Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
ozleicester

Animal rights

By ozleicester, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
Posted

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rincewind

Rincewind

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Rincewind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manwell Pablo

Manwell Pablo

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by Manwell Pablo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...