I agree with you that the OP is not blameless and in fact carries the majority of the responsibility based on what's been written- in my opinion........just use some better analogies to make your point ................
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: masterxfob
Originally posted by: dug777
Ready for a grown-up discussion this time?
first off the person i told to 'stfu' made a rather dense remark. the second time was because the person wasn't involved in the exchange and offered nothing to it.
as fas as a grown up discussion, you're obviously living in a fairy tale world and it would be quite impossible to argue with you and your jesus like, bible thumping, preaching of the law. if you and your law buddies want to talk like that and continue filing lawsuits over such frivolous matters, be my guest. fact of the matter is, most people do not think in that crazy convoluted world of law that you do and most people probably don't care for it.
most people like to think in terms of common sense. some have different views, whether the OP pays all expenses, or whether he tells the girl to flog herself, but it's sure more refreshing than that drivel you're preaching.
so while i don't really have a problem with you in most other ATOT topics, this is one that you really do come off rather annoying. if i'm in the wrong, then so be it. have the last word, i'm out. :beer:
:beer:
I fail to see how i'm a bible thumper, i'm preaching, or that i'm advocating lawsuits, i'm simply *attempting* to correct the prevelant view in this thread that the OP is entirely blameless and in no way responsible for his own actions thanks to the silly chick's lack of judgement. The real world isn't like that, for good or for bad. Anyways, we'll clearly have to agree to disagree
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: hysperion
Originally posted by: dug777
It amazes me how angry you people get when i point out some fairly simple legal facts
Since you can't comprehend occupiers liability in the terms of a child, which was the example i gave, lets try some property.
I come round to your house with my dog. You say, 'sure, it can run around in the back yard mate!'. You then get in your ride on mower and mow the lawn, completely failing to look out for the dog, and run it over, killing it. Can you see how you've failed to take reasonable care given the knowledge you had? That's exactly the same as this situation, the OP gave the silly girl permission to let her cat run around the house. He then took no care to ensure he didn't step on it, and killed it.
Here's another one to get it into your terminally thick skulls. I bring my laptop round to your house and you say 'put it on the living room floor mate, we'll be lanning in there'. You then run through the living room chasing somone, and step on it, breaking it. How could you possibly argue you're not responsible for breaking it?
The girl's lack of judgement is certainly a mitigating feactor, but for the OP to turn around and say he is in no way responsible for killing it is completely wrong on every level.
Wow- first you talk about "pointing out fairly simple legal facts".........Then use a straw man full of holes to demonstrate your point......
So walking around your own home and stepping on a tiny kitten is the same as mowing the lawn with a dog in the backyard? I hope you're not a lawyer.........
Your laptop post is just as ridiculous because last I checked, laptops don't move without outside interference..............Maybe if this was digi-kitty the handheld video game your post would make some sense.........
You didn't make much sense here, but try and explain your problems with my analogies a bit more clearly and i'll be happy to explain them some more. I hope you noticed my points about a reasonable standard of care being relative to the nature of the object, have a think about that, and then you might understand the laptop example relative to the animals, you're right they move, and that was my point, your reasonable standard of care encompasses the fact they can move
My problem with your analogies is that they are straw man analogies. These RARELY work and in the case of yours already have multiple discrepancies between your analogy and the actual situation.......
For one- you claim standard of care would increase for something that moves. That may be true- however, your example involved the laptop being broken due to "running through the living room chasing somone, and stepping on it, breaking it." ..........If your example/analogy was rooted in fact and good logic- why were the OP's actions of simply walking down a flight of stairs exxagerrated this grossly?
The laptop example was just to use a common property item, attempting to highlight how breaking other people's property in your own home in that scenario would still be your fault. It wouldn't matter if you simply forgot that you'd told the person they could put it there, walked out to get a beer & stepped on it...
The dog one is essentially identical to the one here, except there's a dog, and a ride on mower. Permission was still granted, the host had knowledge and failed to act reasonably given that knowledge.
Give up on the laptop example- it was not a proper analogy....the evidence of that is you've had to change the example to something that still doesn't compare because laptops don't move......
Your claim is that this means more caution is warranted- my claim is that while your claim about the additional caution may be true, it also puts additional responsibility on the owner of the property to take reasonable care to protect it as it isn't a static "object" and has a mind of it's own........
What's the common theme here? Your analogy was wrong and even you know it......
The dog in the backyard is also not a proper analogy because people have different definitions of what's reasonable.........Depending on the size of the yard it may be perfectly reasonable to mow your lawn while a dog's outside. What if the individual lives on 60 acres? If you hit the dog you wouldn't be negligent for mowing the lawn when the dog was outside- you would be negligent for not paying attention to your surroundings......
Yes, it's possible the OP is responsible for the death of the kitten- (and I've stated I think the right thing for him to do is pay for it unless it's some exotic/rare cat which should have been safekept better by it's owner) just like the individual used in your analogies would be responsible. Other then that you are comparing apples to oranges and those analogies of yours do not prove anything.........
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I like cats but fvck her.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: krotchy
Although to be honest, If I had a 3 month old puppy, id be following it around constantly
so you'd never leave it?
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: krotchy
Although to be honest, If I had a 3 month old puppy, id be following it around constantly
so you'd never leave it?
I'm not krotchy, but of course other people would leave a kitten/puppy/whatever alone. They simply wouldn't do it in an area that isn't safe.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: dfi
Originally posted by: Raduque
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: Raduque
I find that people like you are far more useless then the animals you claim are useless. I'd rather spend a week locked in a room with a pissed off tiger then an hour with your type in public.
