Breeding: Conflicting Beleifs

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

If it came down to it and humans proved themselves, as a whole, incapable of evolving above our violent and narcissistic ways then it would say (to me at least) that we are not capable of acting as protectors of the domesticated animals WE created. Therefore the animal must be allowed to die out for their own protection.

I don't know about that. It would seem to me the more logical and fair thing to do would be to get rid of all the humans for the protection of everything else, domesticated or not!

[dra&pigs]

Humans have done many wonderful things for the world and the bettering of our species and others. However, it has also done many horrible things that have created global warming, overpopulation and poverty (to name a few). We've altered this world so completely its now almost impossible for any other species to change our current world. We are responsible for our actions, and if that means protecting animals or not breeding, thats what we should do. If we are able to take away wild animal's homes, and create more of them to only to have them abused or tortured, we should be able to take the blame for our actions.
Point is, not breeding is not killing. How can you kill something that isn't even living? Its not even an object? All it is is a potential being, something that hasn't even begun to form. How is PREVENTION considered KILLING?

[sophistacavy]

I agree that we should make sure that the wild animals we breed (because we're trying to repopulate them because they are endangered) have a suitable place to go to (in which case would be their natural habitat, or as close to it as possible) before we decide to breed them.

[tehdoc809]

I think everyone is misunderstanding me. Yes, I agree that if you keep your pets from having offspring and you make the personal choice to not have children you haven't killed anything. That is not a point I'm trying to make here.

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

We created domesticated animals through selective breeding. WE created those types of lives. Therefore we hold responsibility towards them. If we cannot treat them with the respect that sentient beings are entitled to then perhaps they would be better off not existing.

Ok point, because I wasn't exactly thinking inthe terms of us creating domesticated animals.

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

If we protect their environments and stop polluting, savaging and destroying this world like a virus then the true wild animals could live on.

If humans would evolve into the compassionate and intelligent creatures we are capable of (but that many fight against becoming) then we could treat our domesticated animal companions with respect and I would not have to worry about the future suffering that awaits the animals to come.

I agree

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

To take away life something has to HAVE life. You cannot take away something that one never had. I am not suggesting anything be killed. I am suggesting allowing something unnatural (domesticated animals)to die out
Please reread the definition. All of those definitions speak to REMOVING something that already exists. I cannot kill a child I have not conceived yet. Therefore, the fact that I am purposely NOT becoming pregnant does not mean I have killed a child. I've had all of my animals sexually altered--I have not killed their future litters.

See, heres where a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding me. As I stated above, the individual is different from the point I am trying to make.

If the Goal was to make any/all species of animals extinct we are removing something that exists. Even if we did it by stopping them from breeding, letting them die off, we would be causing this to happen. They cannot continue to exist as a species because we wouldn't let them. That is killing them. To say "its not killing them its letting them die" is a denial. Thats the sort of statement people say when they don't want to let their dirty hands show. Where you turn you back on the problem and cover it up with a lie. Because if you let something die where you could have helped it's still killing.

Originally Posted by meandmypigs

This I do not agree with. If just letting them die, it would not be "Premeditated Murder" .This would be willful negect. Im not arguing that I dont want a happy medium, but to say it is "Premeditated Murder" is wrong.

Premeditated Murder is the planned taking of a life. Therefore if we plan the extinct of one or more species of animals it is premeditated murder in the strongest of senses.

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

Of course the idea is suggested, it's even being hypothetically talked about every day. It's a very real concept. There have been thousands of species of animals that died off naturally before humans were prevalant enough to cause their extinction. There are loads of people that don't believe in global warming, They believe that the ice caps are naturally melting. Therefore, the polar bears are dying of natural causes and who are we to mess with nature. Maybe it's their time and their death needs to happen.

Personally I don't believe that but I still have to ponder the effects of continuing the population of an animal when it has no natural place left to live.

I'm skeptical of the whole global warming theory, but I will admit that there is some truth to it, so I agree with this to an extent. I would be willing to say the polar bears is our fault.

