When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Sorry, John. Snares are off limits for me this afternoon. People have been
setting them for me all day.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:jRyjc.31659$YP5.2502550@attbi_s02...
Doug,
You seem like a true humanitarian. Don stated that if someone violated
his
rights, the law required him to shot the person in the face, do you think
that might be a little drastic of a solution?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
1) Dog catcher was a one main operation.
2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost pay
because of having to take time off from work to sit in court.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51...
I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not
work,
then the town supervisor and my council representative.

Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can think
of
no
reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in immediate
danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use
the
courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town
council
for
not obeying the laws.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01...
It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If
you
had
talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have
solved
your problem.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my
biggest
problems
occurred.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02...
Doug,

It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher
were
viewed
as
irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming
dog
complaints or just yours?

To answer your question about what I would do: I would video
the
dog
roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either
to
my
garden
or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I
would
then
file
a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog
owner
would
find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to
keep
his
dog
from roaming.

As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected
representative
and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job.
Have
you
ever
noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or
view
you
as
unreasonable?



I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the
damage
he
did,
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does
nothing,
then
what
would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point
out
that
the
word
"you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person,
or
people
in
general.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01...
It does appear that we see it differently, but that should
not
surprise
either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the
other
person's
property. The correct course of action is to call the dog
pound
or
the
police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are
capable
of
causing
harm
or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the
dog
to
roam,
then
you will probably not care if a kid falls into your
pool.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54...
Doug,
It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a
fence
around
his
pool.
But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing,
it
would
be
the
pool
owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his
property,
The
parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his
children
not
to
violate
the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other
kids
in
the
neighborhood not to step on other peoples property.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to
be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a
fence
to
keep
the
unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone
else's
responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your
actions,
eh
Dave?
Well
a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to
keep
his
pet
out
of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater
to
operate
his
vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
not
create
a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny
how
you
cannot
grasp
the simple principles of responsibility &
accountability.

DSK


It's called "selective personal responsibility". You
only
need
to
be
responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you
don't
mind
stepping
outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But,
if
the
weather's
lousy,
or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let
the
dog
out
the
front
door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's
place.

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in
most
towns
says
that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate
that
locks.
Do
you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the
neighbors
to
keep
their
kids from drowning in your pool?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

Actually, I tried to make it very easy for you to agree, that ever for you,
Don seems to have be too radical.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Sorry, John. Snares are off limits for me this afternoon. People have been
setting them for me all day.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:jRyjc.31659$YP5.2502550@attbi_s02...
Doug,
You seem like a true humanitarian. Don stated that if someone violated
his
rights, the law required him to shot the person in the face, do you
think
that might be a little drastic of a solution?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
1) Dog catcher was a one main operation.
2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost
pay
because of having to take time off from work to sit in court.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51...
I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not
work,
then the town supervisor and my council representative.

Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can
think
of
no
reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in
immediate
danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use
the
courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town
council
for
not obeying the laws.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01...
It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If
you
had
talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would
have
solved
your problem.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my
biggest
problems
occurred.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02...
Doug,

It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher
were
viewed
as
irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all
roaming
dog
complaints or just yours?

To answer your question about what I would do: I would
video
the
dog
roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done
either
to
my
garden
or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I
would
then
file
a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog
owner
would
find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to
keep
his
dog
from roaming.

As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected
representative
and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job.
Have
you
ever
noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or
view
you
as
unreasonable?



I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the
damage
he
did,
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does
nothing,
then
what
would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point
out
that
the
word
"you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person,
or
people
in
general.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01...
It does appear that we see it differently, but that
should
not
surprise
either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on
the
other
person's
property. The correct course of action is to call the
dog
pound
or
the
police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are
capable
of
causing
harm
or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow
the
dog
to
roam,
then
you will probably not care if a kid falls into your
pool.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54...
Doug,
It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a
fence
around
his
pool.
But, if we followed your logic concerning
trespassing,
it
would
be
the
pool
owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto
his
property,
The
parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his
children
not
to
violate
the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other
kids
in
the
neighborhood not to step on other peoples property.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
"DSK" wrote in message

. ..
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to
be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a
fence
to
keep
the
unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone
else's
responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your
actions,
eh
Dave?
Well
a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to
keep
his
pet
out
of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
operate
his
vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
not
create
a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted.
Funny
how
you
cannot
grasp
the simple principles of responsibility &
accountability.

