Skip

Kill my dog, and I'll shit in your yard myself
July 18, 2003 10:17 AM   Subscribe

A "Nuremberg Files" of Dogs. In the last week in Portland, OR, 8 dogs have been fatally poisoned by vigilante dog haters planting herbicid-laced sausage in dog parks. Now this group [who claim not affiliation with the dog-killers] has posted a photo gallery of "surveillance" photos of people walking their dogs.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly (108 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
The strangest thing is, the killings have worked! Not only is the leash-law issue on the table in a major way, but all dog owners are avoiding public parks, leash or no. It would seem that not only off-leash dogs eat food off the ground. I wonder if a couple of dead toddlers will be acceptable colateral damage?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:18 AM on July 18, 2003


This is the most depressing fucking story I've read in days. Time to go shower affection on the pugs.
posted by jonson at 10:32 AM on July 18, 2003


I'm conflicted about this -- yes, dog killing is wrong, but off-leash walking was unacceptably dangerous even before the poisonings.

I do hope the owners take the appropriate lesson from this tragedy, much as I hope cat owners in Denver are bright enough to start keeping their cats permanently indoors lest they get mutilated.
posted by Epenthesis at 10:34 AM on July 18, 2003


There's no circle of hell hot enough or torture abusive enough to adequately reward the soul of the inhuman piece of garbage who would do this, regardless of the purported "sin" of the dog's human. Yes, human taxpayers have a right to enjoy public parks unmolested by unleashed dogs. But no, human taxpayers have no right to end the lives of these unsuspecting animals simply as means to keep all dogs out of those parks. This is almost too despicable to even contemplate and I would challenge even the most ardent proponent of leashing laws to come up with any justification for this type of atrocity that even comes within a mile of "reasonable"...
posted by JollyWanker at 10:35 AM on July 18, 2003


Well, it is working. Killing doctors has hardly hurt the "Pro-life" movement.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:37 AM on July 18, 2003


if only emotions would flow so freely in response to war, poverty, or priviledge...
posted by aiq at 10:38 AM on July 18, 2003


what's wrong with privilege?
posted by jonson at 10:40 AM on July 18, 2003


my thoughts exactly, aiq.
posted by Marquis at 10:41 AM on July 18, 2003


Jollywanker - Amen. And wouldn't there be other animals that might eat the food and be poisoned as well? I'm not too fond of PETA personally, but I could see how this would be an appropriate instance for them to attack.
posted by synapse at 10:42 AM on July 18, 2003


As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in Portland parks with small children, I have to say that these people are on crack.

Off-leash dog walking is and always has been very common in Portland parks; there's always been controversy surrounding it, but for the most part people and dogs are curteous and fun, and I have never met a truly ill-behaved dog off its leash in a Portland park.

The City of Portland puts up packs of disposable gloves for pooper-scoopering, and for the most part dog owners use them. The parks are cleaner than parks anywhere else I've lived (up and down the west coast).

This whole thing strikes me as the paralyzed freak-out of someone with a dog phobia.
posted by hob at 10:45 AM on July 18, 2003


Does Portland have any off-leash parks?
posted by timeistight at 10:47 AM on July 18, 2003


My wife and I were walking the trails of a nearby nature preserve a few years ago when this dog - looked like some sort of shepherd mix but shorter and more muscular - comes bounding up to me then crouches, snarling, with the ears back.

I'm standing there thinking, "What was it they tell you to do if attacked by a dog? Drop and cover your head?"

I stood there frozen for a good 30 seconds before the dog's owner comes running up, "Ha ha, he'd never hurt you, he's harmless!" Didn't look fucking harmless to me, pal.

I'm serious - had I been armed, I would have shot the goddamned thing. And I hesitate to think what might have happened if this occurred today, when our 2-year-old son might have been in tow.

Seriously, I've got two cats and grew up with pet dogs. But you've got a leash. Use the damned thing.
posted by kgasmart at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2003


timeistight :
Not officially, but for years it has been known that dog owners tend to gather in certain parks, and not in others.

The article fails to mention that people in Portland know where the de facto dog parks are. If you go to Laurelhurst expecting a dog-free experience, you are crazy. Unenforced minor laws are not worth vigilante killings. Can I fire stinger missiles at speeding motorists? Sell poisoned alcohol to 20-year-olds?

Not to mention that if one is against off-leash dogs, it is the people that he has a beef with. Dogs don't make decisions or give into threats.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:52 AM on July 18, 2003


This whole thing strikes me as the paralyzed freak-out of someone with a dog phobia.

i couldn't agree more. though portland's leash laws aren't strictly enforced, there are very few cases that they are needed. most dogs and owners are very polite. owners usually keep their dogs close. those that don't, wouldn't even if the leash laws were strictly enforced. some people are just bastards.

anyway, watching an interview with one of the ladies that lost her dog was heart wrenching. if i was in her position, i would be tracking down the person responsible and probably ending up in jail when i was done with them.

one the plus side is dove lewis is raising money to help pay for the vet bills of the poisioned dogs and contribute to the reward money.
posted by chrisroberts at 10:54 AM on July 18, 2003


Wow. Portland is White Bread, USA.
posted by the fire you left me at 10:56 AM on July 18, 2003


Does Portland have any off-leash parks?

Yes, but there used to be more, in more neighborhood parks, until just this kind of agitation made them go away. Now there are no designated off-leash areas, so people just give their dogs the run of the park.

