Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Texas Governor is a monster

#21

(06-23-2021, 10:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 06:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.

Not true.  Would you want to be tied up on a short rope or chain 24 hours a day, restricting your movement to just a few feet and being forced to have to walk through your own filth, just to walk a few paces? Unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, the answer is no. Tell me, why anyone would veto such a law? It's pretty basic and unless you lack any compassion what so ever, this is a pretty universal sentiment. Being humane, is just that. It's not subjective at all. If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to your pets.

You have an unhealthy love of animals. Probably one of those people that take the dogs every where regardless how much their family and friends don't want them to.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(06-23-2021, 06:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-22-2021, 10:30 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: It's not government overreach if the humane treatment of a domestic animal is being violated. It's just basic humanity.

Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.
and FACT! Here in Pa, they enacted some laws like these but did not take into perspective of the dogs nature and breed. Part of Pa law now reads that you can not leave your dog tied up or outside for over 15 minutes when it's cold which is often from Oct-May unless you are doing something like walking them. A well meaning law designed for the welfare of the dog, I get it. However, several years ago I had Siberian Husky dogs. This law did not take into consideration the nature of the dog. These dogs are cold weather dogs. When it's 70 plus, they are hot. They are bred to live and work is sub zero temperatures. They do not like to be stuck in the house, they love being outside. They bury themselves in the snow. I have dog houses for them and they slept on top of them in the snow and rain and in them when it was warm/hot.

I have nosy neighbors who live to watch all the neighbors on our street on both sides of me who routinely called the municipal authorities about leaving my dogs out in the cold. I received several summons for court after being visited by the municipal authorities, the ASPCA, dog rescue groups, and other bleeding heart people and groups including several Pa State Dog Wardens. I downloaded as much information as I could find about their nature, went to reputable breeders and had them write statements and had them notarized and presented them in court.

Prior to reading the letters from the breeders, the judge spouted off saying there was no exception to the law and I had to follow it. I brought his attention to the breeders letters who stated it was more cruel to animals who are cold weather animals to put them in an environment they were uncomfortable in. The first time I went to court it 3 weeks before the ruling came in the mail saying case dismissed and the judge urging me to fight to change the law to add a clause about cold weather animals because the judges can just blindly follow the law and find me guilty. I went several more times through the years but I kept all the breeders letters and the result of every court case (dismissed and took them to every hearing). One of the nosy neighbors moved, the other gave up on reporting me about the dogs, but finds other petty [BLEEP] to report me for
Reply

#23

(06-23-2021, 01:02 PM)wrong_box Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 06:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Humane is a matter of subjective perspective and that makes for bad law.
and FACT! Here in Pa, they enacted some laws like these but did not take into perspective of the dogs nature and breed. Part of Pa law now reads that you can not leave your dog tied up or outside for over 15 minutes when it's cold which is often from Oct-May unless you are doing something like walking them. A well meaning law designed for the welfare of the dog, I get it. However, several years ago I had Siberian Husky dogs. This law did not take into consideration the nature of the dog. These dogs are cold weather dogs. When it's 70 plus, they are hot. They are bred to live and work is sub zero temperatures. They do not like to be stuck in the house, they love being outside. They bury themselves in the snow. I have dog houses for them and they slept on top of them in the snow and rain and in them when it was warm/hot.

I have nosy neighbors who live to watch all the neighbors on our street on both sides of me who routinely called the municipal authorities about leaving my dogs out in the cold. I received several summons for court after being visited by the municipal authorities, the ASPCA, dog rescue groups, and other bleeding heart people and groups including several Pa State Dog Wardens. I downloaded as much information as I could find about their nature, went to reputable breeders and had them write statements and had them notarized and presented them in court.

Prior to reading the letters from the breeders, the judge spouted off saying there was no exception to the law and I had to follow it. I brought his attention to the breeders letters who stated it was more cruel to animals who are cold weather animals to put them in an environment they were uncomfortable in. The first time I went to court it 3 weeks before the ruling came in the mail saying case dismissed and the judge urging me to fight to change the law to add a clause about cold weather animals because the judges can just blindly follow the law and find me guilty. I went several more times through the years but I kept all the breeders letters and the result of every court case (dismissed and took them to every hearing). One of the nosy neighbors moved, the other gave up on reporting me about the dogs, but finds other petty [BLEEP] to report me for
If your nosy neighbors had just talked to you, that whole situation could have been avoided.

