Americans, why do you let this continue?

Actually I used the word degenerate from the beginning in the manner of the definition I quoted to you. In that conjugation it is synonymous to the statement not enough empathy.

Actually had the obvious been your answer, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Quite frankly that is the only legitimate reason that you can give in this situation.

Yes, because you were guessing at my motives as you stated above. Not because the observation is legitimate.

I don't believe that you imply that they are degenerate in the way you interpret me. I mean degenerate as in not having enough and by definition, I am correct. You infer more into the word degenerate than I actually imply.

I did try to assure you "Now this statement is not meant to be critical of you but it explains the dynamic of your projections about my purposes. If you attack you will feel attacked even though you may not in fact, be attacked. I don't take it personally."
Today 09:20 AM

No, I do not judge your actions to be a judgement against owners, I judge your testimony against them as morally pretentious.

 

You're giving yourself away again. You said you would not be having this discussion if I had answered that the reason the dogs were cold was because the temperature outside was really low. If you're trying to convince me that you understand so little about reality that you actually had to ask to find out why beings get cold . . .

Some dogs are warm as a result of a doghouse filled with straw. Some are not. Why are the dogs who are cold, cold, dope? I will tell you. It is because their doghouses have no straw in them. Now if you can get off of that floating philosophy wagon of yours long enough to see what's on the ground here, you might be able to connect enough dots to see that the absence of straw has everything to do with those in charge of the dogs.

You think my testimony to be judgmental. Sure, dope, you could hear it in my tone, couldn't you? When I said that the owners were negligent when it came to the care of those in their charge, and that their minds were elsewhere, what did that sound like to you after it passed through your ears?

 

why do people without a location point out other locations and criticize them?

 

But . . . everyone has a location.

 

you have no owners to rely on to put straw in your bed, put your own straw in your bed and stop waiting for someone else to do it. you got two hands and two feet, go out there and make it happen.

 

I've heard of people like you. You offer an analogy that you haven't thought through at all. I can go fetch my straw. The chained dog cannot. Now what is your point?

 

the point is this isnt about a dog, so whats your real point.

 

Oh, well then by all means, tell me what this is really about?

 

well logic would say it was about petraeus but for some reason i am getting info its about dogs.

 

Well, when you figure out the reason you are getting info it's about dogs, don't feel shy about sharing--with yourself, that is.

 

If you want us to stop, I will. But I cannot speak for thedope.

 

I am telling you I understand that much, not so little.

.

Some dogs are warm without straw. And your idea that dogs need straw in the winter has nothing to do with other dog owners, period.
Tell us, how did fifty dogs end up getting straw? Who provided the straw?
How many dog houses in your area had straw in them already? Did you interview any dog owner as to their thinking on the subject? A dog in a dog house in fair weather does not necessarily equal a dog in a dog house in very severe weather.
Some people bring their dogs indoors when they are worried about the conditions. Some dogs are all weather hardy regardless.

It is not your tone, it is the meaning of the words and the fact that I don't hear you praising any dog owner for listening to your reason.
It sounds like a statement lacking in any verifiable fact. It is an impressionistic moralistic rant about what you see as injustice or negligence. What do you know of what someones mind may be occupied with? You certainly haven't been very accurate regarding my own. What you define as purpose of dog may not jive with someone else's idea of purpose.

Negligent can only be accurately applied to agreed to standards. You don't get to say anyone else is negligent based on your own private sensibilities, that is you can try but no one would volunteer for your labeling system.
If you think you have a case of negligence before you, sue, otherwise you accuse falsely.

I am willing to hear something different from you if you can parse it in a way where reality is not subject to some failing.

 

Yes, I could tell you how much money I've personally put out for the purpose of providing straw for the dogs who live with people too poor to afford it, but I'm not going into a log of my activities over the years.

