The Romney's And Animal Cruelty

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by shuize

Yeah, I'm still not convinced the pet-porter on the car and the hose down after was all that bad. When I was a kid, we had dogs that rode unsecured in the back of our truck. They loved it. In hindsight, putting them in a porter would probably have been safer, but riding in the back of the truck, chasing tennis balls, and playing with the hose were three of our dogs' favorite things.

Back of the truck != top of the truck. Try riding on the top of the truck sometime.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

Interesting.On the one hand the dog that has been consumed is dead. It may have been killed any one of a number of ways from merciful to not. But by the time the meat is placed in front of a little boy (who presumably had no say in the matter) the argument is academic.

Supply and demand. People raise and slaughter dogs because people will pay for it. So it's absolutely false to suggest that there's no connection between the eating of a dog and the raising and slaughtering of a dog.

Quote:

On the other hand, a grown man putting a living creature, a pet, in a situation where it might be injured or at the very least traumatized is somewhat more, I don't know, questionable.

Perhaps this will help you "see."

First off, it's not at all a given that the dog was traumatized. Second, having a large pet inside the car puts the occupants of the car at risk of injury or death in the case of an accident. Any large, unsecured object becomes a potential projectile during a collision. So if you want to talk about what might have happened, well, putting the dog on the roof might have saved the life of one of their kids.

Thirdly, there appears to be considerable disagreement here about what Romney's transgression actually was. When I talked about the treatment of the dog itself, tyr claimed that I was constructing a strawman, that it's his current attitude towards those past events which matters. Now you're arguing that no, it's just the actual treatment itself which matters. I can't say you've moved the goalpost, because you two don't have to have the same goalpost, but there's definitely a difference of opinion here. But you can take that up with tyr.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Abusing a living animal, be it a dog, a cow, or an alligator, on the other hand, is wrong regardless of the culture.

Quote:

Cites?

Isn't abuse by definition wrong? What am I missing here? Or are you questioning whether all cultures deem certain acts are "abuse"? If so, we are capable of deeming abuse wrong regardless of culture, right?

[mikedenk]

Originally Posted by shuize

Yeah, I'm still not convinced the pet-porter on the car and the hose down after was all that bad. When I was a kid, we had dogs that rode unsecured in the back of our truck. They loved it. In hindsight, putting them in a porter would probably have been safer, but riding in the back of the truck, chasing tennis balls, and playing with the hose were three of our dogs' favorite things.

Monster.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Back of the truck != top of the truck. Try riding on the top of the truck sometime.

Ask any soldier who has manned the turret on a Humvee. It's not that bad.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Monster.

I know. The meat ends up all gamey if you let them exercise that much. It's horrible.

[shuize]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Back of the truck != top of the truck. Try riding on the top of the truck sometime.

Again, I'm still not convinced. Since there was reportedly a windscreen, I don't see much difference. And knowing our dogs, I really don't think they'd care even if there wasn't. As long as there was a tennis ball and a hose at the end of the trip, I think they'd happily have ridden on the front next to the hood ornament.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Isn't abuse by definition wrong? What am I missing here? Or are you questioning whether all cultures deem certain acts are "abuse"?

Yup.

Quote:

If so, we are capable of deeming abuse wrong regardless of culture, right?

As Upchurch mentioned 'Morality is all Relative', so ... um, No, imo.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Ask any soldier who has manned the turret on a Humvee. It's not that bad.

I'll ask only if that soldier has been up there for 12 hours at 65 mph.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Yup.

As Upchurch mentioned 'Morality is all Relative', so ... um, No, imo.

So, based on your response, it would seem that you believe you have caught Upchurch in a gotcha, being of two minds on relative morality, right? I'm not going to speak for him or defend him but I can confidently say, IMO, you haven't. If the culture deems it "abuse" then it is by definition bad and therefore wrong.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And Obama brings up the story of how he ate dog to show how worldly he is.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And Obama thinks it's OK to eat dog, which is why includes it in his autobiography where the only notable thing about it is that it's "tough".

