by Jenni78 on 08 December 2017 - 23:12
What if the ad said "No children." A landlord cannot discriminate against children, so anyone selling a dog (aggressive dog, at that) should abide by the same rule? I really don't understand this. To see selectiveness in placement as discrimination is baffling to me. Guess I'm not that smart. Is that a woman thing?
The ad said the seller will consider women on a case-by-case basis. It does not say "no women" in a blanket statement.
My guess is the seller is not half the handler he thinks he is and the dog isn't half the dog he thinks he is. That's typically the chauvinists' MO. However...whether he is right or wrong, discerning or chauvinist, I think it is his right to decide who he would like to sell his dog to.
By this post, I guess I, too, "discriminate" against a whole bunch of people if I don't think can handle a certain dog. Here I thought I was being responsible and preventing heartache and disappointment and potentially much worse things, and I come to find out some view it as "discrimination."
Last I checked, I'm a woman and I'm totally un-offended by the ad, although I do find it a touch amusing for the reasons I stated above.
by Hundmutter on 09 December 2017 - 07:12
IDK about turds bobbing up, but these waters are certainly getting really muddied by bringing in irrelevancies. The original advertiser did not show himself to be racist (although often the ignorant attitude that claims the disabled and female are incompetant goes hand in hand with that). So although its a fair comparison to put to the Admins, its better not to go on about it.
I did write that I thought it would make an interesting test case in (real) court, to see which countries' laws could be applied, for all sorts of reasons - which would include FB. There are unremoved vids on facebook of kids selfieing themselves doing all sorts of criminal things, so I don't know that Bee's burglar would have been taken down so quickly. [Actually LE has found that quite useful occasionally !] Besides which, FB is signatory to all sorts of international agreements about policing content by now; that does not apply to our advertiser.
Jenni I know exactly what you mean about trying to pave the way for proposed buyers not to be disappointed; and WR's point about horses was relevant, also. But I really think that if JonRob could come up with the sort of alternative wording for an ad that I was suggesting, so could the original advertiser. And should have.
by aaykay on 09 December 2017 - 09:12
by beetree on 09 December 2017 - 14:12
Test case, lol! Pushing for PC language on a for sale ad by an individual for a dangerous dog that flunked out of the Navy! Hundmutter your outrageous adjectives do exaggerate... and I certainly do not claim any burglars, video’d or otherwise.
Will Jon-Rob’s ambulance chaser be the one to get rich quick? Did he even graduate? Oh wait, Maybe he is that Univ of Miami law student on the viral FB video from the People’s Court that got schooled by UofM alumni, Judge Marilyn Milan! 😆
by Hundmutter on 09 December 2017 - 19:12
Bee: the interesting legal point would not be about the dog in question, it would be about advertising ( anything) on the Internet and which countries laws take precedence, and why. Duh.
Apologies for the attribution of the burglar scenario - I thought JonRob came up with that based on something you wrote, but on reading back it seems it was entirely his invention of an argument he was interpreting for you.
by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 04:12
Nyuck nyuck nuyck ladies. If you keep this up my lawyer friend is going to pop a vessel from laughing so hard.
For those lurkers who get it, here are some distinctions that some posters may be incapable of understanding.
First not all lawyers do personal injury cases. My lawyer friend does not. He specializes in discrimination cases.
Second federal discrimination cases go to federal court. A rinky tink little judge like Judge Judy isn't allowed to go anywhere near them.
But you ladies have gone to so much trouble to make us laugh that we feel the least we can do is share some great news to cheer you up. Some uppity disabled lady in Minnesota--who apparently thinks like my lawyer friend and I do that disabled people have the same rights as non-disabled people--had the effin nerve to take her trash out to the dumpster and guess what! A police K9 came along and mauled the sh*t out of her! Best part is that the K9 mauled the sh*t out of her good arm (she's missing her hand on her other arm). Second best part is that the cops did not immediately choke the dog off but played tug of war with her and the dog thereby greatly increasing the severity of her injuries. Third best part is that according to the Beetree School of Law she can't sue! That's right! And why not? Because her story has been posted on PDB in another thread! So that means only the laws of Iceland apply! Nyuck nyuck nyuck!
