On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:07:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:04:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



Who's responsibility is it to clean up the droppings from the Canadian
Geese, Deer, Squirrels, Chipmunks, Foxes, Wild Turkey, Rabbits,
Occasional bears, Raccoons, Possums, Various species of birds, etc? Do
kids only pick up dog poop? When you come up with a good answer for
that, then maybe I'll entertain your fantasy.

Stupid question. NOBODY can control thousands of wild animals. But dog
owners can control their dogs and clean up after them.

Not a stupid question, but a stupid rule. What difference would it
make in the grand scheme of things if the only turds removed, in a
collection of many, were the dog's? Would the rest of them magically
disappears? Does the fact that some of us like to pretend that they
aren't really there, change the fact that they really are?

Have you ever seen the mess that can be left after a flock of Geese
roam an area for a while? Maybe you should feel lucky that an
occasional dog dropping is your only concern.

Dave


I never had multitudes of wild animals crapping on my property. Just
squirrels, whose turds seem to be invisible, one cat, who buried them
someplace where they never caused a problem, and quite a few dogs. If I
lived in the Adirondacks and deer were a problem, I would've accepted the
fact of life that you have to coexist with deer and whatever else comes
along.

Now you're starting to catch on. Expand upon that thought a little
more.......

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands."

If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other
people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was
considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his
property.

If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very
loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then
far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious
oblivious jerks.

It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe
you'll "get" it.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:51:19 -0400, DSK wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
And what if a hedge doesn't fit my landscaping scheme?

But Doug, you're missing the point... you don't have the right to decide
what to do with your property, nor the right to protect your property.

So are you a gun-toting anarchist too? You only obey the laws which
are in your favor?

Dave Hall (and his like-minded legion of fascist whackos) has (have) the
right to impose their ideals and their values on you.

No, you are confusing me with a liberal. I believe in live and let
live.


You must conform,


In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

Dave

Conformity. Good thought, Dave. You should conform to good pet ownership
practices. Pick up your dog's crap, no matter where it happens, even though
you say your town has no law requiring you to do so. You say I shouldn't
have a problem cleaning it off my shoes & floors because you believe that I
find it "too objectionable". According to your logic, you should find it
even LESS objectionable because you can plan for it.

Conform.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

Doug Kanter wrote:
Conformity. Good thought, Dave. You should conform to good pet ownership
practices. Pick up your dog's crap, no matter where it happens, even though
you say your town has no law requiring you to do so. You say I shouldn't
have a problem cleaning it off my shoes & floors because you believe that I
find it "too objectionable". According to your logic, you should find it
even LESS objectionable because you can plan for it.

With his attitude, I don't understand why he objects to cleaning up
after his dog. He should enjoy pickng it up in his hands and carrying it
home where he can put it on his own carpet... or maybe in his fridge...

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


A previous message mentioned a vanishing cat. That seemed OK with
you.
So,
what difference does it make HOW a pet vanishes, whether it's
whisked
away
by animal control to place where it will likely be euthanized
eventually,
or
if it's flattened by a car? Gone is gone.


The difference is intent, and whether or not the action was
sanctioned
by the law.


Dave

That would not change how the family felt about losing the pet. Gone
is
gone.



Ok, you like using hypothetical examples, so here's one. Would you
feel differently knowing that a loved one was killed in a car
accident, or by some gang banger looking to score some dope?

Dave


Identical. Gone is gone.

So you would not feel the slightest bit more resentment toward someone
who was responsible for deliberately causing that loved one's death
over a purely accidental scenario where no one was responsible?


Dave

Most car accidents are not accidents. I'd feel the same way toward both
people.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week
or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog
attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:35:24 -0400, DSK wrote:

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

Dave Hall wrote:
But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

This is a new high water mark in stupidity, even for you, Dave. Did
anybody say anything about "teaching them a lesson?" No.

Doug did. If you are going to enter this fray, then you need to pay
attention.



An animal that destroys property can, under many circustances, be killed
by the property owner.