Noting that he thinks dog meat is tough makes him "worldly"? Not in my eyes.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, based on your response, it would seem that you believe you have caught Upchurch in a gotcha, being of two minds on relative morality, right? I'm not going to speak for him or defend him but I can confidently say, IMO, you haven't. If the culture deems it "abuse" then it is by definition bad and therefore wrong.

Agreed, but our culture can't declare something 'abuse' for a culture that doesn't deem it so, anymore than India can declare our treatment of livestock 'abuse'.

Well, they can I suppose, but we imo would just ignore it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'll ask only if that soldier has been up there for 12 hours at 65 mph.

Wait... do people still think that was 12 hours without any stops?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wait... do people still think that was 12 hours without any stops?

That's the spin.

Was the alternative riding jammed like a sardine in a car full of Romney progeny? I'll take the roof please.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by marplots

That's the spin.

or that is.

[applecorped]

I heard Obama partook if the following heinous activity as well:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The monster!!!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Agreed, but our culture can't declare something 'abuse' for a culture that doesn't deem it so, anymore than India can declare our treatment of livestock 'abuse'.

Well, they can I suppose, but we imo would just ignore it.

You are missing the point. Upchurch made a distinction between unnecessarily causing harm and suffering to an animal and humanely killing an animal for consumption. I'm confident there are no cultures that deem the unnecessary causing of harm and suffering to an animal to be a good thing, right?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wait... do people still think that was 12 hours without any stops?

Do people actually think that ANYONE claimed 12 hours without stops? I mean, anyone except Zig, who, when he has a burr under his saddle, can actually ride for 12 posts without stopping.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by RandFan

You are missing the point. Upchurch made a distinction between unnecessarily causing harm and suffering to an animal and humanely killing an animal for consumption. I'm confident there are no cultures that deem the unnecessary causing of harm and suffering to an animal to be a good thing, right?

Bull fighting?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Bull fighting?

Santeria?

[Unabogie]

I will correct one thing, however, which is that I found evidence that Seamus did not die on the trip.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ucing_sea.html

I stand corrected.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Santeria?

I guess I'm trying to differentiate between killing for food, killing for religion, and killing for entertainment.

I'm vegan, so to me they are all wrong, but I put them on a continuum. It's far more acceptable to kill for food than it is for fun.

I'd say Randfan is correct in that MOST cultures accept animal killing for food, and not animal abuse for fun, but not all.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Bull fighting?

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I guess I'm trying to differentiate between killing for food, killing for religion, and killing for entertainment.

I'm vegan, so to me they are all wrong, but I put them on a continuum. It's far more acceptable to kill for food than it is for fun.

I'd say Randfan is correct in that MOST cultures accept animal killing for food, and not animal abuse for fun, but not all.

Thanks.

[applecorped]

Who says it was abuse? And if you do prove it was for fun.

[Brainster]

Pray for Bo:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'll ask only if that soldier has been up there for 12 hours at 65 mph.

The dog was not up there for 12 straight hours on the road! That is not possible.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Do people actually think that ANYONE claimed 12 hours without stops? I mean, anyone except Zig, who, when he has a burr under his saddle, can actually ride for 12 posts without stopping.

Specifically? Not in those words.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

...
Just a reminder, a "few" hours of discomfort means 12 hours of discomfort, in this particular case.

* okay, don't have to be, but I'm not going to argue that that is not animal cruelty.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Do you strap your two year old to the roof and drive for twelve hours? That's the point that makes the situation a problem, a point you don't mention...

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So, by now, you probably have heard about Seamus, the Romney's dog who they put in a crate, tied the crate to the roof of their car, then drove 12 hours to their vacation destination. At some point, the dog got so scare it **** itself. Instead of realizing how they were traumatizing the dog, Romney says he hosed the dog down, put it back in the box, and continued his drive...

Originally Posted by Unabogie

For 12 hours until it crapped itself?

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

...
Also, as mentioned, just about anything that might be fun and exhilarating can become torture when you're required to do it for 12 hours.

Originally Posted by The Don

By all means insist that it's not animal cruelty to confine a dog for 12 hours, claim that it's fine to have them on the roof of a car because it's OK to have them in a pickup and then to suggest that what a dog may enjoy for a few minutes is tolerable for 12 hours (heck, I like a rollercoaster ride but I wouldn't like to be on one for 12 hours).

