Romney's Dog Not Looking Forward to Next Family Vacation - Page 3

Kevy Baby · 07-02-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

This guy owned the dog - obviously lived with it - and still, could not think "I wouldn't want to be tied to the roof of the car for such a long trip".

The dog was not "tied to the roof". The dog was IN A CARRIER that was tied to the roof. Was there also a blanket wrapped around the carrier? Was there something to block the wind? I do not automatically judge the action as cruelty - stupidity yes, but not necessarily cruelty.

And without a non-slanted article (sorry, but the linked article is slanted), there is not enough information to make a better determination of the situation.

I am wondering if some here would be as up in arms had this person been a Democratic candidate?

ETA: From the article linked in the article:

Quote:

He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

Alex · 07-02-2007, 07:58 PM

Is there any evidence in that story that the dog was treated cruelly? If there was elsewhere then I'll revise my view.

Putting a dog in a carrier and then tying it to the roof of a car does not strike me (assuming sufficient wind protection which isn't mentioned one way or another in the linked story) as any more cruel than putting the carrier in the bed of a pickup truck, which is legal and done all of the time.

Plus, the social standards for what is "cruel" treatment of pets has changed a lot over the last 25 years. In many placing trimming tails is now cruel but was once common. Declawing cats is now illegal in quite a few places but is still commonly done. In another 25 years if the societal consensus is that declawing is cruel will the people who do it now be ineligible for the presidency on grounds of animal cruelty?

Hell, 25 years ago none of the kids were likely buckled in. Is that a knock against him too? Was he an unfit parent?

No, there isn't necessarily an expiration date on cruelty but there are certainly broad and sometimes rapid shifts in what is considered cruel. (And I haven't yet seen anything that would necessarily fall into that category by a current standard, let alone the standards of 1982.)

Kevy Baby · 07-02-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Putting a dog in a carrier and then tying it to the roof of a car does not strike me (assuming sufficient wind protection which isn't mentioned one way or another in the linked story) as any more cruel than putting the carrier in the bed of a pickup truck, which is legal and done all of the time.

The link in the the OP is to a Time Magazine/CNN article which is actually a follow-up to a Boston Globe article. While I was able to link right into the Boston Globe article, it is now asking me to register to see the article. It is from the Boston Globe article that I secured this quote from my post above:

Quote:

He'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-02-2007, 08:34 PM

Windshield or not, I'm sure it was a horrific journey for that pet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I am wondering if some here would be as up in arms had this person been a Democratic candidate?

You know me, I'm no Dem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Plus, the social standards for what is "cruel" treatment of pets has changed a lot over the last 25 years.

I really don't care about social standards (though I know I am affected by them as everyone else is). I have my own standards on this, and I am not a fan of the truck bed thing either.

On a somewhat related note - a lady came into the library today pushing a dog in a stroller. And not a regular stroller, no, a strollerdesigned to carry dogs. She was told not to bring the pet in and she pitched a fit, calling the librarian prejudiced (and, reportedly, a slut - I wasn't there for this). I personally think this lady is insane. I think only a disabled dog should be pushed around like a baby, and even so, should not be brought into a public building unless it's a helper dog.

I also never said anything about being eligible for the presidency. Hell, I come from another planet where being a liar would disqualify you, but in this world, that just ain't the case. I don't pretend to understand what flies and what doesn't in our political system.

Alex · 07-02-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I have my own standards on this, and I am not a fan of the truck bed thing either.

Is it cruelty, though?

07-02-2007, 07:58 PM	#22
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Is there any evidence in that story that the dog was treated cruelly? If there was elsewhere then I'll revise my view. Putting a dog in a carrier and then tying it to the roof of a car does not strike me (assuming sufficient wind protection which isn't mentioned one way or another in the linked story) as any more cruel than putting the carrier in the bed of a pickup truck, which is legal and done all of the time. Plus, the social standards for what is "cruel" treatment of pets has changed a lot over the last 25 years. In many placing trimming tails is now cruel but was once common. Declawing cats is now illegal in quite a few places but is still commonly done. In another 25 years if the societal consensus is that declawing is cruel will the people who do it now be ineligible for the presidency on grounds of animal cruelty? Hell, 25 years ago none of the kids were likely buckled in. Is that a knock against him too? Was he an unfit parent? No, there isn't necessarily an expiration date on cruelty but there are certainly broad and sometimes rapid shifts in what is considered cruel. (And I haven't yet seen anything that would necessarily fall into that category by a current standard, let alone the standards of 1982.)
	Submit to Quotes