When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:37:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


Ok then. The next question I have is, do you refrain from stealing
those $50 worth of razor blades because you know it's morally wrong,
or because you feel that you have a good chance of getting caught?

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

What, are you Darth Dougie now? ;-)

Be honest for once in your life, Dave.

Are you implying that I am not otherwise? Why would you have a problem
believing in my honesty?


What would you REALLY do?

I guess this is the difference between you and I Doug. I suspect that
we both would get really ****ed off, and would desire to retaliate in
some way, which would ensure that it never happened again. The
difference is that you would probably carry it through, while I would
likely restrain myself by a very strong sense of morality. I'd
probably make sure I parked the car in the garage (You do have one of
those right?) from then on. If the cat happened to end up dead in the
road the next week, I'd chalk it up to "God's Revenge".

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:43:00 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:39:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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?


Couldn't resist jumping in here, 'cause this actually happened to me. The car
was a brand new Saab. I trapped the cat and took it to the animal shelter. Told
them the story. They wanted to know only the street the cat came from. I never
saw the cat again. The owner must not have been concerned as she would have only
had to call the animal shelter to get her cat back.


That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:31:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


Irrelevant. Totally unrelated circumstance. Are you planning to eat
your neighbor's dog?

Dave

You made a blanket statement. Do you kill silverfish if you find them in
your cellar? How about a mosquito biting your arm?

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:50:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
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.

The moment that digging destroys vegetable seedlings, the conditions have
been met.


And you have yet to provide the verbiage which states these
conditions, or at least provide a link to the applicable laws, so that
I can peruse them.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:36:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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

12 million and 1, but who's counting?

in the past,
that there are too many laws, and that personal responsibility, if taught
correctly, would obviate the need for more laws?

In theory that would be true. But you and I both know that there are
too many people in the world who do not rise to the occasion when it
comes to personal responsibility. That being said, I am of the mindset
where laws should be basic and based on moral grounds. Things like
killing, theft,and rape should be clearly defined. I have my biggest
problem with "social lifestyle" and "nuisance" laws, which attempt to
define acceptable behavior according to (supposedly) a majority of the
members of society, despite the overtly subjective value judgement of
the activity in question


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.

I dispute the value of those laws. They make no sense in places like
where I live. It's supposed to be some big health threat to leave dog
poop on the curb or adjacent lawn, but any number of native wildlife
species have carte blanche access to do the same. Another example of
not seeing the forest for the trees. On the other hand, in a concrete
jungle, it probably makes better sense.


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

No, that's not it at all. I respect most laws as they are. I am not
the anarchist here. I am rarely on the wrong side of the law on these
issues. On those laws with which I am odds with, I have no problem
with lobbying for change.

Dave


It's safe to assume, then, that you throw empty beverage containers out of
your boat.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:37:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


Ok then. The next question I have is, do you refrain from stealing
those $50 worth of razor blades because you know it's morally wrong,
or because you feel that you have a good chance of getting caught?

Dave

Choice A, Dave. If I shop in a store, it's because I like the place. The
owner or company has created a place that serves me well. They deserve to
prosper.
Wait! Let me head off your next question. No, I do not steal from places I
do NOT like.

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.


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.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't **** on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.


As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:23:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

You have venerable plethora of excuses don't you? They make electric
ones you know, (And after the anticipated "I don't want to deal with
long cords" excuse) and battery ones too.

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.

There isn't a fence in the world that will protect against the dreaded
"ghostdog". ;-)

It's not my problem. It's up to him to protect his investments against
incidental damage.


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.

Not exactly the same, but now much variation would you expect? I am
still waiting for you to provide me with the text of the law that
states that you have the right to "vanish" an animal that ****es you
off.


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

All the more reason to doubt that you have the right to kill dogs.

Dave

When would you board someone else's boat??
 

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:13:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

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.

Whatever you want to rationalize it as, it's still in response to an
act. That's revenge by any classic definition.


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.


You have an overinflated sense of what the rest of society owes you
WRT consideration.

Dave