Re: Killing Dogs and Civil Rights
I don't believe it is wrong to kill a dog that has attacked a human, further there are laws that put responsibility back to the owner (if there is one) to pay for damage/costs incurred as a result of their dogs actions. If taken through court, the owner can be fined and the court can order the destruction of the animal. Law enforcement agencies here (northern territory australia) have the legislated power to destroy dogs on the spot if that is deemed the most appropriate course of action.
Euthanising dogs can be an act of a responsible owner, an option taken by law enforcement or a necessary part of veterinary work, where an animal is beyond help and it is used to end suffering, I don't think murder comes into it.
So called "forced" neutering of dogs is a good thing in communities where the dog population is quite large and causing health problems. Preferably, before this happens, there would be responsible owners who would neuter their animals if they do not intend to breed from them.
I agree that there are intelligent animals on the planet and that some of them require and need legislated protection to ensure their survival in the wild and put forward offences/penalties for people who would seek to profit from the destruction/exploitation of these creatures.
I don't agree that dogs should be put in this same category. Where a dog is outside its property, if it causes trouble menacing people, chasing cars, worrying stock etc. then the owner of the dog gets a chance to take better control of their animal. If the dog attacks someone or does any troubling/menacing behaviour for a second time, the appropriate action is to destroy the animal. (landowners can control dangerous/nuisance dogs on their property by shooting or trapping if they wish)
It may seem harsh, but in areas where there are no dog control laws (such as where I live), it is a simple and effective means of controlling dangerous dogs.
A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.
- How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
- To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
- The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.
- Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
- The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
- The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.