How does the story "work" if it's, say, 3 hours, a nice walk, two more hours, another romp at a rest stop, 4 hours and a hose-down, and then another two hours?

The uninterrupted bit is a big part of the outrageousness of it. I have already stated that if the drive were without breaks, I would be outraged, although I am not now. The repetition of "12 hours" implies there is some significance to the figure. I can't see any other reason to mention it other than to claim that 12 hours is an excessive time to confine a dog without breaks.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle

The dog was not up there for 12 straight hours on the road! That is not possible.

I didn't say that. You and Zig have the same disease. See my #337.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by marplots

The uninterrupted bit is a big part of the outrageousness of it.

Speak for yourself.

[marplots]

Quote:

Marplots: The uninterrupted bit is a big part of the outrageousness of it.

Originally Posted by SezMe

Speak for yourself.

Thanks, I usually do.

Leaving the 12 hours aside then, what do you find cruel (if anything) about the trip? I only ask because I don't see anything.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by marplots

Thanks, I usually do.

Leaving the 12 hours aside then, what do you find cruel (if anything) about the trip? I only ask because I don't see anything.

I don't know if I would say "cruel", but I think the story illustrates the problem itself. If you put the dog in a place inaccessible to you, you can't tell their condition. Many dogs get car sick, and all need bathroom breaks and food and water rather regularly. It's also hard to tell if the dog is terrified when you are going down the highway, or is getting battered when you turn. While there isn't enough info on this case, it isn't hard to imagine things getting quite a bit uglier than diarrhea.

Nowadays we know more about proper restraint for car accidents, especially for humans, so historically Romney could slide on that front. For the dog in the back of a pick up, you avoid a number of problems listed above. But you add the problem of the dog potentially running off if unrestrained. And they run the danger of falling out. Also, there is again the car crash problem and lack of proper restraint.

Lots of places have laws that you need to properly restrain your dog. The "pick up" example is often the first one targeted.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wait... do people still think that was 12 hours without any stops?

Let's put it this way: Do you honestly think Obama has eaten dog since before the age of eleven or is currently promoting the eating of dog?

Because, just like marplots, I can provide a wall of quotes from forum members (yourself included) who suggest that he does.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by marplots

Leaving the 12 hours aside then, what do you find cruel (if anything) about the trip? I only ask because I don't see anything.

You're right I haven't said much about the incident itself; it's a fair comment. I've been more interested so far in the emphasis by some, including yourself, that it was not 12 straight hours!! In your previous post you suggested an alternative timeline that you suggested would (correct me if I'm wrong) make the incident less .... um ... nefarious. I'm not on board with that. Yes, it might make it less harsh but it wouldn't change for me what the incident tells.

Let me answer your question directly: I don't know if it was cruel. I think we'd have to know more about the timeline, protection the crate provided, why the dog crapped, was this a one off incident or a routine practice, etc.

More important for me is not Seamus, but Mitt. The best that I can say is that it portrays him as thoughtless. I just don't think one puts their dog on top of a car for a trip that is hours long, no matter how many breaks there are.

While I'm pontificating, one more thing. Applecorped and others are taken aback that others are making such a big deal about this. I don't think it is a big deal, in and of itself. But it is part of a larger pattern that is important.

That pattern is (again, for me) an insensitivity to the larger world around him. Think of that pattern as a brick wall. Seamus is one brick. "I'm unemployed" is another. "I like to fire service people" is yet another. Any one brick can be removed and you still pretty much have a wall. Even two or three and the wall mostly remains. But at some point, the integrity of the wall is lost.

So for me Seamus is one brick. You want to remove it, fine. But there is still plenty of evidence that Mitt is a man of privilege and self-importance who has trouble empathizing with others ... and with a dog.

Hope that helps.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I didn't say that. You and Zig have the same disease. See my #337.

If it's not 12 straight hours, then why would the time be a problem for the guy in a humvee?

[SezMe]

Give the freaken' 12 hours a rest, Zig.

