If the dog wasn’t terminally sick it would likely get a new owner.
There is a distinct possibility that if someone jumps from a building that someone else could be harmed in the process.
Does the line of FREEDOM and thuggery only exist after physics has played out or can the initial action determine it?
Is this FREEDOM only because no one else was hurt? If she did unintentionally kill someone else would that then still be FREEDOM or would it be something else?
True. But would it suffer from the loss of the owner?
I can imagine quite a long line of people who would adopt a dog whose owner killed themselves in such a high profile way.
1 Like
Did it?
How about intent?
It is freedom because she made the decision, in spite of your norms to the contrary and your judgments against.
Temporarily, yes. Just like people suffer when a spouse dies, but most people are still glad their spouse didn’t take them with them to the grave.
Michael Vick?
So we agree.
Are they?
I love animals, Janet, and have been blessed with their awesome personalities, quirks and joy for most of my life.
One thing I love about animals is they live in the moment. There is much to be learned from that.
Many may find it abhorrent what this woman did, but I don’t know her circumstances nor the dog’s.
I’m glad no one else was hurt and I hope they are at peace.
3 Likes
People who wish they had died with their spouse can commit suicide, but of course most choose to continue living despite their grief.
I second that emotion.
Of course. Who decides and how do we judge?
If the lady’s husband chose to commit suicide the next day or died of a broken heart, what would we say?
No. But you know it could have.
How does intent matter when FREEDOM ends in an innocent being harmed or killed?
I think that this is one of the great divides.
Does one have the FREEDOM to do whatever they want even if the action has a distinct possibility of harming someone else?
I will posit this again.
If I shoot a single bullet towards a crowd of people and fail to hit someone, am I exercising my FREEDOM or am I being a thug?
A ton of people adopted his dogs.
But I don’t know why they would need to.
Vick could have dropped them off a roof to exercise his FREEDOM. The fact that people thought that he was torturing them was their problem. Not Vicks.
Ask Ted Wheeler.
Ask Lori Lightfoot.
Ask the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Where is the dividing line for you?
I love this game of CHECKMATE LIBS!!!
Sure, it is counterfactual in this discourse. You want to judge her based on things that didn’t happen or rationalize prior restraint. I’m not interested in what you want to argue.
Good question. How?
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact I would offer it is the great divide.
Did she hurl herself and her dog towards a crowd of people? If so, how did she miss?
I’m having a hard time with your mythology, I don’t shoot towards anything and I don’t miss.
when FREEDOM ends in an innocent being harmed or killed?
And here we are back at abortion et al.
1 Like
I should have said “Michael Vick-types”.
Do you know why people are charging “rehoming fees” for adoptions?
That’s pretty weak.
Why should they take dogs away from them in the first place?
It’s their property.
We have established that they can be dropped from a roof and that is other people’s problems.
1 Like
