Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Generally, cruel dogs are created by cruel humans.

Agreed.

What people are having trouble with in this instance is this seems to have been an instinctual accident - where a human was present in the room by the way - versus a cruel act

No. The issue at hand is that a human being is now dead as a result of the actions of this particular dog. What the motivations were behind the dogs actions – be it instinctual or cruel – are of no consequence in the matter.

In our society, we've somehow gotten it into our heads that there is no value in putting to death human's guilty of the most profound acts of deliberate cruelty to other humans . . . . yet we'll devalue the life of this dog for what is essentially an accident of instinct . . . . where the dog was placed in that situation by the human responsible.

Yes, and why wouldn’t we? Dog are not people, and therefore are, and should be held to a different level of moral codes and standards. To add I agree that there is certainly a large level of human responsibility in this incident which should not be discounted.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Gandhi

I’ve read this quote a few times and I really don’t understand it. For example lets imagine a society were by all animals are treated to the highest moral standards and are never abused, their lives are never made worse by human, were they can live a full natural life. Now imagine this society treats the majority of its people very differently. Immoral practices such as slavery, poverty, starvation, and abuse are perpetrated on the lower and middle class by the ruling elite. Would this hypothetical society be on the path of moral progress? If one of the Nazi’s mandates was to treat animals like gods would they be a beacon of moral progress? Moral progress is judged by how a society treats its people.

I realize I’m making a distinction between animals and humans here, which I think the quote does as well.

[Russic]

I'm not sure Gandhi had a lot of scientific data to back up his point, but I would fancy a guess that in general you'd find that human rights and animal rights are on similar paths in a country. It would actually be a pretty interesting study.

I feel terrible for the parents. I don't have all the information, but they don't sound like poor dog owners. If you're going to lay blame I suppose it falls to them, but everyday we put our kids in situations that could end in tragedy. This was an accident.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" - Gandhi

I guess we'll see how great we are.

Cowperson

every animal, or only the cute ones? every first world nation would be completely morally bankrupt according to Gandhi with how our animals raised for food are treated

[Cowperson]

No. The issue at hand is that a human being is now dead as a result of the actions of this particular dog. What the motivations were behind the dogs actions – be it instinctual or cruel – are of no consequence in the matter.

In law, in judging humans, that would probably be called the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Someone is dead, but we are advanced enough as a society to know there is a difference between the evil of pre-mediation and an accident.

Dog are not people, and therefore are, and should be held to a different level of moral codes and standards.

Frankly, dogs should be held to a lesser standard than humans because the humans can reason and understand morality, even as I agree that we should put down a dog that cannot be rehabilitated.

In general, a dog has no moral code you're familar with. They live among us because they can be trained to accomodate our moral code.

If I ingrain in my two Golden's that they are not to attack my four much smaller cats, they understand the instruction and get along amiably with the cats and are even close friends with them.

If I encourage my Golden's to attack cats, they'll probably do so.

Then again, if I had kids and encouraged them to be neo-Nazi's, they'd probably turn out that way.

The dog in this case had no experience or instruction with babies beyond relying on an instinctual reaction of picking it up by the neck to move it.

I wouldn't have put a kitten in that situation, let alone a baby, without ensuring the dog was clear and understood its instruction and that usually takes some time and correction while keeping the kitten safe.

To me, the human is at fault here.

I gave you another example in an earlier post with my Golden Retriever Abby and a child. Fortunately, I was watching the child and my dog interacting, reading the dog's reactions, and prevented something that might have happened. If my dog had mauled the child, it would likely have been ordered put down . . . . yet that dire consequence would have been my fault and the fault of the parent, both of us standing right there.

I’ve read this quote a few times and I really don’t understand it. For example lets imagine a society were by all animals are treated to the highest moral standards and are never abused, their lives are never made worse by human, were they can live a full natural life. Now imagine this society treats the majority of its people very differently. Immoral practices such as slavery, poverty, starvation, and abuse are perpetrated on the lower and middle class by the ruling elite. Would this hypothetical society be on the path of moral progress? If one of the Nazi’s mandates was to treat animals like gods would they be a beacon of moral progress? Moral progress is judged by how a society treats its people.

My one sentence answer is: "Without animals, your hypothetical society would have no hope."

How are we changing as a Society?

Through to the mid-1990's, when a disaster struck in North America and authorities ordered people to abandon land, buildings and animals and flee the scene, compliance was high.

