France has decided pets are no longer just "property" (euthanize, animals)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
) 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.