DSK


It's called "selective personal responsibility".
You
only
need
to
be
responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you
don't
mind
stepping
outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But,
if
the
weather's
lousy,
or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let
the
dog
out
the
front
door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's
place.

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law
in
most
towns
says
that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate
that
locks.
Do
you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the
neighbors
to
keep
their
kids from drowning in your pool?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
"Don" wrote:
No one has the right to govern others.

Anarchy is fine as long as you have the upper hand.

Who has the upper hand right now?

When someone else
decides that they don't like YOU, and they exercise their lawless
"rights" to your detriment, then you'll cry for "justice".

What lawless rights are you speaking of?

Except that
there won't be any.

Why not?

Don't give yourself any rights that you wouldn't want someone else
using against you.

Rights aren't *given*.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as
you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as
erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your
investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your
valuables away from harm.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:05:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...
So you think that money makes one happy? You sound pretty shallow to
me.

And are you friendly to anyone on this board? It does not look like
it.

He's pretty friendly to me, even though we disagree on a few things. But
see....here's the deal: Neither he nor I say outrageous things that fly
in
the face of logic.


What? Most of your arguments thus far on this topic have been
outrageous.

It appears that way to you because you are viewing it from a socialists
perspective.
You have nothing of value so you thusly place no value on anyone elses
stuff.

Both of you guys are projecting the position that you are
justified in taking the law into your own hands, despite written law
to the contrary.

Now you're outright lying.
I am not talking about *taking the law into my own hands*, only you are.
Again, that is because you seem to be a socialist so everything to you is
*collective* in nature.
Rather than solving your problems, you would prefer the state to solve them
for you, that is why you continuously use the *law* reference.

You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response.

You're outright lying again, why?
Doug has tried to work things out with the neighbor, he has mentioned this
several times, yet the neighbor continues to disregard Dougs property
rights.
He didn't fly off the handle and kill the neighbors dog upon the first
infraction as you stated above.
So again, why are you lying your ass off?
Is it because it's the only way you can make an argument?

I'm sorry but you will never convince me that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

It seems to be a problem for you though.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:57:05 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

I design million dollar+ custom homes for wealthy island residents and
live
in an area called *Simply Paradise* (run that past google for a clue) and
am
always in a good mood and in good company.
I get a little frustrated at times when I go into usenet and encounter
legions of complete idiots like you.


"legions of idiots" who understand the law,

**** you and the law you rode in on.
YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you something
fierce.
YOU are one of the members of the *legion* I mentioned above.
Completely devoid of logic and socialist in nature.

The rest of your whining was snipped, post haste.....

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.

I always find it humorous when a socialist attempts to talk bout morals.
LOL

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.


How's that for a hypothetical?

None whines so loud as the socialist that cowers behind laws.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote
So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under
the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the
neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with
the intent of making your life miserable.

Shove your *intent* directly up your ass.
We're talking about the end result here, that the loosed animal caused
anguish to another.

That's an unfortunate
consequence.

If someone shoots you in the face for being a socialist, some may consider
that an unfortunate consequence to your stupidity.
But most would not.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but
****
happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet.


If your answer is "yes", then you must also
believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS
property
and
dump it on his porch.

You are supposed to know better. A dog does not.

You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong
by
letting the dog roam.

Does he?

Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property: Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's
doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can
see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up
someone else's property".



Here, when you go to get a license for your vermine,
you're given a brochure which explains the law regarding leashes.
Therefore,
if you let the dog roam the neighborhood, you are doing so with the
clear
intent of ****ing off your neighbors.

So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under
the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the
neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with
the intent of making your life miserable. That's an unfortunate
consequence.

