On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:44:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:20:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Back to the "all or nothing" defense?

My ex-wife's got a goldfish pond in the back yard. They grow fat and
beautiful by eating mosquitoes, among other things. To her (and me),
mosquitoes have far more intrinsic value than a destructive dog.

That you would think such a think is enlightening in its own right.
I'd also be willing to bet that your opinion WRT dogs/mosquitos would
be at odds with the greater majority of people.

Who gives a damn what other people think?

It's pretty darn obvious that you don't. Otherwise you would not even
contemplate the use of deadly force against the family pet of your
neighbor, who dropped a few on you yard, and forced you to clean your
shoes.

Here's a phrase to mull over: Measured Response.


Some people spend their weekends
with binoculars, watching birds. I have no problem with that.

But you hate dogs. That makes you judgement WRT same impaired.

Others think
insects are much more valuable than dogs.

I'll bet I can count those people on the fingers of my left hand.


You pretend to have a problem with
that because it's convenient to your rapidly deflating argument.

My argument is still sound. You have made all sorts of excuses,
constructed several strawman analogies, peppered the exchange with
similarly principled, but otherwise unrelated instances, and attempted
to appeal to emotional preferences. Yet throughout it all, you have
not given ANY substantiating proof that you are legally authorized to
kill domestic pets for dumping on your yard. The burden of proof is
still on you to demonstrate that your position is legal.

I don't care how you *feel* about, how it *should* be, how
irresponsible your neighbor is, or how inept your animal control and
police personnel are. That fact is, that if you were my neighbor and
you killed my dog, you would be standing before a judge and most
likely found liable for damages, and possibly subject to animal
cruelty charges.


Matter of
fact, they have more value than the dog's owner, too, who contributes
nothing of beauty.

The concept of "beauty" is purely subjective. Subjectivity has no
place in a logical debate.

In my yard, the only concept of beauty that's important is MINE.

You can't hide from the law even on your property. You are not the
warlord of your own little fiefdom.


Here's something to think about. Statement #1, below, is open to a wide
range of interpretation. You may want to suggest some possible ones. But,
tell me how many ways you can interpret #2.

1) "Things are going very badly at work lately".

2) "I have to leave for work in five minutes, but first, I want to see if
the cucumber flowers have opened since I looked at them last night".


Relevance?

Dave