You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
About 22 years ago, my wife and I adopted a dog from the Toronto Humane Society on a whim. It was a yappy little three-year-old Shih Tzu who was territorially aggressive, impossible to walk and poorly house trained. We couldn’t leave her alone or she would bark incessantly for hours or destroy something in the apartment. Nevertheless, we loved the stupid dog. We bought her the premium dog food, got her special toys and turned her hair shavings (Shih Tzus don’t shed) into Christmas ornaments. When she got kidney stones we spent $2,000 we didn’t have for an operation. In 2001, with a myriad of health problems and an inability to hold her bladder or bowel movements any longer, we put her to sleep. It was sad at first, but we also had a newborn baby to care for at the time. Although I enjoyed having a dog and I can understand how people get emotionally attached to their pets, I have to say that fatherhood changed my perspective on the human-animal hierarchy. For the most part, I think we tolerate the anthropomorphic projections that people place on their animal companions when they call them “babies” and say they “love” them. Well, I suppose a person can love anything, but there’s no love like that which we have for other people. Which brings me to the point of this story. I felt sympathy for dog walker Emma Paulsen last week when I learned she was about to spend six months in prison for killing six dogs and then attempting to cover it up. I felt sympathy because Paulsen is going to lose her right to freedom over the death of six animals who, at the end of the day, are essentially inconsequential to this world. Oh yes, I’m sure the dogs were important to the dog owners. That much is clear. But they’re only dogs. And this is a woman’s life we’re talking about. Dogs are easily replaced. If you don’t think that’s true, head down to your local animal shelter. You can grab one for about $350. The other thing about dogs? They only live for about eight to 10 years. Most people who live with dogs their entire lives can be expected to go through a dozen before they, too, meet the grim reaper. One of my favourite movies of all time, Old Yeller, is about a faithful golden lab who befriends a boy before getting bitten and becoming rabid. The owners do what any sensible owner would do. They shoot the dog and get a replacement. I’m not condoning anything Paulsen did to those dogs. It’s certainly disturbing that she had such a big mental lapse and then tried to cover up evidence of her mistake. But at the end of the day that’s what happened. She made a mistake. It’s also disturbing to think that somebody who may be suffering from a mental illness will now go to prison for it. Why are we not helping Paulsen get the care she needs? The reason why we’re being punitive is pretty obvious. We’re crucifying her for killing North America’s version of the sacred cow. In other parts of the world, killing dogs isn’t so taboo. Some countries openly feast on dogs the same way we eat chickens. Other countries find dogs to be a nuisance, shooting strays in the streets. Still other countries find them unclean and refuse to come into any contact with them whatsoever. It seems rather an arbitrary social construct to make it perfectly legal to slaughter cows and ducks and chickens and sheep but to send a woman to jail for six months for killing dogs. The dog owners lost their animal companion and for that they deserved monetary compensation. A few thousand dollars could buy a pure-bred replacement from a top-notch breeder. But much like this former dog owner came to realize, the dogs don’t make a difference in this world one way or another. We should be worrying about and caring for our fellow human beings. Let’s get started by doing more of that. - See more at: MacNair: Sympathy for the dog killer Paulsen - News - Surrey Now
Of course that made me really made because to be honest I like animals way more then people so I had to but the loser on blast..
All I know is I'm happy this guy was put on blast since a reporter should think twice before putting up a story that would hit so many people's hearts.. Now the Surrey Now had to put out an apology because of this and hopefully this guy will think twice before putting out such a heartless article.