See above. If the dog's not on your property, you KNOW it's on someone
else's. Since there are no other outcomes, it's safe to say that the owner
is either fully aware of what his dog is doing, or the owner is
monumentally
stupid and probably will never understand what it means to be responsible
pet owner.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:19:56 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:25:49 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
Actually, it's legally permitted, performed and tested in the
courts
on a
fairly regular basis. In many places, including what you'd consider
"normal
suburbs", animals which damage food crops may be killed as long as
the
method does not endanger neighbors or violate weapons laws. You
really
ought
to think before you hurl, boy.

Uh-huh. And you think that somebody's garden comes under the "food
crop"
definition and that you have the right to kill your neighbor's pets
for
a
damaged tomato plant?

Can I come into your house and eat all your food, drink all your beer,
fondle your 13 yo daughters nubbins, issue you a matched pair of
knuckle
sandwiches and take your DVD player on the way out the door?
If you choose to use MY personal property for YOUR use, YOU open
yourself
up
to that same behavior.
Doesn't anyone know how to *think* anymore?



Perhaps you need to measure your response to the situation. A damaged
flower is not the same as a break-in, theft, sexual assault etc.
Lethal force is justified in cases of imminent threat, but not for
lesser infractions.

Perhaps you need to surround your garden with a fence. Killing a pet
is an excessive response, and shows a general irresponsibility and
reckless disregard for other people's rights. There are other
effective (and legal) ways of dealing with a situation like this.

IMHO, people who can easily justify the killing of an animal for such
petty "crimes", is only one step away from using that same mindset
against humans as well. Psychological studies show that most serial
killers started out torturing animals. So maybe the ticking time bomb
analogy is not so far off the mark.......

sigh
Dave, Dave, Dave.
Again, you are trying to smear me as a person that harms animals. Why?
Please be specific. Thanks.

Doug has outwardly stated his intention of "taking out" the offending
dog. You have implied a similar mindset.

You're a lying *******.

If that is not your intention
then I would suggest that you are being deliberately vague and
possibly disingenuous with regard to your position.


The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

You just don't get it, do you?
Of course not, a socialist hasn't the capacity to understand the rights of
human beings.
I respect *individuals* Dave, not gov'ts and their supposed laws.
You really don't spend much time thinking about these things do you?
I bet you spend a lot of time watching TEEVEE, it is reflected in your
words.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

Dave

Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that
in
certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the
conditions are met, it can be done.

I've told you in the past to visit your town all and ask to look at YOUR
local laws. You may find them to be the same.

You're trying to argue with a person that has the mental capacity of a
child.
He won't respect YOUR property rights, but if HIS property rights are
violated he starts squealling like a bald tire.
In the future people like him will be *necklaced*.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:33:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:18:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Don" wrote in message
.. .


Then you would have no problem with all of my dogs ****ting on your
couch
repeatedly?

Warning, Don: You've just suggested a hypothetical situation. Dave Hall
likes to call that a "straw man", which he's incapable of dealing with.
He
doesn't realize that virtually every legal debate in the higher courts
involves lawyers and judges trading a series of "straw men" to test the
law.
So, he uses the term to dismiss other peoples' arguments.


Doug, you REALLY need to spend more time studying logic and fallacious
argument techniques. Most of those fallacious arguments are nothing
more than attempts at deflection. As such, a "strawman" argument is
commonly defined as:

"Strawman Argument: (np) 1. Stating a misrepresented version of an
opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to
knock down. A common, but deprecated, mode of argument".

Including, but not limited to, building up an exaggerated set of
extreme circumstances which, while intended to better illustrate the
position of one side of the debate, rarely occur in reality, and it's
therefore generally discarded as little more than an endless circular
debate over "what-if" scenarios.

I don't mind, and have no problem dealing with hypothetical
situations, as long as they bear some semblance to reality. The
likelihood of a neighbor's dogs opening the door to my house and then
"relieving" themselves on my couch, is about the same as you getting
hit by a falling meteor while tending your garden.

Dave



Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:30:55 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:57:05 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

I design million dollar+ custom homes for wealthy island residents and
live
in an area called *Simply Paradise* (run that past google for a clue) and
am
always in a good mood and in good company.
I get a little frustrated at times when I go into usenet and encounter
legions of complete idiots like you.