We had a cat killed by a dog that'd gotten out of its yard, and we and the owner of the dog ended up in Pet Court, which was a mediation system which worked pretty well: My wife went in wanting the dog put down, the dog owner went in wanting to know what the big deal was (dogs eat cats, right?), and we went out with an agreement that the dog owner would be responsible for fixing his fence and making sure that the dog stayed behind it, and the Animal Control folks enforced it.

Portland's always been a place where different groups have been able to find consensus on the use of public space; it pains me to think that it might be losing that ability (and just when I was thinking of moving back, too).
posted by hob at 11:01 AM on July 18, 2003


I'm conflicted about this -- yes, dog killing is wrong, but off-leash walking was unacceptably dangerous even before the poisonings.

I do hope the owners take the appropriate lesson from this tragedy, much as I hope cat owners in Denver are bright enough to start keeping their cats permanently indoors lest they get mutilated.


Are you trolling, Epenthesis? Or do you just not realize what you're saying?

Let me put it this way: Do you run stop signs? Ever? Because I hear there's a vigilante group that's gonna start killing people who make rolling stops. And I'm conflicted as to how I feel about this. Especially if you are the first victim.
posted by Shane at 11:01 AM on July 18, 2003


Ummm...I can't agree with the killings, but having been molested by dogs on numerous occasions in Laurelhurst park I cannot say that most dogs are nice and most dog owners are polite. What the people with dogs off leash don't understand is that not only do I not want a dog to bite me, I don't want a dog to come up to me and smell me and lick me and try to play with me. Dog owners think this is fun, non-dog likers think this obnoxious, scarry and unhygienic. When you try to tell these dog owners that leashes are required by law and that there are signs posted they act as if you are spoiling their dog loving experience. In fact they are the ones breaking the law and spoiling my park experience. I'm sorry but as a tax paying human being my right to experience the park unmolested trumps some non tax-paying dog's right to run around with out a leash.
posted by dipolemoment at 11:06 AM on July 18, 2003


Not to mention that if one is against off-leash dogs, it is the people that he has a beef with. Dogs don't make decisions or give into threats.

This sort of logic, it's genius.
posted by xmutex at 11:11 AM on July 18, 2003


This sort of logic, it's genius.

Do you really think it's the dog's fault that he has not leash? That an animal has more responsibility than the person who has chosen to steward it? My dog must be stupid, because I am the one that makes those sorts of decisons around my house.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:12 AM on July 18, 2003


Um. Epenthesis was commenting on this link, I think, Shane - which happens to be about taking photographs of people out with their dogs. Go take a walk with your spaniel, or something, and calm down.
posted by Marquis at 11:16 AM on July 18, 2003


This is the most depressing fucking story I've read in days.

Yes, it's MUCH more depressing than all that death and chaos in, say, the Middle East.

Because I hear there's a vigilante group that's gonna start killing people who make rolling stops.

Dogs are not people. Come back to earth, please.

What the people with dogs off leash don't understand is that not only do I not want a dog to bite me, I don't want a dog to come up to me and smell me and lick me and try to play with me. Dog owners think this is fun, non-dog likers think this obnoxious, scarry and unhygienic.

Hear, hear. I don't support these methods, largely because they do not distinguish between dogs off-leash and dogs on-leash (and because I personally choose not to go around wantonly killing animals). But if leash laws exist, they should be strictly enforced, and if they are violated repeatedly, people's pets should be impounded, just as their cars would be if they repeatedly violated traffic laws. And people certainly have the right to demand that existing laws be enforced—or new ones created.
posted by rushmc at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2003


I'm conflicted about this -- yes, killing cell-phone using drivers is wrong, but driving while talking on the phone was unacceptably dangerous even before the car bombings.

I do hope the drivers take the appropriate lesson from this tragedy, much as I hope cell phone owners in Vancouver are bright enough to start keeping their phone permanently out of restaurants lest they get stuffed down their throats.
posted by timeistight at 11:27 AM on July 18, 2003


Um. Epenthesis was commenting on this link, I think, Shane - which happens to be about taking photographs of people out with their dogs.

There is more than one link in this FPP, Marquis. Thing is, he said:

yes, dog killing is wrong, but off-leash walking was unacceptably dangerous even before the poisonings.

Not, "taking photos is wrong" or somesuch. Conventional logic would contend he was commenting on the vigilante dog killers.

Yes, it's MUCH more depressing than all that death and chaos in, say, the Middle East.

Can we just stop with this ubiquitous false logic already, please? It is tedious, old, and overused on Mefi. Just because there is human suffering in the world does not mean we should ignore animal suffering. I'm not the first person to point this out.

And this thread is all downhill from here. Have fun...
posted by Shane at 11:30 AM on July 18, 2003


Just because you know your dog is harmless, doesn't mean that a random jogger knows that.
posted by smackfu at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2003


just because a random jogger knows that they are harmless, that doesn't mean i know that.

i have yet to see a case where someone took a vicious dog and let them off leash at a park.
posted by chrisroberts at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2003


Can we just stop with this ubiquitous false logic already, please? It is tedious, old, and overused on Mefi. Just because there is human suffering in the world does not mean we should ignore animal suffering.

Don't be ridiculous, Shane. I didn't say or imply any such thing. I responded to a very specific statement: " This is the most depressing fucking story I've read in days." So your protest does not apply.
posted by rushmc at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2003


i have yet to see a case where someone took a vicious dog and let them off leash at a park.

