• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dog owner responsibility

Should a dog owner be punished?


  • Total voters
    44
Seriously? It's their fault that their child died because they left a door open on THEIR property? god damn.

that's not what I said. knee-jerk much?
 
I am a big believer in finding out the reasoning and all circumstances of a situation before insisting that someone be charged with a crime.

The reasoning? What are you talking about..? A little girl was ripped to pieces because someone wasn't responsible with their vicious dog. And now people actually blame the people who were attacked because they left a ****ing door open. It's preposterous. And people actually support that line of BS. What circumstances need to be made clear to you? It seems obvious to me that an owner of a dog is responsible for its actions. It's ridiculous that anyone has the nerve to argue otherwise.
 
Seriously? It's their fault that their child died because they left a door open on THEIR property? god damn.

Would the parents be partially responsible if they left the door open on their property and the child wandered away? What if a wild animal got inside?
 
that's not what I said. knee-jerk much?

You clearly said that if the people had not left their door open, the dog wouldn't have been able to attack. Yeah, so? What's the point of that statement? The dog was on their property, unleashed and out of control. Thus THE OWNER is completely responsible for its actions. Case closed.
 
Nice straw man, but that's not what happened. The adult was badly mauled trying to defend the child.

I think it's perfectly relevant to the responsibility discussion. If the parent does not protect the property and that lack of protection allows access for any harm to the child, does the parent then have any level of responsibility?
 
Nice straw man, but that's not what happened. The adult was badly mauled trying to defend the child.

you are the one who brought up carelessness. who is to blame is irrelevent. it is careless to leave your dwelling unsecured, for a variety of reasons.
 
I think it's perfectly relevant to the responsibility discussion. If the parent does not protect the property and that lack of protection allows access for any harm to the child, does the parent then have any level of responsibility?

exactly. in this case it happened to be the neighbor's dog, it could just as easily been a freakin dingo.

THE DINGOES ATE MY BABY
 
I think it's perfectly relevant to the responsibility discussion. If the parent does not protect the property and that lack of protection allows access for any harm to the child, does the parent then have any level of responsibility?

Fine, i will answer your straw man. If there was not an adult present, and the child was unsupervised, the parent would have some responsibility if the child were harmed. However, that is not what happened.
 
Fine, i will answer your straw man. If there was not an adult present, and the child was unsupervised, the parent would have some responsibility if the child were harmed. However, that is not what happened.

You can keep calling it a strawman if you want, but you're the one who brought it up. A differing opinion on your point doesn't = strawman.
 
you are the one who brought up carelessness. who is to blame is irrelevent. it is careless to leave your dwelling unsecured, for a variety of reasons.

So you are, in fact, saying that it was the parent's fault for having their door open. And no-who to blame is VERY relevant.

You can keep calling it a strawman if you want, but you're the one who brought it up. A differing opinion on your point doesn't = strawman.

What, carelessness? The dog's owner WAS careless and a child died because of it. You are arguing about something that did not take place. therefore it IS a straw man.
 
You can keep calling it a strawman if you want, but you're the one who brought it up. A differing opinion on your point doesn't = strawman.

exactly. if this had been a wild animal instead of a neighboring pet, would people be screaming for mother nature to be thrown in jail?
 
So you are, in fact, saying that it was the parent's fault for having their door open. And no-who to blame is VERY relevant.

no, it was the dog's fault. however, the parent was careless for having their door open so any pet, wild animal, criminal off the street, etc could just walk in. there is a difference



What, carelessness? The dog's owner WAS careless and a child died because of it. You are arguing about something that did not take place. therefore it IS a straw man.

maybe you need to go look up the definition of "strawman". you seem to be misusing the term.

also, there is no way of knowing from the info in the article whether or not the dog's owner was careless. you just assume it to be so. you have no idea what measures the owner had taken to secure the dog.
 
Last edited:
Jailtime if theres a pattern of it...each case has to be investigated....you dont want to put a responsible dog owner in prison for a first time offense when the dog gets away from him/her one time....so each case on its merits. Here in florida damn near every day a pitbull or two or three in a pack attack someone...its time irresponsible dog owners pay the piper and not the victims
 
So you are, in fact, saying that it was the parent's fault for having their door open. And no-who to blame is VERY relevant.



What, carelessness? The dog's owner WAS careless and a child died because of it. You are arguing about something that did not take place. therefore it IS a straw man.

You know, I don't know why you even bother to debate if you're going to be blatantly dishonest about context, your influence on the path of discussion, or the topic in general whenever somebody doesn't fit into your little self-righteous bubble of correctness.
 
That is plain stupid. Why are people arguing with such dumb ass red herrings?

why? if everything else remains the same and instead of the neighbors dog, it is a stray dog or wild animal that comes into the house and kills the kid...who do you blame then?
 
