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