I would have blown up the “case dismissed letter” and sent it to them.
Reply

#24

(06-23-2021, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 10:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Not true.  Would you want to be tied up on a short rope or chain 24 hours a day, restricting your movement to just a few feet and being forced to have to walk through your own filth, just to walk a few paces? Unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, the answer is no. Tell me, why anyone would veto such a law? It's pretty basic and unless you lack any compassion what so ever, this is a pretty universal sentiment. Being humane, is just that. It's not subjective at all. If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to your pets.

Very true, that you don't seem to get the concept of "property" says much about your understanding of good law.

Dogs are not property. Period!
Reply

#25

(06-23-2021, 11:28 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 10:37 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Not true.  Would you want to be tied up on a short rope or chain 24 hours a day, restricting your movement to just a few feet and being forced to have to walk through your own filth, just to walk a few paces? Unless you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, the answer is no. Tell me, why anyone would veto such a law? It's pretty basic and unless you lack any compassion what so ever, this is a pretty universal sentiment. Being humane, is just that. It's not subjective at all. If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to your pets.

You have an unhealthy love of animals. Probably one of those people that take the dogs every where regardless how much their family and friends don't want them to.

No. My dogs are too big to take anywhere, but I make sure they are taken care of. They have a big yard, I feed them safe food and I take them to the vet when they are sick or need medical attention. I'm just a typical dog owner who doesn't understand how anyone can veto a bill that says people shouldn't tie up dogs to a short rope or chain and leave them outside 24 hrs a day. How is this unhealthy? I think it makes me human. Maybe you are the one that should look in the mirror and do some self examining. It sounds like you either don't like dogs at all or maybe you are one of these people the law was going to target.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26

(06-23-2021, 01:18 PM)Cleatwood Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 01:02 PM)wrong_box Wrote: and FACT! Here in Pa, they enacted some laws like these but did not take into perspective of the dogs nature and breed. Part of Pa law now reads that you can not leave your dog tied up or outside for over 15 minutes when it's cold which is often from Oct-May unless you are doing something like walking them. A well meaning law designed for the welfare of the dog, I get it. However, several years ago I had Siberian Husky dogs. This law did not take into consideration the nature of the dog. These dogs are cold weather dogs. When it's 70 plus, they are hot. They are bred to live and work is sub zero temperatures. They do not like to be stuck in the house, they love being outside. They bury themselves in the snow. I have dog houses for them and they slept on top of them in the snow and rain and in them when it was warm/hot.

I have nosy neighbors who live to watch all the neighbors on our street on both sides of me who routinely called the municipal authorities about leaving my dogs out in the cold. I received several summons for court after being visited by the municipal authorities, the ASPCA, dog rescue groups, and other bleeding heart people and groups including several Pa State Dog Wardens. I downloaded as much information as I could find about their nature, went to reputable breeders and had them write statements and had them notarized and presented them in court.

Prior to reading the letters from the breeders, the judge spouted off saying there was no exception to the law and I had to follow it. I brought his attention to the breeders letters who stated it was more cruel to animals who are cold weather animals to put them in an environment they were uncomfortable in. The first time I went to court it 3 weeks before the ruling came in the mail saying case dismissed and the judge urging me to fight to change the law to add a clause about cold weather animals because the judges can just blindly follow the law and find me guilty. I went several more times through the years but I kept all the breeders letters and the result of every court case (dismissed and took them to every hearing). One of the nosy neighbors moved, the other gave up on reporting me about the dogs, but finds other petty [BLEEP] to report me for
If your nosy neighbors had just talked to you, that whole situation could have been avoided.

I would have blown up the “case dismissed letter” and sent it to them.

I agree with this 100%. Unfortunately, there are people who tie dogs outside in below zero weather for 24 hours a day that aren't cold weather breeds and have very short coats to protect them. Anyone with any basic understanding of dog breeds should know that Huskies are heavily coated dogs that are specially created to withstand very low temperatures and they love cold weather. They are comfortable living outside in areas like Northern Alaska. People should always try to resolve these matters by talking to their neighbors, before running to the police. A little education can go a long way. Even a simple google of the word "husky" by the neighbors would've cleared up this matter before it even began.
Reply

#27

(06-23-2021, 01:32 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Very true, that you don't seem to get the concept of "property" says much about your understanding of good law.

