-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
huntjo
Member
While I do think the peanut gallery has been mildly amusing, I think the humorous additions are detracting from what our nonviolent friend is saying.
I.e. You are drowning him out with your nonsense and therefore dismissing his point in a not-non-partial moderator way. Personally I fall more on Canuck's side here because his debate partner here is being a bit too dismissive of non-human life to my taste. Though I would certainly save a human first if there were some sort of either-or choice that the villain from "Saw" set up in a sadistic way where I literally only could pick one.
Otherwise I say save the dog, don't torture the monkey, don't bludgeon the dolphin, don't step on the harmless spider. There is no reason to make a living being suffer just because you can. There is no reason to turn your back when a living being is suffering when you can easily intervene.
That being said, I am only disagreeing with the extreme nature of wk057's response. If he had simply said "well I don't think you should break the window if the dog seems fine I think you should just call the authorities " then I would being saying, "ok well that's a reasonable response I suppose. As long as the dog isn't in pain or imminent danger." But for some reason his view is that non human life is not his concern and should not be others' concern.
I think carving this portion of the thread out of the other thread was a reasonable response by the mods, but I think it's a little disappointing at the joking nature of the mods responses and the direction they have not just allowed but pushed this thread.
I.e. You are drowning him out with your nonsense and therefore dismissing his point in a not-non-partial moderator way. Personally I fall more on Canuck's side here because his debate partner here is being a bit too dismissive of non-human life to my taste. Though I would certainly save a human first if there were some sort of either-or choice that the villain from "Saw" set up in a sadistic way where I literally only could pick one.
Otherwise I say save the dog, don't torture the monkey, don't bludgeon the dolphin, don't step on the harmless spider. There is no reason to make a living being suffer just because you can. There is no reason to turn your back when a living being is suffering when you can easily intervene.
That being said, I am only disagreeing with the extreme nature of wk057's response. If he had simply said "well I don't think you should break the window if the dog seems fine I think you should just call the authorities " then I would being saying, "ok well that's a reasonable response I suppose. As long as the dog isn't in pain or imminent danger." But for some reason his view is that non human life is not his concern and should not be others' concern.
I think carving this portion of the thread out of the other thread was a reasonable response by the mods, but I think it's a little disappointing at the joking nature of the mods responses and the direction they have not just allowed but pushed this thread.
There are plenty of reasons. You consider busting someone else's car window to save a dog easily intervening? I don't.
Do I want someone to put their pet in harms way? No.
Do I want someone to leave their pet in a hot car? No.
Is it my job to intervene if they do? Not in the slightest.
It's just a dog. Seriously, it's just a dog. I'm not going to go around checking to see if the owners are present, or vented their windows, or left their A/C, or any other waste of time every time I see a pet in a car. It seriously is just not that important in life.
I mean really, people are advocating wasting public resources on this nonsense. Let's say you call the police and have the police and animal control "intervene" for you to save someone else's animal. It's not legal for you to rescue this animal yourself unless you want to get slapped with a lawsuit from the owner of the property you'd be destroying to do so.
First, you're wasting dispatcher resources which could be needed in an actual emergency. Further, now you're taking an officer of the law who's duty is to serve and protect the people and you're putting their focus on an animal, and not even your own animal. So now when the call comes in for a person who is in danger in actual need of help, this officer will be that much more delayed... because of an animal. Sorry, that's just not acceptable to me in any way shape or form regardless of how minimal the impact is.
Last edited:
GlennAlanBerry
Member
@wk57 I don't think you are going to win the day by saying "its just a dog". There are too many dog lovers here on TMC (and in society) who are going to have big problems with that argument and attitude. Dogs (and other pets) are actually very important to many people (but not so much to you, it seems). Regardless of that, I would say there is a moral argument to be made for caring about other living things besides humans.
