I stole it and I'm not sorry

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Time for a personal story from my life.

My mother spends half the year in a house we have in the country, travelling on and off to the city. The neighbor's dog started coming to my mom's house and would not leave until my mother went back to the city. The dog would even spend days after my mom left sulking in our back yard, waiting for my mother to come back. Despite having an owner that fed him and took care of him, the dog chose my mother to be his "owner" for some reason.

My mother is not an excessive animal lover. She just respects animals without imposing herself on them, or seeking their company actively. She's never owned a pet herself. She joked about the dog messing about with her garden and fully supported the neighbor in their attempts to prevent the dog from sneaking and coming to my mother's place.

The neighbors tried everything, including fortifying their fence. The dog always found a way. In the end, jealousy took over, and our neighbor gave the dog, 8 years of age at that time, away to another person living on the other side of the village, where it was put on a chain....not for any particular reason, it is just the way those people keep dogs.... The new owner came back to our neighbor within weeks, concerned, to ask if they'd take the dog back because it stopped eating. By the time the neighbor went back, the had dog died.

Needless to say how my mother feels about that. She's a woman of age and now she can't forgive herself she said nothing to our neighbor at the time in order to prevent what happened.

Did she do the right thing by our neighbor, probably yes. Did she do the right thing for the dog? Definitely no.

Given the chance, animals do choose their owners, sadly in this case it cost this dog its life. It died lonely, miserable and disappointed.
 
You said that the dog was taken away and given to other neighbors "out of jealousy" so it sounds as if their minds were made up to get it away from your mother.I'm not too sure if your mother could have said anything to prevent what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twentyleagues
I have one point to make. Would your friend have had the physical ability to chase a wild goat up the hills in order to consume it for dinner? It is easy killing a chained animal....
Hello; This is a specious argument. It has nothing to do with my post content nor the topic of the thread. First I never met the owner of the former goat, only saw his property from a short distance. So I have no notion of his ability to hunt wild game. I do know many rural folks who can and do hunt wild game. Most do so within the restrictions of the area laws so again there is a "legal" aspect to the taking of wild game. I often enough hear of the arrest and punishment of those who take game out of season or in other ways illegally. It is illegal to take some wild game out of season or without a permit. It is also illegal to kill a human being all the time without having very specific reasons such as self defense or the defense of another person from immenent harm.

It is not illegal to kill an animal you happen to own in most cases, especially animals considered as livestock such as pigs, chickens, goats, cows, bison, turkey and on and on. I was never told of the method the goat owner used to slaughter his goat so cannot say much about it. I do know however that before I can eat an animal it must be killed in some manner. I have done the killing myself in the past but for the last 60+ years have in effect hired others to do that job for me.
There are laws even here in rural Tennessee against he mistreatment of animals we happen to own. Folks are arrested often enough for the way they treat horses and dogs in my area.

But to your more specific point it is indeed much easier to kill a chained domestic food animal. That is one of the points of domestic livestock. Have them in some way under control so that when you kill them it is so much easier. My neighbor runs a small heard of black angus cattle, About 20 head. New calves born each year and older animals trucked off to a slaughter house where they are killed. Farmers do not "hunt" their food animals.

Despite having an owner that fed him and took care of him, the dog chose my mother to be his "owner" for some reason.
Hello; This statement is the portion of your post I care to reflect about. Dogs may indeed pick a person to like over all other people but not in any sense an "owner". Being an animal owner is a legal thing and not an emotional thing. I can buy a dog and have a bill of sale so who the dog likes has nothing to do with being an owner.
 
You said that the dog was taken away and given to other neighbors "out of jealousy" so it sounds as if their minds were made up to get it away from your mother.I'm not too sure if your mother could have said anything to prevent what happened.

Not really. She probably couldn't have stopped it, short of stealing the dog of course :), which she would have never done. As far as I am aware, she's never criticized the neighbor about what they did. She's old enough to know that there is no point barking the wrong tree. However, It doesn't stop her from feeling really guilty about the dog and pouring out her heart to me every so often, because I am a different type of "tree"...

Between the neighbor and the dog, she chose the neighbor but deep inside she doesn't think she's done the right choice and she keeps reliving the story....The dog died last summer. We're neighbors with these people for more than 45 years so you get my mother's dilemma.
 
Hello; This is a specious argument. It has nothing to do with my post content nor the topic of the thread.

Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between an animal hunted in the wild for human consumption, an animal raised for animal consumption and a pet animal? There is a difference.

Nature intended for us to hunt animals, not farm them or chain them. Farming is only about 10,000 years old in comparison to 200,000-300,000 years history of homo sapiens as hunter gatherers.

And perhaps that's what nature intended, as the sustainability of human kind now may depend on a significant reduction of meat consumption, and the farming of animals....The discussion is not just about morals or beliefs, but survival and sustainability.

Being an animal owner is a legal thing and not an emotional thing. I can buy a dog and have a bill of sale so who the dog likes has nothing to do with being an owner.

