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.

 

Experiment: What would YOU do?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by shinzaun
 


So here is the second part of the equation…playing devil’s advocate!

Under the constitution, aren’t the hypothetical couple free (in America) to shop in a pet store? Aren’t they free to buy a dog (regardless of the reason)? Aren’t they free to not have their transaction interrupted by another citizen who doesn’t work and is not a law enforcement officer (regardless how vile we might consider it)?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Maybe dog fighting makes this couple happy
? They haven’t broken a law by any state’s standard (as far as I know) by TALKING about dog fighting.

So for those of you who stepped in…what give you the authority? Your morals?


edit on 28-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by shinzaun
 

That makes sense, I guess I see the dog situation as a volatile one that would very likely evolve into violence because of the subject, for me anyway, because I would get emotional and maybe lose control over the wrong response. Like you, I too am an animal lover and that is why I would not say anything directly too them.
That is where I am coming from, and yea our geographical differences play a part too, I would imagine.
I do appreciate your passion on the subject, just disagree with the approach as being the one and only.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by shinzaun
 


If there is no dog or rabbit world war it's not because they don't want to start one but because they are not able to do it. Then the next thing you are going to say is "humans kill for pleasure or fun", and I would say the same, if dogs or rabbits were able to feel pleasure like us, they would certainly kill for fun or pleasure. Don't compare what is not comparable. Animals are not humans, if animals were like humans, they would act like humans.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
It depends on the situation but the right thing to do would be to get some evidence and tell animal control.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I would not have even listened to someones phone conversation.
I could be charged with stalking, I know if someone was listening to me,
I would ask them what the heck, and threaten them with stalking.

I can't believe we have TV shows encouraging people to be rude and listen to strangers conversations.

Love your neighbor is now,
spy on your neighbor, and be judge, jury, and condemn.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by banishedfromthisarea
 



I kind of think you're wrong and I am right. I have tried a few constitutional cases, won 3 appeals, (lost 5), and won about 30 jury trials. www.gingolaw.com


So you are an attorney with this firm you provied the address for?

Second line…



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by shinzaun
 


So here is the second part of the equation…playing devil’s advocate!

Under the constitution, aren’t the hypothetical couple free (in America) to shop in a pet store? Aren’t they free to buy a dog (regardless of the reason)? Aren’t they free to not have their transaction interrupted by another citizen who doesn’t work and is not a law enforcement officer (regardless how vile we might consider it)?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? Maybe dog fighting makes this couple happy
? They haven’t broken a law by any state’s standard (as far as I know) by TALKING about dog fighting.

So for those of you who stepped in…what give you the authority? Your morals?


edit on 28-1-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Im British so your constitution is a mystery to me, but i will play ball. By the way before i start, i DO work, im self employed as a builder so i work very very hard. i would hazard a guess at way more hours a week than you do, but never mind that.They are free to buy a dog if they wish, they are free to not have their transaction interupted, under the same guidelines am i not free to inform the police or the store worker? Am i not free to interupt their transaction to prevent them from obtaining the dog? Stopping people buying dogs for fighting makes me happy! This could go round and round couldnt it?! In answer to your last question, i would have stepped in because of my morals, i couldnt have lived with myself if i had done nothing knowing what i heard during the phone conversation. Sorry if that makes me a weak ass Brit, but there you go!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 



I don't think you are considering all the possible scenarios with a confrontation. Let's say a fist fight breaks out, you know these days it is very likely to escalated to a stabbing or shooting. The end result? Potential jail time, getting sued, a maiming injury or even death. Now how do these actions outweigh notifying an authority in this situation? What if I got killed confronting these people and now my kids(hypothetically) have no father?


That’s a very good reason not to confront these people directly…for sure; its something to consider before you act.


Just because someone doesn't step up and give a beat down doesn't mean they are helpless or lacking care. The situation would be more than just a nice conversation in this case, cuz the people would get defensive and as I said, for me I might lose control because of the nature of the subject. Weak? To each their own, but sometimes poor decisions have a detrimental outcome. And again I would do something other than ignore it.


There’s nothing wrong with getting involved if you feel so compelled. However, the extent of involvement must be limited to 1) protect yourself from damages, and 2) not violate the couple’s rights because you SUSPECT they MIGHT break the law in the future based on your SUSPICION.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
People seem to only see wrong in being physically abusive to animals, but I think the socially accepted act of owning pets is wrong as well.

The way I see pet ownership is that it is a legal ownership of slaves - enslavement for no other reason than emotional gratification. A love slave.

People think their pets love them and maybe they do but if you forced captivity on the animal then that love is just a symptom of stockholm syndrome.

If an animal is not to be used as a beast of burden then it should not be allowed to be owned.
If you don't plan to eat them or you are not defending your livestock or another human from them then you should not hurt them.

To answer the op question - I wouldn't be in a pet shop but if I overheard said conversation I probably wouldn't do anything but feel bad for the animal in question - because I do not think as highly of other animals as I do people.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 

This reminds me of something i saw on tv about renting dogs in japan

This is not the video i saw, but you get the idea



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by shinzaun
 


If there is no dog or rabbit world war it's not because they don't want to start one but because they are not able to do it. Then the next thing you are going to say is "humans kill for pleasure or fun", and I would say the same, if dogs or rabbits were able to feel pleasure like us, they would certainly kill for fun or pleasure. Don't compare what is not comparable. Animals are not humans, if animals were like humans, they would act like humans.


