A END OF THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD DOGS. - Page 12

It all starts with taking away one right, then another and another.  We are a Socialist country and are becoming Marxist  and Communist one right at a time. Look at Hitler.

 Abby Normal. You missing the principal of the idea.That is why it is so disturbing to me. I am talking about  principals. Do you actually believe that laws should be based on what is important in someone's or majority's eyes and what is effective and not on justice and morality and ethics?  What about if majority decides to get rid of Jews?  Well, in name of "effectives" then why do we not just cut someone's hand off when he steals or just execute him,  that would be quite "effective" deterrent. Or why do we not forbid ownership of dogs since some idiots abuse them? That would also be quite effective. That is since stop abuse of animals is so "important".   You just can not bend rules of truth,  decency, morality, justice  and ethics in favor of efficiency and importance.  That is a Machiavellian approach of results justify the means  which was deemed horrific by all moral rules.   That is a horrific idea.  The worst evil on this earth was done on principles as you describe them . Those principles must  always be on pillory. That is why I have such a hard time to let go of this. 
Prager Hans
 

Hundmutter. 
In the absence of any legislation, how do you propose pointing out
the guilty ?
Who is talking about absence of legislation. Because I am not. But the legislation must target only  the guilty party. 


 Who gets to accuse a fellow club member of over-use
or cruel use of an e collar ?  
Are we talking about enforcing the low ore creating a law. Those are two separate issues. 

How to penalise it and make it stick
and 'police' it thereafter ?
 Same as any other law!!!!Put people in jail or fine them. What is the question? 
 
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 ?
Of course!!!  Most of the laws target guilty and it will not infringe on the liberty of innocent.  And all good laws, and there are myriad of them target only the  guilty and not the innocent. What are you talking about!? Are you serious!?  You are probably mistaken Liberty for Anarchy. Liberty does not give you right to do what ever you want, only what ever you want as long as you are not hurting someone else. 
Thus if I do not hurt anyone or in this case any dog with e collar I should have the liberty to use it. That is what Liberty is all about. 
Capish? 
Prager Hans
 

Hans you answered some of your questions
about MY qestions, in your previous post.

Why do we not make anyone found guilty of
cruelty / neglect of animals, under existing
laws, banned for life ?  We ought to.

The thing is that the legislative process gives
insufficient consideration to all the creatures
we share this planet with, fails to recognise
​the importance of integrated ecosystems, and
worries about the pockets of the top 5% over
all other factors, including the policing and
enforcement of laws that are not about what
they see as really important.  Hence in that
scale of things, if you are the wrong sort of
animal or the wrong sort of person (older, poorer,
disabled, younger, the  wrong colour) you get
less of a service [overall & statistivally @ least,
we all know some good cops], you get proportinally
less attention and services.  (Sorry Paul, yes I am
a Socialist and proud of it !).

In that atmosphere, it is ALWAYS going to be difficult
to get legislation passed that is suited to sorting out
really bad behaviour towards dogs, whether on or off
the training field and whatever tools, or none, it involves.

And whenever anyone suggests it there are those who
squeak "My liberty is being subverted".  Your 'liberty'
to be over the top with corrections on a dog ?  Your
liberty to kick 7 kinds of sh1t out of a person you decide
you don't like, or approve of ?  Face it, the  human animal
DOES need control systems and regulation;  otherwise
there would be more murders, not less.  Think about that
if you ever supported the death penalty for homicide.

So when you try to avoid making laws ('good' or 'bad') then
you run into what do you do, to protect victims, instead ?
You wouldn't argue that if a dog is being abused, it is not
a victim ?  Unless you are also prepared to argue someone's
crippled granny, beaten & robbed by a burglar, isn't a victim
either.  Where do you draw a line between who meets the
criteria of who or what is okay to be regarded as a victim &
worthy of protection, and who/what isn't ?  Will your decision
on that be the same as mine;  or Abby's; or Paul's ?
Slippery slope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7jSXz-xWimI

This is the result of dog people turning  blind eyes to an animal cruelty situation. It took a pet buyer to report it to the humane society, the malamute people who could have stopped it didn't.  Instead they minded their own business. 167 dogs rescued, many pg bitches that whelped over 100 puppies half of which were stillborn or died within a few days. 