"legions of idiots" who understand the law,

**** you and the law you rode in on.

Temper, temper. There is no need to resort to such language. It
certainly does not help your point.


YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.


YOU are one of the members of the *legion* I mentioned above.
Completely devoid of logic and socialist in nature.

Logic? What's logical about anarchy? Anarchy is chaos, and chaos is
the antithesis of logic.

Socialist? You are SERIOUSLY barking up the wrong tree. I am as far
away from socialist as you can get, without abandoning sensible
societal laws.

Do you really know what socialism is and what it entails?


Are you one of those spoiled kids who was never taught the meaning of
the word "no" by your parents?


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:38:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



What? Most of your arguments thus far on this topic have been
outrageous. Both of you guys are projecting the position that you are
justified in taking the law into your own hands, despite written law
to the contrary.

The law does NOT say I can call a cop and have a destructive animal
liquidated. It says the animal can be liquidated. Period.

Show me that passage verbatim. Without your paraphrasing.



You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response. I'm sorry but you will never convince me that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

Dave

So, you're a vegetarian?

Relevance?


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:39:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.


Dave

You only "take your chances" if you're unfamiliar with the law. If I
shoplift $50 worth of razor blades from a grocery store, I understand that
I've instantly given up my right to complain if I'm arrested. That's simple.
The act is immoral. The understanding of the law is irrelevant.

So from this, can I then infer that you are of the "I'm only guilty if
I'm caught" mindset?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:41:02 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.

I always find it humorous when a socialist attempts to talk bout morals.

I find it equally humorous when a neophyte calls me a socialist.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:51:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

Dave

Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that in
certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the
conditions are met, it can be done.

I suspect that those "conditions" do not extend to inadvertent digging
in some one's yard.


I've told you in the past to visit your town hall and ask to look at YOUR
local laws. You may find them to be the same.

I have, and nowhere does it say that I can kill my neighbor's dog for
digging in my yard.

Now if the neighbor's dog runs into my yard and attacks my kid, it's a
different story.

Where I live, I can legally hunt less than a mile from my house. Guys
walk up the road with rifles all the time. We have fairly "loose" gun
laws since we don't yet have a "dense" population (I expect that will
change in the next few years). Even so, while I can probably shoot a
deer in my backyard, I don't think I can kill a pet without legal
consequences.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:52:47 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

The question I have is a simple one. Do you respect the system of laws
which govern our society, or do you believe that you are justified in
taking matters into your own hands?

Dave

Which part of "the law" do you not understand? Here, the law states that
in
certain instances, an animal may be killed by a landowner. Period. If the
conditions are met, it can be done.

I've told you in the past to visit your town all and ask to look at YOUR
local laws. You may find them to be the same.

You're trying to argue with a person that has the mental capacity of a
child.

I would suspect that you are the new expert on "child mentalities".


He won't respect YOUR property rights, but if HIS property rights are
violated he starts squealling like a bald tire.

What? You don't like an anarchistic application? That's what anarchy
is, the abolition of a central ruling authority and leaving disputes
to be settled on an individual basis, according to the opinions of the
parties involved.

The law works both ways. If you feel that you should not be restricted
by law, and you have the "right" to "deal" with a situation like an
inconsiderate neighbor, in a manner that suits you, you therefore have
no room to complain if the neighbor retaliates against you for his
perceived injustice. So where does it end?

That's why anyone with any maturity, and the ability to reason beyond
the schoolyard level, knows that anarchy will never work in a large
society.


In the future people like him will be *necklaced*.

Don't hold your breath....


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:31:39 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I don't have time right now to answer your longer questions, but let me ask
you one:

Do YOU let YOUR dog out of the house and let it roam the neighborhood
sometimes?


No, I don't as a rule. However, she has gotten off of her leash on
occasion, and I have had to chase her around the neighborhood, in
order to bring her back, which is not fun.

During the winter, I was just letting her out of the back door, since
she usually would stay within the confines of the back yard. Once the
snow melted, and she started to wander again, it was back to the rope.
Of course it's all a moot point now since I had her put down a few
months back. She was over 14 years old, and in failing health,
including incontinence. So I was doing a great deal of carpet
cleaning.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:15:23 -0400, "Don"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote
Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as
you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as
erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your
investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your
valuables away from harm.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

You really need to study marxism and socialism. Seriously.......