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

Please tell me Tehdoc--why do you have pets? What is their purpose?

I Have pets because I want that happy medium between over population and extinct and the goal of better ourselves to the point where there is no abuse or neglect of any kind.

I have pets because I have a love of animals and they bring happiness into a family if you let them and care for them above and beyond the minimum standards of pet care.

[Cagney]

I do fully agree that we as human's have created this problem. It is a heated topic because the defenses for domisticated animals usually are derived from a religious standpoint of God saying the animals are here for the human's to take care of and in a sense "use" for their personal needs, or the belief that keeping a domesticated pet is selfish in nature. Personally I have issues with both points of view and believe they often are twisted to represent whatever point of view is being taken.

Since this post is speaking of what I would call an imaginary world many points that are being made and debated over are simply for the fun of a debate, as has been pointed out. Domesticated animals will never be extinct. That just isn't going to happen. I am all for the middle ground of pet ownership and believe it should be a reward and not a right. I intentionally have never bred anything in my life, including myself. I can understand and follow the logic behind saying intentionally not breeding all animals would be killing out the species. I do not personally agree with the terminology though. If you want to make a good point then proper terminology is key. I would have chosen to use a word grouping such as premeditated extinction instead. This would not have caused the confusion that followed.

Unless you view human life and that of all animals to be equal you just cannot compare children to pets. Saying that most dogs abused are strays is incorrect. All strays at some point are the result of neglect on the part of owned animals. Therefore any stray that is being abused is really the product of a neglected owned animal. I believe this because the strays are stray because someone neglected to sexually alter their pet and that resulted in an unwanted litter or the animal is a stray because of general neglect on the owner's part. I would challenge that statement even further by the fact that many owned house pets are abused on the same scale as a stray. I would even go as far to say that animals that have homes are more likely to be abused by humans because they tend to be in closer contact with a human more often than any stray. So logically the animal with more human contact is more likely to suffer abuse from the hands of a human by the amount of time spent interacting with one another.

This hypothetical question is very thought provoking and I've rather enjoyed the disucssion that has followed. I do believe that any interaction a human has with an animal is selfish by it's general nature. Even doing rescue is selfish to some extent. Give me a moment to explain, . When you rescue a pet and watch it flourish and either keep that pet or find a wonderful home where you are kept up to date on it's continued improvement it makes the human happy. The satisfaction gained from doing rescue is one of the motivating factors behind rescue, so it is a selfish motivation since it is the human who benefits, but it's important to note that the animal is often the one that receives the greater benefit of the relationship.

I can't agree with purposely ending all domesticated species no matter what their purpose is or how they are treated. I do follow the logic and agree with the poster who said that if allowing this premeditated extinction of domesticated animals to occur would end abuse of these animals. I could not in good conscience say that I would intentionally breed any animal knowing that some of it's offspring could restart a cycle of abuse once it had been stopped. Obviously this is all hypothetical. Let's try to leave killing children out of the examples though? That's apple's to oranges and no relationship to each other should be made.

[organicsab]

I don't think we should let domesticated animals die off, its not like they aren't happy or healthy. I know of course some aren't, some are abused, neglected or just looked after wrong. But that is our fault, not the animals, we should solve the problem, not get rid of them. It's a nice thing to have the company of pets.
I don't agree with not having children, why should you not enjoy the experience of being a mum or dad just because everyone else in the world is. There's nothing you can do about it, more people are having kids than people who aren't.

[lalitalotus]

In Puerto Rico, when my grandparents were growing up, the U.S. instituted forced sterilization programs on the growing population. And in my opinion, yes, that was murder, almost worse than murder because it destroyed the potential of ever giving life.

But, that was humans, we (in most cultures) have the right to bear and keep children, as long as we live up to the responsibilities of raising them, or else they could be taken from us. Domesticated animals cannot live up to the responsibilities of raising their own young because WE have stripped that ability from them by taking them out of natural environments. By that logic domesticated animals do not have the right to bear children and if they do, it is our responsibility to take care of them. But in a broader sense it is also our responsibility to care for the millions homeless animals that we created collectively. So until that problem is resolved, we really don't have any right to purposefully create new lives.

