mr.mister

if only easing a babies discomfort and getting them to swallow on cue was as easy as that. ever tried to feed a screaming child in pain who has no interest in the bottle?

I know why babies scream on aeroplanes. Doesn't mean I want to sit next to them. :laugh:

Pretty sure no one here's said that babies don't have a right to travel in a plane.

I can't wait to have kids of my own, it's something I haven't been able to stop thinking about for a couple of years now. However, I have no interest whatsoever in other peoples' children. :laugh: I might coo over a new baby for a few minutes, but that's my limit. I wouldn't say I love kids in general particularly. I know I'll love my own kids when they come along; I don't think I should be expected to like every other random's child.

Puppies are cute and lovely and all, but I am sooo not a fan of the baby puppy stage. :laugh:

The toilet training, the chewing, the constant supervision, the chance to accidentally stuff them up in their fear periods.. the list goes on. That being said it is incredibly satisfying when you see your dog grow from a tiny puppy to a beautiful, well-rounded adult. :)

A dog that has been run on for ten months has a lot more money thrown into it than it would at 8 weeks - all the feeding, not to mention the time spent training, socialising, showing said dog. I would be more than happy to pay puppy price or more for such a dog.

No. The first 2 lines were in response to your post, pointing out that the situation may seem a little more urgent if it was your own dog and yard, and that you might accept help from what ever resources were available.

The rest was in reply to the thread. ;)

Wow, I was going to say that did seem a little intense.

Because resources rarely match up to daydreams. Or to television based expectations.

If two large stray dogs were in your backyard, attacking your dog, and keeping you from walking out of your back door to help it, would you be wanting to wait for a catchpole? Seriously?

A dog at large, that attacks - which normally by law includes "rushing" - another animal or person is liable for destruction. So the policeman's actions are upheld by law.

Would you do your utmost to stop that immediate aggressive behaviour and try to help the poor victim dog? Or are you going to allow that behaviour to continue while you play soft and cuddly games, and the offending dogs potenttially escape to attack something or someone else.

Not one of the people here condemming that cop's actions in shooting the attacking dog has voiced concerns over whether or not the victim dog may have been injured, whether mortally or not. That is a very disturbing thing indeed.

These dogs and their behaviour should not be defendable. Yes their owners are to blame, but like already said, they are not there to wear the immediate consequences of being shot.

efs

Woah, was that all aimed at me?

I just don't understand why the police were called first instead of an animal services officer. Surely such a serious situation would have warranted them getting out there pronto. Not trying to be cute and cuddly, just trying to see the logic.

Crikey.

A human life is of course more valuable than an animal, it isn't based on religion, it's common bloody sense.

It isn't common sense at all. Just a primitive human instinct from the days when humans were few and animals plentiful. That urge to protect our genetic legacy is still strong.

Leaving aside the child-dog-fire situation, there are plenty of situations where I would prioritise the life of an animal over a human. Mostly they involve protecting endangered species in places where humans are encroaching on what little territory they have remaining. I also imagine there are plenty of families out there that would prioritise the life of their milk goat or dairy cow over the life of their second daughter.

It's an interesting question anyway.

This.

Why on earth was there not a animal control officer there with a catch pole? Seriously.

Wish I could get the link to work can someone pm the one that does work I would appreciate it. :D

If you look at the url when you click on it, it says 'f**kcopyright'. Just uncensor the censored word and it will work :)

Anyone know if part 2 is out yet?

But its ok to label a child as mentally disabled based on one incident?

And for the record, I personally never labelled anyone as a psychopath or said they should never have children (although I think that is a moot point given the opinions of some in this thread). I said that the course of action based on concious choice was criminally negligent. As the law states that if someone dies as a direct result of a choice you made then you are held accountable (i.e. mansluaghter, negligence causing bodily harm, negligence causing death etc) then that choice is actually a criminal act that carries a significant peanalty.

