Wow I'm starting to think I might live in a safer place than you guys but you never know because I don't go out much. Even when I do I don't face many threats like you guys do but I may have jinxed myself knock on wood.  You guys handled the situation well but just be careful now that you decided to shoot first and ask the dog questions later.  

I think Prince's reaction towards the unleashed dog was adequate, so he shouldn't make it even more extreme. Even putting aside Prince might not be objective towards animals, even before having a family, I wonder indeed if straight shooting dogs wouldn't cause them to attack out of fear. Thus causing a result contrary to the one hoped (which is the safety of having them leashed by their owner).

Malicia : « Uhhh, erh...  Here : I think your reaction of being in maternity leave to breast feed Mikey was very good, yes. But as an expert, I can tell you asking Prince to take your place will not work...

                'cause he can't breastfeed Mikey, you see ? He's gonna moustachefeed him instead. »

5 hours ago, Jayomms said:

Wow I'm starting to think I might live in a safer place than you guys but you never know because I don't go out much. Even when I do I don't face many threats like you guys do but I may have jinxed myself knock on wood.  You guys handled the situation well but just be careful now that you decided to shoot first and ask the dog questions later.  

  Reveal hidden contents

 

> Thank you, my dear friend. Yes, the number of dogs in our city (and the country) almost doubled since the last year "thanks" to constant aggressive public appeals for dog adoptions. The problem we see, especially my Prince is that people's needs became secondary, a dogs' need became primary. What pisses him off is saying that we would be happier and better people if we'd have a dog. Bullshit! I'm not against dogs at all, but such a statement is senseless and stupid.  Instead of teaching the kids how to have a fun with other children and learn about sharing, friendship, support and similar, they are teaching that our real friends are dogs and that we do not need human being for socializing, but dogs, presenting that human suffering is something normal and common, but animal suffering is unacceptable. You won't find homeless and hungry dogs in our city and country, but you will find many homeless and hungry people. And Ivy and I support his anger about this matter.

4 hours ago, Tirloque said:

 Even putting aside Prince might not be objective towards animals, even before having a family,

 

 

> "Not be objective towards animals". No offense but this statement doesn't hold the water. My Prince never hurt any animal without cause and reason. Just because he is allergic to animals, their smell that makes him sick, didn't make him going around hurting animals. He just don't like them. Why he should? If he wants to give his money to orphanages and human shelters rather than animal shelters and ZOOs, that is his right which makes more sense than spending fortunes on dogs' hairdos and treating them like exalted beings and family members. People all over the globe kill animals for various reason, mostly because of their value or sport (hunters). He doesn't do that. He only protect himslef and us, his family. And if he wouldn't be fair toward animals, he wouldn't allow our Hotel to be pet friendly and he wouldn't organize everything pet lovers needs for their pets.

Quote

I wonder indeed if straight shooting dogs wouldn't cause them to attack out of fear. Thus causing a result contrary to the one hoped (which is the safety of having them leashed by their owner).

> Dogs doesn't always attack out of fear. He did a very detailed and deep researches about the dogs and I have read it. I learned a lot about dogs  in general and can tell you that I understand him more and more.  Listen to this, the fragment from the law about (dangerous) dogs in our city:

"Dogs are not allowed in public paces without a leash. In the event of dangerous breeds, the dog must wear the muzzle. The pet owner must carry cleaning tools (disposal bags, paper, a bowl, etc.) and clean the public area that his animal has contaminated"

Well, let me tell you something about it:

1. Most of the people holds their dogs on the leash until they bring them to the parks and beaches where they aren't allowed to go without being under control. Than they release them to run freely. I don't say that great majority of the dog owners does it, but certain number does. So, they willingly break the law and endangering other people and children. Several researches made in our country proved that most of that sort of dogs never passed even fundamental dog training. Why would they? They are our babies, children, family members and friends - (sarcasm)

2. I have never seen dangerous dogs with muzzle. NOT SINGLE ONE. It's because extreme animal lovers says it is not human for the dogs aren't slaves. Let me tell you something about this too. When the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs wore muzzles, the number of bitten people and children was veeeeery low. Activists for animal rights are mostly extreme animal lovers who cares less about safety of the people and more about their "gods" they worship. If someone wants to live like or with a dog, horse or pig, it is his/her right, but not in public.