No more useless than the selfish bitch that wants everyone to watch out for her property.
Sentient beings are not property.
Going a bit off topic here.
Would you take a sentient being's children against their will? Would you take a sentient being's children and sell them off? Would you take another sentient being's child by force? Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
If you "own" a cat, I'm pretty sure you had to participate in at least one of the above. At the very least, the cat you "own" was taken away from its mother against the mother's will. Does that make you a slave owner?
1) cats and their young are a little different than people and theirs.
2) most intelligent animal owners have them fixed.
The problem is like most of these type of arguements, is that the antagonist is painting a fake picture of the other 'side'. Most animal owners are not saying their animals are better than people...they understand the relationship.
However, to Soviet...humans sometimes have to pay to just property damage. No one is going to say a hotel wall or a park bench is worth more than a human life though (at least sane anyway).
Å
Originally posted by: dfi
I didn't present an argument at all. I only presented a question. And the question had nothing to do with comparing a cat's value to a person's value. I can see how you might have gone down that path during the heat of the discussion.
My question is only this: if cats are sentient beings and sentient beings are not property, then does the fact that we forcibly take a cat's litter away in order to "own" them make us slave owners?
Originally posted by: alkemyst
However, to Soviet...humans sometimes have to pay to just property damage. No one is going to say a hotel wall or a park bench is worth more than a human life though (at least sane anyway).
Å
Originally posted by: RapidSnail
:music:
There's blood on my foot and there's no remorse
There's blood on my carpet cuz I crushed a corpse
:music:
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
That depends on the human we're talking about.
What would you rather keep in your community if you could only keep one: a park bench, or a serial killer?
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: dfi
I didn't present an argument at all. I only presented a question. And the question had nothing to do with comparing a cat's value to a person's value. I can see how you might have gone down that path during the heat of the discussion.
My question is only this: if cats are sentient beings and sentient beings are not property, then does the fact that we forcibly take a cat's litter away in order to "own" them make us slave owners?
sentient does not mean they share all rights afforded to humans, but in theory yes they would be considered slaves in that broad sense.
Originally posted by: dfi
Ok, trying to reach some common ground. Most would agree that human slavery is wrong - humans are not property to be owned. We've established that both humans and cats are sentient beings, but cats do not share the same rights as humans. Because cats have less rights than humans, cats can be treated in ways that broadly resemble slavery. So are cats property?
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: dfi
Ok, trying to reach some common ground. Most would agree that human slavery is wrong - humans are not property to be owned. We've established that both humans and cats are sentient beings, but cats do not share the same rights as humans. Because cats have less rights than humans, cats can be treated in ways that broadly resemble slavery. So are cats property?
this is becoming absurd in a way...i said slavery in a broad sense, but not that it broadly resembles slavery. It really has nothing much to do with slavery, other than you possess ownership/leadership over the animal.
Cats and Dogs as a group look to their humans as a leader...they give in to being submissive and a follower.
However, this is a relationship almost as old as time; and a valuable one. Animals have rights definitely...more than slaves ever did in the worst of times.
In slavery, you were taking a person that could have been just as good as anyone and binding them to service. If it was a woman, you could rape her. Animals are protected even with that. Animals cannot be land owners, voters, want to go to school, etc...they do not want to be.
However, an animal is not a yard ordament or a soccer ball when you get p1ssed.
They are technically natural companions. In our more comfortable modern times, their lives have gotten equally easy. In days of old, dogs helped find game, protect property/livestock, etc. Cats kept vermin at bay mostly. Both sometimes ate an occasional livestock item.
Today they are simply friends always available. They are relaxing and have been proven to extend our lives. Life extension is probably one of the most valuable things in existance.
The bonus is these furry guys do this for just room and board and sometimes even less than that.
Originally posted by: dfi
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: dfi
Ok, trying to reach some common ground. Most would agree that human slavery is wrong - humans are not property to be owned. We've established that both humans and cats are sentient beings, but cats do not share the same rights as humans. Because cats have less rights than humans, cats can be treated in ways that broadly resemble slavery. So are cats property?
this is becoming absurd in a way...i said slavery in a broad sense, but not that it broadly resembles slavery. It really has nothing much to do with slavery, other than you possess ownership/leadership over the animal.
Cats and Dogs as a group look to their humans as a leader...they give in to being submissive and a follower.
However, this is a relationship almost as old as time; and a valuable one. Animals have rights definitely...more than slaves ever did in the worst of times.
In slavery, you were taking a person that could have been just as good as anyone and binding them to service. If it was a woman, you could rape her. Animals are protected even with that. Animals cannot be land owners, voters, want to go to school, etc...they do not want to be.
However, an animal is not a yard ordament or a soccer ball when you get p1ssed.
They are technically natural companions. In our more comfortable modern times, their lives have gotten equally easy. In days of old, dogs helped find game, protect property/livestock, etc. Cats kept vermin at bay mostly. Both sometimes ate an occasional livestock item.
Today they are simply friends always available. They are relaxing and have been proven to extend our lives. Life extension is probably one of the most valuable things in existance.
The bonus is these furry guys do this for just room and board and sometimes even less than that.
So the question remains - are pets property? Companionship and friendship can exist without ownership. It all goes back to the original quote that caught my eye, the idea that sentient beings are not property.
Slavery does not have to apply only to another of the same species. If tomorrow, a dramatically more intelligent and advanced alien super race came to our planet and put humans into their much more comfortable homes, so that we may be their companions and help with their daily tasks, are we still not slaves if we are not free to refuse this life? Isn't domestication of animals just institutionalized slavery?
Originally posted by: sm8000
She brought the kitten at her own risk.