -- indeed you must surely agree that the owner killing these dogs accidentally is of a different flavor than if done purposefully. Point being, that if the killing is done accidentally it is still wrong just not criminal.

I would, perhaps, bold this differently:

Stephens v. State of MS:

Human beings have at least some means of protecting themselves against the inhumanity of man, - that inhumanity which makes countless thousands mourn, but dumb brutes have none. Cruelty to them manifests a vicious and degraded nature, and it tends inevitably to cruelty to men. Animals whose lives are devoted to our use [i.e. whose lives derive value from our servitude] and pleasure, and which are capable, perhaps of feeding as great physical pain or pleasure as which are capable, perhaps, of feeling as great physical pain or pleasure as ourselves, deserve, for these considerations alone, kindly treatment. The dominion of man over them, if not a moral trust, has a better significance than the development of malignant passions and cruel instincts. Often their beauty, gentleness, and fidelity suggest the reflection that it may have been one of the purposes of their creation and subordination to enlarge the sympathies and expand the better feelings of our race. But, however this may be, human beings should be kind and just to dumb brutes; if for no other reason than to learn how to be kind and just to each other.

Tommy Moo

I think you are getting most of this flack because in your post you compared letting a dog die in a hot car to letting a plant die.

That, plus the "it is my property I should be able to do whatever I want", which is clearly not the case, made you a target.

And by the way, ScubaDoo, thanks for the pic. I seriously am going to print that out and frame it :)

You know you're just too real for this world when a bunch of Fark nancies are ganging up on you.

One cannot "do whatever they want" with their property legally.
One cannot leave a pet to bake in a car legally.
One cannot fire a gun off into the air haphazardly legally.
One cannot dump toxins on their land legally.
One cannot crank their radio all hours of the night legally.
One cannot speed their car though traffic with paperless immigrants legally.

Jimbo the Slightly Impressive
joebell: oh noes!!! not 30 degrees!!!

//lives in phoenix

Thirty degrees C, not F. Thirty degrees C is hot as hell

I think the point was that Phoenix gets much hotter than 30C on a regular basis. At least that's how I interpreted that comment.

/just sayin'

Jst3p

While I disagree with the original statement, I don't think you have a jury at a civil trial...

Both sides in a civil case have the right to demand a jury in most places.

/I like pie.

Looks like I should have added "I don't think I am always right".

Thanks for the education, I obviously didn't know.

queezyweezel

brandoj, Understood. I agree with you on all points reguarding your last post. Your earlier posts seemed to indicate that it was ok to kill an animal that you have taken in and (by most social standards) are supposed to look after and take care of through negligence. I have a problem with that. If you own an animal and let it die through your own negligence (to go out on a ledge here, even walking that dog near traffic without a leash), I believe you should be held accountable and subject to criminal charges.

Very well, we'll have to disagree about criminal charges. I think the penalty of mourn for the loss of your pet is all that is needed to check such negligence. This of course is different than negligently killing a child, because, while a negligent mother may be grief stricken, it is criminal because a human life has been snuffed, and such life is of innate value to society as a whole (i.e. there is an interest in the government in protecting it against both purposeful and non-purposeful killing). I see no purpose for the government to criminalize the negligent killing of your own pet.

Moreover, it would be dangerous to try and enforce such laws justly as even domesticated animals are inherently unpredictable. What may seem like responsible behavior may become negligent tomorrow based on the whims of that particular animal. (With your example, I may be comfortable walking my dog without a leash and have done so for the past 10 years - you would throw me in jail because the dog decided to run out errantly in the street)

"A car is just a tin box with windows"

I suppose a submarine is just a tin box then.

Tommy Moo's dad isn't putting out it seems.

Get a brain you dumb biatch. And a heart while you're at it.

clearhead

Wow... congratulations. You're creepy. You remind me of the Ultimate Warrior's lawyer. Are you going to come to my house and kill me with a crowbar?

Idiots and their dogs should be eliminated...

