fucking statist asshole take a homeless mans dog away b/c he was homeless!

[Rat in the Hat]

The government will take away your children for less, but forget we value pets above people.

You didn't answer my question.

In addition, dogs can survive outside on their own for far longer than a human child. And a dog living with a homeless person is far better off than a dog living on their own.

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal. I also made mention of standards for care. Can the person keep the laws regarding pet ownership? Is the dog on a leash at all times he is in public (all the time)? If he needs assistance with the care or feeding of the pet from the state, he probably falls under additional rules and restrictions.

So if a homeless person is capable of taking adequate care of themselves and a pet, and keeps their pet on a leash (tied to a pole in the OP article) then they should be free from some outsider offering a friend money for the dog.

That is what you're saying, right?

 

[xotoxi]

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal.

It sounds like you propose a state enforced minimum standard of personal care.

Who determines if someone is taking care of themselves? Would there be a special department that makes this determination? Maybe a panel of experts who makes the decision?

Apparently someone already does that function. I would imagine that is how our friend the dog owner got himself into this pickle. Look one of my points is, maybe the guy will try harder to get back into society if getting the dog back is possible. I'd like to see the dog and the person do well.

But do you agree that it is the government's duty to make that determination? And why?

And what specifics do you know about this guy as to why he is homeless and what he is doing to remedy his situation?

 

[Political Junky]

Can a homeless person take adequate care of themselves? If not, I think it cruel to subject an animal to those circumstances. Perhaps it would motivate the person to improve their condition and regain ownership of the animal?

I've heard from an SPCA that homeless people are known to take very good care of their animals.

 

[saveliberty]

You didn't answer my question.

In addition, dogs can survive outside on their own for far longer than a human child. And a dog living with a homeless person is far better off than a dog living on their own.

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal. I also made mention of standards for care. Can the person keep the laws regarding pet ownership? Is the dog on a leash at all times he is in public (all the time)? If he needs assistance with the care or feeding of the pet from the state, he probably falls under additional rules and restrictions.

So if a homeless person is capable of taking adequate care of themselves and a pet, and keeps their pet on a leash (tied to a pole in the OP article) then they should be free from some outsider offering a friend money for the dog.

That is what you're saying, right?

I think I follow you, so yes. On the other hand, if they can't take care of themselves, then you are just enabling bad behavior.

 

[xotoxi]

Apparently someone already does that function. I would imagine that is how our friend the dog owner got himself into this pickle. Look one of my points is, maybe the guy will try harder to get back into society if getting the dog back is possible. I'd like to see the dog and the person do well.

Should a homeless man in Kentucky, living in a tent in the mountains, have his dog taken away by the state?

 

[saveliberty]

Apparently someone already does that function. I would imagine that is how our friend the dog owner got himself into this pickle. Look one of my points is, maybe the guy will try harder to get back into society if getting the dog back is possible. I'd like to see the dog and the person do well.

Should a homeless man in Kentucky, living in a tent in the mountains, have his dog taken away by the state?

He has a home (tent). Is it on his own property, property he rents or is allowed to stay on?
What is the condition of the man and dog?

 

[Vel]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal. I also made mention of standards for care. Can the person keep the laws regarding pet ownership? Is the dog on a leash at all times he is in public (all the time)? If he needs assistance with the care or feeding of the pet from the state, he probably falls under additional rules and restrictions.

So if a homeless person is capable of taking adequate care of themselves and a pet, and keeps their pet on a leash (tied to a pole in the OP article) then they should be free from some outsider offering a friend money for the dog.

That is what you're saying, right?

I think I follow you, so yes. On the other hand, if they can't take care of themselves, then you are just enabling bad behavior.

Then why do your previous posts imply that the man should have lost his dog? It was clean, shots current, and on a leash tied to a post. Why shouldn't his friend be returned to him with an apology?

 

[Dick Tuck]

From the article:

But Leonard and his friend, who declined to give his name, turned up at the Liberty Humane Society animal shelter the following day demanding the dog be returned. Leonard said he provided the dog's veterinary records as proof of ownership, but was not given the dog because he is homeless.​

Is the Liberty Humane Society run by the city, or is it a private organization?