In the ice storms in eastern Canada and the USA, authorities found many people disobeying and refusing to abandon their pets, even at peril to their own lives. It was a confusing reaction and not seen on such a large scale before.

This reached a climax during Hurricane Katrina, when many refused to abandon their pets and some lost their lives.

Modern disaster service plans in first world countries are recognizing this shift in sentiment and building contigencies to evacuate pets, ensuring humans will follow as well.

The second hurricane situation in New Orleans a few years later had a massive pet evacuation plan in place.

Shifting sentiment and the place pets have in many families, as full-fledged family members, is a reality.

Of course, we all love a good hamburger and wouldn't want to visit the kill floor at the local Cargill plant.

Cowperson

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

...

Of course, we all love a good hamburger and wouldn't want to visit the kill floor at the local Cargill plant.

Cowperson

Why not? It isn't that bad, unless you are the one on the gutting table.

edit: just to clarify since it could be unclear, I mean work on the gutting table, not be the one 'being gutted'. The people who do the job actually stand on the moving table.

There isn't anything really horrific about the kill floor, other than the obvious presence of dead cows. They are just cows hanging there. There isn't a large cow abusing system there that would turn people away from eating meat for the rest of their lives. The stuff you see in random youtube videos posted by animal activists just doesn't happen there.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

So lets kill it. That'll teach it and all those other dogs out there busy at work perfecting their plans to kill their owners babies a lesson.

Perhaps you were just going for laughs in which case ignore the rest of this post.

Anyone who thinks this dog needs to die as a lesson to other dogs is actually at an intellectual level that is below most dogs.

This dog needs to die. The fact it doesn't know what it did is important. That means that it is not less likely to do this again in the future because it doesn't know that it has done something wrong in the first place. It can't be told to not do that again.

Any wild animal that attacks a human is put down. Bear, mountain lion, dog, gerbil etc. These animals cannot have their behavior modified through rehabilitation like a human. They can't be told that killing is wrong. For that very reason the dog must be put down.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This dog needs to die. The fact it doesn't know what it did is important. That means that it is not less likely to do this again in the future because it doesn't know that it has done something wrong in the first place. It can't be told to not do that again.

Any wild animal that attacks a human is put down. Bear, mountain lion, dog, gerbil etc. These animals cannot have their behavior modified through rehabilitation like a human. They can't be told that killing is wrong. For that very reason the dog must be put down.

You make it sound like a dog is essentially a dangerous wild animal and thus is a ticking time bomb that could explode at any given moment.

The dog does not need to die. It was placed in an environment and circumstances where a tragic accident was a possibility. Change his environment and chances are virtually nil that this will ever happen again.

Killing the dog solves nothing other than your desire for revenge upon this animal... even though, by all accounts, the infants death was accidental.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Why not? It isn't that bad, unless you are the one on the gutting table.

My uncle - same age as me - spent one morning working the killing floor at a sheep processing plant. His job was slurping the guts away. That was all he could take and he quit at noon.

Humans are animals, although we tend not to think of ourselves that way. In addition, we don't see our pets as being animals, or less so these days. Yet we certainly see a cow as an animal.

My wife used to have a pet cow on the farm when she was growing up. They ate it I think.

Living in the country with dogs, I pick up lots of corpses of all kinds and come across lots of others - dogs know exactly where to find dead moose, elk and deer - and I've killed hundreds of northern pocket gophers on my property with traps.

One dog more or less in the world, like one human more or less, won't make a big hill of beans difference.

I'll be interested in seeing the recommendations from the authorities evaluating this dog. The fate of the dog is not dependent on whether or not a human child died. It will be dependent on whether or not authorities deem the dog likely to harm humans in the future.

Cowperson

[puckluck]

Kill the dog already. Charge the parent who was in charge as well and I'm happy.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Perhaps you were just going for laughs in which case ignore the rest of this post.

Anyone who thinks this dog needs to die as a lesson to other dogs is actually at an intellectual level that is below most dogs.

This dog needs to die. The fact it doesn't know what it did is important. That means that it is not less likely to do this again in the future because it doesn't know that it has done something wrong in the first place. It can't be told to not do that again.

Any wild animal that attacks a human is put down. Bear, mountain lion, dog, gerbil etc. These animals cannot have their behavior modified through rehabilitation like a human. They can't be told that killing is wrong. For that very reason the dog must be put down.

I'd like someone against killing this dog to respond to this.

If the dog is adopted and around children again who's to say it won't "play" with another child?