That's just my take on the whole breeding issue.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by Cagney

Unless you view human life and that of all animals to be equal you just cannot compare children to pets. Saying that most dogs abused are strays is incorrect. All strays at some point are the result of neglect on the part of owned animals. Therefore any stray that is being abused is really the product of a neglected owned animal. I believe this because the strays are stray because someone neglected to sexually alter their pet and that resulted in an unwanted litter or the animal is a stray because of general neglect on the owner's part. I would challenge that statement even further by the fact that many owned house pets are abused on the same scale as a stray. I would even go as far to say that animals that have homes are more likely to be abused by humans because they tend to be in closer contact with a human more often than any stray. So logically the animal with more human contact is more likely to suffer abuse from the hands of a human by the amount of time spent interacting with one another.

First off all, this is wrong becuase this often time to happen outside of the owners control. There are thousands of animals that get stolen and/or run away. These cannot be called the owners fault with the exception of run aways. Because it could be their fault if they left a door or gate open. But to say that its 100% the owners fault is just not truth and unrealist.

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

First off all, this is wrong becuase this often time to happen outside of the owners control. There are thousands of animals that get stolen and/or run away. These cannot be called the owners fault with the exception of run aways. Because it could be their fault if they left a door or gate open. But to say that its 100% the owners fault is just not truth and unrealist.

I would still have to dissagree. I think I need to make the distinction between intentional neglect and what I would call unintentional neglect. Animals do not develop past a certain point of cognitive development. We as humans chose to take on the responsibility of caring for them. Even a stolen animal most of the time is due to unintentional neglect. These animals are taken from cars, backyards, etc...Since I view my dog's cognitive ability to about equal my 3 year old's I do find this to be neglect. I wouldn't leave my 3 year old child alone in a car, nor would I leave her outside all alone to enjoy the day. Unless the dog is taken at gunpoint or point blank stolen from the owner it is what I would consider to be unintentional neglect. I will compare this to a human child only to point out the ability of reasoning and the ability to make a sound judgement. If I leave my dog outside in my backyard unattended and the dog is stolen without my knowledge that's still on me. I chose to bring this animal into my home and take on it's care. I chose not to be outside with the dog for a certain amount of time. Did I intentionally neglect my dog? No. But my unintentional actions resulted in my pet being stolen and possibly abused. It was most certainly within my control to directly observe my pet outdoors. Cases of point blank stealing of pets is rare and not often the case. I did not say 100% of anything. I rarely use statistics to back up a point because they are often incorrect or do not give a complete data history to them. Animals that run away are the owner's fault. The owner may not have intended for the pet to escape but still neglectful actions on their part resulted in the pet becoming a stray. That is my point, and I am not sure how you came to read that I was saying 100% of anything. I was commenting on your statement of most abused animals are strays. I do not believe it to be true and would be curious as to what documentation backs that up.

[tehdoc809]

This doesn't even being to make any kind of sense, I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by Cagney

I would still have to dissagree. I think I need to make the distinction between intentional neglect and what I would call unintentional neglect. Animals do not develop past a certain point of cognitive development. We as humans chose to take on the responsibility of caring for them. Even a stolen animal most of the time is due to unintentional neglect.

This is not right because the defintion of neglect is to omit or pay no attention to [smth.] through indifference or carelessness.

So, in other words neglect is both intentional and unintentional at the same time. You just say someone neglected something it doesn't need a qualifier.

Originally Posted by Cagney

These animals are taken from cars, backyards, etc...Since I view my dog's cognitive ability to about equal my 3 year old's I do find this to be neglect. I wouldn't leave my 3 year old child alone in a car, nor would I leave her outside all alone to enjoy the day. Unless the dog is taken at gunpoint or point blank stolen from the owner it is what I would consider to be unintentional neglect. I will compare this to a human child only to point out the ability of reasoning and the ability to make a sound judgement. If I leave my dog outside in my backyard unattended and the dog is stolen without my knowledge that's still on me. I chose to bring this animal into my home and take on it's care. I chose not to be outside with the dog for a certain amount of time. Did I intentionally neglect my dog? No. But my unintentional actions resulted in my pet being stolen and possibly abused. It was most certainly within my control to directly observe my pet outdoors. Cases of point blank stealing of pets is rare and not often the case.

