This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Prager on 12 April 2013 - 19:04
Well good way to avoid the question. Answer different one. :) No hard feelings. 
by Abby Normal on 12 April 2013 - 20:04
Hans
I have answered the question many times, it is the same answer whether it refers to the environment, animal welfare or a variety of other issues. My answer is not going to change :)
No hard feelings
I have answered the question many times, it is the same answer whether it refers to the environment, animal welfare or a variety of other issues. My answer is not going to change :)
No hard feelings
by Prager on 12 April 2013 - 20:04
I am sorry that I can not let go, but where would you put a dog in front of a liberty of an innocent person? Can you give me specific, clear cut example of such scenario? One which even I can understand?:) This is fascinating to me.
Prager Hans
Prager Hans
by Abby Normal on 13 April 2013 - 05:04
OK. Let's use the example at hand. If enough people have/are abusing the e collar or other such articles and causing significant harm or physical/mental distress to dogs as a result, I would put their liberty to have access to those articles below that of the welfare of the dogs. In the overall context, would also be the consideration that it would not prevent anyone from training dogs, owning dogs, enjoying dogs, or going about the business of training dogs. In other words it would not impinge on their pleasure/hobby/sport, it would simply require it to be done slightly differently. Before you get upset about that Hans, I am not saying any such proposed move is right or wrong, I am using it as a very, very good example as an answer to your question.
BTW. You keep qualifying your questions by putting in the words 'innocent' people. Hans, in case you haven't noticed, the world has a significant number of people who are not innocent, and who act with intent to harm whether it be people or animals. If people were innocent, your question above undoubtedly would not need to arise in the first place. So, for you to understand why I say that liberty cannot always prevail, you must remove the word 'innocent' from your questions. You cannot single out sections of the population to apply liberty to, liberty for one is liberty for all....including the bad guys. This is why often, bad behaviour of the minority causes these laws to be made that affect the majority, even though the majority like you and I, act like civilized people. Then, we as the civilized sector of society have to have the ability to see that in order to gain control of the uncivilized, we sometimes have to make sacrifices. That's how I see it. Hans I have really done my best to explain my thought processes......
BTW. You keep qualifying your questions by putting in the words 'innocent' people. Hans, in case you haven't noticed, the world has a significant number of people who are not innocent, and who act with intent to harm whether it be people or animals. If people were innocent, your question above undoubtedly would not need to arise in the first place. So, for you to understand why I say that liberty cannot always prevail, you must remove the word 'innocent' from your questions. You cannot single out sections of the population to apply liberty to, liberty for one is liberty for all....including the bad guys. This is why often, bad behaviour of the minority causes these laws to be made that affect the majority, even though the majority like you and I, act like civilized people. Then, we as the civilized sector of society have to have the ability to see that in order to gain control of the uncivilized, we sometimes have to make sacrifices. That's how I see it. Hans I have really done my best to explain my thought processes......
by Prager on 13 April 2013 - 05:04
But this all what this thread is about. The innocent people being punished for shortcomings of the guilty ones! Don't you see that?
One uses e collar humanly and the other does not. Why not to punish just the one who does not use it humanly and leave the poor guy who does no harm alone?! If you abuse the dog and someone catches you on the video you go to prison for 3 years. That would work for me. But if you are using the equipment humanly just carry on and use it.
It is as if you would be saying. Some people are speeding and or driving drunk thus lets forbid ALL the cars for the guilty and for the ones who drive well too. That is what you are saying. Instead of course you should say lets punish the ones driving too fast or drunk and let the innocent ones alone. Same as with any training equipment like pinch collar or e collar. There are thousands of innocent dog trainers who use them humanly so let's leave them alone!
What is wrong with punishing only the guilty?
Prager Hans
One uses e collar humanly and the other does not. Why not to punish just the one who does not use it humanly and leave the poor guy who does no harm alone?! If you abuse the dog and someone catches you on the video you go to prison for 3 years. That would work for me. But if you are using the equipment humanly just carry on and use it.
It is as if you would be saying. Some people are speeding and or driving drunk thus lets forbid ALL the cars for the guilty and for the ones who drive well too. That is what you are saying. Instead of course you should say lets punish the ones driving too fast or drunk and let the innocent ones alone. Same as with any training equipment like pinch collar or e collar. There are thousands of innocent dog trainers who use them humanly so let's leave them alone!
What is wrong with punishing only the guilty?