If you must have a "traveling companion" in the summer get a snake or lizard. Something tropical or equatorial, then your car wont be warm enough. Large snakes also make wonderful security measures. Most car thieves will scream like little girls when they see the snake.

WayToBlue
But you did, you said they were all equal. Judging something equal is still judging rather you like it or not.

The bottom line is that we were speaking in generalities, then you brought in Hitler, which is ridiculous. It could be argued (I am open to the idea) that a person could devalue themselves, so a crackhead is worth less than a retarded guy who feeds ducks, in which case you could argue that Hitler is worth less than duckman. But I wasn't talking specifics, I was speaking on a species level, trying to bring to individuals is meaningless.

I said all life is priceless. Meaning it can't be ranked. Perhaps "Hitler" statement was poorly phrased. I wouldn't advocate taking his life unless he was directly compromising someone else's. If he had been captured alived, I wouldn't be in favor of killing him.

You said the value of life is determined by the level of consciousness. You can never strictly generalize something like that because there are always exceptions.

Do you believe everyone can and does value life in his or her own way, or do you believe that life can and does maintain standards of worth objective to the opinions of the majority?

clearhead

I am pretty sure giving out personal information like that is a no-no. If it is not against farks rules, it is at the very least pathetic and lame.

I don't like his posts much either, but I hope you get a suspension.

/unless that info was in his profile and he removed it before I got a chance to see it.

Tommy Moo, you're not making sense. First you say you're taking exception to people saying they'd murder the owner. THEN you imply you also think it would be wrong to break the glass.

Sorry, if you left a dying animal in a car, I'd bust the glass too. And you're a sick, sick fark if you wouldn't do the same for any of us. You wouldn't want someone to save your dog? Or would you be too scared of facing the owner, ya nancy?

Dipshiat.

I would actually agree with Tommy Moo if I actually thought everyone was serious when they were talking about killing those people who did this to dogs.

It's called exagerration dude.

Seriously... let's put the argument aside for a moment here. Even if you think I'm a total jerk for what I wrote above, doesn't anyone else feel a little unsettled by clearhead?

Do I need to call the police?

jst3p

I am sorry, but making idiotic statements and qualifing them by saying "by the way, no one is an idiot" will not CYA.

I assume CYA is 'save your arse?' I am still learning all of the civilian acronyms that are flying about, and I was indeed curious.

For example, I think you are a farking douche bag (not really, but go with me here), by the way, I am not an asshole and neither are you in fact no one is.

Thank you for not seeing me as a douche bag. But I do understand the point that you were trying to make.

It is absurd to say "I am not an idiot and no one else is" based purely on the fact that we ALL know some people are in fact idiots. They may not know it, but we do.

While it is indeed absurd to say in face of a logical contradiction of sorts (I think), I believe that Tommy Moo was just saying that he wasn't calling anyone an idiot. At least that is what I gathered from it. And yes, there are idiots who do not know they are idiots, just look at Congress...

They did understand what he was saying, and they responded appropriately.

Appropriate responses like:
I think Tommy Moo had an abusive childhood.

Nah, he just like to torture small animals, and molest children. You know the type.

Tommy Moo has a fat mother.

These sound more like ignorant observations rather than appropriate responses. I can understand the whole "Tommy Moo is a farking idiot," but the whole psychology of a sociopath is pure bunk here. Tommy Moo said nothing about how he would injure dogs or rape children or whatever. Some of these comments are downright harsh and ignorant.

Please do not get me wrong, there were a lot more fark.com users that used logic in their counter-arguement [sic?].

Oh well, I guess I might be the next target for a flamewar, huh?

Tommy Moo:

We all know how creepy google searches are.

So all you advocating intelligence as the line in the sand between species that deserve to live or have more right to life -- I hope you agree with the statement that if we were ever taken over by aliens with superior reasoning capability, that they have every right to make us pets and lock us in cars with the windows shut when they go to the drugstore to buy Tampax for whatever passes for their vaginas. Because, you know, we have less value. And our suffering is less consequential to alien suffering.