Really? Should I gather a list of dog mauling links for you?

Nah, find 'em yourself.
posted by rushmc at 11:54 AM on July 18, 2003


Just because you know your dog is harmless, doesn't mean that a random jogger knows that.

Exactly - ultimately it is whether or not someone is a responsible pet owner...

I walk my dog in several locations, and ALWAYS am in control of his interaction with other people.

It does not mean he is always on leash, it means I pay attention to the environment around me and act accordingly.

Park is empty? He gets to be off-leash. Human being enters park (Jogger, bicyclist, family, etc) - dog gets put back on leash. When leashed and people approach, he is tethered immediately next to me - I don't like him jumping on me, WHY would anyone else want it?

I guess some dog owners (those who use them as substitute children, or those who would not make good parents) can't understand that yes parents do NOT want their kids playing in dog crap/piss any more than you would, and that dog drool is not that hygenic and that young humans can be easily scared by overly-friendly jumping dogs.
posted by jkaczor at 11:57 AM on July 18, 2003


it means I pay attention to the environment around me and act accordingly.

This is also a definition of being a good citizen.

BTW - I disagree with the method used - the poison meat is not discriminating between on and off-leash animals. In the last week there have been several occasions where WDD (Worlds' Dumbest Dog) attempted to eat something he found when on leash, and I've had to act quickly. I'm not worried about poison - just him puking and crapping all over the house because of some "yummy" snack found on the ground...
posted by jkaczor at 12:02 PM on July 18, 2003


I'll confess to occasionally taking my dog to a playfield or park near my house in the early morning or late at night and letting him run off leash when no one is around, but other than that he stays on leash unless we're in a posted off-leash area, of which there are thankfully quite a few in Seattle. It does bug me when people let their dogs off leash in crowded parks. It's potentially dangerous to kids, annoying to dog-phobic adults, and a pain in my butt when another dog charges up to mine for some vigorous butt sniffing and I end up in the middle of a tussle.

Also, people who poison dogs deserve special, extended torture.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:05 PM on July 18, 2003


rushmc: most dog maulings happen as the result of a dog getting loose from a backyard or some such. not from a dog begin taken to a park to run around. i am not saying that i condone dogs running loose in a park. i make the half hour drive once a week to a park that has a designated dog section. all that i am saying is, most dogs that are off leash in a park are not vicious dogs that are going to attack some one. most people aren't stupid enough to bring an unfriendly dog to a park to run around without a leash. my main point was that while you say that you don't know if a dog is friendly or not, you can say the same thing about the person you just walked by, or that is sitting on a bench watching you walk around the park.

i do agree that as owners should be more aware of their dogs, as jkaczor is with his own dogs. but while the complaint about not wanting your child to play in piss and crap is agreeable, it is invalidated by the fact that even if there is no dog piss or crap in the park, there will still be some there to play with. and most people do clean up after their dogs.
posted by chrisroberts at 12:10 PM on July 18, 2003


rushmc: most dog maulings happen as the result of a dog getting loose from a backyard or some such. not from a dog begin taken to a park to run around.

I'm sure that's probably true. But what of the remaining cases?

while you say that you don't know if a dog is friendly or not, you can say the same thing about the person you just walked by, or that is sitting on a bench watching you walk around the park.

The difference is that people are not breaking the law by sitting there; people letting their dogs run free in a leash-required area are. jkaczor's attitude may be commendable, but ultimately (if there are leash laws where he lives) he is breaking the law, which is not praiseworthy. There are many dog-owners who are very responsible, but there are many who are not, and it only takes one of the latter to create a potentially serious situation.

most people do clean up after their dogs.

YMMV, but I have been to many public parks and other public areas where this was definitely not the case.
posted by rushmc at 12:21 PM on July 18, 2003


Terrorists of Pets or Public Park Freedom Fighters? We report, you decide...
posted by stifford at 12:23 PM on July 18, 2003


there will still be some there to play with...

Yeah, sigh - my little girl is something of a nature "buff" - EVERYWHERE we walk she has to pick the plants, flowers, etc... from the side of the path - lovingly watered by hundreds of dogs per week.... sigh... no amount of discouragement, education or blatant fascist ordering will deter her from her chosen task...

My wife is horrified - me - at some point I always have to shrug and point out that it hasn't killed her yet...
posted by jkaczor at 12:24 PM on July 18, 2003


"if there are leash laws where he lives"

Yes there are.

On occasion I have also been known to:
- drive faster than the posted speed limit.
(never in neighbourhoods, or school zones)
- rolling stops.
- download a music file (although not for the last few years).
- etc.

Ultimately it comes down to individual or personal responsibility - yes there may be many individual legal infractions - if caught I pay my fine, and either; a.) learn from the experience. or b.) chalk it up to the "cost of doing business".

I would not, however complain about being "caught", and if anyone complained about my dog-handling when out, I would change my behaviour drastically.
posted by jkaczor at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2003


This is the most depressing fucking story I've read in days.

Yes, it's MUCH more depressing than all that death and chaos in, say, the Middle East.