Yes, you may have the legal right to do so but you also have the moral responsibility to do the right thing.
 
I am merely asking him to clarify his statement. He said animals are purchased. Therefore they are property. My point is that merely because we have spent money on something living does not mean that we are exempt from proper care or ethical treatment of said animal.
His argument sounds eerily like those used to justify slavery in a rather unpleasant tone in our history.


1) your displaying classic tactics that most use when they are losing an argument or cant come with a valid point. Now you've resorted to putting words in peoples mouths. I want you to find one post on here where anyone is stating they are exempt from providing ethical treatment for the animal ? Find it

2) thx in your rush to find a sensational topic (slavery) hoping i/we would back off our stance you've helped prove my point. Slaves (people) were infact owned. Ugly as it may be its a fact. BUT since ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS THANKFULLY SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED. So you see your pets do not have the same rightd as humans. Does your fish have a choice in what you feed it ? The size of the tank ? Color gravel ? No because as uncomfortable it it may make you you own it and choose how to care for it as you see fit. Op stole something on her own admission

The exact statement was “it is something that you purchased. You own it”
Just because I have purchased any pet doesn’t mean I have carte blanche to treat it any way I like.
Now save some face and find comments that support your new claim of us being ok to mistreat something because we own it.


There's a case lurking in my mind about that father keeping his daughter in the basement, making babies with her....I wonder if stealing the daughter is a criminal offence in this case? What do you smart guys think(rhetorical)? ...Oops, we're talking about fish here. Fish are property, ah? What about the connection between kids abusing animals and later on committing crimes against humans of similar nature?

Take it or leave it but the discussion is going on because there is a lot more to it than hanging on to the word "stealing" like a drowning man to a floating stick.

Another one helping.... so guess what taking this guys daughter away would be a crime if you didnt hand the kid over to the authorities.


You guys can argue untill the cows come home but other than emotional antidotes its a baseless. When you purchase a fish your given a receipt as a proof of ..... what ?

Ownership
 
Let me ask you a question. Do you distinguish between an animal hunted in the wild for human consumption, an animal raised for animal consumption and a pet animal? There is a difference.

Nature intended for us to hunt animals, not farm them or chain them. Farming is only about 10,000 years old in comparison to 200,000-300,000 years history of homo sapiens as hunter gatherers.

And perhaps that's what nature intended, as the sustainability of human kind now may depend on a significant reduction of meat consumption....The discussion is not just about morals or beliefs, but survival and sustainability.
Hello; While I do understand the things you write in specific segments, I do not follow the overall logic. If I take these comments as an extension of my goat story then it seems you have made another big tangential jump. In your previous post the topic was diverted to a goat owners ability or lack of ability to hunt wild goats on very steep slopes.
Now I guess we are morphed into the survival and sustainablity of the human species? I wish my recall were better about specific numbers so I will use rough estimations. Yes we modern humans were hunter gatherers for a much longer time than we have been using agricultural methods. There have been some estimates about how large a human population could be sustained as hunter gatherers only. That estimated total number was very much less than the total world population today.
There was an increase in sustainable population numbers as we moved to the earliest forms of agriculture and animal husbandry. I think this is referred to as being powered by human muscle. At some point we domesticated animals as beasts of burden in addition to being domesticated for consumption. Still the total human population was not very large even with horses and such to plow and haul for us.
Technology in the form of harnessing fossil fuels was the big boost to our exponential population growth. Machine power replaced muscle power.
The irony of the industrial revolution and the "green revolution" has been we are now well above the population numbers that could be sustained by "muscle power" alone. We now are totally dependent on mainly petroleum to keep our population going with coal and natural gas also needed. Pets do not have much to do with sustainability nor survival.

Yeah I understand the difference between pets and livestock. We eat livestock ourselves. We also use food stocks to feed our pets ( mainly dogs and cats) that could also be fed to other humans. It is my understanding there are many tens of millions of pet dogs and cats ( maybe hundreds of millions) eating food stocks while at the same time there are malnourished and starving people by the millions.
So if you are implying you have some moral high ground and therefore are better in tune with human survival and sustainability because of "doing the right thing" by stealing someone else's personal pet, then I have a question. Given there are factually millions of humans starving at this moment and there are also probably even more millions of dogs, cats and other pets (including fish) getting well fed at the same moment, what is the moral thing to do about that?


Yes, you may have the legal right to do so but you also have the moral responsibility to do the right thing.
 
C Coryloach The Morning The Morning you guys realize how many animals are slaughtered to feed you and your pets. Dont the animals listed as ingredients on your fish food have the same rights as your pets ?

Lol you guys own fish AND claim that something taken from the wild or bred for the specific reason of being a pet has the same rights as a human. Yet still keep fish in a glass box. I'd imagine someone who feels this way would not condone this hobby. I guess next you'll say raising a human in a glass box is acceptable
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebiggerthebetter
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com