View Single Post
Old 10-19-03, 12:31 PM   #39 (permalink)
Nic's Avatar
Join Date: Aug-2003
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 49
I think some of you folks are getting a little too worked up over this. Has anyone had any negative first hand experience with having dependants instead of pets? Not that I've heard. The truth of the matter is, no one cares. The law makers agree to change terms as a matter of being politically correct. The do not do it so you can be charged with murder for flushing a gold fish. they do it cuzz it sounds like a good idea. They don't really think about how it could be interpretted.

A dog mauls a person , now since the owner is 'a caretaker' or 'gaurdian' of the dog, does that mean the dog is his dependant like a child would be? Does that mean a dog gets treated like a person and goes to trial? No. The dog, despite being a dependant, is still an ANIMAL. It will be put down. Killed, not put on death row for five years for appeal after appeal. It would be killeed on the spot. People are on the top of nature' hierarchy. Dogs cats snakes frogs and tortoises will never be treated like people. It does not matter what you call them. Sorry folks, I don't buy it. Just my opinion, you can have yours.

0.0.1 Cal King 0.0.1 Redfoot 0.1 BRB 1.0 BP 0.1 Girlfriend
Nic is offline