As a matter of fact, it IS much more depressing than that bullshit going on in the Middle East. A bunch of humans - dimwitted or not, justified or not, elected or not - sends a bunch of other humans to some other place to kill yet more humans. Everybody knows and what's happening, everybody has a chance to participate or not as they deem fit. Who fucking cares what happens to them now? Not me, mister. Those who went to die and those who sent them there have chosen the path of their own fate - to live, or to die, for Patriotism or in vain, in Allah's name or for the greater glory of ExxonMobil, but all BY THEIR CHOICE. Not one of those eight dead dogs had any choice about what happened to them; some of them had to be put down in humane relief from the excruciating pain from which they were suffering. That you deem that suffering to be somehow less important or somehow undeserving of our sympathy is symptomatic of your own sad judgement; personally, I've always said there were a lot more dogs I know and trust than humans I know and trust, and you are proving that out for me in spades.
posted by JollyWanker at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2003


Some people (I'm not saying me, but some people) are rather allergic to your dog, and its jumping on them, while pleasantly doggy and cute and not dangerous and all that, necessitates immidiate extensive washing of most things the dog came into contact with, since swollen eyes and constant sneezing and an itchy throat do not make for a fun day in the park.
posted by fidelity at 12:34 PM on July 18, 2003


leashyourdog.com is a ridiculous site, full of assumptions and misleading "information." I strongly believe that people should leash their dogs when in public, but this site is ridiculous. Some of the photos look like people in their backyards. How is this effective? The statistics they quote do not show that any dog attacks were made by dogs off leashes or in public places. And it is assuming that it is the unleashed dogs who are making messes in parks. I've seen plenty of people walk their dogs on leashes and not scoop after them.

The simple solution is to have dog-free parks and dog-friendly parks. Don't have a dog? Don't go to the dog park.

And let me just add that it is ridiculous that my neighborhood is filled with roaming felines that don't have to be registered and kill all kinds of animals in my backyard while my dogs, which never leave my yard off a leash, are required to be registered with the town every year at my expense.
posted by archimago at 12:40 PM on July 18, 2003


via rushmc,

Metafilter: I'm sure that's probably true
posted by trharlan at 12:42 PM on July 18, 2003


One last post...

What about laws for "unleashed" teenagers...?

In the same park I walk my dog and daughter, I had the pleasure to encounter two under-age drunken louts who decided to smash their bottle on a rock to "hide" the evidence... Gee, guess who had to clean that mess up?

Do leash laws apply to cats...?

What about the cat that wanders loose, who I discovered early one morning 60 feet up a tree (thought it was dead at first - the magpies were buzzing it fiercely - but it would not move - justice I thought, the little beast got up there chasing them - and they tree'd him...)

Calls to various animal agencies simply said; "leave it". 12 hours later, I walk through the same area after we had a few nasty thunderstorms - and guess what - still there...

Now, I realize that impacting various agencies does have a $$ figure attached - but the last thing I want to do is walk my family by there every day while a cats' corpse hangs and rots in the wind. (so yes - I was not completely altruistic in my motives...)

Finally the local fire briggade came out, grabbed it and we returned it to the owners - their response:
" honey, someone brought the cat home again."

(I had visions of reaching out, grabbing the cat back and strangling it in front of their dazed faces...)
posted by jkaczor at 12:43 PM on July 18, 2003


what would you expect? taking their cue from their leaders, good uhmurkin citizens everywhere are reaching out and taking action to solve the problems they perceive in their own neighborhoods.
posted by quonsar at 1:17 PM on July 18, 2003


I had visions of reaching out, grabbing the cat back and strangling it in front of their dazed faces.

A cat climbed a tree, leading you to fantasize about killing it with your bare hands.
posted by timeistight at 1:37 PM on July 18, 2003


As a matter of fact, it IS much more depressing than that bullshit going on in the Middle East.

You, sir, are one sick puppy. Therapy might help you re-establish your priorities. Seriously.

I had visions of reaching out, grabbing the cat back and strangling it in front of their dazed faces...

Ditto.
posted by rushmc at 2:03 PM on July 18, 2003


my dog was poisoned 3.5 years ago (he's 5 now). this was in a legally sanctioned offleash park. for the past 3.5 years he has been unable to properly digest any kind of food. he's tried white fish, emu, venison, beef, chicken, lamb, sweet potato, and others. i even worked directly with a dog food company trying to come up with a diet he could stomach. nope. as a result, i have to buy him special food (an expensive hypoallergenic kibble--something I hate to feed him) and give him 4 steroids a day. the cost is exhorbitant. in addition, his demeanor has changed drastically (for the worse). he no longer likes other dogs, smells like you wouldn't believe, and scratches himself till he bleeds unless he's stopped.

i have no qualms with saying that if i ever find the fucker who did it i would kill him/her.
posted by dobbs at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2003


No offense, but sounds like your dog is suffering (needlessly).
posted by agregoli at 2:09 PM on July 18, 2003


Both in the sense that it is just plain suffering and also in the sense that what was the point of doing that to a dog, nameless poisoner?
posted by agregoli at 2:10 PM on July 18, 2003


i have no qualms with saying that if i ever find the fucker who did it i would kill him/her.

Then you are even worse than they are. They, too, felt justified in their own minds in seeking to kill, and took it upon themselves to try, but whereas they limited themselves to an animal, you are eager to murder a human being. Appalling.

Also, what agregoli said (first).
posted by rushmc at 2:19 PM on July 18, 2003


what quonsar said.
posted by graventy at 2:24 PM on July 18, 2003


Is there an automated service whereby I may discern my score on the rushmc moralometer?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:28 PM on July 18, 2003


dobbs: i have no qualms with saying that if i ever find the fucker who did it i would kill him/her.

