Local woman allows dog to defecate on grave

[krynski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Big Brother isn't watching us. Big Brother is us.

"Neighbours" spying on "neighbours".... I fail to see how this will lead to social progress.

What does that even mean? Define "social progress"; it's loose terminology.

It's not neighbours spying on neighbours. It's neighbours advocating for what they believe is right. That is the democratic process. Sometimes, that's what is needed. If someone didn't voice their opinion about slavery, we would not have had slavery abolished.

Society reacts from events (for example, Rosa Parks) and proceeds in some fashion. There is nothing wrong with pointing out what you or I think is wrong- hell, I bet a lot of people thought Rosa Parks was wrong, and some believed she was right. Society changes based on a variety of factors, including differing social opinions.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How is it a shame, everyone alive will have people close to them die over the course of their lives, it is a natural component of life. I don't need to visit a grave in order to remember someone. The other component is that no matter how loved someone is, eventually with enough time that passes they will be forgotten to all. Do you go around and clean up the grave of your great-uncle?

You totaly misread my post. How people remember their loved ones is personal and is done in a variety of ways. Just because I do it in a certain way doesn't mean everyone has to. Also it a shame that some let the gravesite of their loved ones fall into disrepair.

Also does it bother you that animals evacuate their bowels in the lake that your dad's remains were scattered?

Don't be an #######!

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Dion

You totaly misread my post. How people remember their loved ones is personal and is done in a variety of ways. Just because I do it in a certain way doesn't mean everyone has to. Also it a shame that some let the gravesite of their loved ones fall into disrepair.

I don't necessarily believe that. I have relatives buried all over the world- I can't go out there to maintain the sites. It's entirely subjective to how much maintenance is acceptable. Imagine that someone only has 1 kid, and that person doesn't procreate until late in life...their grandchildren never knew their grandparents- is it up to the grandchildren to maintain the grave site of someone they have never known?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by krynski

I don't necessarily believe that. I have relatives buried all over the world- I can't go out there to maintain the sites. It's entirely subjective to how much maintenance is acceptable. Imagine that someone only has 1 kid, and that person doesn't procreate until late in life...their grandchildren never knew their grandparents- is it up to the grandchildren to maintain the grave site of someone they have never known?

I don't think anyone would expect someone to travel all over the world to groom and maintain a gravesite. Nor should they have to maintain a site of someone they didn't know. All valid points.

It's my opinion that if you chose to bury a loved one then at least take the time to make sure the gravesite is not left to fall in disrepair - which I would agree is subjective. Like, why spend the money to bury someone and not maintain the site when you could have had them cremated.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

You seem to be misreading Dion's post. I think Dion is saying it is a shame more people don't take care of the area (cleaning, grooming etc).

Man, I can't believe how anal people are about this.

Show some bloody respect; to those past... and present.

But eventually enough time will pass that there will be no one to remember anyone in the cemetery and no one goes around and cleans the plots of people they don't remember, hence the great uncle comment.

I don't see how walking in a cemetery with a dog is disrespectful though... is it anymore disrespectful that people charging money to go into a cemetery with famous umm guests? residents? corpses?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

You totaly misread my post. How people remember their loved ones is personal and is done in a variety of ways. Just because I do it in a certain way doesn't mean everyone has to. Also it a shame that some let the gravesite of their loved ones fall into disrepair.



Don't be an #######!

It isn't me being whatever swear you chose to use, it is the truth, there is no difference, it is obvious that there are animals that use the area to drink and defecate in (particularly the fish). It doesn't change what the site means to you though does it?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I don't see how walking in a cemetery with a dog is disrespectful though

This is the most important point - it doesn't matter what you think is disrespectful, whose thoughts matter are those that paid for the use of the cemetery. Want dogs pooping everywhere? Go get a plot at a dog friendly cemetery.

The one in this story was not dog friendly.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

It isn't me being whatever swear you chose to use, it is the truth, there is no difference, it is obvious that there are animals that use the area to drink and defecate in (particularly the fish). It doesn't change what the site means to you though does it?

Yes it is you being. Scattering ashes in a lake is not a gravesite and the vast majority of people would know that.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Red-Mile-DJ

I'm being defensive? I invited the dude to engage with us.

I invited you to come to High River for a beer and you haven't shown up

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by krynski

What does that even mean? Define "social progress"; it's loose terminology.