This is the apology letter
The Now would like to apologize. In Thursday’s paper, we published a column written by Adrian MacNair that has offended many of our readers. The column was about dogs and Emma Paulsen’s jail sentence of six months for her part in the horrible deaths of six dogs. The column contained language and references to dogs that were insensitive and should not have been published. While I support our columnists’ right to hold – and publish – opinions that may be unpopular, as editor, I accept responsibility for allowing such viewpoints to be expressed in a callous, insensitive and disrespectful manner. Many readers have called and emailed , expressing their anger and disappointment over the column. I am making every effort to reach out to all of them and apologize in person, including the families who lost tragically their dogs in the “Brookswood Six” crime. I would like to thank those of you who have taken the time to call, email or comment on the Now's Facebook page. Many of us in the newsroom share your compassion for animals and your opinions are important to me. As editor, I will do my utmost to ensure that such insensitive statements are not published again. Thank you. Editor, Beau Simpson - See more at: OUR VIEW: An apology for dog column's insensitivity - News - Surrey Now
Why did I decide to post this? cause RS fucken rocks and I love everyone of you!!!
eh, from what i understand she didn't do it (kill them) on purpose and even lost her own dogs in the car?? (cmiiw)
the issue is just how she handled it no? lying about it and pretending they were stolen etc
edit: okay read his article....so NOT what i was expecting
I felt sympathy because Paulsen is going to lose her right to freedom over the death of six animals who, at the end of the day, are essentially inconsequential to this world.
Oh yes, I’m sure the dogs were important to the dog owners. That much is clear. But they’re only dogs. And this is a woman’s life we’re talking about.
Dogs are easily replaced. If you don’t think that’s true, head down to your local animal shelter. You can grab one for about $350.
The other thing about dogs? They only live for about eight to 10 years. Most people who live with dogs their entire lives can be expected to go through a dozen before they, too, meet the grim reaper.
One of my favourite movies of all time, Old Yeller, is about a faithful golden lab who befriends a boy before getting bitten and becoming rabid. The owners do what any sensible owner would do. They shoot the dog and get a replacement.
I dunno why that guy is putting up all the nasty things being said about him.
He brought it on himself writing such a reckless and thoughtless article, was he expecting a Pulitzer?
His best option at this point is to just shut the hell up and wait for the internets to cool down
Posted this in the "What Grinds Your Gears" thread originally:
That's all I can really say. Just wow.
Wow that a person could be so specist and callous towards a touching and sensitive situation. That "opinion piece" regarding dogs made my blood boil. Not because I own a dog - but I do love them - but because it's so callous and insensitive. I could care less if it's directed at a blue whale or a pet goldfish, but for some ignorant prick to essentially devalue and degrade someone's personal relationship with their pet makes me sick. For many people, a dog, or any pet, is a valued member of the family. It certainly doesn't help that the guy looks and sounds like an utter and complete douche who implicitly believes that money can buy everything. I mean, who even says this?!
A few thousand dollars could buy a pure-bred replacement from a top-notch breeder.
How would he feel if his child was murdered and someone else told him that his child "didn't make a difference in this world one way or another". Or that the "replacement" cost for his child is essentially nothing, so he shouldn't be upset. The fact that this pompous ass even put a monetary value on a relationship really shows me the extent of this "reporter's" sociopathic and ignorant mind.
Not to mention that dogs are companions for tons of people, such as seniors, empty nesters, the blind, mentally disabled, people who can't/won't conceive, etc.... just wow. What a short-sighted, selfish, callous piece of shit.
Articles like this only serve to reinforce my belief that the average house pet is more loyal and selfless than the average person. Smh.
All I know is if someone killed my cat, Lenny, a cheque or a new pet sure as fuck wouldn't cut it. If the person had covered it up and tried to make herself into the victim like Paulsen did, I'd probably be hoping for more justice than a 6-month slap on the wrist.
Going to jail for accidentally killing something you can buy for a few hundred bux is just plain stupid.
the way i explain it to people who think of dogs as inconsequential (nothing wrong with that) is that this lady destroyed several peoples belongings and hid that fact and obstructed justice and wasted resources, so that's why she got jail time...sure she could have been fined or given a conditional sentence, but she got a few months of forced vacation at a camp instead
look at what destruction of property (mischief) gets you in canada
(3) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(4) Every one who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3),
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.