Call me when you have said fucker ID'd... I'd be more than happy to help. Maybe we'll get lucky and we can make an example of some MeFi members who seem to believe that animals are somehow not deserving of the same respect they absolutely demand we afford even the least deserving of human beings...

Anyways, you just know a debate has headed through the lookingglass when quonsar is the one making the most sense...

(rushmc, I just feel sorry for you. I know my priorities and they do not include advocating the victimization of helpless domestic pets as a mechanism of vigilante justice. I'm not the one who needs therapy, buddy. What's a matter, mom tell you it's time to give up skinning live chipmunks since you're all growed up now?)
posted by JollyWanker at 2:29 PM on July 18, 2003


A cat climbed a tree, leading you to fantasize about killing it with your bare hands.

Did you read why? Its' right here in the thread, you don't even have to click that newfangled "hawperlawnk" thangy...

Hint:
- it's not because the cat climbed the TREE - if I were a cat-hating, crazed psycho - I probably would have left it there to die of exposure, starve or fall.

Why:
Irresponsible owners - another "ho hum" event for them, they were not AWARE of where something in their CARE was... If it was a child, do you think the kid would be going back to them? Or social services (child welfare)?

Sure, perhaps it would have been "politically correct" for me to type: "visions of grabbing it back, handing it to the local 'Humane Society' came to mind"...

(You do know what happens to animals there, if un-adopted, or un-claimed, eh?)
posted by jkaczor at 2:37 PM on July 18, 2003


From waaaay up at the top:

what's wrong with privilege?

... from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

The meaning here, I think, is that special rules, legal ones in particular, should not be applied if one is wealthy or well-connected. That's what's wrong with "privilege".

Back on topic, on preview, what rushmc said. Yes, killing dogs is wrong, but jesus christ, people, get a grip.
posted by majcher at 2:42 PM on July 18, 2003


Therapy might help you re-establish your priorities.

As for middle-east versus dog-death priorities:
- Yep, I'm at fault for the actions of someone I didn't elect, and couldn't even if I had wanted to...
(hint - this newfangled web thangy isn't jus limitted to ya'lls neck 'o'da woods)

- I think the fact that I support my leaders in their choice to stay out of the Operation Iraqi Libaration (OIL) project is all the moral soul-searching I have to do - it's not like I can vote in the next US election or anything.

However - the difference between somone who needs therapy, and someone who does not is exactly how one ACTS on their internal world-views/visions/etc... Ever watch an action movie? A horror movie? Did you enjoy them? So - do you need therapy?
posted by jkaczor at 2:45 PM on July 18, 2003


Can the cliched American accent, jkaczor. This fellow canuck thinks you need help dealing with your rage. Seriously.
posted by timeistight at 2:50 PM on July 18, 2003


I'm conflicted about this -- yes, killing cell-phone using drivers is wrong, but driving while talking on the phone was unacceptably dangerous even before the car bombings.

I do hope the drivers take the appropriate lesson from this tragedy, much as I hope cell phone owners in Vancouver are bright enough to start keeping their phone permanently out of restaurants lest they get stuffed down their throats.


Rage bad. Therapy good. Hulk understands. Ok. maybe group would be good?
posted by jkaczor at 2:54 PM on July 18, 2003


...but whereas they limited themselves to an animal, you are eager to murder a human being.

For me, some humans are "worth" considerably less than some animals. A noble beast is higher on my scale than some self-debased humans. Though I wouldn't kill either of them myself, I can understand and agree with Dobbs' valuing his dog's life over that of the human who poisoned it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:04 PM on July 18, 2003


For me, some humans are "worth" considerably less than some animals. A noble beast is higher on my scale than some self-debased humans.

Sometimes, you people terrify the living shit out of me. Seriously.
posted by majcher at 3:13 PM on July 18, 2003


Read the thread, jkaczor. That was my reductio ad absurdum of Epenthesis's comment.
posted by timeistight at 3:16 PM on July 18, 2003


Then you are even worse than they are. They, too, felt justified in their own minds in seeking to kill, and took it upon themselves to try, but whereas they limited themselves to an animal, you are eager to murder a human being. Appalling.

I'm far worse than the whole lot of them, then, 'cuz right now I'm fantasizing about kicking the soapbox out from under rushmc and watching him fall and break his sanctimonious neck. I know: Appalling ;-)

And, majcher, terrifying or no, I second what pinkstainless said. Humans have conscious choice in their behavior, after all.
posted by Shane at 3:18 PM on July 18, 2003


Shane, don't you know by now not to argue with rushmc's sanctimony? Just let it wash over you and cleanse you and make you a better person.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:22 PM on July 18, 2003


And once again, I agree with Shane. A human willingly poisoning a random dog out of malicious intent is worth less than that dog.
posted by jonson at 3:22 PM on July 18, 2003


you people terrify the living shit out of me

'people' generally tend to do that. if 'people' didn't, we'd still be swinging from trees... it's all about rationalization, and the importance 'people' place on abstract concepts:

would you kill another human being:
- to obtain his/her food supply?
- to protect yours?
- for their wealth?
- to protect yours?
- to protect someone you love?
- to protect your way of life?
- because you believe that their way of life is wrong?
- because you believe that their beliefs are wrong?
- because you believe that their financial/political structure is wrong?
- because they threaten your society, religion, financial or political structure?

frankly, I'm willing to bet that the number of active murdering posting members on metafilter approaches "0".

you have less to fear from all the typing and talk here - communications is the first step in ensuring that "rationales" are indeed rational.
posted by jkaczor at 3:23 PM on July 18, 2003


A noble beast

nobility being an abstraction attributed to beast by a human being, as opposed to some innate trait of the beast itself, i'd say there was no such beast.
posted by quonsar at 3:23 PM on July 18, 2003


timeistight:

I have read every post in the thread.