If you think that personal responsibility is a socialist trait, you
are really out there......


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:49:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but ****
happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet.


If your answer is "yes", then you must also
believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS property
and
dump it on his porch.

You are supposed to know better. A dog does not.

You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong by
letting the dog roam.

Does he?

Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property: Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up
someone else's property".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.


Of course in reality, there are places where property is either public
or government owned. Not all property is private.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:47:16 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

Doug knows me well enough to know that I'm no socialist. You're
relatively new here. The only one who's being ridiculed is yourself
when you make obviously uninformed statements.

Doug may be somewhat off the mark, but he is at least intelligent
enough to research things. You would do well to follow that example
before running your fingers without your brain being fully engaged.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:36:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



And if I found a way to somehow occupy 20% of YOUR weekend time with
bull**** that annoyed you, and repeated this every weekend for the entire
summer, what would YOU do? Suffer with it in silence?

That would make you my wife ;-) . Oh, and I WOULD be ****ed off.
Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your pain. I just don't agree
that you have the right to take the law into your own hands as a
solution.


Dave

I didn't ask for your opinion. I asked what you would do.

I'm not sure. I know what I wouldn't do and that's kill another living
being.

I tend to be more of a "defense" mentality, rather than an "offense"
mentality. If I found that there were "critters" doing damage to my
yard, I would most likely take steps to minimize their ability to
enter my yard. Rather than getting into a ****ing contest with my
neighbor (And remember we have to live here and maintaining civility
with the neighbors is important), I'd just put up a fence.

I believe in personal responsibility to the truest sense. I take
responsibility for things that I have direct control over. I don't
expect other people to clear the path for me, and I don't expect other
people to expect me to clear their path either.

I believe in taking steps to protect my own assets, I don't believe
that it's other people's responsibility to protect them for me. While
some people can be deliberately negligent, the line between what I
consider "gross" and "incidental" negligence is a bit foggy, and not
etched in stone. Dog poop on my yard though, falls squarely into the
"incidental" category. In the grand scheme of things, it's just not
that big of a deal to me.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:36:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


That is fair.
However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We installed a
6'
high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause you
to
get killed.
See how nice I am?

Funny that in all the posts that I've suggested the same to Doug, he
fails to consider it. I guess in his mind, he should not have to be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility
to keep them out for him.

A fence would've shaded the garden and made it more difficult for my GOOD
neighbor and I to keep the lawn trimmed neatly.

It's called a "weed whacker". They work just fine.


We could've gotten around
the problem of shade by installing chain link, but we didn't like the looks
of those.

How much shade does a 4 or 5 foot fence provide? You could 've used a
post/rail fence with mesh attached. It's more aesthetically pleasing
and does not block sun.


repeatedly?

Why do you guys like to go to the extreme and out of the realm of
reality when trying top make points? Strawman arguments are easy to
pick apart because they do not reflect reality. I'm not suggesting
that you don't have the right to respond to inconsiderate neighbors. I
am saying that you are restricted by law to a measured response.

So, you're familiar with the law here in my town?

I'm familiar with the laws in general. Unless you live in six-gun
territory, it's likely that your laws are not much different.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would challenge that you seem to be the one projecting the fixation
with dog poop. You are the one making the big deal about it. Most
other people just let nature take its course.

Dave

Let nature take its course? That's what I've been saying all along. But,
here's the difference: I acknowledge that nature sometimes works in ways
that are sad.

Nature does not include guns. Nor do animals kill for sport or
revenge. But a few weeks of rain will dissolve dog droppings.

I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on
TV, but as you say, "**** happens".

Yes, and if you truly needed to hunt the neighbor's dog to provide
food for your family, it would be a different issue.


Usually, the gazelle which ends up as lunch
made some sort of mistake, not unlike some dogs.

Natural selection does not include revenge for an infraction.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:57:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:56:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Yeah...I got your behavioral psychology right here, Mr King. :-) Dr
Smith &
Dr Wesson. The best dog training tool money can buy.

