[JamesP]

Do we love all of the animals equally?

or do we feel hostile toward aggressive, predator beasts who will eat us and our young?


Infant Fatally Mauled By Rottweiler

POSTED: 7:31 am EDT September 13, 2007
UPDATED: 7:40 pm EDT September 13, 2007


WARREN, Mich. -- A 4-month-old has died after being mauled by a rottweiler at
her grandmother's house.

Police found 4-month-old Lylie Cox on Wednesday inside a home in the 3700 block
of Toepfer Road near 8 Mile and Ryan roads.

They said the infant's 17-year-old mother had stepped away to warm a bottle of
formula.

The rottweiler, which was visiting the home with its 19-year-old owner, somehow
got loose and attacked the baby.

Witnesses said the dog bit the baby in the head.

"This dog appeared out of nowhere. It was a large rottweiler, probably 140
pounds," said Dan Anderson, who is the homeowner's brother-in-law.


According to police, the dog had a history of attacking people.

[NoJokesInClass]

I think this one was the fault of the dog owner, not the Rottweiler. It usually is the owner whose at fault, anyway. Don't leave a dog with a history of attacking people with an infant!

[-V-]

Do we love all of the animals equally?

yes, but we shouldn't breed any of them, especially ones that like to use baby heads as a chew toy.

[JamesP]

Cute L'il Doggie
Nobody's fault

Horrific attack by beloved dog stuns family
John Faherty
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 7, 2007 12:00 AM

Tori Whitehurst loved her dog, Cane. She played with him constantly, and he slept in her room every night.

Tori was killed Monday afternoon when the family pet, an American bulldog, attacked her in the family's backyard.

On Monday afternoon, Tori and her sister were playing in the backyard with Cane plus three small dogs the Whitehursts were watching for Ian's father who was recently injured in a motorcycle accident.

When the family's nanny went into the house to get the girls' shoes, Cane attacked Tori.

The nanny screamed for the dog to let go.

She tried to pull him off. She stabbed him with scissors and hit him with a pool cue. But nothing worked.

"She feels terrible," Ian (baby's father) said of the nanny. "She doesn't deserve this. It's not her fault. It's nobody's fault. It just happened."

After receiving a 911 call from the nanny, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies arrived at the home north of Happy Valley Road.

They had to shoot the dog in order to get to Tori because the animal was still acting aggressively.

Cane, a 2-year-old male, was the family's second American bulldog.
On Tuesday, the Arizona Humane Society said Cane was brought into one of their facilities in March. Cane's foster family described him as a "snuggle bug" and said "he is the sweetest dog ever," the organization said.

The study also stated that, each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities.

-----------------------------

It's so nice that we love all the little furry animals equally
and that we let them eat us.
and that "it's nobody's fault".

[-V-]

what's your point? I doubt that you have one rather than just another cranky dig at people who love animals.

It's not her fault. It's nobody's fault.
You're trying too hard. The father is implying that it is no person's fault. If the dog wasn't shot on the spot it would have been put down later with the father's blessing. I haven't got a problem believing this was a "snuggle bug" who lost it in connection with the introduction of " three small dogs the Whitehursts were watching". People go postal, animals go postal.

If your point is that some breeds should not be pets that would at least be something for discussion. But citing dog attacks per year??? as support for what? legislation outlawing the rights of people to have any pets except rabbits? (have you never seen that rabbit from Monty Python And The Holy Grail? That rabbit "will do your ass a turn" too!)

What are the people attacks per year?, bird attacks?, elephant attacks? poison ivey? LIVING THINGS ATTACK out of fear, self preservation, etc.. Some because they were abused themselves -- some because of disease or a defective brain (like the one they put in the Frankenstein monster). Why don't you look up the statistic for how man human beings are rescued, aided, or whose lives are comforted and extended by their companion animals every year!!!

If you really want to protect your self-righteous, lilly white ass my advice to you is that when you build that bubble around yourself (or ark) make it a priority of keeping the human beings out before you start worrying about bulldogs.

[JamesP]

what's your point? I doubt that you have one rather than just another cranky dig at people who love animals.

If you really want to protect your self-righteous, lilly white ass my advice to you is that when you build that bubble around yourself (or ark) make it a priority of keeping the human beings out before you start worrying about bulldogs.