So, if you thought about it, then I suppose you had a "vision" of what you where saying, right? Tell me please you did think before you posted, right?

Your absurd re-phrasing of the comment came from your mind, correct?

You haven't recently stuffed a cellphone down someones' throat, correct?

I noticed that in Epenthesis's original comment, there was no mention of stuffing anything down a throat - which leads me to think that you "created" that image based on a personal preference, experience or "vision", eh?
posted by jkaczor at 3:29 PM on July 18, 2003


Damn jkaczor, you caught me. I should have stuck to mutilation.
posted by timeistight at 3:39 PM on July 18, 2003


I will be disconnecting for a while now, allowing anyone interested to slag me mercilessly in my absence during the retaliatory poo-flinging that may follow. My silence should not be seen as implying dedition but rather simple disdain. Have a nice evening. And for some of you I really do mean "Have a nice evening" in a less than sarcastic sense ;-)
posted by Shane at 3:40 PM on July 18, 2003


Poisoning food items in parks is not only dangerous to dogs, leashed and unleashed, but also to native wildlife such as birds, foxes, racoons, etc. It is not at all justifiable and those doing it should be tracked down and given massive fines and at least short prison sentences as well. Or given massive fines and then forced to take extensive classes on preserving and protecting wildlife and the environment.... and respecting public property and the people around them whom are trying to live in a society.

Certainly these people have no right to live in free society if they think killing whoever and whatever comes along is a reasonable approach.

Then you are even worse than they are. They, too, felt justified in their own minds in seeking to kill, and took it upon themselves to try, but whereas they limited themselves to an animal, you are eager to murder a human being. Appalling.

I do not believe in murdering other human beings unless you have no other choice at all, yet I would definately be up for delivering a sound and unforgettable beating to anyone that would seek to harm me, my family and friends OR my pets.

Also, I suspect that it is the instinct to protect family, and pets definately feel like family after a while, that generates "I would blow their brains out and feed them to quonsor!" responses more than actual willingness to kill other human beings.

And as for the value of human life vs animal life, it is easier at times to be MORE apalled a the death of innocent animals than it is the death of crazy humans, mostly because humanity is very easy to give up on. I do not think it is even the act done by the human that incites rage, it is the fact that the victim was not just another crazy human being, but rather something we can think of as overall being a more innocent creature perhaps even more deserving of life than a lot of us.

The fact is that there are better ways of handling violent criminal behaviour in our society than execution. Were it for whatever reason impossible to simply lock people away for the safety of other life, then I too would feel quite at ease seeing people like the dog-poisoners routinely rounded up and killed, but we are not limited to that option and so we need not join the killers to protect the innocent lives of humans or animals.
posted by bargle at 3:49 PM on July 18, 2003


Then you are even worse than they are. They, too, felt justified in their own minds in seeking to kill, and took it upon themselves to try, but whereas they limited themselves to an animal, you are eager to murder a human being. Appalling.

justified? i don't think they felt justified. i think they were just some thoughtless idiot with fucked up morals. (i know, that's what you think of me after reading my first post.) i put the person in the same category as kids who drop cinder blocks off pridges to see what happens.

and you're more than welcome to find it appalling that i'm disturbed by the needless suffering my companion has suffered because of the nameless idiot.

yes, i value the life of my dog more than a cruel and malicious human stranger. this surprises you?

Sometimes, you people terrify the living shit out of me. Seriously.

you terrify the living shit out of me because you don't seem terrified by random acts of cruelty.

No offense, but sounds like your dog is suffering (needlessly).

yes, as do many humans who suffer from incurable diseases. however, he definitely has his happy times (every day).
posted by dobbs at 3:51 PM on July 18, 2003


Poisoning food items in parks is not only dangerous to dogs, leashed and unleashed, but also to native wildlife such as...

Pigeons!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:53 PM on July 18, 2003


Maybe we'll get lucky and we can make an example of some MeFi members who seem to believe that animals are somehow not deserving of the same respect they absolutely demand we afford even the least deserving of human beings...

um ... animals aren't deserving of the same respect. we kinda base our whole civilization on that precept.

dog owners need to grow up in a big, big way. oh yeah, they're *different* than other animals. give me a call back when they're bred and slaughtered en masse for appetizers, and i'll work up some indigation.

for now, just put the damn leashes on and pay attention to what your stupid dog is eating, and stop your inane and baseless threats. /veggietroll.

hey, somebody had to do it. ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 4:08 PM on July 18, 2003


nobility being an abstraction attributed to beast by a human being, as opposed to some innate trait of the beast itself, i'd say there was no such beast.

Fair enough. Let's say I value the abstraction that is a noble beast over the abstraction that is a "worthless" human.
I've known people whose passing I would mark with a shrug and pets that I still miss. John Donne did not speak for me: the death of some men does nothing to diminish mankind. It's not my place (or anyone's) to pick and choose who, though.

Or to put it in more honest/simple terms:

I wuv my iddle kitty more than I wuv a bad old poisoner. What is so odd about that?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:15 PM on July 18, 2003


Animal cruelty is a well-documented predictor of other violent criminality.
posted by timeistight at 4:31 PM on July 18, 2003


Animal cruelty is a well-documented predictor of other violent criminality.