Sorry, don't really know where I've said it's okay to do that. I certainly haven't labelled the child in question. I know other people have, but I haven't, and I haven't condoned it either.

You may not have called others psychopaths but others have on here, and why is it a moot point? When it comes down to personal attacks it's just not okay.

He has the most gorgeous little face.

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising?

In my humble opinion, I really don't think anyone can accurately judge someone as a psychopath over the internet. People seem to love throwing these kinds of labels around on the internet, but really of all places to judge, the net is the absolute worst.

I'm not saying no one can have an opinion on it. I just don't think that 'psychopath' and 'I hope you never have children' are really the kind of things to spout out to someone you've never even met.

I find it fascinating that people seem to so happily judge someone over a hypothetical scenario that they are either crazed psychopaths who should never have children, or socially inept loners who will only ever have their dog for companionship.

:laugh:

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

Sorry, I really think this is a bit of a silly question.. of course not, the instinct to survive overrules all else.

My point was that just because someone may, in a moment of sheer panic, fear, and pressure, (in which we'll have no idea how we'll act in the first place) think of their beloved pet first over a stranger, does not necessarily make them a psychopath nor relinquish their right to have children.

You're not the only one the question was aimed at, you know :)

Okay - I'm still allowed to answer it, yes? :D

In the end, people say stuff on the internet. I, personally, would be much more concerned if someone talked about planning to go and axe murder a bunch of people, as opposed to hypothesising (yes, they were hypothesising - no matter how certain they may feel about something, no one knows what they're really going to do) what they would do in a horrifying situation.

Looks like the OP has left this burning building. Cant say I blame her. Calling strangers on the net psychopaths, idiots, criminals and subhuman because they responded to a hypothetical? Seriously? I doubt very much anyone knows what on earth they'd do in that scenario but it has little to do with the OP anyway.

I think Raz has summed this up nicely.

A question for those who think it is reasonable to save your dog before a human, would you happily wait your turn to be rescued from a burning building while people who could easily help you, choose to leave you behind to get their own dogs out first???

Sorry, I really think this is a bit of a silly question.. of course not, the instinct to survive overrules all else.

My point was that just because someone may, in a moment of sheer panic, fear, and pressure, (in which we'll have no idea how we'll act in the first place) think of their beloved pet first over a stranger, does not necessarily make them a psychopath nor relinquish their right to have children.

.Wasn't defending OG, just questioning whether people can adequately judge them as a psychopath who shouldn't have children, over an internet forum.

If they put out statements that make them sound like a psychopath, then that's how they will be judged.

:laugh: It's the internet. It's notorious for people saying extreme things. That doesn't mean 80%+ of people on the internet are psychopaths.

Each to their own, but I'm reserving judgment.

.I agree here...

I assume most of those who have called certain people disgusting for their burning building opinion, have children. The replies were certainly understandable - however, I can't say I would ever go so far as to call someone a disgusting psychopath who should never have children over the net. Geez. This is a forum, not an actual burning building. People say things. In reality, no one knows exactly how they'd react in such an incredibly terrifying situation.

I have no idea what I would do in that situation, but I can only try to imagine. I doubt I would be in the building in the first place, the coward I am.

I am not a parent. I'm sure there are plenty on DOL who aren't. So no, I can't possibly imagine the extent that a parent loves their child. I've never experienced it, so I can only imagine it, but I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere close to what it really is. Until I have children, I'm not going to know this love, only the love I've experienced, which happens to be the love for my pets. Does it make me a psychopath if in my imagined scenario, I might think of my pet, which I love, first? Not because I hate the child in mention or am apparently a closeted serial killer or something, but because I love my animal, and in a high pressure situation like that I doubt I'd be thinking straight at all.

Call me a monster all you like.

You don't have to be a parent to realise that anyone who would abandon a human to die, in order to save a dog, is not quite right.