Wowee!

Your as vicious as a bulldog with his fangs deep in the throat of a helpless 4-year-old angel.... and it's "nobody's fault".

My point is:

1 - to express horror at the avoidable death of this little girl and anger at the huge number of sick & sad "animal-lovers" who don't recognize that animals are, after all, just animals. Some, especially the predator animals, can be mean, brutal & dangerous and will eat us (even if we don't eat them).

2- Yes! to make another cranky dig at those who assign a grossly mis-placed priority to animals at the expense of human beings

3 - to express revulsion at those who look at this situation and think "It's nobody's fault".
It is, indeed, the fault of people who put large, macho, muscular, predator animals together with little children..... and then add 3 other beasts to the fray and leave them all to mix it up.

Little Tory was killed by blind, reckless, excessive "animal-love" and a lack of caution on the part of her parents for the little girl whose safety was their responsibility.

4 - To add a little balance and a dose of reality here to the "animal preserve".

Some additional points to ponder:

Animals aren't really quite so "cute".
They don't love us - they just like to eat and be taken care of. They love whoever feeds them.
Too many pathetic people become their slaves and place them above humans.

And... I actually am fond of animals... much more so than of the people who slobber over them irrationally and can not see them for what they are.

[ababof]

James,

I admit that some races are more agressive towards other dogs than the average. I admit that the damages caused by a rottweiler or an American Staffordshire are terrible, compared to a Yorkshire's.
But admit with me that the problems were caused by humans. First, by introducing dogs in an environment which does not fit ( Rottweilers are cow-shepherds, pit bulls have been, like many others selected to fight in arenas)...and almost nothing is done to balance their need of activity. I have a "domestic coyote" as I call it. It's a very nice bitch, which I know can be very dangerous too. My sister in law had a wolf-dog, and never caused any trouble. She is swiss, and there are many of these dogs (many wolves in swiss), and like every big dogs, they can't belong to people who don't have an habilitation to keep them.
They realised that it was rather easy to educate the dogs, and difficult to educate the masters. So you are not allowed to possess a potentially dangerous animal if you are not allowed to.

Your article, right from the start shows a major problem of education. First, we don't let ANY dog and children alone. Second, dogs don't have to sleep in bedrooms, nor on couches...especially when there are children. These are socialized animals, but it's not the animal that must get adapted to the man...Ok, they are intelligent, but not that much. Here, the dog was 2y-old. that's typically the age where problems occur because it is the age of maturity, when they show the most that they are dominant. A dog Must not be dominant. Our role, to symplify, is to keep them eternal teenagers. By the way, autority could affect human teenagers too, that would not be a bad thing.

You can forbide 10 races, there will always be an 11th. There will be a new fashion, and we know there is nothing like a fashion to bring a race to degenerescence. For sure, an epileptic caniche will be less dangerous than a bulldog. But we can't get rid of all the risks existing in the world. We should first accept the risks, recognise them, instead of denying ( I know few people who say : My dog is/can be dangerous) and then act accordingly. I am fed up with people who think their children, dogs, horses are soooo cute, and are dead scared of their neighbours'.

[ababof]

And I disagree with :"they love any one who feed them". No, you can feed them, and don't get any respect from them. That's the problem. But you are damn right in saying that the problem is their place. Yet, it seems to me that it's much easier to understand an animal than a man. It doesn't take a college degree. But, to people who think their place safer with a dog, with a gun...it is going to be very complicated to explain. And to those who let their Yorkshire play nicely with the baby...I am afraid it could be worse. They don't see the danger. I wonder if they consider the dog as something else than a teddy bear.