Oh, it's all a rich tapestry.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:39 PM on July 18, 2003


What is so odd about that?
nothing. i was just blathering on. :-)
posted by quonsar at 5:07 PM on July 18, 2003


Yep, I'm at fault for the actions of someone I didn't elect, and couldn't even if I had wanted to...

No one said anything about fault. The comparison was of relative depression-induction. So, um, what are you talking about?
posted by rushmc at 5:18 PM on July 18, 2003


However - the difference between somone who needs therapy, and someone who does not is exactly how one ACTS on their internal world-views/visions/etc...

That is simply not true. Prison is for those who act on such urges/emotions; therapy is to help people deal with them before they act upon them.
posted by rushmc at 5:20 PM on July 18, 2003


I'm far worse than the whole lot of them, then, 'cuz right now I'm fantasizing about kicking the soapbox out from under rushmc and watching him fall and break his sanctimonious neck.

You're more than welcome to try, pal. Any time.
posted by rushmc at 5:21 PM on July 18, 2003


rush is one with the soapbox.
om.
om.
posted by quonsar at 5:30 PM on July 18, 2003


Yes, killing dogs is wrong, but jesus christ, people, get a grip.

Sometimes, you people terrify the living shit out of me.

Poisoning food items in parks is not only dangerous to dogs, leashed and unleashed, but also to native wildlife such as birds, foxes, racoons, etc. It is not at all justifiable and those doing it should be tracked down and given massive fines and at least short prison sentences as well.

dog owners need to grow up in a big, big way.

At least some of you retain some contact with reality.

I suspect that it is the instinct to protect family, and pets definately feel like family after a while...

Sure, if you're...INSANE! Are people REALLY so emotionally cut-off that they have to pretend with animals to replace genuine human interaction and bonding? I mean, pets are great, don't get me wrong, but a little perspective, people, please! You are projecting to a huge degree (probably transferring as well).
posted by rushmc at 5:31 PM on July 18, 2003


rush is one with the soapbox.

I have to guard it closely...Big Bully Shane is gonna try to take it away from me!
posted by rushmc at 5:32 PM on July 18, 2003


rushmc

why does loving a pet mean you can't love people? should everyone with a dog have another kid instead?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:43 PM on July 18, 2003


here (santiago, chile), there are two kinds of dogs. in the rich areas (where we live, for example), people keep dogs to guard their property. these live in the small gardens and become psychotic (imho), barking like crazy when you pass. then there are the stray dogs which hardly ever bark and aren't agressive. it's fascinating to watch a stray dog pad down the street - clearly on a mission of some importance, head held high, tongue lolling out - and see the "guard" dogs on either side of the road bounce off the gates and fences in a frenzy of hate.

the only problem with stray dogs is that they tend to sleep in inconventient places, like the middle of busy pavements. i once stood on one, by accident, because i wasn't looking where i was going. not sure who was more surprised.

anyway, as far as the "guard" dogs are concerned, i'm interested to read about the poisoning. our neighbours have a couple of nasty specimens that just might eat something they shouldn't in the near future. as far as i see it, they'd kill me given half a chance...
posted by andrew cooke at 5:58 PM on July 18, 2003


Rush, could you stop being a dick for like, five seconds? Just to see how it feels?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2003


why does loving a pet mean you can't love people?

Who said that it did? But surely you would agree that one should love them differently (at least, I hope that you would!).
posted by rushmc at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2003


Classy, Little Miss. Did you have a point to make?
posted by rushmc at 6:36 PM on July 18, 2003


That was pretty much it. I often find that it's one of the only points worth making in most of the threads you participate in.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:59 PM on July 18, 2003


Who said that it did? But surely you would agree that one should love them differently

Rick Santorum would disagree.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 7:03 PM on July 18, 2003


so, andrew cooke, you're saying you're okay with fatally poisoning your neighbor's guard dogs because their barking annoys you?
posted by jonson at 7:31 PM on July 18, 2003


That was pretty much it.

Well...okay, then.

You chose your nick well, ma'am.
posted by rushmc at 7:36 PM on July 18, 2003


Hey! I'm fairly certain that's my sister! I'll have to let here know she's famous.

or at least that the big, bad leash vigilantes are looking for her
posted by Fezboy! at 7:40 PM on July 18, 2003


Sure, if you're...INSANE! Are people REALLY so emotionally cut-off that they have to pretend with animals to replace genuine human interaction and bonding?

No. Aside from the occasional recluse living in the house with thirty cats, I would assume most people with pets still have plenty of friends and spend a lot of time with other people. The fact that a brother or a sister is a more important part of the chain of friends and family does not change the fact that a pet that could be with you for ten, fifteen or even twenty years (in the case of cats at least)
becomes an important part of your life as well.

I doubt if many pet owners would save their pets life in a fire before saving the life of another human, for instance. But I can certainly understand why they would try to save the pet if it alone was in danger and why they take threats to their pets very seriously. Dogs and cats have personalities, they are not like cars or trucks or other posessions. The loss of a living companion, no matter if it is "just" a pet, is painful. There is nothing unhealthy with that either if not taken to extremes.
posted by bargle at 8:07 PM on July 18, 2003


Sure, if you're...INSANE! Are people REALLY so emotionally cut-off that they have to pretend with animals to replace genuine human interaction and bonding?

