Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Cover of the Toronto Sun today....

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jamie



    it is (thank god) NOT Mazie..

    i saw this and my heart almost stopped ( someone dragged this poor dog till its paws bled

    some people should be SHOT

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    jamie wrote:
    
    </snipped>
    it is (thank god) NOT Mazie..

    i saw this and my heart almost stopped ( someone dragged this poor dog till its paws bled

    some people should be SHOT


    Shooting may be too nice of a punishment.

    A paw for a foot, in my book.

    I have no tolerance for animal abuse.

    In my state our state consitution mandates that pet owners aren't actually owners, but 'guardians', which also makes crimes against animals worth more penalties; and affords the pets some extra 'rights'.



  • User profile image
    anand.t

    Thats sucks. I saw a  video of someone being stoned to death on cnn yesterday. I was not able to sleep yesterday.

    The world is one big useless place

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    phreaks wrote:
    Shooting may be too nice of a punishment.

    A paw for a foot, in my book.

    I have no tolerance for animal abuse.

    In my state our state consitution mandates that pet owners aren't actually owners, but 'guardians', which also makes crimes against animals worth more penalties; and affords the pets some extra 'rights'.


    Changing the vocabulary of the relationship between pets and their owners means _zero_.  That has no substance whatsoever.  Those changes only serve to make people feel better about themselves.  The penalties that are exacted by the law are all that matter.

    To make it clear, I don't think that animals have any legal rights, because left to their own devices, most animals are just as savage to one another or more so.  Nor would most animals consider a human beings rights if a person caught in the wilds and in danger.  Only people have rights because they can grasp such concepts, such as the right not to tolerate sadists and legalese double-talk.  And make no mistake about it, person who is morally comfortable with maiming and torturing an animal like this poor dog is capable of doing the same thing to another person.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    anand.t wrote:
    

    Thats sucks. I saw a  video of someone being stoned to death on cnn yesterday. I was not able to sleep yesterday.

    The world is one big useless place



    Yes, it disgusted me too. All she did was convert to Islam, and her family had to stone her to death.

    This stuff also happen in other places, but rarely get into the media. For example in Egypt, where the Coptic Church prosecutes people who revert to Islam, or even become atheists.

    I say people should be allowed to worship in what ever manner that they like. there should be no pressure or anything like that. These are matters of personal choice.

    Sad world indeed.Sad

  • User profile image
    jamie

    well i didnt mean for this to be the most depressing thread on c9 ha

    for me - that looks just like my dog... i did a double take at store - went back to look. it would still be awful if it was another dog.. but its different

    (if you have a cat or dog - pretend you thought it was them on the cover and reading it..  even though you know its not yours it brings it home

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Shooting may be too nice of a punishment.

    A paw for a foot, in my book.

    I have no tolerance for animal abuse.

    In my state our state consitution mandates that pet owners aren't actually owners, but 'guardians', which also makes crimes against animals worth more penalties; and affords the pets some extra 'rights'.


    Changing the vocabulary of the relationship between pets and their owners means _zero_.  That has no substance whatsoever.  Those changes only serve to make people feel better about themselves.  The penalties that are exacted by the law are all that matter.

    Which is why changing the vocabulary can help.  Livestock is considered property.  In some states, pets are not.  We slaughter livestock for food, we don't slaughter pets.  By changing the the vocabulary, we get to change the punishment.

    k2t0f12d wrote:

    To make it clear, I don't think that animals have any legal rights, because left to their own devices, most animals are just as savage to one another or more so. 

    Do people deserve the same qualifications?  Left to our own devices, we seem to be pretty good at being savage to each other.  Children are pretty cruel to each other (and animals), so do they lose all rights?

    Besides, these animals aren't left to their own devices, they've been bred and raised, specifically, to depend on us.
    k2t0f12d wrote:

    Nor would most animals consider a human beings rights if a person caught in the wilds and in danger.  Only people have rights because they can grasp such concepts, such as the right not to tolerate sadists and legalese double-talk. 

    So what, exactly, are you saying here?  Should we just get rid of animal cruelty laws?  Should we change them to include all animals?  If an animal can pass a turing test, does it deserve rights?
    k2t0f12d wrote:

    And make no mistake about it, person who is morally comfortable with maiming and torturing an animal like this poor dog is capable of doing the same thing to another person.

    True.  If I remember my criminology (elective) class from a decade ago, malicious animal cruelty is a pretty common occurence in serial murderers. 