No, I don't think they're 'not quite right'. I feel fairly confident in saying that no one (including whoever said they would be 100% sure) can anticipate what anyone would do in such an horrific situation.

What I'm really getting at, is the original comment that OG was "100% certain" they would leave a child to die. To be so certain you could disregard human life, and you would have no qualms walking away, and happily state it in public, is completely wrong on so many levels.

Yes, I understand, hence me saying that I don't think anybody could ever be that certain about such a thing, regardless of what they say in the comfort of their computer chairs.

Wasn't defending OG, just questioning whether people can adequately judge them as a psychopath who shouldn't have children, over an internet forum.

.I agree here...

I assume most of those who have called certain people disgusting for their burning building opinion, have children. The replies were certainly understandable - however, I can't say I would ever go so far as to call someone a disgusting psychopath who should never have children over the net. Geez. This is a forum, not an actual burning building. People say things. In reality, no one knows exactly how they'd react in such an incredibly terrifying situation.

I have no idea what I would do in that situation, but I can only try to imagine. I doubt I would be in the building in the first place, the coward I am.

I am not a parent. I'm sure there are plenty on DOL who aren't. So no, I can't possibly imagine the extent that a parent loves their child. I've never experienced it, so I can only imagine it, but I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere close to what it really is. Until I have children, I'm not going to know this love, only the love I've experienced, which happens to be the love for my pets. Does it make me a psychopath if in my imagined scenario, I might think of my pet, which I love, first? Not because I hate the child in mention or am apparently a closeted serial killer or something, but because I love my animal, and in a high pressure situation like that I doubt I'd be thinking straight at all.

Call me a monster all you like.

You don't have to be a parent to realise that anyone who would abandon a human to die, in order to save a dog, is not quite right.

No, I don't think they're 'not quite right'. I feel fairly confident in saying that no one (including whoever said they would be 100% sure) can anticipate what anyone would do in such an horrific situation.

Such a decision would hopefully land you in jail, and heck, I'd be betting a very very dead dog.

I'd choose the child in the burning building, unless my subconcious took over and then I just don't know.

But I am curious as to why you think choosing the dog would lead to a very very dead dog?

Nor can I see why you think such a decision would lead to jail time. Social censure no doubt, but why jail? Back when I did such work that I might come across a disaster situation, I was always told that there was no legal obligation to risk one's life to save another's. Child or adult made no difference. You were never required to risk yourself for another. And I am assuming a burning building situation involves some risk to the rescuer.

Has that legal positon changed?

I have no doubt if a hypothetical like this happened, that SOMEONE would kill the dog in question.

I said I'd HOPE for jail time, but I also have no doubt if this was to happen and a dog was deliberately saved OVER a child and that there was a possibility of saving that child, that every cop involved would go through the summary offences act, crimes act, or case law just to find something to put them away.

Well if someone did kill the dog in question, they'd be the criminal.

I'm pretty sure we get to choose who or what we put ourselves in physical harm's way for, and I dearly hope it stays that way.

Even though I'd choose the child, I hold no anger towards those who'd pick their own. Nor for those who'd choose neither.

I don't think we have the right to say what people should risk life and limb for, or label them as mentally ill for a different choice to our own. We don't stand in their shoes.

I agree here...

I assume most of those who have called certain people disgusting for their burning building opinion, have children. The replies were certainly understandable - however, I can't say I would ever go so far as to call someone a disgusting psychopath who should never have children over the net. Geez. This is a forum, not an actual burning building. People say things. In reality, no one knows exactly how they'd react in such an incredibly terrifying situation.

I have no idea what I would do in that situation, but I can only try to imagine. I doubt I would be in the building in the first place, the coward I am.

I am not a parent. I'm sure there are plenty on DOL who aren't. So no, I can't possibly imagine the extent that a parent loves their child. I've never experienced it, so I can only imagine it, but I'm sure it doesn't come anywhere close to what it really is. Until I have children, I'm not going to know this love, only the love I've experienced, which happens to be the love for my pets. Does it make me a psychopath if in my imagined scenario, I might think of my pet, which I love, first? Not because I hate the child in mention or am apparently a closeted serial killer or something, but because I love my animal, and in a high pressure situation like that I doubt I'd be thinking straight at all.