Rush, are you a little simple in the head? It's not one or the other. One doesn't have to chose. You can love both, you know. I have no problems relating to people. What I have a problem with are people who chose to take my dog's life because... well, for no particular reason. What's the fucking problem? Why's it so difficult for you to understand that there are people who don't think animals (even the human kind) should not be subjected to unjustifiable violence?

You are projecting to a huge degree (probably transferring as well).

Trying to explain the affection one has for a pet (or anything/one else) to someone that makes statements like this is pointless.
posted by dobbs at 8:48 PM on July 18, 2003


human should be non-human, above.
posted by dobbs at 8:49 PM on July 18, 2003


i like dogs
posted by kv at 9:16 PM on July 18, 2003


fezboy - is that really your sister? How can you tell, the footage looks like that 1970's In Search Of footage of Bigfoot strolling through the woods. No offense to your sister, who I'm sure is lovely.
posted by jonson at 9:49 PM on July 18, 2003


There is nothing unhealthy with that either if not taken to extremes.

There's not a word in your comment that I disagree with, bargle. But I think you are glossing over a lot of the comments made in this thread. Re-read it and tell me if you still think everyone except the "occasional recluse" is as reasonable about the issue as you are.
posted by rushmc at 9:58 PM on July 18, 2003


I never let my dog off leash at parks that aren't specifically dog parks which are enclosed. Am I concerned at how she might inconvenience you? Not in the least. I'm afraid she'd see a squirrel and run into the street and get hit by a car. I'm afraid some other asshole's mean dog might bite her or fight her. Or that your teenage son is the kind of guy who likes to kick sweet, droopy basset hounds. She's on my leash because I'm protecting her from you.
posted by vito90 at 12:35 AM on July 19, 2003


Right after my father died, one of the teenage daughters of a neighbor poisoned our cat. I was too young to know the background of all this, but suddenly I wasn't allowed to go over to their house anymore, even though they had a daughter my age.

It wasn't until a few years ago that my mom said she was worried that the older girl was going to poison me next.
posted by ugf at 5:39 AM on July 19, 2003


so, andrew cooke, you're saying you're okay with fatally poisoning your neighbor's guard dogs because their barking annoys you?

yep.

it's actually now one house away. we moved down a house and someone new moved in. the new person had an attitude pretty much like yours when he saw me throwing stones at them. now, after living there 6 months, he understands.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:40 AM on July 19, 2003


actually i'm ok with killing them in any way at all, not just poisoning. the current plan is that next time one escapes and comes into our garden we're going to open the gate and let it out. hopefuully it will be run over by the traffic. the problem is getting the gate open with a frenzied dog in our garden, but we have a big stick standing by.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:45 AM on July 19, 2003


My dog, Laika, was sitting next to me staring at the screen as I scrolled through this thread. Then she got bored and trotted off to chew up the foam rubber in her puppy bed. I love her more than I love all of you put together.

Kill a dog, go to prison.
posted by divrsional at 10:35 AM on July 19, 2003


andrew cooke's opinion sucks.
posted by kv at 8:03 PM on July 19, 2003


Amen!
posted by timeistight at 11:29 PM on July 19, 2003


Woah, and they say we Brits are ludicrously sentimental about animals. Of course it's wrong to kill a dog, unless it's rabid/ savage. But I'd happily punch the people who let their dogs shit in the park where my kids play.
posted by Pericles at 9:58 AM on July 20, 2003


Forget dog parks. What I want is a park for my guinea pig to run free, pooping and peeing wherever the heck he likes.
posted by konolia at 10:37 AM on July 20, 2003


Where I live there is a sanctioned dog run across the street from where us dog people congregate. Why?

In the official dog run I have seen used hypdodermics, used condoms, broken bottles, human feces, raving homeless schizophrenics in the bushes, and nodding junkies with hypos sticking out of their arms. There is zero visibility from the street due to big scraggly bushes and dogs can easily run out in the street from there. There is exactly one garbage can there, obscured by bushes.

Conversely, the unofficial dog run, on the edge of a ball field across the street, has almost panoramic visibility from the street. There is lighting, ample garbage cans, benches, and regular patroling by the police. It would be nearly impossible for a dog to impulsively dash into the street because of it's distance from the road.

Where would you take your dog?

Yes, some dog owners are entitled, selfish fucks. The rest of us pick up our dog's poop, keep a sharp eye on them while they're off leash, and sharply admonish our dogs for approaching people who seem to dislike them (mine now stays away from all people who aren't cooing and calling for him). The dogs stay on the small triangle of land that we use and are not allowed to roam over the entirety of the park.

I would gladly use the official dog run if the city would make it safe for both dogs and their owners to be there. Sadly, they haven't - they seemed to have abandoned it to the junkies and the crazies. I wouldn't take a child there and I don't seen why I should have to take my dog there. Hepatitis from human feces, and the possibility of being assaulted is a much larger concern to me than animal poop. At least here in S.F., the curbyourdog.com types have all the wrong priorities and, consequently, can go fuck themselves, IMO.
posted by echolalia67 at 1:51 PM on July 21, 2003


mrgrimm, you're right on. It's not hard to imagine people getting worked up enough over a dog to threaten a person with death also sitting down to meals of dead flesh. There is some deep denial going on.
posted by NortonDC at 2:50 PM on July 21, 2003


« Older And now, they'll be visiting all of you for...   |   Defend Your Castle Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post