Dogs are not property. Period!

I hope you enjoyed your credibility while you had some.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#28
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2021, 02:09 PM by TrivialPursuit.)

(06-23-2021, 02:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 01:32 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Dogs are not property. Period!

I hope you enjoyed your credibility while you had some.

I will explain what makes them property.

Can you buy and sell them? Yes? They are property.

Otherwise we'd call them slaves instead of pets.
Reply

#29

(06-23-2021, 02:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: I hope you enjoyed your credibility while you had some.

I will explain what makes them property.

Can you buy and sell them? Yes? They are property.

Otherwise we'd call them slaves instead of pets.

Actually, slaves were property also. So declaring dogs to be "not property" doesn't result in a conclusion that they are slaves. It results in the conclusion that they are persons.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30

(06-23-2021, 02:23 PM)Race Bannon Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: I will explain what makes them property.

Can you buy and sell them? Yes? They are property.

Otherwise we'd call them slaves instead of pets.

Actually, slaves were property also.  So declaring dogs to be "not property" doesn't result in a conclusion that they are slaves.  It results in the conclusion that they are persons.

Which is what I'm saying... slavery is illegal. Dogs are therefore property today because if they had any classification above property it'd be illegal to sell/buy/trade them. It's kind of convoluted, but the point is in there.
Reply

#31

(06-23-2021, 01:32 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 11:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Very true, that you don't seem to get the concept of "property" says much about your understanding of good law.

Dogs are not property. Period!

Wrong.  Our dogs are in fact our property.  One we bought and paid for and the other was a stray that we rescued/adopted.  We feed them, pay for their vet bills, etc.  If we chose to sell them or give them away it is our choice and we can freely and legally do so.

At our current home they come inside when it's extremely hot outside or if it's really cold.  The smaller one (miniature pincer) also comes inside if it's raining outside (she doesn't like water).  The other (lab pit mix) usually likes to stay outside in the rain as long as it's not thundering and lightning.  At the home that we are building we have a planned kennel that includes shelter from the weather so they will probably stay outside 24 hours most of the time.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#32

(06-23-2021, 02:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: I hope you enjoyed your credibility while you had some.

I will explain what makes them property.

Can you buy and sell them? Yes? They are property.

Otherwise we'd call them slaves instead of pets.

Same difference.
Reply

#33

(06-23-2021, 02:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 01:32 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Dogs are not property. Period!

Wrong.  Our dogs are in fact our property.  One we bought and paid for and the other was a stray that we rescued/adopted.  We feed them, pay for their vet bills, etc.  If we chose to sell them or give them away it is our choice and we can freely and legally do so.

At our current home they come inside when it's extremely hot outside or if it's really cold.  The smaller one (miniature pincer) also comes inside if it's raining outside (she doesn't like water).  The other (lab pit mix) usually likes to stay outside in the rain as long as it's not thundering and lightning.  At the home that we are building we have a planned kennel that includes shelter from the weather so they will probably stay outside 24 hours most of the time.

You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34

(06-23-2021, 03:08 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:07 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: I will explain what makes them property.

Can you buy and sell them? Yes? They are property.

Otherwise we'd call them slaves instead of pets.

Same difference.

As silly as that response is, the fact is that whatever label you give them they are still property.

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Wrong.  Our dogs are in fact our property.  One we bought and paid for and the other was a stray that we rescued/adopted.  We feed them, pay for their vet bills, etc.  If we chose to sell them or give them away it is our choice and we can freely and legally do so.

At our current home they come inside when it's extremely hot outside or if it's really cold.  The smaller one (miniature pincer) also comes inside if it's raining outside (she doesn't like water).  The other (lab pit mix) usually likes to stay outside in the rain as long as it's not thundering and lightning.  At the home that we are building we have a planned kennel that includes shelter from the weather so they will probably stay outside 24 hours most of the time.

You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.

Dude, you've lost your marbles.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#35

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 02:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Wrong.  Our dogs are in fact our property.  One we bought and paid for and the other was a stray that we rescued/adopted.  We feed them, pay for their vet bills, etc.  If we chose to sell them or give them away it is our choice and we can freely and legally do so.

