Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Letting my dog run free (where it's not allowed) and poop (which is the whole purpose of the dog being there to begin with) in an area where others are very likely to find it highly disrespectful to their ancestors is lacking in empathy with those people in my opinion.
Same reason I don't walk ON graves if I'm in a cemetery. I don't care, but others likely do, so I don't out of respect to them (or at least that's the way it used to be, haven't been to a cemetery for a long time).
Again, as I said, my disapproval is provisional based on the assumed details of the story, if the actual details are different then my opinion will of course change. My disapproval isn't set in stone, and I wouldn't do anything about it without (in this case) more information.
|
And that is completely fair. I am the same. When I am in a cemetery, I respect the wishes of others as well.
The whole argument I am making is, there is zero details besides what some random guy nobody knows says is true. Fine, I'll go with this, if the photographer shows his identity, so he is accountable for his accusations.
NOBODY would have an issue if this woman was visiting a grave of a loved one with that persons former pet. And the perception of this photo would be entirely different if they were both facing the marker with a sombre look. Even if the dog took a crap in the seconds the photographer turned his back and walked away, it would still be a beautiful moment in everyone's eyes. The photographer would be hailing his skills as a 1337 photog. Not "Super-awesome poop bylaw violator catcher."
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Is not this that whole not caring about misunderstanding and only caring about the heat of the moment thing you said wasn't a good thing?
|
You of all people know that should be shrouded in green text. But it is essentially what is being done to this woman.