Prager Hans
by Prager on 13 April 2013 - 05:04
I continue above post. Thus that is why may question contains word "innocent". Would you put a dog in front of a liberty of an innocent person. Of course that i would put the welfare of a dog in front of guilty person who abuses it. But I would not punish innocent person for some ones else's abuse of a dog. But it seems that you would.
by Hundmutter on 13 April 2013 - 08:04
In the absence of any legislation, how do you propose pointing out
the guilty ? Who gets to accuse a fellow club member of over-use
or cruel use of an e collar ? How to penalise it and make it stick
and 'police' it thereafter ? Do you, Prager, actually know of any
circumstances where the guilty one was exposed / proved / censured,
so that nobody 'innocent' had to give up their liberties of use ?
the guilty ? Who gets to accuse a fellow club member of over-use
or cruel use of an e collar ? How to penalise it and make it stick
and 'police' it thereafter ? Do you, Prager, actually know of any
circumstances where the guilty one was exposed / proved / censured,
so that nobody 'innocent' had to give up their liberties of use ?
by Paul Garrison on 13 April 2013 - 10:04
It seems to me some people can not mind their own business. They have to push their opinions on all. The problem is that the line that says this is right and this is wrong get moved all of the time by the moods and opinions of the extreme. Some examples are what is a healthy weight? (too fat too thin) To some a correction may be too hard while to others may be too weak. What is properly treated? Just how much time do I have to spend with my animal each day? When do I have to change their water? And here is a biggy, how many dogs and cat should one old lady be able to own.
My answer to all of these questions is MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and leave other alone. If you like how someone is, be their friend and you don't stay away from them.
I do not think that any old lady should own 500 cats but I also do not believe anyone should be able to stop her.
My answer to all of these questions is MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and leave other alone. If you like how someone is, be their friend and you don't stay away from them.
I do not think that any old lady should own 500 cats but I also do not believe anyone should be able to stop her.
by Bhaugh on 13 April 2013 - 14:04
This thread reminds me of "gun control" Although I personally don't agree with all the weapons that are openly sold, do I really want all to be regulated because of the nut jobs who make the news? I used to say yes but now I say no. It's a slippery slope and hard to curtail once the ball is rolling. At least give the people the right to vote the change and not take it upon thy self to decide for all.
I agree Hans, and always have, correct the few and not the many. Because the few just hide behind the many and do it over and over.
Ill be taking my rescue dog out on his first walk today. He will be wearing a prong or I will be flying down the street with the dog choosing our direction.
Barb
I agree Hans, and always have, correct the few and not the many. Because the few just hide behind the many and do it over and over.
Ill be taking my rescue dog out on his first walk today. He will be wearing a prong or I will be flying down the street with the dog choosing our direction.
Barb
by Abby Normal on 13 April 2013 - 14:04
Although I wouldn't know without going into it in depth...especially not my native country, I would think banning the use of something (minor) is probably seen as much easier and quicker to implement.
Hans your metaphor with the cars doesn't stack up. This is where context and importance comes in. People kill and maim by drunk driving, but it is in the wider interest to have a law which punishes only the guilty because to ban cars would cast a whole nation back into the dark ages, since whole economies are built and rely on the motor car. Not the same with an e-collar LOL. Context, cause and effect. You simply cannot leave these out of the equation, and just boil it down to liberty.
What you suggest is implemented is for much more 'important' and serious subjects which make the statute books and become laws with penalties. Hundmutter makes good points, in fact, it is probably far more effective. As I said before, even when someone in dog circles may be doing terrible things, many know yet still do nothing. So much can be done in private so could never be 'reported' and punished. This reminds me of fisherman. So frequently water birds get tangled in line, or swallow lead shot and become ill. Every fisherman you ever speak to condemns those that do this, and always affirm that they never do this. Someone does........but if you listen to the fisherman it's not them!
Hans, no hard feelings, but I feel we have about done this to death.
Hans your metaphor with the cars doesn't stack up. This is where context and importance comes in. People kill and maim by drunk driving, but it is in the wider interest to have a law which punishes only the guilty because to ban cars would cast a whole nation back into the dark ages, since whole economies are built and rely on the motor car. Not the same with an e-collar LOL. Context, cause and effect. You simply cannot leave these out of the equation, and just boil it down to liberty.
What you suggest is implemented is for much more 'important' and serious subjects which make the statute books and become laws with penalties. Hundmutter makes good points, in fact, it is probably far more effective. As I said before, even when someone in dog circles may be doing terrible things, many know yet still do nothing. So much can be done in private so could never be 'reported' and punished. This reminds me of fisherman. So frequently water birds get tangled in line, or swallow lead shot and become ill. Every fisherman you ever speak to condemns those that do this, and always affirm that they never do this. Someone does........but if you listen to the fisherman it's not them!
Hans, no hard feelings, but I feel we have about done this to death.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top