3. 99% of dog walkers do not carry cleaning tools (disposal bags, paper, a bowl, etc.) and do not clean the public area that his animal has contaminated. Our streets are literary dog shit fields. They simply don't care.

4. Many dog lovers are cat haters. I know several cases in which they killed the cat without the reason, pardon, with the reason: hate. So animal lovers are NOT better people than those who aren't dog lovers. Dog mania is world trend the force us to live certain life style (loving dogs) and whoever thinks opposite, is animal hater. BULLSHIT!!!!

5. By killing the unleashed and without muzzle dangerous dogs in our nearness should teach the irresponsible dog owner that he made many unforgivable mistakes for I still believe that one human life worth more than million dogs' lives. So, next time that dog owner will think twice before he does the same.

I think my Prince is more than fair toward animals and their owners who aren't fair toward other people and children.

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

Finally ! You're disagreeing just like you used to do, Eva ! That means you're close to total recovery from your pregnancy !

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> "Not be objective towards animals". No offense but this statement doesn't hold the water.

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> "Not be objective towards animals". No offense but this statement doesn't hold the water. My Prince never hurt any animal without cause and reason. Just because he is allergic to animals, their smell that makes him sick, didn't make him going around hurting animals. He just don't like them. Why he should? If he wants to give his money to orphanages and human shelters rather than animal shelters and ZOOs, that is his right which makes more sense than spending fortunes on dogs' hairdos and treating them like exalted beings and family members. People all over the globe kill animals for various reason, mostly because of their value or sport (hunters). He doesn't do that. He only protect himslef and us, his family. And if he wouldn't be fair toward animals, he wouldn't allow our Hotel to be pet friendly and he wouldn't organize everything pet lovers needs for their pets.

I'm not saying he'd hurt animals out of pure hatred, Eva ; just that he really doesn't like them and that he is likely not to be neutral regarding them. He once wrote he'd dream of a world without animals, lives in constant fear of you being attacked by them, and even is physically allergic to them. It's just like choosing a judge for indian war prisoners, if were one who had openly written wishing a world without them, he's very likely not to be objective towards them.

As for choosing to give money to a charity, helping those in need is honorable, specially if they're weaker than you. There are thousands of forsaken animals in France each year, loyal to their owner yet found leashed to a tree, thrown to thrash can, abandoned on a road. Helping them comes from a desire to alleviate the misery of those who have been hurt by the wickedness of others. Wanting to help your sibling immediately in front of you is honorable, and comes from a similar kind of desire.

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> Dogs doesn't always attack out of fear. He did a very detailed and deep researches about the dogs and I have read it. I learned a lot about dogs  in general and can tell you that I understand him more and more.  Listen to this, the fragment from the law about (dangerous) dogs in our city:

"Dogs are not allowed in public paces without a leash. In the event of dangerous breeds, the dog must wear the muzzle. The pet owner must carry cleaning tools (disposal bags, paper, a bowl, etc.) and clean the public area that his animal has contaminated"

Well, let me tell you something about it:

1. Most of the people holds their dogs on the leash until they bring them to the parks and beaches where they aren't allowed to go without being under control. Than they release them to run freely. I don't say that great majority of the dog owners does it, but certain number does. So, they willingly break the law and endangering other people and children. Several researches made in our country proved that most of that sort of dogs never passed even fundamental dog training. Why would they? They are our babies, children, family members and friends - (sarcasm)

2. I have never seen dangerous dogs with muzzle. NOT SINGLE ONE. It's because extreme animal lovers says it is not human for the dogs aren't slaves. Let me tell you something about this too. When the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs wore muzzles, the number of bitten people and children was veeeeery low. Activists for animal rights are mostly extreme animal lovers who cares less about safety of the people and more about their "gods" they worship. If someone wants to live like or with a dog, horse or pig, it is his/her right, but not in public.