Jailtime if theres a pattern of it...each case has to be investigated....you dont want to put a responsible dog owner in prison for a first time offense when the dog gets away from him/her one time....so each case on its merits. Here in florida damn near every day a pitbull or two or three in a pack attack someone...its time irresponsible dog owners pay the piper and not the victims

who knows, the neighbors could've been taunting the dog for months and when it got the chance it took revenge. many years ago, we had a dog that was on a chain in our yard. one of the nighborhood brats liked to ride his bike by the yard and throw rocks at our dog. one day, he got a little too close and SURPRISE, SURPRISE our dog knocked him off his bike. Had my father not been outside, the dog probably would've chewed the kid up.


point being... there are too many unknowns in this story to knee-jerk squeal "throw the owner in jail".
 
You know, I don't know why you even bother to debate if you're going to be blatantly dishonest about context, your influence on the path of discussion, or the topic in general whenever somebody doesn't fit into your little self-righteous bubble of correctness.

If all you're going to do is accuse me of dishonesty, go ahead and put me on ignore. Please. Because I am tired of people like you being dishonest about what it is they are saying, and then turning around and accusing me of dishonesty. He brought up the open door-not me. I mentioned carelessness-true-but I can't see how any logical person could ever connect carelessness with someone who happens to have their door open while they are in a room in THEIR OWN house. So what now? Everyone should never have a door open because a vicious dog might come in a rip them to pieces? We're not talking about wild animals. THAT is NOT the discussion we are having here. The odds of a wild animal running into someone's house is unlikely, (much less viciously attacking and killing someone), and it isn't the topic of this thread. Furthermore, an adult was present with the children in question, so we are also not discussing neglect or carelessness on their part.

And it's pathetic that you are accusing me of self righteousness. Please kindly keep your ad homs, red herrings, and straw men to yourself. Or put me on ignore. Whatever.
 
If all you're going to do is accuse me of dishonesty, go ahead and put me on ignore. Please. Because I am tired of people like you being dishonest about what it is they are saying, and then turning around and accusing me of dishonesty. He brought up the open door-not me. I mentioned carelessness-true-but I can't see how any logical person could ever connect carelessness with someone who happens to have their door open while they are in a room in THEIR OWN house. So what now? Everyone should never have a door open because a vicious dog might come in a rip them to pieces? We're not talking about wild animals. THAT is NOT the discussion we are having here. The odds of a wild animal running into someone's house is unlikely, (much less viciously attacking and killing someone), and it isn't the topic of this thread. Furthermore, an adult was present with the children in question, so we are also not discussing neglect or carelessness on their part.

And it's pathetic that you are accusing me of self righteousness. Please kindly keep your ad homs, red herrings, and straw men to yourself. Or put me on ignore. Whatever.

You constantly re-interpret the things I post or make assumptions about what I believe and then use them in the debate as if I actually said, thought, or expressed those things. That is poor debating. I'm not dishonest just because you cannot comprehend that what I say is what I mean. I don't hide hidden meanings or speak in bull**** terms to get a point across.

If you would debate honestly and take what people say at face value instead of over-reacting and putting forth wild mis-representations of what people say there wouldn't be an issue at all.

So maybe next time instead of flying off the handle and going after what people didn't say you could try asking for clarification or addressing what they did say.

The bolded is exactly why you can't have a genuine debate. You don't get it, so you just assume that the other person is illogical, mocking, or presenting an invalid argument. Disagreement does not a strawman make.
 
Furthermore, an adult was present with the children in question, so we are also not discussing neglect or carelessness on their part.

.

really? how about an adult who is present in a car and a kid falls out because the parent didn't lock the door or ensure the kid was in a child restraint? merely "being there" doesn't mean you are not careless.


they could have been smoking a crack pipe in the back room for all you know.
 
You constantly re-interpret the things I post or make assumptions about what I believe and then use them in the debate as if I actually said, thought, or expressed those things. That is poor debating. .

THAT is a strawman. maybe evanescence will actually read it and stop using the term incorrectly. :lamo

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
 
As others have said, it all depends on the circumstances involved in the incident.

And, yes, I have children. Dogs aren't actually allowed in my neighborhood, but living on the very end of housing, there are houses just on the other side of the street that are not part of the military housing that could have animals. I would not leave my doors/windows open normally. We have a wood privacy fence (at least 6 ft) surrounding our back yard. If a pet of someone's were to come over that fence and hurt one of my children, I'd be wondering what made that person's animal go to such trouble to get at my children. I would insist that everything be looked into, including how the dog/animal was treated by the owner and what the dog's/animal's history of attacks (if any) is.

I am a big believer in finding out the reasoning and all circumstances of a situation before insisting that someone be charged with a crime.

Not me. If your dog -- especially a pit bull -- killed my baby in my house, I'd be likely to kill YOU.

I'd sure as hell kill that dog.
 
Back
Top Bottom