It's not neighbours spying on neighbours. It's neighbours advocating for what they believe is right. That is the democratic process. Sometimes, that's what is needed. If someone didn't voice their opinion about slavery, we would not have had slavery abolished.

Society reacts from events (for example, Rosa Parks) and proceeds in some fashion. There is nothing wrong with pointing out what you or I think is wrong- hell, I bet a lot of people thought Rosa Parks was wrong, and some believed she was right. Society changes based on a variety of factors, including differing social opinions.

You're comparing public shaming for a dog pooping in a cemetery to slavery and civil disobedience for racial equality? If it didn't already, this thread officially jumped the shark.

Social progress isn't a difficult concept. To put it another way, the question people should be asking is, when people use internet vigilantism to punish people for minor offenses, does it promote overall justice? There is no neutrality or objectivity, which are two characteristics required for justice. The burden of proof should be on the people advocating it as moral. I have not heard one argument that it benefits anyone. It just makes a few internet busybodies feel better and as if they are making a difference.

Here's an example that is directly comparable. When I walk outside I see people throw cigarette butts on the ground all the time. It's disgusting and it's a violation probably on par with what this girl did. Yet I am willing to bet that we all know people that do it and we let them get away with it because we know them and know that despite that activity, they are otherwise good people. Heck, you can drive by the Legion and see some of Canada's best doing it.

Would it be an acceptable measure of justice to take photos of these people and post them in public areas so everyone knows that they did something disrespectful? What if it was someone you knew, like your grandfather or mother? Posting people's images or identities for things that cause emotional responses makes those people susceptible to threats that go beyond what should be a reasonable punishment for the offense.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

Yes it is you being. Scattering ashes in a lake is not a gravesite and the vast majority of people would know that.

How do they pragmatically differ? Both times they are human remains (one it includes flesh that decomposes and it is left with bones; and in the other it is bone fragments that are put into a blender and turned into what people know as ashes). The end result is the exact same.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This is the most important point - it doesn't matter what you think is disrespectful, whose thoughts matter are those that paid for the use of the cemetery. Want dogs pooping everywhere? Go get a plot at a dog friendly cemetery.

The one in this story was not dog friendly.

So is the issue that she was walking a dog in the cemetery or that the dog pooped in the cemetery. I presume that she cleaned it up judging from the bag in her hand. So is the brief period of time in which the dog excrement was on the ground enough to be disrespectful to the dead? Was the mere presence of the dog disrespectful? Was her presence disrespectful?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How do they pragmatically differ? Both times they are human remains (one it includes flesh that decomposes and it is left with bones; and in the other it is bone fragments that are put into a blender and turned into what people know as ashes). The end result is the exact same.

What does that have to do with I just posted?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How do they pragmatically differ? Both times they are human remains (one it includes flesh that decomposes and it is left with bones; and in the other it is bone fragments that are put into a blender and turned into what people know as ashes). The end result is the exact same.

Agreed. How is a lake any different than a cemetery? It's not. In much the same way that a bowling alley is the same thing as a box of chocolates. They are both man made. People enjoy them. You wouldn't want your dog to take a #### in either of them. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

All this talk about coyotes, fish, deer, and squirrels... y'all seem to be missing the point. We're not talking about wildlife. We're talking about an allegedly sentient human being taking their dog to a cemetery to take a crap on another person's grave.

Now maybe this woman is dumber than Bambi, and evidence seems to suggest that it would at least be a fair match if they played each other on Jeopardy, but she's still a person intentionally taking her dog to a place which we all (to different levels, obviously) consider off limits, or at least a little different than the goddamn dog park.

So in conclusion, if a coyote strolls on through the cemetery and happens to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, well, that's the way it is. If a stupid and lazy person intentionally takes Rover in there to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, that's different.

[Kybosh]

The problem here is communication. Too much communication.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You're comparing public shaming for a dog pooping in a cemetery to slavery and civil disobedience for racial equality? If it didn't already, this thread officially jumped the shark.

Social progress isn't a difficult concept. To put it another way, the question people should be asking is, when people use internet vigilantism to punish people for minor offenses, does it promote overall justice? There is no neutrality or objectivity, which are two characteristics required for justice. The burden of proof should be on the people advocating it as moral. I have not heard one argument that it benefits anyone. It just makes a few internet busybodies feel better and as if they are making a difference.