3. 99% of dog walkers do not carry cleaning tools (disposal bags, paper, a bowl, etc.) and do not clean the public area that his animal has contaminated. Our streets are literary dog shit fields. They simply don't care.

4. Many dog lovers are cat haters. I know several cases in which they killed the cat without the reason, pardon, with the reason: hate. So animal lovers are NOT better people than those who aren't dog lovers. Dog mania is world trend the force us to live certain life style (loving dogs) and whoever thinks opposite, is animal hater. BULLSHIT!!!!

If I read you well, the source of them problem comes more from irresponsible pet owners than from the animals themselves. Would the law be respected, none of this would happen, would it ?

2 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

5. By killing the unleashed and without muzzle dangerous dogs in our nearness should teach the irresponsible dog owner that he made many unforgivable mistakes for I still believe that one human life worth more than million dogs' lives. So, next time that dog owner will think twice before he does the same.

 

I think my Prince is more than fair toward animals and their owners who aren't fair toward other people and children.

If you are forced to choose between a human live and an animal one, it is completely natural, honorable and understandable to always protect the human one. Human life, as fully sentient and your brother/sister should have more value to you.
 

I think however that the risk of going too far with this point is losing of view that every life has a value. And so taking more and more to nature, without absolute need, and without due respect. Which leads to endanger nature's balance. Which leads, later, to endanger you sibling.

1 hour ago, Tirloque said:

Finally ! You're disagreeing just like you used to do, Eva ! That means you're close to total recovery from your pregnancy !

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

?

Quote

I'm not saying he'd hurt animals out of pure hatred, Eva ; just that he really doesn't like them and that he is likely not to be neutral regarding them. He once wrote he'd dream of a world without animals, lives in constant fear of you being attacked by them, and even is physically allergic to them. It's just like choosing a judge for indian war prisoners, if were one who had openly written wishing a world without them, he's very likely not to be objective towards them.

> I wouldn't put apples (humans) and pears (animals) in the same basket. Indians aren't animals If dog lovers respect the law and behave as they should, my Prince won't have a problem with them and wouldn't shot them. In the light of that fact, he still wouldn't like animals. He'll stay away from them. People does wrong to animals and other people. Animals are "caught" in the middle and they "suffer" consequences of human mistreating.  My Prince hate seagulls, but he doesn't go around the city shooting them down. He kills only those who attack us. See the point?

Quote

If I read you well, the source of them problem comes more from irresponsible pet owners than from the animals themselves. Would the law be respected, none of this would happen, would it ?

> It still wouldn't change his feelings toward animals: he still wouldn't like them which doesn't necessary means he can't be objective. It is very relatively and there is no common rule for dog lovers or/and dog haters. He would always be a monster to animal lovers as they will always be freaks for him, because transferring the love and compassion for humans to the animals is sick.

Quote

I think however that the risk of going too far with this point is losing of view that every life has a value. And so taking more and more to nature, without absolute need, and without due respect. Which leads to endanger nature's balance. Which leads, later, to endanger you sibling.

> Are you saying that parasites, cockroaches, rats, serial killers, baby rapist, psychotic sadist and torturers and similar animal and human scum deserve to live?

3 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

?

> I wouldn't put apples (humans) and pears (animals) in the same basket. Indians aren't animals If dog lovers respect the law and behave as they should, my Prince won't have a problem with them and wouldn't shot them. In the light of that fact, he still wouldn't like animals. He'll stay away from them. People does wrong to animals and other people. Animals are "caught" in the middle and they "suffer" consequences of human mistreating.  My Prince hate seagulls, but he doesn't go around the city shooting them down. He kills only those who attack us. See the point?

