U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2014, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Chapel Hill, N.C.
36,484 posts, read 43,763,062 times
Reputation: 47257

Advertisements

Not much hope that will happen here.

France decides that pets are no longer just 'property' - National Dogs | Examiner.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2014, 02:08 PM
 
92 posts, read 266,155 times
Reputation: 125
Interesting.

I'm curious where the line blurs between a pet and an animal grown for food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,486 posts, read 10,503,840 times
Reputation: 33592
And I hope it doesn't happen here, so I won't be jumping on that bandwagon.

As usual, too many people feel rather than think. Allowing pet owners to sue for "pain and suffering" (their pets' or theirs) Really? Not only is that ridiculous, but there goes one advantage to pet-centered businesses (already regulated, BTW)--that the litigious can currently only sue for the value of the animal. Also, I don't want some busybody government worker (or neighbor, perhaps) deciding that I shouldn't euthanize my own pet. That would no longer be the owner's sole decision.

Laws can have many ramifications that eager supporters haven't always considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 09:28 AM
 
460 posts, read 408,525 times
Reputation: 1111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
And I hope it doesn't happen here, so I won't be jumping on that bandwagon.

As usual, too many people feel rather than think. Allowing pet owners to sue for "pain and suffering" (their pets' or theirs) Really? Not only is that ridiculous, but there goes one advantage to pet-centered businesses (already regulated, BTW)--that the litigious can currently only sue for the value of the animal. Also, I don't want some busybody government worker (or neighbor, perhaps) deciding that I shouldn't euthanize my own pet. That would no longer be the owner's sole decision.

Laws can have many ramifications that eager supporters haven't always considered.
What, exactly, is the principled distinction between a smart dog and a roughly 3-year old child? Mere speciesism? At the very least, the distinction is a gradient, rather than black and white. A world where a beloved, older family dog can be killed negligently and that family only reimbursed $50 or so (fair market value for an old dog is about zero)... that's not a world I prefer.

It's not your property, it is your ward. It's not a laptop or a chair, but a living being that - in many cases - has a great deal of intelligence (usually enough to self-recognize). The idea that you have a "right" to kill an animal on your whim, regardless of whether there is need, use, or justification for it, is quite terrifying. The government is there to protect those who cannot fully protect themselves and most pets should certainly fall under this rubric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,486 posts, read 10,503,840 times
Reputation: 33592
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs View Post
What, exactly, is the principled distinction between a smart dog and a roughly 3-year old child? Mere speciesism? At the very least, the distinction is a gradient, rather than black and white. A world where a beloved, older family dog can be killed negligently and that family only reimbursed $50 or so (fair market value for an old dog is about zero)... that's not a world I prefer.

It's not your property, it is your ward. It's not a laptop or a chair, but a living being that - in many cases - has a great deal of intelligence (usually enough to self-recognize). The idea that you have a "right" to kill an animal on your whim, regardless of whether there is need, use, or justification for it, is quite terrifying. The government is there to protect those who cannot fully protect themselves and most pets should certainly fall under this rubric.

That didn't take long. A stranger already deeming a situation to be that an older family dog is "killed negligently." According to whom? You? Maybe a summit willl be held of biddies and crazy cat and dog ladies to make the determination. In France, because it's not yet happened here, and now we know why.

Thanks for proving my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 10:17 AM
 
460 posts, read 408,525 times
Reputation: 1111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
That didn't take long. A stranger already deeming a situation to be that an older family dog is "killed negligently." According to whom? You? Maybe a summit willl be held of biddies and crazy cat and dog ladies to make the determination. In France, because it's not yet happened here, and now we know why.

Thanks for proving my point.
I was actually referring to a scenario in which a third party negligently kills a family's dog and has only to pay the fair market value of the dog as recompense. Also, if you'd like me to show you my academic survey of pet property laws from law school, I can certainly go in to much greater depth.

Also, the idea that people who cannot stomach your cruel views are "crazy" is a nice touch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,486 posts, read 10,503,840 times
Reputation: 33592
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs View Post
I was actually referring to a scenario in which a third party negligently kills a family's dog and has only to pay the fair market value of the dog as recompense. Also, if you'd like me to show you my academic survey of pet property laws from law school, I can certainly go in to much greater depth.

Also, the idea that people who cannot stomach your cruel views are "crazy" is a nice touch.


I certainly didn't invent the term "crazy cat lady" which, BTW was around long before the France uproar so, if you're trying to put me in "le doghouse" over that...good try, no cigar.

Also, in neither post did I offer any "views" about the treatment of animals--simply that what to do with them should be up to their owners. As Martha Stewart might say, reading comprehension is a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2019, 04:56 PM
 
6,329 posts, read 3,406,374 times
Reputation: 3493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post

As usual, too many people feel rather than think. Allowing pet owners to sue for "pain and suffering" (their pets' or theirs) Really? .
If I lose a beloved pet due to negligence or bad behavior I should just live with it? I think not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Canada
1,403 posts, read 849,964 times
Reputation: 4473
Unfortunately the link doesn't work for me, so I'll just express how I feel.

I can only hope that some day, animals will be recognized as more than just property here in North America. Yes, of course there can be complications and catch-22's within such laws (as there always is with laws), but for those who do recognize animals as sentient, then having a law directed against those in society who believe that they can do whatever they wish to animals because the animal is 'their property', and having some form of law to guarantee that safety for the animal(s) is most definitely welcome, and long overdue. Some cities have started going that way, but the process is tedious and frustratingly long. It is, however, coming, thankfully.

Last edited by bassetluv; 06-02-2019 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Canada
1,403 posts, read 849,964 times
Reputation: 4473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
And I hope it doesn't happen here, so I won't be jumping on that bandwagon.

As usual, too many people feel rather than think. Allowing pet owners to sue for "pain and suffering" (their pets' or theirs) Really?
Yes, really. If someone were to direct an attack against my dog, for example, and either maliciously harmed or killed him, I can tell you that my pain and suffering would be enormous. Someone who only relates to animals on an 'it's just another species that is at our disposal' level cannot comprehend this. And yet the number of people who do suffer over the loss of an animal that they were close to cannot, and should not, just be swept under the rug as 'these people are crazy'. Only someone who has never learned to recognize animals as sentient creatures or get beyond the suggestion that humans are THE most important thing on the planet would be incapable of understanding this. The sentiment suggests that the person completely dismisses another human's feelings as crazy, bizarre, or unjustified, simply because they cannot relate. In short, it's narrow-minded and intolerant thinking toward anyone who is suffering over a loss that they themselves cannot relate to. And while I don't say that one has to relate, I do say that having respect and tolerance for those who are capable of loving animals is something that needs to be taught.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top