Local woman allows dog to defecate on grave

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

If you were photographed crapping at a pet cemetery, you would be public enemy #1.

Lol, pet owners can be, uh, enthusiastic for sure.

I'm not even accounting the cemetery aspect of it into what I'm thinking, since the degree of response is going to be so wildly diverse. I think it's one of those cases where people should defer to the high end of the responses personally. If I'm in a cemetery I don't think there's much to think about in terms of respect or sacredness, but burial rituals are so very very basic to society and I get others have strong feelings so I'm going to act in a way that I think will be acceptable (or at least not objectionable) to others that have a stronger feeling about it than I do.

THAT is what I find shameful about what she did, it's not the dog poop, it's the lack of empathy.

(And of course my disapproval is provisional depending on the actual details of the story)

[FlamesAddiction]

At what point does a public shaming via the world wide web become internet bullying though? There have been several times in recent history that someone has done something they are ashamed of and it gets spread through social media to a point that it is harmful.

If you could guarantee that everyone who saw her picture would just move on like you would, that would be different. The truth is, there are many psychopaths (just look at internet communities like 4chan) who will take retribution too far based on one person's interpretation of a photo.

I also don't see how anyone can attest to her lack of empathy based on photo and the comments from one witness, the character of whom cannot be known.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by photon

THAT is what I find shameful about what she did, it's not the dog poop, it's the lack of empathy.

How do you know there is a lack of empathy? What in the photo told you that?

For all we know this woman could be one of the most charitable people around.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

At what point does a public shaming via the world wide web become internet bullying though?

When the actions become bullying. Shame is just being aware of the disapproval of others, shaming is just disapproving (it doesn't even have to be voiced).

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There have been several times in recent history that someone has done something they are ashamed of and it gets spread through social media to a point that it is harmful.

I can think of examples on this forum where I think it's crossed that line. But the solution isn't to turn off the forum, or restrict the ability to take photos in public or to share photos taken in public to the public.

If someone gets bullied then the problem is the bully, not the exposure of the person being bullied.

The ONLY thing I can say is that by posting the photo to Facebook etc then it increases exposure to a much larger audience of potential bullies, but again I don't think the solution to that is to ban social media, or restrict social media to be only cases of 100% unambiguously positive content that has no risk of being harmful (so cat videos).

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If you could guarantee that everyone who saw her picture would just move on like you would, that would be different. The truth is, there are many psychopaths (just look at internet communities like 4chan) who will take retribution too far based on one person's interpretation of a photo.

That sounds a little too much like saying because there's rapists women should have to dress as not to provoke the rapists.

You can't shut down social media and outlaw public photography just because our social responses are evolved for groups of 50 instead of millions. Society has to adapt, we can't put the social media djinn back in the bottle.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I also don't see how anyone can attest to her lack of empathy based on photo and the comments from one witness, the character of whom cannot be known.

I did say disapproval was provisional based on the actual details of the story. It's ok to form a provisional opinion and change it if new information comes to light. I wouldn't act on this provisional opinion of course.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Was driving to work this morning and watched as some dood let his dog take a dump along someones fence and walk away without picking it up.

Should have photographed the guy....

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Was driving to work this morning and watched as some dood let his dog take a dump along someones fence and walk away without picking it up.

Should have photographed the guy....

Yeah, I saw a guy doing 34 in a school zone, and he was smoking a cigarette. He must've been a pedophile. Should've took a photo and outed him as a pedophile.

[photon]

Originally Posted by pylon

How do you know there is a lack of empathy? What in the photo told you that?

For all we know this woman could be one of the most charitable people around.

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.

[photon]

Originally Posted by pylon

Yeah, I saw a guy doing 34 in a school zone, and he was smoking a cigarette. He must've been a pedophile. Should've took a photo and outed him as a pedophile.

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?

[FlamesAddiction]

I just think the precautionary principle should apply as the internet is too large of forum to ridicule someone on for such a small offense. The pleasure that some people get from doing it doesn't seem like it outweighs the problems that could occur from it.