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    jamie wrote:
    (if you have a cat or dog - pretend you thought it was them on the cover and reading it..  even though you know its not yours it brings it home)


    Or your child.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    jamie wrote:
    well i didnt mean for this to be the most depressing thread on c9 ha

    for me - that looks just like my dog... i did a double take at store - went back to look. it would still be awful if it was another dog.. but its different

    (if you have a cat or dog - pretend you thought it was them on the cover and reading it..  even though you know its not yours it brings it home


    Yes its sad story. There are sadistic people out there.

    However, just like we care about Cats and Dogs, we should care more about humans who are suffering, like the homeless people issues etc...

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Shooting may be too nice of a punishment.

    A paw for a foot, in my book.

    I have no tolerance for animal abuse.

    In my state our state consitution mandates that pet owners aren't actually owners, but 'guardians', which also makes crimes against animals worth more penalties; and affords the pets some extra 'rights'.


    Changing the vocabulary of the relationship between pets and their owners means _zero_.  That has no substance whatsoever.  Those changes only serve to make people feel better about themselves.  The penalties that are exacted by the law are all that matter.



    Actually, you are wrong. it's the status that allows the penalties.

    For example, if you hit a dog with your car and do not seek immediate help for the animal, you will face felony charges in my state.

    Also, it give the government control to 'rescue' animals from ppl whom are abusive. Just like they have with children, there are other examples too, but I don't have time to get into it right now.


  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Which is why changing the vocabulary can help.  Livestock is considered property.  In some states, pets are not.  We slaughter livestock for food, we don't slaughter pets.  By changing the the vocabulary, we get to change the punishment.


    Its all semantic because you can change the laws without changing the vocabulary and vice versa.  Changing vocabulary doesn't have to be bad either, but it just doesn't mean anything.  You can't claim that the local law is better because pet owners are called guardians, only that the law is more observant of protecting animals.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Do people deserve the same qualifications?  Left to our own devices, we seem to be pretty good at being savage to each other.  Children are pretty cruel to each other (and animals), so do they lose all rights?

    Besides, these animals aren't left to their own devices, they've been bred and raised, specifically, to depend on us.


    People do have the similar qualifications.  Crazy people are (or should be) locked away in a mental health ward where they are not a harm to themselves or others, thusly removing most of their civil liberties.  Criminals are placed in jails, thus losing most civil liberties.  Children are cared for by their families, but aren't permitted the same liberties as an adult until they are an adult.

    As domestic animals are cared for by their owners, and born and bred to live with human beings, it is our responsiblity to protect these animals.  But they do not have any legal rights because they cannot comprehend such concepts, nor call a lawyer to pursue a matter of the law.

    It isn't about what an animal's rights are, its about what liberties people do not have with respect to animals.

    ScanIam wrote:
    So what, exactly, are you saying here?  Should we just get rid of animal cruelty laws?  Should we change them to include all animals?  If an animal can pass a turing test, does it deserve rights?


    I think something I said confused you here.  It seemed apparent to me that laws against sadistic treatment of animals was something I was positive about.

    ScanIAm wrote:
    True.  If I remember my criminology (elective) class from a decade ago, malicious animal cruelty is a pretty common occurence in serial murderers.


    It is a very dangerous behavior that itself is anti-social and can lead to much much more severe criminal behavior.  To sum up, I am saying we do not need to define another civil class to be able to protect our animals and punish a sadist to the full extent of the law.

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    phreaks wrote:
    Actually, you are wrong. it's the status that allows the penalties.


    No actually I think I'm not wrong since it is not the pet whose status is in fact changed.  By your account it is the pet owner's status that has been changed.

    phreaks wrote:
    For example, if you hit a dog with your car and do not seek immediate help for the animal, you will face felony charges in my state.


    Hmmm.  That gets the ole gears a turning in me head.  I know this is just an example that you are offering and I don't want to chop it up and make something out of it that it isn't.  Obviously, a driver has the responsibility for their driving, but does not excuse the pet's owner, who bears the majority of the responsibility for their animal.

    phreaks wrote:
    Also, it give the government control to 'rescue' animals from ppl whom are abusive. Just like they have with children, there are other examples too, but I don't have time to get into it right now.


    Gotta bust up them Pekingese sweat shops.  Wink

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    Thats very sad thing that happened.  Its such a shame people would hurt innocent animals, especially one that cute.  It takes a heartless person who cpould look at a face like that and still do something that cruel.

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    maybe they thought it was fun - you know what some people are like today. there are some very demonit, satanic, sadistic people out there... just steer (your pet) clear of em.