I see the point but we're not saying the same thing :

— What you're saying is that Prince isn't violent to animals for no reason.

— What I'm saying is that he still doesn't like them, and the more you doesn't like someone/thing, the more likely you are to take extreme measures towards them.

For example, he would take more easily the decision to kill the seagulls instead of just frightening them.

3 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> It still wouldn't change his feelings toward animals: he still wouldn't like them which doesn't necessary means he can't be objective. It is very relatively and there is no common rule for dog lovers or/and dog haters. He would always be a monster to animal lovers as they will always be freaks for him, because transferring the love and compassion for humans to the animals is sick. 

I don't think of Prince as a monster. Nor of animal lovers as freak. Which is why I think both "animal lovers" and their opposed counterparts aren't neutral on the subject. Would it be solely by the way they're talking about each other.

3 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> Are you saying that (...) serial killers, baby rapist, psychotic sadist and torturers and similar animal and human scum deserve to live?

Hmm. They probably don't, but that doesn't implies we have in return the right to kill them, unless being in self defense situations. There were also lots of people (and animals) who died who deserved to live, and as far as I know we are not able to give them what they deserve.

3 hours ago, EvalovesEP said:

> Are you saying that parasites, cockroaches, rats, (...) deserve to live ?

Absolutely. More over, cockroaches are part of the food chain, and also of the nitrate cycle (they speed-up the decay of organic matters by transforming it in nitrate in their feces, which is in return used by plants for their survival... and plants are necessary for us to survive....

That would be the moment where Malicia would post a "" smiley I think. ^^

Anyway, what I'm afraid when dealing with extreme points of view, is that they become so focused by their hatred, that they lose from sight the big picture, and also that conceit often leads to the opposite of wisdom.

You do criticize the narrow views of religious people, don't you ? Were you never struck by the "human superiority" theories a lot of them have in common ? Earth and the whole universe would be at disposal of the man, legitimately sent by a manlike god to administrate women, inferior races, inferior species, plants and resources. Don't you see the danger of that vision ? Don't you see the conceit blinding it ?

1 hour ago, Tirloque said:

I see the point but we're not saying the same thing :— What you're saying is that Prince isn't violent to animals for no reason.

 

For example, he would take more easily the decision to kill the seagulls instead of just frightening them.

 

> You don't know seagulls than. You can't drive them away if you not hurt them or kill them.

Quote

— What I'm saying is that he still doesn't like them, and the more you doesn't like someone/thing, the more likely you are to take extreme measures towards them.

> Of course. Bullies deserve to be bullied, rapists deserve to be raped and so on and so on ... Extreme actions causing extreme reactions. Knowing my Prince more and more I also support more of his "Eye for an eye".

Quote

but that doesn't implies we have in return the right to kill them, unless being in self defense situations

> EXACTLY. That's what my Prince is doing. Defending us from dangerous people and creatures.

Quote

Anyway, what I'm afraid when dealing with extreme points of view, is that they become so focused by their hatred, that they lose from sight the big picture, and also that conceit often leads to the opposite of wisdom. 

You do criticize the narrow views of religious people, don't you ? Were you never struck by the "human superiority" theories a lot of them have in common ? Earth and the whole universe would be at disposal of the man, legitimately sent by a manlike god to administrate women, inferior races, inferior species, plants and resources. Don't you see the danger of that vision ? Don't you see the conceit blinding it ?

> Once again: my Prince is living according "Live and let live". The way he responds on certain people and actions is his thing and it's not up to me to judge. He doesn't believe in the theory/philosophy that every life is valuable because it's twisted and spoiled. Anyway, I see we won't agree and find compromise in this matter. I support my Prince because I saw he is just and he doesn't hurt anyone without reason and cause. So, let "bury" this subject with friendly ...