At our current home they come inside when it's extremely hot outside or if it's really cold.  The smaller one (miniature pincer) also comes inside if it's raining outside (she doesn't like water).  The other (lab pit mix) usually likes to stay outside in the rain as long as it's not thundering and lightning.  At the home that we are building we have a planned kennel that includes shelter from the weather so they will probably stay outside 24 hours most of the time.

You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.

Dude, you are insane.  Seriously, you might want to seek mental help.

If I owned horses (living creatures with feelings) are they property?  I don't know if you know it or not, but horses have "personalities" and pretty much act like "big dogs" when it comes to their owners.

What about the cows that graze my land (owned by someone else) are they property?  The cows are living creatures with feelings and have gotten used to me enough to where they will come right up to me when I go into the pasture.  I haven't chosen yet, but part of my lease agreement with my "neighbor" who owns them (they are his property) is that I get the meat from one of them when they are ready to slaughter.

So what makes a dog different from a horse or a cow (or any other animal for that matter)?

For the record, my children were my "property" up until they reached the age of 18.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#36

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 03:08 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Same difference.

As silly as that response is, the fact is that whatever label you give them they are still property.

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.

Dude, you've lost your marbles.

Dogs Lives Matter.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

#37
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2021, 08:26 PM by TheO-LineMatters.)

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 03:08 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Same difference.

As silly as that response is, the fact is that whatever label you give them they are still property.

(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.

Dude, you've lost your marbles.

How so? Both are living creatures that people agree to take care of once they get one (kid or dog.) If dogs are gonna be viewed as property, there needs to be a designation between living property and inanimate property like cars and lawnmowers. I see way too many cases on the news where dogs are mercilessly tortured day in and day out and all the perpetrators get is a slap on the wrist. Society is getting more and more evil and laws need to be created to properly punish those people who need to be separated from the rest of society. Whether it be crimes against dogs or humans, punishments need to be much harsher.

(06-23-2021, 05:31 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: You do the same for your kids. Are they property? Why apply the same rules to both kids and dogs, but yet one is property and the other isn't? It makes no sense. Both are living creatures with feelings. Humans have power over dogs, so one is property and the other isn't? At one time, whites were thought to have power over blacks and one was property of the other. We have learned from that and grown. Why do we still look at dogs as property? I view my dogs as part of the family. Once you adopt or buy one, that shouldn't give people free reign to abuse them, just because they are designated as property. A dog is not the same as a car or a lawnmower.

Dude, you are insane.  Seriously, you might want to seek mental help.

If I owned horses (living creatures with feelings) are they property?  I don't know if you know it or not, but horses have "personalities" and pretty much act like "big dogs" when it comes to their owners.

What about the cows that graze my land (owned by someone else) are they property?  The cows are living creatures with feelings and have gotten used to me enough to where they will come right up to me when I go into the pasture.  I haven't chosen yet, but part of my lease agreement with my "neighbor" who owns them (they are his property) is that I get the meat from one of them when they are ready to slaughter.

So what makes a dog different from a horse or a cow (or any other animal for that matter)?

For the record, my children were my "property" up until they reached the age of 18.

There is a major difference between livestock and companion animals. Livestock are used for food and companion animals are not. 

I know many people that would disagree with children being referred to as property.

(06-23-2021, 05:32 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 03:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: As silly as that response is, the fact is that whatever label you give them they are still property.


Dude, you've lost your marbles.

Dogs Lives Matter.

They do and so does The O-Line.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38

Do you have children? It seems quite obvious that you don't since you don't know the [BLEEP] difference.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#39

Dogs are property. Sorry OP
Reply

#40

(06-23-2021, 01:41 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(06-23-2021, 11:28 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: You have an unhealthy love of animals. Probably one of those people that take the dogs every where regardless how much their family and friends don't want them to.

No. My dogs are too big to take anywhere, but I make sure they are taken care of. They have a big yard, I feed them safe food and I take them to the vet when they are sick or need medical attention. I'm just a typical dog owner who doesn't understand how anyone can veto a bill that says people shouldn't tie up dogs to a short rope or chain and leave them outside 24 hrs a day. How is this unhealthy? I think it makes me human. Maybe you are the one that should look in the mirror and do some self examining. It sounds like you either don't like dogs at all or maybe you are one of these people the law was going to target.

The bill contains no such language.  Perhaps you might try actually reading it.
When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!