But it only works on six dogs at a time. And bullets don't go around
corners ;)

I apologize if my posts have seemed to be more sympathetic to your
annoying neighbors than to your situation. That hasn't been my
intention. While I am definitely a "dog person" I don't like people who
let (or encourage) their dogs to cause problems.

DSK


I know. The average of all your posts in the past have kept you on my
Good
List, meaning I'd let you borrow my lawnmower. Not my boat, though. :-)


Hopefully he won't run over any "doggie donuts" when he borrows that
lawn mower...........

Dave

You keep returning to the word "donuts", Dave. Do you enjoy handling them?

That is the name that I coined to describe them to my daughter. I find
it to be a much better reference than the more typical vile forms.

I don't need to resort to vulgarity to make a point.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:50:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp
the simple principles of responsibility & accountability.


I grasp it just fine. The difference is that you believe that personal
responsibility extends to cover things and situations that you have no
direct control over, or to events where you could not reasonably
predict an outcome.

I believe that each person is responsible to protect his own safety
and property irrespective of the actions of others. What this means in
black and white is that I don't expect others to make it "safe" for me
to boat, I take steps to protect myself. I don't expect other people
to keep their pets off of my lawn, if it means that much to me, I'll
put up a fence to keep them off.

If I get into an accident in my car because I hit an icy patch, I'm
not going to sue the tire manufacturer because the tire didn't hold.
Nor am i going to sue the town because they missed a spot with their
salt trucks. If my boat gets rocked and I spill my drink, I'm not
going to chase after the "offender" and make him clean up the mess.
Sometimes you have to understand that things happen, and take measures
on you own to minimize their effects. Going through life expecting
other people to acknowledge me, and my particular needs, is IMHO
irresponsible.

That doesn't mean that I'm giving people a pass on negligent behavior.
It's just that I hold the bar on what is considered "negligent" much
higher than you seem to.

What you consider "personal responsibility" is not personal
responsibility at all, but "societal responsibility", which is far
more at home in a socialist state than a democracy.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:05:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your actions, eh Dave? Well a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to keep his pet out of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp
the simple principles of responsibility & accountability.

DSK


It's called "selective personal responsibility".

No, it's called personal responsibility as opposed to societal
responsibility.

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their
kids from drowning in your pool?

It's interesting you should bring this up. Using your mindset, parents
should make sure that their kids do not roam on to your lawn. It's
THEIR responsibility to protect the safety of their immature children.
I would tend to agree that it's a parent's responsibility to tend to
the well being of their kids.

I have mixed feelings about the pool/fence thing. On the one hand,
unauthorized people have no business trespassing on your yard, and any
problems they get into should be on them. On the other hand, since
many laws are made to protect the irresponsible, they transferred the
responsibility to everyone else when they require you to prevent kids
from wandering into your pool. But while I disagree with the law in
principle, the amount of effort to put up a fence is not that great,
and if it saves even one life, it's probably worth it.

For the record again Doug, I do not disagree with you that dog owners
should be more responsible with their dogs roaming habits. I just
don't agree that you have the right to kill the dog who gets away more
often than not.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:06:16 -0400 (EDT), "Harry Krause"
wrote:


Wrong answer, Dave.

It is the pet owner's sole responsibility to keep control of his
animal(s) and make sure they do not run amok or in any way damage the
property of others.

It is also the property owner's responsibility to take proper measures
to ensure that "accidents" don't happens which may damage something he
feels is valuable enough to loose sleep over.


If you have a dog, when it goes outside, it should be on a leash and you
should pick up after it, or, it should be on a run in *your* yard.

Normally yes. But dogs do get loose on occasion, and there are also
strays and other critters to consider. It is much simpler for a
property owner to fence in his "prized" garden rather than looking to
place blame when damage occurs.

Why should someone who doesn't own the offending dog be annoyed by its
defecating?

Because **** happens? And it goes away in a few weeks.

or have to put on a fence?

If you want to protect something of value, you need to take measures
to ensure it. Personal responsibility is taking proactive steps to
cover your assets, and not looking for the rest of society to do it
for you.