I think I'm going to go get a dog, lock it in my car, and watch it die to spite all of you.

Cardinal
You'll recall that my argument was that Both policies find voice in these laws, not that yours doesn't or shouldn't. There was a conference earlier this year in NYC, on the subject of using/strengthening cruelty laws, the better to nip future mayhem in the bud. I have no problem with that--it's just incomplete, IM occasionally HO.

It is also a very clear trend in the law that animals' interests are being taken into account. Ref. the Hayden law in CA, mandating "kind and humane" treatment of strays, as well as a four-day holding period before an animal in their custody--including owner surrenders--may be killed.

Again, I do not disagree with what you're saying, nor do I disagree with the CA law. The point, again, is that our legislative history does not recognize animal life as having some "intrinsic" value. The laws are directed toward behavior that is repugnant to a loving relationship - torturing and abusing your own pet as opposed to hunting a deer in the wild. The CA "'kind and humane treatment of strays'" is administrative in nature and does not criminalize. Yes, the government can take into consideration whatever it wants in how it runs its own business, but I think this is just a policy propagated to decrease the probability that true animal abuse would happen within its own walls. Again, they still "put down" animals - which the government would not do if it recognized an innate value in animal life, just as hunting would be criminal under this moral paradigm.

Point again being that the negligent killing of your own pet should not be CRIMINAL. Yes it is unfortunate -- but since neither the government nor a vast membership of the general population recognize that animals have a 'human' right to exist, there is no interest in protecting the lives of "lovable" animals from negligent death. As I've stated previously, if you don't like that some owners accidentally kill their pets, that's tough for you -- but I think the owner's own inherent love for the animal is enough to check widespread negligent disregard for the health and safety of pets, not a criminal statute. Criminal abuse of animals, on the other hand, is a different issue.

Gingergirl
Sounds kinda like something I might do on a bad-mood and/or good-deed-do'er day.
Glad to know others'll do similar things.

Janusdog

So all you advocating intelligence as the line in the sand between species that deserve to live or have more right to life -- I hope you agree with the statement that if we were ever taken over by aliens with superior reasoning capability, that they have every right to make us pets and lock us in cars with the windows shut when they go to the drugstore to buy Tampax for whatever passes for their vaginas. Because, you know, we have less value. And our suffering is less consequential to alien suffering.

I'd like to see you try and stop 'em.

I'm going to buy a COUPLE of dogs, put them in YOUR car and watch them die...

clearhead

Holy shiat, is this another appropriate response? {insert sarcasm here}

Tommy Moo I think that the police might need to be called. clearhead is clearly not thinking with a clear mind.

/ man that last sentence was a little confusing to write at first

Boy, Tommy Moo found out how to push your buttons. If only I had known that...it's pretty funny, I think.

I'm going to buy a COUPLE of dogs, put them in YOUR car and watch them die...

I'm going to buy dozens of dogs, adopt some children, lock them in *several* cars, and watch them die.

WayToBlue:

What? What does that have to do with what I said?

nice job on taking things too far clearhead tommy moo may have said something stupid but I can get past that, I can't get past someone who seems more like a stalker than a farker.

While it is indeed absurd to say in face of a logical contradiction of sorts (I think), I believe that Tommy Moo was just saying that he wasn't calling anyone an idiot.

IMHO he was still being one and trying to diffuse that by pointing out that he was not calling anyone an idiot.

Ever see the simpsons where Bart hods his hand 1/4" from Lisas face and says "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! "?

Appropriate responses like:
I think Tommy Moo had an abusive childhood.

Nah, he just like to torture small animals, and molest children. You know the type.

Tommy Moo has a fat mother.

OK, I agree some went overboard, there were just as many that didn't.



Please do not get me wrong, there were a lot more fark.com users that used logic in their counter-arguement [sic?].

Oh well, I guess I might be the next target for a flamewar, huh?

Nah, I think clearhead took the heat off Tommy and anyone else, what a douche clearhead is.

Queezy: Kind of like what we do to dogs and cats? Feed them to cattle and other dogs and cats?