Mind my own business? I don't think so..................

Hans, I am sorry that you have trouble letting this go.  In your world nothing would be banned, but if anything which had 'controlled' use (chemicals, logging, trawling nets, traps) ....I could give you an endless list believe me) - were used incorrectly, people would be jailed or fined. I say to you...impractical - unworkable.  You have your beliefs, I have mine. I am happy to let it go at that.

I wonder about people arguing so vehemently over their 'right' to be able to subject animals to certain things, and fight against legislation which decrees that people cannot underhouse/underfeed/subject an animal to unacceptable treatment, without the simple understanding that all people are not created equal and thus will not all behave acceptably without such controls. Personally I would rather see the rules fall in favour of the animal which cannot stake a claim for it's liberty, nor defend itself when that liberty becomes abuse. Sorry Hans, there you have it. 

To talk of Hitler and Jews in the same context I find ridiculous to say the least.
 

Hundmutter:  Nobody is talking here  about not protecting the weak .  Thus in order to draw the line somewhere  what you are saying is to protect the weak at the expense of the innocent? 
As far as you stating that you are proud socialist I would like to say that you obviously have no concept what you are saying. Do you realize that Nazis were socialists? Can you give me from top of your head definition of socialism? I doubt it. You are not socialist,... you are confused  since you are teaching for 75% of what socialist are 100% against. 
Prager Hans
 

Abby Normal could you point me  to the place where I said that" in my world nothing would be banned? " It is interesting when some  say A, some may here Z. I am not against Law and order I just want it to protect innocent and not violate innocent for the sake of majority.  
  OK Thanks for finally answering my question. You prefer welfare of dogs over the welfare of innocent people. I am glad that you could finally admit it. 
However the most puzzling  is your statement:: "To talk of Hitler and Jews in the same context I find ridiculous to say the least."
REALLY??!!

You'r  right.  Since  I am not here to change your mind I just want to understand it, we are done  here.
Now I finally understand where you are coming from and that was the purpose of my posts with you here.  
It was very educational for me. 
Thank you. 
 
Prager Hans

Hund

Human life is a whole different matter then animal life. My animals belong to me and I should be able to do with as I please. I own them and their rights are very limited.  My wife belongs to me, (and I to her) but I do not own her and her rights are very great. The issue is about morality, and what is truth. My question to you is what is truth and what is the foundation of all truth? The big problem with socialists and left wingers is they want their rules and convictions to be forced on everyone. I believe each should "mind there own business"  The big problem with socialism is all of the lazy and worthless are real happy until the money is gone, and it's not their money, it belongs to hard working men and women that the socialists pigs have taken away from them.

Some people are always going to do wrong, and some are going to strive to do do right. That is just life. What is right and what is wrong starts with one's morals and what is truth. For example: Is it right or wrong to kill snakes,spiders,pigs, cattle,ants,or people? Who gets to decide what lives and what dies.

The whole basis of your argument Hans means that nothing should be banned (otherwise this would be an infringement of liberty), all things would just be used appropriately, or as decreed, and punished if the 'rules' of use were not complied with. Otherwise you would not be having this conversation.  Any 'ban' has to be an anathema to your argument, you simply cannot have it both ways. A ban on anything must always affect the innocent who would not violate the use of the 'banned' item in the first place. Guns are again the obvious example. It violates my liberty that I am prohibited from owning a gun, yet I would not use one for nefarious purposes, nor would I harm anyone or anything with one. Yet I believe that this is a good thing and I believe if you were to look at statistics it would be proven to be the case. Therefore, at the expense of my liberty a decision was made which was for the good of the 'whole'. It works for me.

"To talk of Hitler and Jews in the same context I find ridiculous to say the least."
REALLY??!!   In the same context..... Yes.....really.