He shouldn't. Neither should a
neighbor have to hear someone's dog barking loudly half the day.

That would be far better than half the night.


You have all the makings of a real nuisance neighbor, Dave.

Do I? What do you know about me?

Do you sit
on your porch in your undershirt, swilling cheap beer,

So what if I do? Who are you to make judgement calls about my
lifestyle? You don't like it? Don't look.

letting your dogs
poop all over the neighborhood,

Who says I do? I had (past tense) one dog. That dog is no longer.

and play your stereo so loud that folks
three blocks away have to listen to your music selections?

Who said anything about stereo's? You are attempting to paint me in a
stereotypical manner as a strawman attempt to categorize me as a "bad"
neighbor. Similar to the tactics of the democratic party in their
feeble attempts to tarnish Bush's good name...... Conjecture,
speculation, ad-hominem attacks (With little hard evidence). The tools
of a propagandist.

If you can't argue the logic, malign the person.


Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:02:12 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would challenge that you seem to be the one projecting the fixation
with dog poop. You are the one making the big deal about it. Most
other people just let nature take its course.

Dave

Let nature take its course? That's what I've been saying all along. But,
here's the difference: I acknowledge that nature sometimes works in ways
that are sad.

Nature does not include guns. Nor do animals kill for sport or
revenge. But a few weeks of rain will dissolve dog droppings.

I wouldn't kill a dog for sport or revenge. If it happened, it would be one
of the many things necessary to contribute to the ongoing gardening project.
It's no different than sharpening the spade or going out to buy peat moss.
Just another thing on the list.


I don't think it's funny when I see a lion kill a gazelle on
TV, but as you say, "**** happens".

Yes, and if you truly needed to hunt the neighbor's dog to provide
food for your family, it would be a different issue.

I *do* need to hunt the neighbor's dog, in order to keep it from obstructing
the creation of food in my garden.

But, here's the real deal, Dave. I plant flowers, too. Tons of them. When
I'm outside, I don't want to have to look down at my feet. I want to look
up. And, some of the flowers bloom or smell best at night. I don't want to
carry a flashlight. If you and your dog make it necessary for me to be more
vigilant than I choose to be on my own property, you have stolen from me in
more ways than one.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Have you ever read transcripts of the way judges and lawyers debate the
validity of laws in the Supreme Court or appellate courts? Yes, or no?

No, I haven't to any great degree. But I have studied some case law on
subjects that were of interest to me. I especially enjoy the reasoning
process that is often used. On the other hand, I get steamed when
sleazy defense attorneys attempt to use legal loopholes to win cases.

In any case, I can be reasonably sure that they aren't off in the
outer limits when they present their arguments. Their arguments are
well thought out, reasonable, relevant, and, most importantly, reflect
reality.

This is in sharp contrast to the strawman arguments which are
presented here.

Dave


Reading case law is not the same as the transcripts - what the people
actually say. Judge: "Are you saying that if insert strawman here, he
should be considered in violation of the law?" This is how real people
debate the law and test its limits. Listen to NPR a little more often and
you'll hear these things. I'm sure there are web-based sources.

Your statement about being "reasonably sure" is, in fact, completely wrong.
Legal scholars are OFTEN in the outer limits when debating law. They MUST
push debates to the extreme to test validity because if they don't, it's
fairly certain that someone else will. Witness the use by prosecutors of the
RICO statutes in situations for which it was never intended.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:36:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


That is fair.
However, I went one step further, to insure your civility. We
installed a
6'
high estate fence around our new home so that your dog will not cause
you
to
get killed.
See how nice I am?

Funny that in all the posts that I've suggested the same to Doug, he
fails to consider it. I guess in his mind, he should not have to be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a fence to keep the unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone else's responsibility
to keep them out for him.

A fence would've shaded the garden and made it more difficult for my GOOD
neighbor and I to keep the lawn trimmed neatly.

It's called a "weed whacker". They work just fine.

We don't like them. They're noisy. I've gotten along fine without one for 25
years so far.


We could've gotten around
the problem of shade by installing chain link, but we didn't like the
looks
of those.

