OT: And you thought the world was sane... - Page 4

Phoenix-D · #31 August 26th, 2003, 04:40 AM

Wee! No paragraphs!

Anyway, if you want color, you need to use brackts. [ ] instead of < and >. Goes for all tags, actually.

Tigbit · #32 August 26th, 2003, 04:59 AM

Sorry, DavidG but it looks like you've still missed the main issue of the parent knowingly sending his child into a dangerous situation. Yes all possible precaution must be taken by owners of nasty animals but it is still the job of the parent to instill a healthy sense of self-preservation. Agreed?

Narrew · #33 August 26th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

1) Unplug the idiot box.

2) Go OUTSIDE.[/QB]

My idiot box is my computer, so no, not a good idea to just unplug it, might short out something. and 2, I dont have a lap top, so I have to stay inside and no, I dont have wireless either, I guess I could drag my comp out on the porch, but the glare on the monitor pisses me off, so I keep the curtians shut, nobody knows if I am around, I am quiet, well sometimes my porn surfing will bring a supprise or 2, but thats a different thread

What started all this "I am not accountable for my actions" (in the US that is) is the fault of trial lawyers and the judges that allowed the awards. I admit that a person should have the right to sue, BUT they should pay if they LOOSE. That old lady that got burnt from a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds should never have gotten the large payout she got, should she have had her medical bills paid, yes, but MY GOD, coffee is HOT and your driving a car you dip, not smart I think and if she did something like that, some of the responsibility should be hers.

Punitive damages are outragous as it is, if a company does something wrong they should pay, but it shouldnt be a lotto.

dogscoff · #34 August 26th, 2003, 11:05 AM

The parent should have been punished for negligence for sending the kid into an obviously hazardous situation.

That said, I think there is something very wrong with people who raise dogs to be so savage. What exactly is going on in their troUsers that they need a barely-controllable, snarling, slobbering child-mutilation-waiting-to-happen tied up in their back yard anyway? What's wrong with a nice, friendly, sociable dog?

There used to be a guy across the road with a really vicious alsatian. He deliberately raised it to be as violent and unstable as possible. One day when I was young I came across him and he had his dog on a lead. It snarled at me and I was afraid, and the guy saw this and advanced on me until I was pinned up against a fence with him holding the dog just a few inches away from me, and by now the damn thing was in a frenzy. He held me there for ages. He thought it was funny. He moved house shortly after, never saw him again. I hope the son of a ***** got his arms chewed off.

Another uninteresting anecdote:
Also I did various delivery type jobs as a kid (paper rounds etc) and I remember there were several houses that I was afraid to go anywhere near due to aggressive dogs. Luckily in my case they were always locked up or tied up, but I was always thinking what if it jumped the fence? What if it slipped its collar? What if they forgot to close the gate? What if it bites my hand as I poke the paper through their stupid spring-loaded letterbox? I suspect now that the owners got some kind of peverse ego-boost out of scaring the crud out of little kids. I should have left their damn newspapers in the hedge.

(NOTE- despite the above, I like dogs. I just hate people who own dogs for the wrong reasons.)

[ August 26, 2003, 10:07: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Fyron · #35 August 26th, 2003, 11:12 AM

So carry a bat... one good thwack and the dog will be out cold.

narf poit chez BOOM · #36 August 26th, 2003, 11:21 AM

weight and intelligence to the contrary, unless you carry a gun, i think the advantage still goes to the dog. why? because without training or intense stress our intelligence slows us down and makes us less willing to kill.

Fyron · #37 August 26th, 2003, 11:44 AM

I didn't say kill...

dogscoff · #38 August 26th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

weight and intelligence to the contrary, unless you carry a gun, i think the advantage still goes to the dog.

Apparently (I don't know if this is true) you can kill any attacking dog by grabbing it's front legs and pulling them apart. This will pop the dog's heart open. Apparently.

But yeah, even without that (probably untrue) factoid and without a bat or a gun, I would make any dog that attacked me severely sorry. I'm sure I'd end up in hospital but I'd make bloody sure I didn't come off worse. I may lack the animalistic "killer instinct" but 101kg and a pair of size 12 stompin' boots goes a long way to making up for it...

narf poit chez BOOM · #39 August 26th, 2003, 12:22 PM

someone's trying to kill me and has a good chance, i'll try to kill them. why shouldn't i apply the same to large dogs?

DavidG · #40 August 26th, 2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tigbit:
Sorry, DavidG but it looks like you've still missed the main issue of the parent knowingly sending his child into a dangerous situation. Yes all possible precaution must be taken by owners of nasty animals but it is still the job of the parent to instill a healthy sense of self-preservation. Agreed?

Agreed. I don't think there is any doubt that the parent was an idiot (Assuming all the assumtions we've made here are true. ie he didn't know the dog, (maybe he did and it was friendly to him) and he could read English, the sign was clearly posted etc)
The parent certainly should not be able to turn this into some kind of lottery win for himself.