Here's an example that is directly comparable. When I walk outside I see people throw cigarette butts on the ground all the time. It's disgusting and it's a violation probably on par with what this girl did. Yet I am willing to bet that we all know people that do it and we let them get away with it because we know them and know that despite that activity, they are otherwise good people. Heck, you can drive by the Legion and see some of Canada's best doing it.

Would it be an acceptable measure of justice to take photos of these people and post them in public areas so everyone knows that they did something disrespectful? What if it was someone you knew, like your grandfather or mother? Posting people's images or identities for things that cause emotional responses makes those people susceptible to threats that go beyond what should be a reasonable punishment for the offense.

How about the pictures from Vancouver stanley cup final? Should those not be permissable in court? Should those people not be prosecuted for the actions they caused?

So we can not use valid examples from the past? Sure, I used a more influential example, but do you want me to tell you a story about my friend? I don't think you would be very moved by that.

Accountability and whistleblowing are at it's all-time highest, especially with cameraphones and the internet. Things that were acceptable in the past simply are not. I don't care how "good" these people are, if someone does something socially deviant, they are held accountable. If someone I know gets put in the spotlight, it's their fault. I do not care if I have a relationship with them or not.

What you feel and what I feel from poop on a grave may be entirely different. To me, s*** happens, but I would not allow my pet to defecate on anyone's grave, let alone property. It is up to the community to decide what is acceptable or not. A reasonable punishment (whether monetary or media) is not up to me or you to decide.

Remember the fundamentalism of our government. It is the people, elected by the people, to represent the people. If discussing anything on a public forum regarding this "poop" issue is not in the interest of the people, we would not be able to discuss it in this forum.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Agreed. How is a lake any different than a cemetery? It's not. In much the same way that a bowling alley is the same thing as a box of chocolates. They are both man made. People enjoy them. You wouldn't want your dog to take a #### in either of them. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

All this talk about coyotes, fish, deer, and squirrels... y'all seem to be missing the point. We're not talking about wildlife. We're talking about an allegedly sentient human being taking their dog to a cemetery to take a crap on another person's grave.

Now maybe this woman is dumber than Bambi, and evidence seems to suggest that it would at least be a fair match if they played each other on Jeopardy, but she's still a person intentionally taking her dog to a place which we all (to different levels, obviously) consider off limits, or at least a little different than the goddamn dog park.

So in conclusion, if a coyote strolls on through the cemetery and happens to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, well, that's the way it is. If a stupid and lazy person intentionally takes Rover in there to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, that's different.

Bingo! Someone understand what i'm talking about!

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by krynski

How about the pictures from Vancouver stanley cup final? Should those not be permissable in court? Should those people not be prosecuted for the actions they caused?

Unlike a dog pooping in a cemetery, Vancouver rioting was not a victimless crime.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Agreed. How is a lake any different than a cemetery? It's not. In much the same way that a bowling alley is the same thing as a box of chocolates. They are both man made. People enjoy them. You wouldn't want your dog to take a #### in either of them. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

A lake serves as a resting place for someone, much like a cemetery. They serve the exact same purpose in this instance.

All this talk about coyotes, fish, deer, and squirrels... y'all seem to be missing the point. We're not talking about wildlife. We're talking about an allegedly sentient human being taking their dog to a cemetery to take a crap on another person's grave.

Or you are talking about a lady who goes for a walk with her dog in a quiet area. I think that the assumption that is being made is that she is bringing her dog out to explicitly "crap on another person's grave". If she was doing that, then I would agree, but if it is just that she was talking her dog for a walk and enjoys the tranquility of the cemetery then I don't see the major issue other than breaking a minor rule related to no pets being allowed.

Now maybe this woman is dumber than Bambi, and evidence seems to suggest that it would at least be a fair match if they played each other on Jeopardy, but she's still a person intentionally taking her dog to a place which we all (to different levels, obviously) consider off limits, or at least a little different than the goddamn dog park.

Agreed on that.

So in conclusion, if a coyote strolls on through the cemetery and happens to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, well, that's the way it is. If a stupid and lazy person intentionally takes Rover in there to take a dump on Uncle Gus's grave, that's different.

If a stranger takes rover out for a walk and rover take a dump on the grave and the person then picks up the dump and carries on their day, I don't think it is a big deal at all and uncle gus can't be reached for comment at the current time.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

A lake serves as a resting place for someone, much like a cemetery. They serve the exact same purpose in this instance.

How could they? The ashes never stay in the same place after being scattered. That and there are no signs designating such and such a place as a cemetery.