Ok first, its different when you leave a child in a car and a dog in a car. It is most certianly neglect when you leave a child in a car. However, in regard to a pet, if you say took you dog to a park and on the way back had to get gas and have to go in to pay for it. You can't take the dog in with you, typically. Secondly, by this logic you make it sound like its the owners fault and not the theif.

Now, In the United States (if you are in the united states) we have this fantastic clause in the bill of rights called the Right to Privacy. What that means is you have the right to expect that the Property, your home and whatever land you own will be free of unsanctioned, unwanted intrusion. This means that if you have a fenced in back yard you have the right to expect that you pet will be safe there form someone that would wish harm up it and if someone comes onto your property and takes your things/pets, it is not your fault in any way. Because you have that right to expect that your pet should have been safe. This person broke the law by coming onto your property and taking it. You could not have forceen that happening therefore it would not be neglect in anyway.

Secondly, the concept of right to privacy extends to your car as well. So you have the same expectation that the stuff in your car should not be taken also. Now I would be willing to accept neglect from pet/child left in a car. But it is completely different when it is at your home.

Originally Posted by Cagney

I did not say 100% of anything.

Saying All strays infers 100% beause all means all. You don't say all if you don't mean 100%

[blackarrow]

Now, In the United States (if you are in the united states) we have this fantastic clause in the bill of rights called the Right to Privacy.

Not correct. There is no "right to privacy" clause in the Bill of Rights.

What that means is you have the right to expect that the Property, your home and whatever land you own will be free of unsanctioned, unwanted intrusion.

Not correct. The right to privacy has nothing to do with actions of thieves.

Secondly, the concept of right to privacy extends to your car as well. So you have the same expectation that the stuff in your car should not be taken also.

See above.

[Cagney]

You also have the right to commen sense, or not. If you want to sit in your home and think that nothing bad should happen to you because it's your home I won't stop you. In the real world bad things happen and there are steps that can be taken that are known to prevent unwanted things from happening. This is not 100%, but few things are. Does it make it your "fault"? No, but you probably will learn other mechanisms to prevent certain unwanted actions from reoccuring again. You don't want someone to steal your dog out of your backyard, don't leave your dog unattended out there. I was not pointing fault at anyone, just saying steps can be taken to avoid certain situations. My dog once was stolen from my car at a gas station. She was in my car, windows down and I was just running in for a paper. Now I can either point fingers and assign blame or I can be thankful I had my dog returned to me and learn from that situation. She's never been left alone in my car or with windows wide open since then. It's called a learning experience. Should I have to worry about that in a perfect world? No, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Your statement that most animals abused are strays that no one is responsible for or at fault because they are strays is just incorrect no matter how you want to nit pick at actual definitions. I believe that since owned animals have more contact with humans that makes them more likely to be harmed by a human on average. (Does that work for you?) The majority of strays are from unwanted litters. These litters were born because the owner neglected to spay or neuter their pets, or refused to comprehend the multitude of information available to them about the benefits of altering their pets. This makes the majority of strays to come from neglectful situations.

You do not have full rights to safety in your own home. The bill of rights does give you the right to protect your property and family though. I choose to do this by not leaving my pets outside unattended. How you chose to go about it would be your right.

[tehdoc809]

There needs to be a bit of research done here. I have been studying Criminal Justice for the past 4 years, I'm about to graduate with my BS in it.

Yes, right to privacy is in the constitution. Not directly, but the US supreme court has ruled multiple times that citizens have a right to privacy, a right to not be bothered without reason. And if the US Supreme Court says that privacy is a constitutional right, then it is because they are the final authority on such matters.