How much shade does a 4 or 5 foot fence provide? You could 've used a
post/rail fence with mesh attached. It's more aesthetically pleasing
and does not block sun.

Then, you'll be OK with buying one for your neighbor when he complains about
your dog in his yard.


So, you're familiar with the law here in my town?

I'm familiar with the laws in general. Unless you live in six-gun
territory, it's likely that your laws are not much different.

That statement belongs in the Dave Hall Top 10 list of stupidest comments.
What you've said is that since the law is a certain way in one place, it's
probably that way in ALL places.

By the way, I live in Rochester. Not six-gun territory by any stretch of the
imagination.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in most towns says that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate that locks. Do you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the neighbors to keep their
kids from drowning in your pool?

It's interesting you should bring this up. Using your mindset, parents
should make sure that their kids do not roam on to your lawn. It's
THEIR responsibility to protect the safety of their immature children.
I would tend to agree that it's a parent's responsibility to tend to
the well being of their kids.

For the most part, kids don't **** on your lawn. However, it is a dog's sole
purpose while roaming to find places to **** and mark territory. When a dog
roams the neighborhood, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's going to leave
**** someplace.


For the record again Doug, I do not disagree with you that dog owners
should be more responsible with their dogs roaming habits. I just
don't agree that you have the right to kill the dog who gets away more
often than not.

But you said that YOU sometimes let your dog out without chaining it in your
yard, so the paragraph above should be edited slightly: "...other dog owners
except me should be more responsible....."

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater to operate his vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every boater to not create a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny how you cannot grasp
the simple principles of responsibility & accountability.


I grasp it just fine. The difference is that you believe that personal
responsibility extends to cover things and situations that you have no
direct control over, or to events where you could not reasonably
predict an outcome.

This was explained to you. If your dog leaves your property, it is VIRTUALLY
GUARANTEED to take a dump on someone else's property. You have absolute
control of whether or not the dog does that.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response. I'm sorry but you will never convince me that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

Dave

So, you're a vegetarian?

Relevance?

You said "....you will never convince me that you are morally or legally
authorized to terminate the life of another living being no matter what
"damage" or inconvenience they may have caused you."

You do that every time you eat meat.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you
something
fierce.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but despite your feelings to the
contrary, in any civilized society there are laws which you are
obligated to follow, irrespective of your anarchistic and nihilistic
nature. The reality of this would seem to "gall" you.

Aren't you the same guy who has said, at least 12 million times in the past,
that there are too many laws, and that personal responsibility, if taught
correctly, would obviate the need for more laws? Why is it, then, that a
place like NYC finally instituted a scooper law, and began busting people
who let their dogs crap right on the sidewalk and then left it there? We're
talking about dogs on a leash, with their owners watching.

You seem to enjoy using the law to support your arguments as long as the
laws in question have no effect on you.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:39:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they
understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.


Dave

You only "take your chances" if you're unfamiliar with the law. If I
shoplift $50 worth of razor blades from a grocery store, I understand
that
I've instantly given up my right to complain if I'm arrested. That's
simple.
The act is immoral. The understanding of the law is irrelevant.

So from this, can I then infer that you are of the "I'm only guilty if
I'm caught" mindset?

Dave

What??? No - I'm guilty the moment the razor blades go into my pocket.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:41:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed
by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is
that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.

Trivial? Not to me, or anyone else who puts hundreds of hours worth of
work
into a garden. Who are YOU to tell other people what's trivial? What if
you
collected classic cars, spent hours restoring and waxing them, and my cat
jumped on them constantly and scratched them? Would that be trivial to
you?


No, not to me, but it probably would be for the cops, and that's the
whole point. What little "hobbies" you and I may have, are trivial
when put into perspective of the real problems in society.

Hey....now we're getting somewhere. What if my cat did what I mentioned, the
cops were to busy or uninterested to help, the animal control guy was an
idiot, and when you spoke to me about the problem, I said "Go ****
yourself - it's just a few scratches". Assume this went on for a month or
two. What would YOU do? Explore your dark side. We all have one. Be honest
for once in your life, Dave. What would you REALLY do?