Making straw man arguments about supposed impacts to public safety or misuse of taxpayer resources is also a pretty weak bit of logic. If there is really a higher priority call coming into dispatch, do you actually think the dispatcher is going to ignore that in favor of the animal rescue call?
Making straw man arguments about supposed impacts to public safety or misuse of taxpayer resources is also a pretty weak bit of logic. If there is really a higher priority call coming into dispatch, do you actually think the dispatcher is going to ignore that in favor of the animal rescue call?
You're probably right. Too many crazies out there who will refuse to see the logic behind such arguments.
As for the dispatcher, it's kind of a moot point with regard to a call center taking the calls (no way to know which call is more important immediately) and in the case of a officer/unit already being dispatched to the dog when the need to dispatch for something more important comes in. While I assume the dispatcher would use logic in their decision (human > dog) the damage would already have been done if they were previously dispatched to the dog.
I'm glad you concede that the case of a human in danger is a higher priority call, however. I consider that a win for sanity at least.
GlennAlanBerry
Member
Oh of course a human in life-threatening danger is a higher priority than a dog in life-threatening danger.
Does that mean we ignore a pet distress call just because something else "might" happen later? I would say that in most areas, and at most times, there are plenty of law enforcement/fire department resources that are available to respond to a pet distress call without jeopardizing their ability to respond to other calls. I would bet that most officers and firefighters would be happy to save a dog's life vs.writing a speeding ticket or making any other non-emergency call.
Taking your argument further, why should people even have pets? The food they eat, and the other resources that are spent caring for them could be better used to care for humans, right? After all, they are just animals...
Really, life is not a zero sum game.
Does that mean we ignore a pet distress call just because something else "might" happen later? I would say that in most areas, and at most times, there are plenty of law enforcement/fire department resources that are available to respond to a pet distress call without jeopardizing their ability to respond to other calls. I would bet that most officers and firefighters would be happy to save a dog's life vs.writing a speeding ticket or making any other non-emergency call.
Taking your argument further, why should people even have pets? The food they eat, and the other resources that are spent caring for them could be better used to care for humans, right? After all, they are just animals...
Really, life is not a zero sum game.
Pets, property, atmospheric pressure, Gandhi, sheriff stars and princesses......
I believe the police are legally allowed to use their steering wheel and turn the car around for more important calls. I don't think they'd ignore an assault in process because they were sent to rescue a puppy.
I believe the police are legally allowed to use their steering wheel and turn the car around for more important calls. I don't think they'd ignore an assault in process because they were sent to rescue a puppy.
chickensevil
Active Member
Coming from someone who gets sadden by videos of mistreatment of animals and someone who loves his own pet deeply, I actually agree with wk057. I have tried to stay somewhere in the middle in all of this, but the question I am always left with, where do you draw the line? So dog = important. Cat? I know plenty of people who care a lot about their dog, even other's dogs, but wouldn't put forth even remotely the same amount of effort on someone's cat. What about a bird? A pet spider (Most people kill spiders intentionally when they aren't someone's pet). For that matter, what life should be "protected"? We just going to say mammals? Then what's with those mice traps that people set?
The way I see it, do no harm to someone else's property. Given that a pet is someone else's property (and so is their car) you shouldn't damage one to save the other, and you certainly shouldn't go around hurting people's pets. That said, I am not opposed to calling the authorities or attempting to locate the owner. But going to the point where I have seen some stories of people breaking windows of cars under the justification of "animal safety" is terrible.
The way I see it, do no harm to someone else's property. Given that a pet is someone else's property (and so is their car) you shouldn't damage one to save the other, and you certainly shouldn't go around hurting people's pets. That said, I am not opposed to calling the authorities or attempting to locate the owner. But going to the point where I have seen some stories of people breaking windows of cars under the justification of "animal safety" is terrible.
chickensevil
Active Member
This is why I brought up Jainism, earlier. Because at least people who are fundamental Jains attempt to protect all life, not just one class of animal. To the point where they will drink things through a cheesecloth to avoid accidentally swallowing some fly or tiny insect. But I give them credit for not going halfway with it.