Are you really going to sit there and say that I should have no expectation that my stuff, the stuff that I've bought with my money should be safe in my own home? We should just go ahead and get rid of all the differnet larceny charges then because apparently people are free to just come into my house and just take my belongings whether I want them to or not.

I said an expectation, not a guarantee. Meaning, if you go out and buy a nice new big screen HDTV when you go to work, you should expect that new tv to still be in your home. Same thing with my car, If you go to workand leave my laptop in my car, I should expect my laptop to still be in my car when I leave work.

Now I absolutly did not say that means you should live in the dark and not be prepared for something bad to happen, but you make it sound like I should be siting around waiting for that bad thing to happen.

[blackarrow]

There needs to be a bit of research done here.

Yes, I suggest you do some before holding forth on constitutional law. (I have a law degree, was a clerk for a Federal judge for two years, and was in private practice for an additional three.)

Yes, right to privacy is in the constitution. Not directly, but the US supreme court has ruled multiple times that citizens have a right to privacy, a right to not be bothered without reason. And if the US Supreme Court says that privacy is a constitutional right, then it is because they are the final authority on such matters.

I know.

Are you really going to sit there and say that I should have no expectation that my stuff, the stuff that I've bought with my money should be safe in my own home? We should just go ahead and get rid of all the differnet larceny charges then because apparently people are free to just come into my house and just take my belongings whether I want them to or not.

Not sure if you're talking to me or to Cagney here, but that's not what I'm going to sit here and say. I'm going to sit here and say that criminal law has nothing to do with the right to privacy.

[Cagney]

My BS in Psychology with an emphasis in behavioral analysis and my associates of science in veterinary technology gives me pieces of paper on my wall as well, since we're going to toss around degrees. The ability to focus on one small contradiction away from the point being made and hammer down on it in order to loose focus on the topic at hand is a great strategy for a criminal justice student. I'll give you credit for that. Also congrats on your upcoming graduation. Although the "right not to be bothered" I am fairly certain is not a constitutional right. If this were true my mother in law would not be allowed to speak to me.

Any legal document is open to interpretation to some extent. This is the reason for most of the existence of our legal system.

Honestly in the neighborhood where I work, if you left your laptop in your car and if it was still there when you came back I would be shocked. I don't think anyone should sit around and wait for something bad to happen, that's not a healthy way to live. I do believe that most adults are able to apply previous learned knowledge to adapt to different situations and environments they are placed in. Since my personal knowledge is that dogs who stay outside unattended on a regular basis are more prone to abuse of some sort, failing to act upon this knowledge and protect my pets would be negligent on my part. Since animals were domisticated by humans, any stray is going to be the product of negligent breeding or care on the part of some human at some point. It's simple cause and effect.

This thread is based upon a hypothetical situation that I personally believe to be a fantasy thought. So any comments regarding it are simply opinion oriented, yet based upon personal beliefs and personal knowledge. This leaves a large area open for interpretation of the thoughts of others. Taking the focus away from a hypothetical situation, and directing it towards legal terminology of certain words used does not advance the discussion.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Yes, I suggest you do some before holding forth on constitutional law. (I have a law degree, was a clerk for a Federal judge for two years, and was in private practice for an additional three.)

Thats great And I meant in general ,the research thing wasn't directed at anyone specific, I'll admit it was at first but I edited it out of my post because I realized that I myself am no expert and didn't have just cause to call anyone on something like that.

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Not sure if you're talking to me or to Cagney here, but that's not what I'm going to sit here and say. I'm going to sit here and say that criminal law has nothing to do with the right to privacy.

Slightly Directed at both of you. Now, I'm versed enough to know that the beauty (if you can call it that) of law is how open it is to interpretation. With that being said, I don't see how you can say that criminal law has nothing to do with right to privacy. Specifically when it comes down to criminal acts that intrude upon said right.