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't really think that the courts can punish the family anymore thoroughly then they are being punished now. At some point (Oh god Aliens are in my head) compassion has to trump the law. In this case depending on the stories that I've heard, the parents actions weren't vindictive or willful, it was a mistake on their part to have that dog anywhere near the baby, and they lost a baby because of it.

Sometimes you have to work with people to get over stuff like this and move on, their lives are shattered, a jail term of fine or more public castigation is probably going to make things worse.

I think I'm for killing the dog, I think it was fairly callous of the media and the people calling for the dog's life to be saved and puts even more attention on a family that shouldn't have to make this decision right now, and will be judged in the court of public opinion no matter what their choice is.

The media probably could have held onto this story, and the people talking about adoption could have subtley approached the appropriate person people who could evaluate the adoptiblity of the dog.

These people's lives are probably absolutley shattered, they're probably never going to have a dog in their house again. Its lesson learned in the harshest possible sense.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I'd like someone against killing this dog to respond to this.

If the dog is adopted and around children again who's to say it won't "play" with another child?

Who's to say the dog meant harm in the first place?

What if the baby died because the dog licked it face too hard? Are we gonna consider it a dangerous offender to society and cut it's head off.

Again, it's not like this dog was even intending to harm the baby in the first place. So why must it be killed when it was doing something that should've been harmless?

Are we going to kill a person that happens to accidently drop a baby while holding it, that dies when it hits the floor?

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I'd like someone against killing this dog to respond to this.

If the dog is adopted and around children again who's to say it won't "play" with another child?

I don't think anyone is saying this dog should be put in a home with small children again. But killing it just to prove a point, which would actually prove nothing, will not help this dog or send a message to other dogs. Give it a chance at life on a farm or a situation where there isn't small children where it can make that mistake again.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Who's to say the dog meant harm in the first place?

What if the baby died because the dog licked it face too hard? Are we gonna consider it a dangerous offender to society and cut it's head off.

Again, it's not like this dog was even intending to harm the baby in the first place. So why must it be killed when it was doing something that should've been harmless?

Are we going to kill a person that happens to accidently drop a baby while holding it, that dies when it hits the floor?

Wow this post is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

The dog killed a baby. That's a fact and no matter what the intent of the dog was it still caused harm to an infant. Are you going to volunteer your time to check up on this dog in the future and make sure he's not around new-borns?

And if a person drops a baby, and that baby dies, you can be sure that person will never pick up a baby again or they can learn to be more careful. Are you going to train and teach the dog to not play with infants?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Kill the dog already. Charge the parent who was in charge as well and I'm happy.

Charge them with what? Let's hear your case.

[moon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Wow this post is so wrong I don't even know where to start.

The dog killed a baby. That's a fact and no matter what the intent of the dog was it still caused harm to an infant. Are you going to volunteer your time to check up on this dog in the future and make sure he's not around new-borns?

Why would he have to check up on the dog?

I assume a huge part of the adoption process would be finding an appropriate home for the dog where it wouldn't be around new-borns and the owners were more than qualified to care for it.

And if a person drops a baby, and that baby dies, you can be sure that person will never pick up a baby again or they can learn to be more careful. Are you going to train and teach the dog to not play with infants?

How can you be sure of that?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Hilch

I don't think anyone is saying this dog should be put in a home with small children again. But killing it just to prove a point, which would actually prove nothing, will not help this dog or send a message to other dogs. Give it a chance at life on a farm or a situation where there isn't small children where it can make that mistake again.

And once this dog is adopted there isn't a damn thing anyone but the owners can do about having this dog around children.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by moon

Why would he have to check up on the dog?

I assume a huge part of the adoption process would be finding an appropriate home for the dog where it wouldn't be around new-borns and the owners were more than qualified to care for it.



How can you be sure of that?

Are you going to monitor if a household has kids in it or not? And I know because humans are smart and they learn, oh and you can talk to a freaking human.

What you gonna say to rover "bad boy infants aren't toys"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Are you going to monitor if a household has kids in it or not? And I know because humans are smart and they learn, oh and you can talk to a freaking human.

What you gonna say to rover "bad boy infants aren't toys"

All of them?

[moon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Are you going to monitor if a household has kids in it or not?

Why would I monitor it?

They are agencies that are involved in the adoption process that would deal with that.

Do you think the dog will be placed on the side of the road and the first person that feels like picking it up gets it?

And I know because humans are smart and they learn, oh and you can talk to a freaking human.

What you gonna say to rover "bad boy infants aren't toys"

So humans always do what is right or what they are told?