[-V-]

They don't love us - they just like to eat and be taken care of. They love whoever feeds them.

naive human.

first of all, is there a rule that says that only those who "love me" are worthy of my love, affection, and consideration? it's sad that most people do live by that equation, and it is at the heart of what is wrong with the world

second, what makes you think your child doesn't love you because you feed them, tend to their physical and emotional wounds, etc.. Sure your child has the additional ability to laugh at your jokes or see you as a softball hero, etc.. but does their ability to love those things about you, in turn make them more worthy?

just as with human mother's, animal mothers are chemically induced to "love" their child because it is necessary for the perpetuation of the species. LOVE is a survival mechanism and reproductive tactic in animals with 4 legs as well as 2. Cases of animals starving themselves after the loss of a mate and confronting certain death in the defense of their young are not uncommon.

as for them loving us, cases of animals facing death (bears, snakes, fire, drowning) to defend their human family are also well documented.

but it takes a crusty old fool to even raise the question when all it takes is to live a little with a dog, cat, pig, even birds, to know whether they can love or not. They still come around after they've eaten for petting, nuzzling, baby talk, warmth, sharing and communication. What the hell else is love if not that?

is it the old "in and out" with the wife? Erich Fromm wrote a classic book called "The Art of Love" in which he points out the selfish aspects of spousal/family love and that the truest form of love is brotherly love -- love for everyone regardless of what they can do for YOU. That is the kind of love REPUBLICANS haven't got enough of.

LOVE is not relative to blood, race, religion, or SPECIES. If some people do love an animal or animals more than people, so be it, you can't dictate emotions. Occasionaly their dog or cat does bite or scratch them. But some would say that people hurt them just about every day of their life.

but I'm not the love guru. if I was I wouldn't be analyzing it, I'd just be doing it, indescriminantly and abundently.

:loveit:

oh, and even though you occasionaly bite and need to be corrected, i still love YOU brother! :fightthepower:

[ababof]

Back again !

The problem is not that people love or don't love enough their dogs. It is that they don't know, don't understand them. Education involves rules, and authority to enforce the rules. It also takes some knowledge or intelligence to set the rules.
You can love your child and do everything to fulfill his wishes and you will be an aweful parent, You can also be aweful because you mistake authority and violence. So small or big the dog may be, those who think they are good to their dogs by treating them as human are all wrong. A child-king is unhappy. A human-dog is unhappy. And both are nuisances in the end.

V, we can't dictate emotions, I am nevertheless shocked by people who can show so much love for their pets and so little respect for life in general. If we can't improve our condition, and get respect for mankind, I don't see how we can ask thes mankind to respect other lives.

[JamesP]

A child-king is unhappy. A human-dog is unhappy. And both are nuisances in the end.


Well put, Ababof. :thumbup:


V:

I am at a loss to respond to your last post waxing philosphical on love.... of spouse, children, pets and various inter-species affections.

Read it again. If it makes sense to you, I won't attempt to convince you that there is any distinction between animal and human relationships.

As a matter of fact, I will agree with you: Your pets "love" you for who you really are and they love "only" you. They are, indeed, the most important creatures in the world. It is right that you dedicate yourself to them completely...even at the expense and neglect of human relationships.
The little furry house animals are not just pets. They are to be overly romanticized and treated like Gods whose needs and well-being come above humans. And they are Gods who are also your subjects. You are the "God of Gods" with your pets. It's hard to attain that with humans.

I'll continue to post in this thread to add balance, rationality and perspective to the animal discussion.
And I'll continue to urge people to recognize that the furry creatures are animals and that we should take care, in between feeding, watering them, cleaning up their feces and re-arranging our lives for them, that they don't harm us or eat our children.

[-V-]

Your pets "love" you for who you really are and they love "only" you. They are, indeed, the most important creatures in the world. It is right that you dedicate yourself to them completely...even at the expense and neglect of human relationships. The little furry house animals are not just pets. They are to be overly romanticized and treated like Gods whose needs and well-being come above humans.

what does that sarcastic load of crap have to do with anything I wrote and in what bizarro world could it be considered "balance, rationality and perspective"????

no one said anything about assesing them priority, but if you want priority here it is...

if I found what you just wrote in my kitty's litter i'd hold my nose and scoop that out and leave the cat turds.

Read it again. If it makes sense to you, I won't attempt to convince you that there is any distinction between animal and human relationships.
i did, and what i decided is that what i wrote about love is a gem of enlightenment that you should stick on your refigerator with a magnet so that you can read it over and over again. There are a plethera of distinctions and extra considerations that I apply to my human companions over my animal companions but love isn't one of them. Both deserve all i've got to give of that.

[ababof]

James,

I am much more of a god to my dog : I am a cuisine genius !!! And it feels good, when in doubt.