For instance, I have a right to expect that there would be no unsanctioned intrusion on my home. Meaning you have to have my permission or a court order to come into my home. So if someone comes into my house while I'm not there, without my permission the have infringed upon my expect right of privacy. The beauty is not only will said person have criminal charges brought against him, but I can also make a Civil Suit because of his actions.

So, I can see how not all of the different criminal laws don't have to do with right to privacy, but you can not say that there isn't some overlap somewhere.

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Slightly Directed at both of you. Now, I'm versed enough to know that the beauty (if you can call it that) of law is how open it is to interpretation. With that being said, I don't see how you can say that criminal law has nothing to do with right to privacy. Specifically when it comes down to criminal acts that intrude upon said right.

So, I can see how not all of the different criminal laws don't have to do with right to privacy, but you can not say that there isn't some overlap somewhere.

Interpretation and overlap I do believe is the point some are trying to make. You would have to be open to interpreting the meaning behind what others have posted. For example saying that someone would rather not see another domesticated animal born if it means so much suffering for so many others. I did not post that and hope I have interpreted it correct. If you expect others to allow for your personal interpretation of constitutional law, then you should allow for their personal interpretation of other terms and hypothetical situations.

Almost everything in life is a learning experience, or at least that's how I try to view it. This site has greatly improved the care of many guinea pigs due to knowledge gained from years of misinformed pet owners.

[blackarrow]

Thats great And I meant in general ,the research thing wasn't directed at anyone specific, I'll admit it was at first but I edited it out of my post because I realized that I myself am no expert and didn't have just cause to call anyone on something like that.

Fair enough, thank you.

I don't see how you can say that criminal law has nothing to do with right to privacy. Specifically when it comes down to criminal acts that intrude upon said right.

Because constitutional law is the law which defines the relationship between the individual and the State, not the rights between individuals.

So if someone comes into my house while I'm not there, without my permission the have infringed upon my expect right of privacy.

Not unless that person is a state actor. If that person is a garden variety thief, that person has only infringed upon your property rights.

The beauty is not only will said person have criminal charges brought against him, but I can also make a Civil Suit because of his actions.

Sure. What you do not have is a constitutional cause of action.

So, I can see how not all of the different criminal laws don't have to do with right to privacy, but you can not say that there isn't some overlap somewhere.

There is overlap only if there is a state actor involved in a theft. (Watergate, for instance - thieves acting at the behest of the President and advisors.)

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by Cagney

congrats on your upcoming graduation

First off, thank you. I can't wait, I'll be done at the beginning of may.

Secondly, Yes property rights I wasn't thinking about that. Anyway, since I've clearly been out gunned on the right to privacy tangent (Kudos Blackarrow) I'd like to point out something that made me laugh for atleast a good five minutes.

Originally Posted by Cagney

The ability to focus on one small contradiction away from the point being made and hammer down on it in order to loose focus on the topic at hand is a great strategy for a criminal justice student. I'll give you credit for that.

This has to be said first, I'm what I like to call a thought jumper. A.K.A. A person that is really bad to go off on a tangent in conversation. I Have never really thought of it in this context before but it makes amazingly fantastic sense. Becuase the arguement has gone as follows (as far as the three of us, Blackarrow, Cagney and myself, are concerned).

Animals right to life (paraphrased, if you will), to animal abuse to animal neglect to simply neglect and right of privacy, to simply right of privacy to the interpretation of law. I take full responsibility from bringing us to this point, becuase my brain saw a pointed out a new topic of interest. It honesly has not been my intent to drag this thread so off topic. But that example at the beginning of this paragraph is how my brain thought train usualy progresses and the typical ending, when I'm not around other people. Would be me at interpretation of law thinking, what was I originally thinking about. I would also like to point out that in typing that my brain started a whole new tangent for this thread.

Originally Posted by Cagney

My BS in Psychology with an emphasis in behavioral analysis and my associates of science in veterinary technology gives me pieces of paper on my wall as well, since we're going to toss around degrees.