"He shouldn't be punished because he happens to be homeless," said Freeholder Bill O'Dea, who tried to help Leonard. "Obviously he was able to care for the dog for a substantial amount of time before (Animal Control) got involved."

Dawson, who was appointed to her post on Aug. 23 for a 60-day period, said that the shelter has since changed its policy.

"I would have returned the dog and from now on, if someone has proof of ownership, the animal will be returned to them," Dawson said.
​

So a city freeholder intervened, and the shelter changed their policy. I don't get this "statist" quip, when putting the story in context. To the contrary, it looks like the state tried to help this guy. I doubt this guy would be allowed to adopt from any shelter. For some reason I don't see this as a good home:

 

[blu]

The government will take away your children for less, but forget we value pets above people.

You didn't answer my question.

In addition, dogs can survive outside on their own for far longer than a human child. And a dog living with a homeless person is far better off than a dog living on their own.

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal. I also made mention of standards for care. Can the person keep the laws regarding pet ownership? Is the dog on a leash at all times he is in public (all the time)? If he needs assistance with the care or feeding of the pet from the state, he probably falls under additional rules and restrictions.

homeless people can take care of themselves just fine. I knew a number of people who were homeless on purpose and loved it

 

[blu]

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal.

It sounds like you propose a state enforced minimum standard of personal care.

Who determines if someone is taking care of themselves? Would there be a special department that makes this determination? Maybe a panel of experts who makes the decision?

 

[xotoxi]

Apparently someone already does that function. I would imagine that is how our friend the dog owner got himself into this pickle. Look one of my points is, maybe the guy will try harder to get back into society if getting the dog back is possible. I'd like to see the dog and the person do well.

Should a homeless man in Kentucky, living in a tent in the mountains, have his dog taken away by the state?

He has a home (tent). Is it on his own property, property he rents or is allowed to stay on?
What is the condition of the man and dog?

A homeless man in the city may have a tent...or a large box.

And the guy in Kentucky may be on public property.

The condition of the rural man and dog are exactly the same as the urban man and dog in the above situation.

Should the state of Kentucky take the dog to force the tent-dweller to move up in life?

 

[saveliberty]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

 

[xotoxi]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

Oh! I see!

Like when I want my son to pick up his toys, so I withhold his cookie!

Yes. That's what we need...

 

[Middleman]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

There you go...

 

[Vel]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

No you don't. This is.. or least was a free fucking country and if the guy wants to live under a bridge with a dog, he should have that choice. Who is anyone to take away HIS property and then dangle it before him like a carrot on a damned stick in order to make him conform to someone else's standards?

 

[bodecea]

I clearly stated that the person needed to be able to take care of themselves first, before considering the care of an animal. If they can't care for themsleves, then by definition they are not going to be able to care for the animal.

It sounds like you propose a state enforced minimum standard of personal care.

Who determines if someone is taking care of themselves? Would there be a special department that makes this determination? Maybe a panel of experts who makes the decision?

A CONSERVATIVE panel of experts, mind you.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

Are you for real????

Using a fellow life form as a "reward" for improving one's position in life???

Do you think companion animals are toys for people to be rewarded with when they jump through your hoops??

Nobody better try that with my little friends. I'll fight for them as I would for my human family.

 

[saveliberty]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

No you don't. This is.. or least was a free fucking country and if the guy wants to live under a bridge with a dog, he should have that choice. Who is anyone to take away HIS property and then dangle it before him like a carrot on a damned stick in order to make him conform to someone else's standards?

The government would take away his kid in a second under those same conditions. What is your problem with animals people? You treat them better than people.

 

[blu]

Do people never get sick of minding other people's business. How sad that people are all about getting the dog a home but don't seem to mind the man living under the bridge.

Won't we be minding his business if we try to get him out from under the bridge? Again, ny point is much the same. You need to motivate this person to try and improve his comdition with the reward of the dog to help.

No you don't. This is.. or least was a free fucking country and if the guy wants to live under a bridge with a dog, he should have that choice. Who is anyone to take away HIS property and then dangle it before him like a carrot on a damned stick in order to make him conform to someone else's standards?