Those "circumstances" do not include taking a dump on the yard.


This is in order to prevent further damage to his
property. It comes under the heading of "property rights" and could
easily be equated with defending one's home against robbers.

Not in any sane interpretation of law. If you feel that eliminating a
defecation problem is in the same category as defending against
robber, I would offer that your perception is a bit out of whack. In
fact there was a recent news story, in my general area, where a guy
caught two thugs breaking into his shed. He shot at them and killed
one of them. The homeowner is now facing murder charges. You simply
can't kill people or animals for being on your property unless there
is an imminent threat of life or safety.

Your "right" to defend your property is severely limited in scope.


The fact that the animal is a pet does not change the circumstances,

It does change the circumstances as a pet is perceived to have some
intrinsic value to the person who owns him, as opposed to a "wild"
animal. Think of it this way; If I blow up your boat, will you not
seek retribution? Does the law not give you that right?

The fact remains that other vigilante types have taken the law into
their hands before, and killed animals that they didn't like. They
have also been taken to court , by the animal's owner, and found
liable for damages.

except that the owner of the animal has declared himself to be
responsible for the animal, then abdicated his responsibility.

And it is not the place of Joe Citizen to play judge and jury. That's
why we have agencies like animal control.

This explanation might have too many big words for you, Dave, but it
doesn't matter since you appear to be determined to never ever learn a
single fact in this world.

I know a lot of facts. The fact that YOU fail to accept them and
instead choose to view the world through your own myopic bias does not
mean that I am wrong. Look it up. Find me any law which gives a
property owner the right to shoot domestic animals for simple
trespass. I have asked "the other" Doug to do the same, and he bobbed
and weaved, and spun his way out of it.

Put up or shut up.

Dave

On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:57:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:11:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:44:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.

I'm just getting the dog to the same point it will reach, but a week
or a
month sooner.

You don't know that, and it's not your choice to make.




You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog
attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

In either case, it's the result of a dog owner who doesn't give a damn
about
his neighbors. The payback should be equal.

Then go take a dump on your neighbor's yard. THEN the payback would be
equal.

No. That would be childish and disgusting,

But killing someone's pet in order to "teach them a lesson" is not?

No more so than killing a mosquito on your arm.

Back to the "all or nothing" defense?


Dave

On Mon, 03 May 2004 11:46:31 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
In order for a society to exist, there has to be a certain amount of
conformity. If everyone take the law into their own hands what would
we have?

So far, nobody has proposed "taking the law into his own hands."

Have you been paying attention? That EXACTLY what's the case here.
There is NO law of the books that I have found yet, which gives anyone
the right to shoot a neighbor's pet because they took a dump on their
lawn. Since there is no law authorizing this action, the fact that you
undertook it anyway is, by definition, "taking the law into your own
hands".


If everybody obeyed the laws about keeping their dogs out of other
people's yards, then we'd have a society where no property owner was
considering killing somebody elses dog because it was destroying his
property.

And if the dog didn't stop to take a dump, he would 've caught the
rabbit. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground.
What's your point? Why base your life on "what-if" scenarios? Deal
with reality.


If everybody obeyed the laws about not making a large wake, and/or very
loud engine noise, where it is dangerous & destructive to do so, then
far fewer people would be be convinced that motorboaters are obnoxious
oblivious jerks.

If we didn't have people who complained incessantly and loudly when
people enjoy a different form of recreation than they do, we wouldn't
clap and cat call when they fall overboard, or when some otherwise
unfortunate circumstance happens to befall them.


It's really very simple Dave. Keep reading it over and over, maybe
you'll "get" it.

I "get it" just fine. You judge everyone by your rules, your
standards, and your opinions. You have no room for any diversity in
lifestyle. You are a classic liberal. Preach tolerance, except when
the activity bothers you. Preach diversity, except when the ideas are
diametrically opposed to your own core beliefs. You believe that
"personal responsibility" means that everyone is responsible for
looking out for everyone else.

You are so far off the mark it isn't even funny.

Dave





DSK