Call me a monster all you like.

I can only assume from what she said that she wanted the dog gone ASAP. But I really don't know what went on in the background.

Yep.. that's why I put that word in there..

:laugh:

I guess she should have said GAP run at full capacity ...

I don't see what is so funny.

She didn't need to mention GAP at all. She is responsible for deciding to take that dog to the vet and have it euthanised. If people can't be honest about why they are going to have a dog euthed, perhaps they should keep their mouths closed about it.

I wasn't aware that trainers could have their dogs on a waiting list in advance. Now I know, that makes the situation a whole lot sadder. This woman complained about having to wait in the clinic for so long, as she had things to do that day and couldn't hang around. She then said that she'd rung earlier in the morning so it should have been fine. I have no idea if she meant she had called to confirm, or if she had just made the booking that morning. It was a pretty confusing conversation for me, as on one hand she said it broke her heart to do it, on the other hand she didn't have time to sit around all day as she had errands to run.

I can only assume from what she said that she wanted the dog gone ASAP. But I really don't know what went on in the background.

I found it enjoyable - I'll enjoy most dog-related things - but I must say I didn't like the emotive way it was filmed, and everything centering around 'love' and 'sticking together' etc etc. Purely designed to tug at the heart-strings but with very little factual information.

I would have found it a lot more enjoyable if it were filmed in the same way most wildlife docos are filmed, filled with information so you come away enlightened, not all warm and fuzzy inside.

I think it would be beneficial to take the money out of the industry. Sure you can race a greyhound, but you cannot bet on it. It's no longer a commercial sport.

This way we can preserve the athleticism of the breed without involving people who are motivated by things other than the dogs themselves.

Would there be an initial loss of life? Potentially, however, there is currently an ongoing loss of life that will be eternal and a propagation of a disposable mentality.

More lives wil be lost with the ongoing existence of the GH racing industry than without it.

This is how Whippets were raced back in the day. Although I think there was a bit of 'on track' betting between owners.

My view is that there should be no off track betting, no professional trainers and owner/trainers only. Let it be a hobby and once the dogs aren't seen simply as a walking source of money things would change.

I agree.

I like this idea very much. Don't know if I'll ever see it happen though.

Sorry everyone, I didn't intentionally start a post about a sensitive topic - was merely lamenting about the sadness I felt for Lucy.

but it DOES matter, no racing industry means that greyhounds don't NEED to be re-homed or shot or euthed in the first place.

One less batch of unwanted dogs.

fifi

No showing or breeding, agility, obedience, means that no adults or puppies need to find a home either, it's not just the racing industry that has unwanted or excess dogs, although they probably contribute a large %.

I can see that there has been a shift by some owners/trainers, towards having less dogs, breeding less puppies and putting 100% into the few dogs that they have. There is still the old school of breed masses of them and hope to god that one can run and the rest are destroyed and I really don't like that.

I wonder if the dog in the OP had not been a Greyhound, if people would have objected in the same way to it being euth'd. I very much doubt that Lucy was the only unwanted dog to die at that clinic today

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have been devastated regardless.

I've also met trainers who keep few dogs and really put their all into them. My next door neighbour has his now retired racing Grey whom he loves and is very proud of .

Either way, I'm not judging the woman's actions. I'm just so very sad for the loss of a young life. Admittedly, this is the first time I've ever seen anything like this first hand, so maybe I'm a bit sensitive.

That is awful, and frankly quite terrifying.

Whenever I've seen documentaries on serial killers, one of the most prevalent similarities they all have is that most of them started out killing animals.

Really scary stuff. I'm glad someone has taken notice. This might just save people's lives down the track.