Ok, I honestly meant to not bring this up, I just didn't get done editing my post in time and now I can't go back and do it. I already admitted that the first part of that post started out as an attack, which I recognized as inappropriate and went back and changed, although not good enough. I love a good arguement although sometimes It can get out of hand. The good thing about a forum is I can actually have process time while I'm typing it out to see how rude/offesive I'm being at the others involved.

Originally Posted by Cagney

Although the "right not to be bothered" I am fairly certain is not a constitutional right. If this were true my mother in law would not be allowed to speak to me.

Actually it is, I believe, You can go down to the courts a get a restraining order on you mother-in-law. Which depending on the contents could go as far as no contact at all with the person.

Honestly what I meant by that was not so much a right to not be bother. But if person X showed up at my house, I told them to go away and they didn't I can call the cops and have them removed from my property.

Originally Posted by Cagney

Any legal document is open to interpretation to some extent. This is the reason for most of the existence of our legal system.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Cagney

Honestly in the neighborhood where I work, if you left your laptop in your car and if it was still there when you came back I would be shocked. I don't think anyone should sit around and wait for something bad to happen, that's not a healthy way to live. I do believe that most adults are able to apply previous learned knowledge to adapt to different situations and environments they are placed in.

Again, Agreed
Now back on topic.. perhaps? .

Originally Posted by Cagney

Since my personal knowledge is that dogs who stay outside unattended on a regular basis are more prone to abuse of some sort, failing to act upon this knowledge and protect my pets would be negligent on my part. Since animals were domisticated by humans, any stray is going to be the product of negligent breeding or care on the part of some human at some point. It's simple cause and effect.

I'll agree a little. But it's still not relly negligence,it is definitley personal conviction that you feel you are doing something wrong. But its not negligence. Negligence would be there are people going around stealing dogs out of backyards at night and you purposefully don't bring your in while knowing about the people kidnapping dogs.

They way one of my professors described negligences was as follows (And I think this a god way to look at it.): Neglignence is either, You knew what was going on and ignored it or "What did you think you happen"

You have a key word here, unattended. You can not always be with the dog. But If I have an outside dog, and he gets feed and played with multiple times a day. You can't really say that dog is being negliected or abused. Atleast not in a legal sense, you could in a moral one because you have that conviction that pets should be inside. It would only really be neglect if you put the dog outside then never went to check on it again or only check a couple times a month.

Originally Posted by Cagney

This thread is based upon a hypothetical situation that I personally believe to be a fantasy thought. So any comments regarding it are simply opinion oriented, yet based upon personal beliefs and personal knowledge. This leaves a large area open for interpretation of the thoughts of others. Taking the focus away from a hypothetical situation, and directing it towards legal terminology of certain words used does not advance the discussion.

Oh yes, so much of this is so subjective its insane. But its ok I like the subjective. See I am I firm believer in existentialism and that is based solely on the subjective

[Cagney]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

This has to be said first, I'm what I like to call a thought jumper. A.K.A. A person that is really bad to go off on a tangent in conversation. I Have never really thought of it in this context before but it makes amazingly fantastic sense.

I am glad you got a good laugh out of that. I wasn't pointing it out in a negative manor. It's a skill that helps with a good debate if you are trying to win, such as with criminal law. Nor have I taken offense to anything on this thread, I hope the same is true with you.

One point I have failed to realize during the discussion is the nature of where I live. I live in a suburban area, that for the most part is safe and with little personal worries of a physical attack on myself or property. Still the big bad city is very near by and I have learned certain techniques that I apply to my suburban life to keep the continued feeling of security. There are mutliple dog thefts and dog fighting operations where I live. So for the safety of my pets I cannot in good conscience leave them outside unattended for long periods of time. The weather also is not often stable enough for long term exposure to the outdoors for my pets as well. I have failed to realize that not everyone lives in the type of environment that I do. So yes in some areas of the country you can have an outside dog that receives proper care and attention. Personally I would rather know my dog is comfy on my bed while I am at work, but that is a personal preference.

I think this is one of the better hypothetical topics posted. It has really made me think about how someone else has come to the opinion that they have. I may not fully agree but I can at least understand what has brought them to their belief.