I agree breaking a window just because you see a dog in a car is over the top. If you feel the need to stand next to the car and call the police in an attempt to find the owner fine. If it's 110 degrees outside and the dog is not waking up when you knock on the window multiple times and you are willing to pay for the window then fine. These fake arguments about harming the public are over the top though.
a human threatening life is a higher priority than a dog threatening life
and why should pets even have people? they are just animals that consume way too many resources that could be used for animals (most non human animals I know don't have Avatars and can't post here to defend themselves, trying to help them)
unfortunately our rats and chickens don't share resources well...:frown:
and my Model S is a small bird killer:crying:
GlennAlanBerry
Member
If I saw a dog in a locked car on a hot day, who appeared to be in acute distress, this is what I would do:
1. Quickly attempt locate the owner (but not spend more than a couple of minutes doing this)
2. If the owner could not be located, call 911
3. If the dispatcher refused to send a unit, or if the response time was going to be a long time, I would break a window on the car.
4. I would be ready and willing to pay for the window and get ticketed or cited if it looked like I had used poor judgment or over-reacted.
All of this would be tempered by my assessment of the situation, i.e. whether it was 70 degrees or 95 degrees, the apparent condition of the dog, etc. There is no way that a piece of auto glass trumps the life of a dog. Morally, dogs are not just property.
1. Quickly attempt locate the owner (but not spend more than a couple of minutes doing this)
2. If the owner could not be located, call 911
3. If the dispatcher refused to send a unit, or if the response time was going to be a long time, I would break a window on the car.
4. I would be ready and willing to pay for the window and get ticketed or cited if it looked like I had used poor judgment or over-reacted.
All of this would be tempered by my assessment of the situation, i.e. whether it was 70 degrees or 95 degrees, the apparent condition of the dog, etc. There is no way that a piece of auto glass trumps the life of a dog. Morally, dogs are not just property.
Dude, if you broke the window on my car, I don't give a crap. I'd beat the living hell out of you (in defense of my property), and I'm sure other car owners would do the same. If the police were to get there I'd be sure to have you arrested for vandalizing my property. I'd pursue you to the fullest extent of the law and defend my own actions equally so.
You'd be a criminal. You'd have broken into my property and I'd have a right to defend it just as much as if you had broken into my home.
Give me a break the animal is not worth the jail time.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Nah, he wouldn't be a criminal. He'd be a human being, doing what is right. And the law would protect him.
Can we stop this chest thumping now?
Can we stop this chest thumping now?
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
And for the record, you'd be the criminal. You're not defending your property. You obviously weren't there at the time it happened (or there wouldn't have been an issue). It would be retaliation. That's not considered defending property.
Conveniently, since he said he already called 911, the police would have arrived right about then.
Conveniently, since he said he already called 911, the police would have arrived right about then.
Actually the law would not protect him in most cases. Even in states where the law protects a pet in this situation the police or animal control officer makes the decision to destroy the person's property, not some random citizen who assumes they have an excuse to do so.
I think you either missed "acute distress" (or it doesn't mean much to you). That's a key facet of Glenn's described scenario.
The way I interpret that phrasing is something like a 100F day with a dog whimpering in the back seat or looking nearly dead but panting heavily, with no water in sight, and signs that the car might have been there for 2+ hours -- not in the shade.
My first instinct would be to try to get the attention of the dog. Try to wake him/her up if asleep, for example. If that led to an impression that the dog is dead or that it would be imminent, I wouldn't be able to walk past / move along. I just wouldn't.
Would I call the police? Would I break a window? Would I run into the nearest store and ask to use the PA microphone? I don't know. But "just walk alone carelessly" would not be an option. IMO, it's a human reaction to care -- regardless of "ownership".
Just describing the scenario above makes me sad.
- Status