For your viewing pleasure, here's the dashcam video of that uppity disabled woman getting exactly what she deserves for thinking she could walk around minding her own business like a superior non-disabled person!
For your reading pleasure here's an article about it!
Hopefully this will serve as a warning to those uppity disabled folks who are perfectly capable of handling tough dogs and think they have the same right to buy them as superior non-disabled folks! Especially those military folks who got disabled serving our country! Why the hell should they be allowed to buy a tough dog they can handle! Jerks! Who the hell do they think they are! Nyuck nyuck nyuck!
As for you posters who cheer for disability discrimination and claim to be disabled, karma can be real nasty. Hitler had Jewish soldiers for a while (look it up) until he killed them. The same disability discrimination you promote may come back someday to bite you in the ass real hard.
Disability discrimination is the ugliest form of discrimination there is, especially against disabled veterans. Life has already kicked the sh*t out of disabled people so let's just kick the sh*t out of them again by making sure they aren't allowed to do what non-disabled folks do.
Any responsible dog seller will carefully screen everyone who wants to buy a dog, male, female, disabled, non-disabled, African-American, white, whatever. He won't blanket rule out an entire class of people because he's a bigot.
There may be some tough-as-nails crabby ass jarhead out there who lifts weights, runs marathons, and would love to buy the dog in the ad because he used to have one just like him, loved him, handled him great, and is more than capable of handling another dog like this. But he's disabled--he has a below-the-knee prosthesis on his right leg because part of that leg was blown off by an IED while he was in Iraq fighting to protect our lives and our freedom. So the seller (illegally) will not allow him to buy the dog. Don't even ask, the ad makes clear. This discrimination is just fine with the PDB admins and almost every PDB member who posted--nothing more than a "speck of dust" and a "molehill."
And the PDB cesspool used to be even worse? What were you folks doing, organizing the next Holocaust? Hitler hated disabled people as much as he hated Jews BTW and slaughtered as many of them as he could.
by Fantom76 on 10 December 2017 - 05:12
by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 05:12
Tone it down? Why doesn't PDB "tone it down" by banning ads that discriminate against disabled folks and women?
Interesting that the PDB admins don't find this kind of discrimination offensive but they do find it offensive when someone emphatically objects to it.
What a cesspool.
by Hundmutter on 10 December 2017 - 08:12
JonRob I don't think the 'ladies' (? some of us might find the tone of THAT a bit MCP-ish !) were serious about Judge Judy. This is called 'humour'.
Look, your friend might work in discrimination cases; that doesn't mean s/he knows about international law. You seem fixated on what can and cannot be read on the Internet in terms only of an American audience; all I'm saying is that you have raised a far wider question, one to which I, for one, don't yet know if there is a definitive answer by which you could compel site owners to screen for and operate equality legislation, whichever legislative(s) have agreed it. Simple fact here is that on an international site (albeit one with a preponderance of US users) not all advertisers are American; not all ads are posted from American addresses (even if this one was); not all readers of ads are expected to be Americans, or in America. So does American law apply ?
For Beetree, its a shame international legal decisions, like others, usually need a 'case in point' on which to take a debate & decision; this particular ad might be a less clear example of out and out discrimination against women and those with disabilities than something else might be, but you need to work with what you get !
We have another route which is to appeal to Oli and co's sense of moral justice; but I guess there would always be ads which would 'slip through', given this potential for people to misunderstand intent of phrasing where an advertiser claims concern about sentient livestock of any kind. And as Hexe pointed out in the beginning, 'policing' stuff when you don't have loads of people (or a clear algarithm ?) to get rid of the dodgy, if not illegal, is no easy task. That does not mean that everybody involved with PDB is unsympathetic.
Gawd, even Facebook etc are arguing they cannot do it properly (yet ?).
Yes the issues are serious - but lighten up, fer chrisake. You don't win arguments by insulting all-comers among your opponents.
by Hundmutter on 10 December 2017 - 08:12
PS I agree with JonRob about the cops playing tug with the woman in the St Pauls video rather than making efforts to choke the dog off of her elbow. That was unnecessary. IMO even in Training it would be unreasonable if a dog has failed to Out on repeated commands to continue pulling against the other side of a decoy, a bite pillow, or anything similar - so why was the dog allowed that 'reward' in this instance ???
You must be logged in to reply to posts