How do you know they are not able to start one? Just because we do have the ability to destroy ourselves and the planet, does that make us better? Animals do feel pleasure, when i get home my dog wags his tail and shows his pleasure at me getting in from work, cats purr if you stroke them isnt that pleasure? Granted animals are not humans, trouble is most humans act worse than animals and apparently we are supposed to be civilised, why?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shinzaun
How do you know they are not able to start one?
Do I also have to prove that I exist?



Just because we do have the ability to destroy ourselves and the planet, does that make us better? Animals do feel pleasure, when i get home my dog wags his tail and shows his pleasure at me getting in from work, cats purr if you stroke them isnt that pleasure? Granted animals are not humans, trouble is most humans act worse than animals and apparently we are supposed to be civilised, why?
Because humans can act over symbols. We have our head full of ideas, of ideologies, of symbols of all kinds. We can believe wrong is good and evil is right, just by a little mental operation that takes less than 2 secs.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


Lol renting pets. This is so absurd, but people see it only as innocents.

Would be nice to see a mockumentary with humans in cages and animals choosing which human is the most loveable looking... Animal takes human for a walk then put the human back in a cage once they're done getting an emotional high off of the human. Scene ends when store clerk closes up the store and turns the lights out on the humans (zooming in and fading to black on a sad human sitting in a cage).



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by shinzaun
 



Im British so your constitution is a mystery to me, but i will play ball.

Thanks for playing.


By the way before i start, i DO work, im self employed as a builder so i work very very hard. i would hazard a guess at way more hours a week than you do, but never mind that.

Why would you assume that?



They are free to buy a dog if they wish, they are free to not have their transaction interupted, under the same guidelines am i not free to inform the police or the store worker?

Absolutely!


Am i not free to interrupt their transaction to prevent them from obtaining the dog?

People are NOT free, under the constitution in America, to interrupt a transaction of another American because they disagree. What if I morally disagree with your choice to smoke cigarettes? Should I be allowed to interrupt your cigarette purchase at the local petrol station?


Stopping people buying dogs for fighting makes me happy! This could go round and round couldn’t it?! In answer to your last question, i would have stepped in because of my morals, i couldn’t have lived with myself if i had done nothing knowing what i heard during the phone conversation.


Do your morals override law? Not in America, and I doubt they do in Great Britain.


Sorry if that makes me a weak ass Brit, but there you go!

I like Brits. I’ve trained with the Royal Marines, I've spent a few night on a Royal Navy ship, and I’ve spent time as a civilian in London (had fun…nice people). I have nothing bad to say about Brits.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by banishedfromthisarea

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by banishedfromthisarea

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by banishedfromthisarea
reply to post by seabag
 


As a strict constitutionalist, I would call them out on it. But, see, I am not the government, so I can do that. The constitution only limits government, not citizens.


You are wrong about the Constitution kNot limiting Citizens!


The reason We the People formed Government was to provide Order, so peeps just like you wouldn't take the law into your own hands, in your own ways. That is Chaos!

We the People are now limited in how We can deal with matters, just as Government is limited, but the limits are different.


Ribbit


I kind of think you're wrong and I am right. I have tried a few constitutional cases, won 3 appeals, (lost 5), and won about 30 jury trials. www.gingolaw.com


Then where were you when the Food-Not-Bombs Groups was railroaded in the Appellate Court?


The judges at that court went against standing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, when they said the Orlando Ordinance was facially constitutional!
The quantification was the Key!

Ribbit


Huh??? I was busy trying to get U.S. military troops better body armor in the case of Pinnacle Armor v. United States. I figured that if we're going to have bombs, then U.S. troops should be better protected.


That's kNot a constitutional issue.


However, good job!


Ribbit


It was based on a 5th Amendment issue of a wrongful taking. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with me last May.

By the way, the U.S. Constitution does not limit citizens. The Bill of Rights is a collection of statements of our rights - not of our liabilities.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I would go over and engage in a friendly conversation with the couple....and find out what their names are and where they live...and while I was doing that...my husband would quietly walk over to the store owner and tell them what he overheard.

Then after my husband and I returned home I would call the ASPCA... report the people and give to the ASPCA their names and address.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Strap the Meat Ponchos on them.....





posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 



I would go over and engage in a friendly conversation with the couple....and find out what their names are and where they live...and while I was doing that...my husband would quietly walk over to the store owner and tell them what he overheard.

Then after my husband and I returned home I would call the ASPCA... report the people and give to the ASPCA their names and address.

Hey Caladonea!

Nothing wrong with passive intervention! People need to do what they feel is right as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. Always better to stand up than lay down.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   


You think this was a snack for Pit bull somewhere?



I only ask cause if someone is willing to steal a dog,I have no doubt they are buying them to kill.

People are heartless.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It is not my business nor mandate to enforce the law, but is to notify the authorities. I would leave the store with no indication of the real reason, make my way to a telephone and call te Police or go to the Polcie station to notify them.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join