Just a hypothetical question, but if this lady contacted you and said that someone saw the picture on this site and threatened her or violated her over it, would the problem still be only be with the bully?

[pylon]

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."

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.

[Raekwon]

what kind of a pedophile drives above the speed limit in a school zone?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by pylon

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."



You of all people know that should be shrouded in green text. But it is essentially what is being done to this woman.

Totally agree. We know absolutley nothing about the moments leading up to this photo. She also appears to be holding a ball of snow in her hand which I have done several times to clean up my dads tombstone when I'm at the cemetery. I think she was there to visit someone she knew.

This woman could be the most loveable, charitable caring person in the world and a moments bad descison and she is getting dragged through the coals. Or maybe she is pure evil. BUT...until there is more info we shouldn't be condeming her.

This thread reminds me more and more of a witch hunt every time I read it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

what kind of a pedophile drives above the speed limit in a school zone?

An excited one.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just think the precautionary principle should apply as the internet is too large of forum to ridicule someone on for such a small offense. The pleasure that some people get from doing it doesn't seem like it outweighs the problems that could occur from it.

Pleasure vs problems isn't the question that has to be answered though IMO, it's problems vs the alternatives. The alternative is to restrict the publishing of all public photography, which is impossible and the harm from that would be much greater than the harm of bullies doing what they're going to do with or without public photography.

Just to confirm, you don't have any problem with her actions being publicly visible right? Whoever strolls by and sees this scenario isn't the problem, the problem is that the Internet is far larger right?

What if 10 people see her while walking by? What if those 10 people each tell 10 friends? What if the person is a public figure so word spreads more, each of those 10 friends tell 10 friends etc? Where is the line between an acceptable audience for a public act and an unacceptable one?

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just a hypothetical question, but if this lady contacted you and said that someone saw the picture on this site and threatened her or violated her over it, would the problem still be only be with the bully?

Of course, I can't take responsibility for someone else's actions, and I can't be so fearful that anything I do might precipitate some unintended consequence.

If I behaved that way a VERY large percentage of posts and threads would be deleted.

I should be expected to take reasonable precautions. If I tell a joke about someone's mother and I'm in a support group for people with dead parents, then I'm not taking a reasonable precaution. If I'm with friends and someone with a dead mother overhears the joke, snaps and kills someone, I won't be responsible for that.

[photon]

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

Sure, as I said I don't think it's reasonable for people to have anything more than an "If these particular details are true then shame on her" response. If they do then they're being unreasonable, and the fault is with the ones being unreasonable.

But like I said having a disproportionate response to an assumed idea is a significant portion of the posts here (or most forums). But I think giving people the ability to say what they want as much as I can is a greater good than the good that would come from locking down unreasonable posts.

Originally Posted by pylon

You of all people know that should be shrouded in green text. But it is essentially what is being done to this woman.

Ah but you admit it's not green text! It isn't what's being done to the woman, semantically yes, but someone wrongly being accused of letting their dog poop where not allowed isn't the same degree as someone being wrongly accused of being a pedophile.

[flamesfan1297]

over 240 posts becasue a dog took a dump on a grave

[Art Vandelay]

I'm watching cbc news and they have this as one of their lead stories complete with screenshots of CP. Haven't had the actual story on yet........

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

I'm watching cbc news and they have this as one of their lead stories complete with screenshots of CP. Haven't had the actual story on yet........

really

[Art Vandelay]

Yep. Turn on cbc calgary. It should be on soon.

This is at 4:09pm Friday.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The worst consequences of this s(h)ituation will probably be listening to her friends say stuff like "I saw you on twitter, letting Princess take a dump at the cemetery!Ha ha ha!"

Can you guarantee that?? Cause if not, it's not worth the risk.

I wouldn't put anything past mob mentality.

Ruined life may have been excessive, I'll give you that, but the damage could be considerable.