Starved-dog case ends with misdemeanor (German Shepherd Does Not Get Justice)

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER ^ | August 15, 2011 | SAMANTHA GOWEN

[brytlea]

I wasn’t the first one who brought up animal rights, I’m not sure why you are chiding me (you mentioned only my name specifically). I’m not defensive, I’m simply responding to you, you can read it however you want (that certainly is a tactic people take, using words like defensive or snarky or whatever—if you think that works go ahead, I don’t think it gets you any debate points but...)

We can bring up whatever we want, unless the moderator comes and tells us not to. Again I will say, I didn’t bring it up, I responded to someone else and you jumped in. This is pretty ridiculous. I don’t even know what you think went over my head. And you don’t have to respond to me, but if you want to discuss it, we can. Frankly I’m not at all sure what you’re upset about. I think I made my point quite awhile ago. I’m not going to go back and reread the thread to see what got your outraged. The initial story was upsetting enough.

[JLLH]

Indeed the initial story WAS upsetting, but it never ceases to amaze me that each and every time a story about abused animals gets posted, someone (not using this as a euphemism for you personally, btw)invariably attempts to hijack the thread by whining about something the article is NOT about: i.e. abortion, child abuse, or, in this case, animal rights. Nowhere did I say you were the one who brought it up — but it WAS brought up (though why, is astonishing enough). Nor did I say anywhere that YOU were responsible for it being brought up, NOR was I chiding YOU. Again, your statements of differentiation between animal rights and animal welfare was accurate — as I have said twice now. MY POINT was — and still is — that on these threads for some ridiculous reason some posters feel that animal abuse isn’t a sufficient cause for compassion, apparently, because virtually each and every thread is made to be about “something else”. That is why I began the post to you and ALL with “AND YET....” Meaning — yes, your point is accurate, but again — the bigger point: why is an article and the heinous nature of animal abuse being obfuscated with a different issue?? Same song, second verse. Never happens with threads on child abuse, abortion, or any article on animal rights (though perhaps those of us who love animals should begin to do just that). Just on those animal threads where the welfare of animals is the subject. Those of us who love animals and feel passionately about their welfare get tired of it — as many of us have stated over and over on these threads. It’s not about what the mod allows, frankly, but about something which happens over and over ad nauseum. I’m not saying — nor have I EVER said — that YOU were the one who brought the subject up, but since you made the differentiation between animal welfare and animal rights I took the opportunity to make the point that even though your point is correct, the article was never about such an issue. I know you were not the one who brought it up, but the point stands. Not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to get you to see the point I was making. Hope that clarifies it.

[Shadowstrike]

Contrary to your opinion of me, I understand quite well.

I, as an individual disagree with you.

[GingisK]

I, as an individual disagree with you.

Do you mean that animals should have "rights" that would allow them to have lawyers to take humans into court on their behalf? Woud you extend those rights to chickens and cows? Just how far do you think this should go?

I don't have an opinion of you from the "personal" perspective. I have concluded that the vast majority of the people on this site are wonderful. They are sometime a bit misguided. ;-D