It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by niteboy82
Don't get me wrong please, the mother made horrible (to say the least) decision. But the alternatives would be....
1. Waste tax payer money over a dead rat.
2. have tptb tell us how to parent.
3. make people get a liscense to have children.
Thats my point and to back up my previous quote "that sucks" end of story IMO
Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by Retseh
How many of those sheeps were pets? In other words, was there a bond between owner and pet?
Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by niteboy82
Don't get me wrong please, the mother made horrible (to say the least) decision. But the alternatives would be....
1. Waste tax payer money over a dead rat.
2. have tptb tell us how to parent.
3. make people get a liscense to have children.
Thats my point and to back up my previous quote "that sucks" end of story IMO
Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by anotherdad
The difference bwteen the two is simple. In the case you cited the father himself killed the snake and you made no mention of him killing the snake out of punishment. However, in the recent case, the mother is said to have made the child kill the pet and it was because he was being punished. Yes, both involve the killing of a "pet" and it can be argued that the snake was not a pet (as there is no indication the father or mother ever purchased food for it, etc), but there is indication that the hamster was a pet because she recognized it as such, probably purchased food for it but ordered him to kill it (if the allegations are true.)
Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by anotherdad
The main thing here, assuming it is true, is her making the child perform the act. That's what we should focus on.
[edit on 22-1-2010 by EMPIRE]
Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by ZombieJesus
Agree but my point is why were the police involved and the de escallation of what is a crime. Your point is more than valid and as of right now amy example is not comparable, but if tptb are involved in this! where does it stop? That's my concern.
Originally posted by YourPopRock
Who would have thought that 1 hampster could possibly cause SO much trouble???
Wait, besides Richard Gere I mean...
Originally posted by suicydking
Originally posted by anotherdad
reply to post by ZombieJesus
Agree but my point is why were the police involved and the de escallation of what is a crime. Your point is more than valid and as of right now amy example is not comparable, but if tptb are involved in this! where does it stop? That's my concern.
The police are involved because she broke the law. It's their job to get involved when people break the law. Forcing a child to brutally kill a beloved pet as punishment is child abuse, as well as animal cruelty.
As long as you are using the Slippery Slope logical fallacy to prove your argument, let's turn it around. What if the mother was not arrested for committing child abuse? Where does it stop? Soon, people will be able to abuse their kids all willy-nilly, with the police powerless to stop them!
Seriously. If you think that forcing a kid to eat vegetables is the same as forcing a kid to kill an animal with a hammer, why don't you just start making your kids brutally kill small animals as punishment for not eating broccoli? I bet it would be the end of two hour dinner sessions, one way or another.
You may as well argue that the police's ability to write traffic tickets will mean that it will be illegal to drive soon. This woman is a criminal, and all parties that got involved seem to have done their job properly. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a history of mental abuse in that house, and an investigation should be done to see what kind of help the kid needs.