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    anand.t

    Lloyd_Humph wrote:
    maybe they thought it was fun - you know what some people are like today. there are some very demonit, satanic, sadistic people out there... just steer (your pet) clear of em.


    we can just release 100 wild hunting dogs on those guys for fun

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    Actually, you are wrong. it's the status that allows the penalties.


    No actually I think I'm not wrong since it is not the pet whose status is in fact changed.  By your account it is the pet owner's status that has been changed.



    No, the animal's status has also changed. All other states consider pet's as property (objects), Rhode Island (I believe is the only state) does not classify a pet as property.  So it is fairly clear and evident that the animals status has changed; in this case legally from 'personal property' to 'companion', and 'owner' to 'guardian'.

    Property doesn't have rights.

    Is breaking your neighbor's window the same as killing their cat? In most jurisdictions, pretty much in the eyes of the court.

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    phreaks wrote:
    For example, if you hit a dog with your car and do not seek immediate help for the animal, you will face felony charges in my state.


    Hmmm.  That gets the ole gears a turning in me head.  I know this is just an example that you are offering and I don't want to chop it up and make something out of it that it isn't.  Obviously, a driver has the responsibility for their driving, but does not excuse the pet's owner, who bears the majority of the responsibility for their animal.



    You mean in the same context that parents are responsible for the welfare of their children?

    The point here is to promote animal welfare and ensure that the courts don't label pet's as property, which in effect does assert certain 'rights' to the animal.

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    

    phreaks wrote:
    Also, it give the government control to 'rescue' animals from ppl whom are abusive. Just like they have with children, there are other examples too, but I don't have time to get into it right now.


    Gotta bust up them Pekingese sweat shops. 



    Rhode Island

    House Bill 6119 (Rhode Island People Are Guardians of Companion Animals

    Summary:  

    This Rhode Island bill created the term "guardian" to mean a person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal and who is responsible for an animal's safety and well-being.  In adopting this term, Rhode Island became the first state to recognize that an individual is the guardian of a companion animal (not merely owner).

    ================================================

    SECTION 1. Section 4-1-1 of the General Laws in Chapter 4-1 entitled "Cruelty to Animals" is hereby amended to read as follows:

    (1) "Animal" and "animals" means every living creature except a human being;

    SECTION 2. Chapter 4-1 of the General Laws entitled "Cruelty to Animals" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section:


    (8) "Pets" means domesticated animals kept in close contact with humans, which include, but may not be limited to dogs, cats, ferrets, equines, llamas, goats, sheep, and swine

    (10) "Guardian" shall mean a person(s) having the same rights and responsibilities of an owner, and both terms shall be used interchangeably. A guardian shall also mean a person who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors or has control, custody or possession of an animal and who is responsible for an animal's safety and well-being.

    4-13.1-2. Definitions. -- As used in sections 4-13.1-1 -- 4-13.1-14, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context indicates another or different meaning or intent:

    (2) "Domestic animals" means animals which, through extremely long association with humans, have been bred to a degree which has resulted in genetic changes affecting the temperament, color, conformation, or other attributes of the species to an extent that makes them unique and distinguishable from wild individuals of their species. Such animals may include but are not limited to:

    <snip>very long list of creatures</snip>

    (5) "Person" means a natural person or any legal entity, including but not limited to, a corporation, firm, partnership, or trust.

    Notwithstanding the definition of a vicious dog in subsection Devil, no dog may be declared vicious in accordance with section4-13.1-11 of this chapter if an injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time that injury or damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, provoking, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime.

    No dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time that injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, provoking, abusing or assaulting the dog. No dog may be declared vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a human being within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault.

    4-19-2. Definitions. -- As used in this chapter and the regulations promulgated under this chapter:

    (1) "Adequate feed" means the provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal. The foodstuff shall be served in a sanitized receptacle, dish, or container.

    (2) "Adequate water" means a constant access to a supply of clean, fresh, potable water provided in a sanitary manner or provided at suitable intervals for the species and not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours at any interval.

    (3) "Adopt" means when an adopting party voluntarily acquires and assumes responsibility for a dog or a cat from a releasing agency


    =================================================

    Title 4 of our General Laws Here

    http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE4/INDEX.HTM

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    With people who like to hurt animals like that give me 30 minutes alone with em.  All I would need is a metal clothes hanger, a zippo lighter, a blowtorch, and a pair of needle nose pliars.  By the time I was done they would be positive torture was my career choice.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.