64JACK wrote:Any news?
Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
ccfcsince1962 wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
I have every sympathy with this poor man having his pet stolen , but saying that it is the same as having one of your children stolen is ridiculous.
One is a human being who is a direct blood descendent and the other is , when all is said and done ,just a dog , not even a human. Surely a dog cannot be claimed to be a part of a family in the same way as a blood relative human is?
Has anyone asked how it was stolen? Taking away a dog of that size should have been blatantly obvious to both its owner and any passers by - you could hardly put the dog in a carrier bag and carry it away in secret. Something in the story doesn`t quite ring true.
Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
ccfcsince1962 wrote:ccfcsince1962 wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
I have every sympathy with this poor man having his pet stolen , but saying that it is the same as having one of your children stolen is ridiculous.
One is a human being who is a direct blood descendent and the other is , when all is said and done ,just a dog , not even a human. Surely a dog cannot be claimed to be a part of a family in the same way as a blood relative human is?
Has anyone asked how it was stolen? Taking away a dog of that size should have been blatantly obvious to both its owner and any passers by - you could hardly put the dog in a carrier bag and carry it away in secret. Something in the story doesn`t quite ring true.
Was the dog found after? And was it ever "stolen" in the first place or did it just wander off when its owner wasn`t paying attention?
BlueVanman wrote:ccfcsince1962 wrote:ccfcsince1962 wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
I have every sympathy with this poor man having his pet stolen , but saying that it is the same as having one of your children stolen is ridiculous.
One is a human being who is a direct blood descendent and the other is , when all is said and done ,just a dog , not even a human. Surely a dog cannot be claimed to be a part of a family in the same way as a blood relative human is?
Has anyone asked how it was stolen? Taking away a dog of that size should have been blatantly obvious to both its owner and any passers by - you could hardly put the dog in a carrier bag and carry it away in secret. Something in the story doesn`t quite ring true.
Was the dog found after? And was it ever "stolen" in the first place or did it just wander off when its owner wasn`t paying attention?
ccfcsince1962 wrote:BlueVanman wrote:ccfcsince1962 wrote:ccfcsince1962 wrote:Tony Blue Williams wrote:I hope they catch the sick bastards who did this. Nicking someone's dog/pet is on par with nicking one of your children IMO as they are definitely part of your family homeless or not.
I have every sympathy with this poor man having his pet stolen , but saying that it is the same as having one of your children stolen is ridiculous.
One is a human being who is a direct blood descendent and the other is , when all is said and done ,just a dog , not even a human. Surely a dog cannot be claimed to be a part of a family in the same way as a blood relative human is?
Has anyone asked how it was stolen? Taking away a dog of that size should have been blatantly obvious to both its owner and any passers by - you could hardly put the dog in a carrier bag and carry it away in secret. Something in the story doesn`t quite ring true.
Was the dog found after? And was it ever "stolen" in the first place or did it just wander off when its owner wasn`t paying attention?
Why would you doubt and question the fact this man's best friend and most likely only companion has been stolen or lost, does it really matter which and yes to some people animals are like children.
What are you suggesting - maybe the homeless man has his dog insured for thousands of pounds and is looking to place a fraudulent claim. Yea right, really.
If you have nothing helpful to contribute then there are plenty of others topics on the forum you can be negative on, maybe best to leave this one alone and move on.
Really hope the dog is found soon.[/quot
I didn't once even remotely suggest that the homeless man was looking for an insurance claim. I just made the comment that the dog might just have wandered off whilst it's owner wasn't looking. I don't think that is unreasonable as, looking at the size of the dog in the picture posted, an attempt to steal it would have been blatantly obvious instantly to any passer by.
What I do disagree with in the thread is what I consider to be a ridiculous claim that losing the dog is the same as someone losing their child. Surely you don't agree with a claim that losing an animal is anything like losing your child?
Caerphilly wrote:I shared this message on my facebook last week and just had this reply
Users browsing this forum: Clickagy [Bot], evil c, Google [Bot], Igovernor, Proximic [Bot], worcester_ccfc and 196 guests