You need to walk up to a makeshift doghouse where the occupant is shivering due to short hair, subzero temperatures, no straw, and owners who do not think far enough ahead to think to even turn the open doorway away from the wind or bring some unfrozen water for their dog. Long cold-snaps in my area are brutal.

You don't sue the people. It's not about the people. You get the reports, you check them out, and if there's a case, you force the animal control in your area to at least pay them a visit. That's usually the end of it. I agree that the owners of these dogs had a right to treat their dogs any way they deem acceptable. By the same token, I have a right to point out cruelty, and bring some relief.

 

So may we extrapolate that 50 dogs is an estimation over a period of years?

No I don't. If my only concern is for the comfort of the dogs, I do not need to further estimate that the dogs owner is deficient in any way whatsoever. I mean that is not my modus operendi. You can fill any need you see without creating contention.

Certainly the statement, they lack empathy is not about about the dogs, it is about the owners. And you can sue.
I don't take the position that animal owners can treat their animals anyway they want. You have your right to your subjective appreciation but cruelty is an abstract concept. We can observe discomfort and provide relief. Feed the hungry.

It is on this point of righteous indignation that I am pointing my argument.
The title of the thread, americans why do you let this continue.

Righteous indignation is a mythical creature. A creature with two heads going in different directions. There is no indignity in righteousness and dignity cannot be had unless we share it.

All civility is precisely equal to your relationship with the person standing next to you. Civility is not dependent on nor can it be mitigated by ideas of morality, but by honest straight up appreciation of life.

Philosophy is the love of truth. Your view is the status quo. And because of it, feelings of accomplishment are soon replaced or tinged by feelings of contention. The more "righteous" you become, in this vain, the more hostile to foreign conception and it is why there is gridlock in u.s. government anyway.

 

thedope:

In the vein of "honest straight up appreciation" it's really the love of wisdom. :-D

I'm not an American, but it seems to me there'd be a way to get a raccoon to beat it rather than beat it to death? Am I wrong?

You got a problem with storch helping out a few dogs thedope?! lol

Has he hurt the feelings of a few dog owners? Oh fuck. Let's just all drop dead, that might save us from the status quo you think you see.

 

Glad you could make it over here.
Excuse me, you are correct. Precisely I mean love of knowledge. Maybe I am too loose in my association of truth with knowledge. I sometimes use the terms interchangeably and I would add reality, to that mix.

The status quo is the expectation that my moral standards be upheld.
I don't hold people responsible for hurt feelings, I don't feel with your feelers.
Further I have no idea whether storch had any contact with the dog owners.
So far the impression is that he reported conditions to local government enforcement. If you extend this principle to it's ideal limit, we get the patriot act.

Again I view storches relationship with the dogs as helpful. Helpful to storch and helpful to those particular dogs storch assisted.

Of course there are other ways. It was one of those kill or be killed situations you referred to. A rooster was in the process of being plucked and mauled in a confined space. You asked me how I would respond in such a situation and i told it would depend on my concerns at the time.

I have also said that we respond quite naturally to a perceived threat with the prime directive of protecting and extending me or mine and our level of identification dictates how far our protections extend.

As far as the published public good, the game dept of this state considers lethal force acceptable in the case of ongoing attack on livestock. But this statute did not figure in my considerations at the time of the encounter.

 

Straight up? lol I had thought the 'status quo' only the notion that some standard, or other, is upheld. Must be my imagination.

That raccoon could have killed you thedope. The circle of life must have had you routed beyond doubt.

 

And what is the standard being upheld in this instance? And why is it being upheld?
The standard is my moral definitions, and I expend energy to uphold them because they should be upheld. Obviously moral definitions are not standard and they require contention if you are to hold others to them, which is my point.

Me, or mine. That includes moral attitudes for those that have them.
In my case it was my symbiotic relationship with the chicken.

 

Was it something I said?

 

No, omnivores in competition for resources.

But, if you ever heard a raccoon in a certain mood, it might creep you out.