Rincewind Posted 25 September 2015 Posted 25 September 2015 The dogs I have seen with street people have been well looked after and not scruffy. The dog is often their only friend and companion and often protects them when passer bys shout abuse spit and urinate on them. If the dog is obviously looking unkempt or unwell then yes something has to be done. The logical thing would be to help the person and not punish them but that is asking too much to expect authorities to think logically.
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2015 Posted 25 September 2015 That story is shocking, just because someone is homeless you can't just steal their property. That dog was probably the only thing he had in his life.
Dario_Rodriguez_ Posted 25 September 2015 Posted 25 September 2015 That story is shocking, just because someone is homeless you can't just steal their property. That dog was probably the only thing he had in his life. Quite. Captain Planet and the planeteers are being very quiet on the issue as well. Shock.
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2015 Posted 25 September 2015 I'm deadly serious Ken. A protest group or the state has no right to steal property from the people. That stands whether it's a house from a family or a dog with a tramp.
ozleicester Posted 27 September 2015 Author Posted 27 September 2015 400 Millions less animals killed. http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-20619/americans-are-now-eating-400-million-fewer-animals.html
Rincewind Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 That can be applied to people to. Not throwing them in the ocean but helping them.
purpleronnie Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 400 Millions less animals killed. http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-20619/americans-are-now-eating-400-million-fewer-animals.html Isn't that interfering with nature?...and not in the welsh way. Natural selection all all that jazz.
ozleicester Posted 27 September 2015 Author Posted 27 September 2015 to be fair...i dont think feedlots can really be considered "nature"
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 It really is about time we started treating vegetarianism as a mental illness. We are made to eat meat.
Webbo Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Isn't that interfering with nature?...and not in the welsh way. Natural selection all all that jazz. Just think of all those poor molluscs that have been eaten by those starfish that would still be alive today if that do gooder hadn't thrown them back in the sea.
Jimothy Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Isn't that interfering with nature?...and not in the welsh way. Natural selection all all that jazz. I'm pretty sure he shared that story a while back in this thread and it got pulled apart for just that reason
ozleicester Posted 27 September 2015 Author Posted 27 September 2015 What's that got to do with star fish? Apologies, i thought he was referring to the 400 million uneaten animals, probably a more relevant discussion
Manwell Pablo Posted 29 September 2015 Posted 29 September 2015 400 Millions less animals killed. http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-20619/americans-are-now-eating-400-million-fewer-animals.html Still waiting for your comments on typically deranged animal rights dog nappers.
Rincewind Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 I see Ricky Gervais is not too happy with Princess Michael about her comment that animals do not have rights as they do not pay taxes. Well children do not pay taxes either should they be denied rights? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ricky-gervais-brands-princess-michael-6544836 Not sure Princess Anne would agree with her though.
Guest Sharpe's Fox Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Princess Michael ffs. Do they call her Mick or Mikey?
David Guiza Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 That story is shocking, just because someone is homeless you can't just steal their property. That dog was probably the only thing he had in his life. I'm not sure what to make on this. As I do in part agree with you, what that dog gave that man would more than likely be on another level in terms of compassion and friendship then he'd receive from any other being day in day out. But, the dog's welfare comes first (assuming of course that the dog was suffering and not just simply owned my a homeless man). I also disagree that the dog is his 'property'. Not to be all hippie or anything, but I completely disagree with any animal being labelled as 'property'. Yes you will all disagree that a dog and a child are similar in any way whatsoever, but you wouldn't consider a child 'property' of the parent presumably? And neither would you have any qualms over the child being taken away from a homeless parent who couldn't provide for that child? As I said, I don't really know what to think/make of it all!
Rincewind Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Princess Michael ffs. Do they call her Mick or Mikey? Why is it Princess Michel? I always wondered that. Is her husband the cousin of another royal name Michel? How many of these Royals are there out there?
Guest MattP Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Why is it Princess Michel? I always wondered that. Is her husband the cousin of another royal name Michel? How many of these Royals are there out there? Millions of them mate, millions, all stealing hard working taxpayers money that should be going to refugees.
Rincewind Posted 30 September 2015 Posted 30 September 2015 Millions of them mate, millions, all stealing hard working taxpayers money that should be going to refugees. It was a serious question. As you know I am not a big royal fan. What gets me more than anything is cousins second cousins etc having portions of taxpayers money for being nothing more than being a distant relative to the queen. If it was the queen immediate family and heirs I would be fine with it. I am not the only one that feels this way I am sure. It is like someone on benefits putting down a second cousin twice removed as a dependent. Would you agree with that assuming it is not you that is claiming of course? I am not anti-royal as much as anti-hanger ons. There is a vast difference. The refugees along with thousands of terminally sick,disabled and children I am sure are in greater need of financial support to prevent them falling through the safety net.
Manwell Pablo Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 I'm not sure what to make on this. As I do in part agree with you, what that dog gave that man would more than likely be on another level in terms of compassion and friendship then he'd receive from any other being day in day out. But, the dog's welfare comes first (assuming of course that the dog was suffering and not just simply owned my a homeless man). I also disagree that the dog is his 'property'. Not to be all hippie or anything, but I completely disagree with any animal being labelled as 'property'. Yes you will all disagree that a dog and a child are similar in any way whatsoever, but you wouldn't consider a child 'property' of the parent presumably? And neither would you have any qualms over the child being taken away from a homeless parent who couldn't provide for that child? As I said, I don't really know what to think/make of it all! If the child was snatched by a bunch of loony extremists from the parents arms without any legal sanction then yeah I'd have a problem with that as would the police. Not hard to see this wacky Animal Rights activists at the worst. As for the welfare of the dog it looked fine to me, until those morons decided to cause it deep distress that is.
David Guiza Posted 1 October 2015 Posted 1 October 2015 If the child was snatched by a bunch of loony extremists from the parents arms without any legal sanction then yeah I'd have a problem with that as would the police. Not hard to see this wacky Animal Rights activists at the worst. As for the welfare of the dog it looked fine to me, until those morons decided to cause it deep distress that is. Oh of course, I would have much preferred that there was no intervention, the only point I was making is that the dog's welfare comes first - regardless of the circumstances. I do however think that it's impossible to say what the welfare of the dog is, aside from extreme circumstances where the dog is noticeably thin etc. Although, to remove any emotional attachments, the likelihood is that whoever adopts the dog will be in a better financial and comfortable environment for the dog. That obviously doesn't mean you can just go around snatching dogs because you think you know best, without any authority though. As for the above, not entirely sure why anything that Princess Michael says about anything is given any credence in the press.
The Doctor Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 It really is about time we started treating vegetarianism as a mental illness. We are made to eat meat. - fair comment tbh, quite an interesting new study showing a significant link between being vegetarian and having an eating disorder: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471015315000860
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.