[angrysoba]

Have you ever wound down the window with a dog in a car?

What does it do? Stick its head out the window.

Dogs love that!

[angrysoba]

Ever been dogging in a car? Well, that's another story I suppose.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Have you ever wound down the window with a dog in a car?

What does it do? Stick its head out the window.

Dogs love that!

Ever done it at 65 mph?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Supply and demand. People raise and slaughter dogs because people will pay for it. So it's absolutely false to suggest that there's no connection between the eating of a dog and the raising and slaughtering of a dog.



First off, it's not at all a given that the dog was traumatized. Second, having a large pet inside the car puts the occupants of the car at risk of injury or death in the case of an accident. Any large, unsecured object becomes a potential projectile during a collision. So if you want to talk about what might have happened, well, putting the dog on the roof might have saved the life of one of their kids.

Thirdly, there appears to be considerable disagreement here about what Romney's transgression actually was. When I talked about the treatment of the dog itself, tyr claimed that I was constructing a strawman, that it's his current attitude towards those past events which matters. Now you're arguing that no, it's just the actual treatment itself which matters. I can't say you've moved the goalpost, because you two don't have to have the same goalpost, but there's definitely a difference of opinion here. But you can take that up with tyr.

Here is what I actually said. I've added some highlight and bolding.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Zig, that's ridiculous. As other posters have pointed out to you already, it's one thing to (humanely) kill an animal to eat it and another illegal thing to torture the thing.

I can kill a pig I raised for food, but I can't kill it by cutting it's feet off, then the ears, then pieces of the legs till it dies from a heart attack. And no, before you try to make the silly accusation I'm not equating that to putting the dog carrier on the roof.

You're also straw manning, mildly, the 'pretense' for talking about this story. It isn't just about the welfare of the dog, but about Romney thinking it was ok to do to the point that he brings it up as a story of how level headed he is. That he believes this is a problem. The problem is not simply that he did it, but that he refuses to see it as a mistake. Again, I don't think it says as much about him as some other people do, but that doesn't mean it's nothing but 'attack the other guy'. That's inevitably a motivation for some, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. Of course it's inevitable that the motivations for some trying to dismiss the entire thing are the 'defend our guy' reaction, but it isn't right to dismiss what they say based on that either.

You were attempting to dismiss the problem of what Romney did by saying that Obama did something worse (tu quoque) and that the 'pretense' was only the welfare of the dog, which isn't true. If Romney had told the exact same story about a lesson learned about what not to do, I for one would be defending him more than to say that this story doesn't say that much about him and politicizing it to this degree. Twisting Obama's 'when in Rome' story to be about the dogs welfare when it wasn't the context of his comment is the pretense you are relying on. But because Romney is using the story in the context of something that was a good choice it matters that it was not a good choice. And I don't see where Regnad said that the only problem was the welfare of the animal.

Secondly, talking about the dog injuring the children is a hand wave. Even if you didn't secure the dog in a crate inside the car it's unlikely the children would be more injured by the flying dog than luggage etc. It was not concern for his children that Romney decided to strap the dog carrier to the roof.

Points for strawmanning my straw man accusation though.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If it's not 12 straight hours, then why would the time be a problem for the guy in a humvee?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Have you ever wound down the window with a dog in a car?

What does it do? Stick its head out the window.

Dogs love that!

Seriously, strapping the dog to the roof in the carrier was wrong and probably illegal as has already been shown by linking to the arguments of experts earlier in the thread. You'll have to do more than saying, "hey, what about motorcycles?" to dismiss them, like actually addressing their reasoning.

If you must have your examples examined, I'm sure you both can think of some reasons why they aren't as valid as you initially might think. Off the top of my head, protective equipment, lower speed, most of the body mass being inside the vehicle, duration. And before the 'it wasn't 12 straight hours' 'argument' comes up, no one is saying it was 12 straight hours. One of the key parts of the story was the stop to hose off the dog. Lets say there were three half hour stops. Is three straight hours alright? No.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Ever done it at 65 mph?

No way! The calves in my veal crates get jumpy if I do that.