Crazy old bat leaves $8bn to dogs.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-07-03 04:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Dogs are domesticated wolves, not tamed, that’s a big difference that can get a person killed.

A fair point. But I meant from the legal standpoint of getting the trust to turn over money to conservation efforts.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-03 04:59pm

Right... she's a worthless hag because she didn't think of her family and tried to not leave inheritance to her grandchildren

I'm betting that there's a good chance that no one in her family has seen her more than a few times in years. What a bitch... not thinking about her money grubbing rich grand children screeching and demanding there cut of the money.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-03 05:01pm

Just to point out, I believe that she was a bitch but much less a bitch than the normal rich person that just distributes all there money to their already rich family.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2008-07-03 06:42pm

I have no problem with this. My mother is an event coordinator for a Greyhound rescue group, so I'm not going to get upset over some rich hag choosing to do one last act of good. After all, as people have pointed out, she could have had it donated to much worse things.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-03 10:28pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:Oh, I agree that the $12 million specifically for her dog is kind of excessive. Although, she probably wanted to ensure that somebody would take care of her dog for the rest of its life - perhaps she set it up so that the people taking care of the dog get access to the money as long as the dog is cared for properly?

Even paying a caretaker a generous $100,000 for 10 years and throwing in hospital charges and what not for the dog isn't going even hit half that amount.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-03 10:29pm

Ghetto EDIT: $100,000 per year for 10 years.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-03 11:02pm

I can't believe so many people rallied to the defense of this person based on their love of pets, or the fact that dog suffering gets you teary-eyed.

Dogs lack a higher nervous activity and are un-intelligent animals for christs' sake.

Every penny spent on a dog when there are suffering humans is frankly callous, but when those amounts are small, they are insignificant. When it's 8 billion, you know, you get to see the contrast. Entire hunger relief operations for nations and disaster mitigation ops work often on a smaller budget.

This is not funny. "Good cause"? If someone thinks animal welfare is more important than human welfare, he has his priorities seriously messed up.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-03 11:20pm

lack higher nervous activity and unintelligent animals? What do you mean by that. They definitely do possess higher nervous activity and are relatively intelligent animals.

Are you suggesting that any support of dog welfare is inherently immoral when there is suffering humans in the world?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-03 11:27pm

ArmorPierce wrote:lack higher nervous activity and unintelligent animals? What do you mean by that. They definitely do possess higher nervous activity and are relatively intelligent animals.

Are you suggesting that any support of dog welfare is inherently immoral when there is suffering humans in the world?

Considering that that sum of money will go a long way helping those recently affected by earthquakes and typhoons?

Considering that the US has plenty of poor people?

I'm not sure. What do you think?

Will saving dogs do any good for humanity?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-03 11:28pm

Bleh, my bad. Lack a hominid intelligence, not H.N.A.

Are you suggesting that any support of dog welfare is inherently immoral when there is suffering humans in the world?

For me yes, because I'm a utilitarian. The dog is a less intelligent species, therefore it's suffering is irrelevant compared to human suffering.

If you are extending the animal welfare stuff, why do you not care about the daily suffering of wildlife in a darwinian competition to feast and survive?

How is the suffering of dogs different from suffering of other canids? Of felines? Please. You don't care if a tiger cub on it's own is dying of hunger or being ripped to shreds by a competing animal, but you care for a dog suffering somewhere on the streets?

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-03 11:47pm

Considering that that sum of money will go a long way helping those recently affected by earthquakes and typhoons?

Considering that the US has plenty of poor people?

Because you can't help suffering humans and stop animal abuse like dog fighting.

Not to mention the fact that I fail to see how this is worse than just keeping the money in the family.

I'm not sure. What do you think? Rolling Eyes Will saving dogs do any good for humanity?

I don't believe in doing something just because it will help me.

Stas Bush wrote:For me yes, because I'm a utilitarian. The dog is a less intelligent species, therefore it's suffering is irrelevant compared to human suffering.

Okay they are less intelligent and I do rate human suffering above a dog's suffering but I am also against unnecessary human caused suffering (such as dog fighting).

If you are extending the animal welfare stuff, why do you not care about the daily suffering of wildlife in a darwinian competition to feast and survive?

unnecessary human caused suffering that serves no purpose (such as dog fighting). I also rate a dog's suffering above say a chicken's (dog fighting worse than cock fighting).

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-07-03 11:56pm

ArmorPierce wrote:Because you can't help suffering humans and stop animal abuse like dog fighting.

I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm, or flippancy. Stopping dog fighting is the province of the police and unless you live in a state that doesn't fund its police force properly, I can't do anything about it.

Not to mention the fact that I fail to see how this is worse than just keeping the money in the family.

Did I say anything about keeping money in the family? No I didn't. I said fucking poor people.

I don't believe in doing something just because it will help me.

The fuck? You are telling me that you wouldn't help poor people?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-07-04 12:13am

Stas Bush wrote:Bleh, my bad. Lack a hominid intelligence, not H.N.A.
Are you suggesting that any support of dog welfare is inherently immoral when there is suffering humans in the world?
For me yes, because I'm a utilitarian. The dog is a less intelligent species, therefore it's suffering is irrelevant compared to human suffering.

If you are extending the animal welfare stuff, why do you not care about the daily suffering of wildlife in a darwinian competition to feast and survive?

How is the suffering of dogs different from suffering of other canids? Of felines? Please. You don't care if a tiger cub on it's own is dying of hunger or being ripped to shreds by a competing animal, but you care for a dog suffering somewhere on the streets?

I do, actually. Dogs are a dependent, domesticated species upon humans, have been so for north of 10,000 years, and so I feel like we have a responsibility to take care of them when possible. They're not like feral or wild animals.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-04 12:24am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:Because you can't help suffering humans and stop animal abuse like dog fighting.
I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm, or flippancy. Stopping dog fighting is the province of the police and unless you live in a state that doesn't fund its police force properly, I can't do anything about it.

It is sarcasm. I don't know how it's done everywhere but I know that in NY cops don't normally concern themselves much with that. I believe animal cruelty is mostly enforced by the ASPCA HLE. ASPCA is funded entirely through donations.

Not to mention the fact that I fail to see how this is worse than just keeping the money in the family.
Did I say anything about keeping money in the family? No I didn't. I said fucking poor people.

Yes it would be nice if she donated it for the poor but donating it for animal causes is definitely better than what most people do with their money.

I don't believe in doing something just because it will help me.
The fuck? You are telling me that you wouldn't help poor people?

[/quote]

Well considering that I am one of the poor people and have lived on food stamps and welfare, I find it pretty difficult to help other poor people. I have no idea where you got that. Fact is the government should definitely be the one to be stepping in to help poor people directly and make it nearly unnecessary to require donations and such.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-07-04 12:27am

I now see how you can read it as me stating that I don't believe in doing something unless it will help me when I in fact was stating the direct opposite.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2008-07-04 12:39am

Ah Leona Helmsey...even in death her bitchness warrants people wondering what the fuck was she smoking.

I'm amazed she didn't have her fucking dog buried with her.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-04 12:43am

Okay they are less intelligent and I do rate human suffering above a dog's suffering but I am also against unnecessary human caused suffering (such as dog fighting).

Why should we at all spend our resources on that? It's correct, that is police job, and if you have a shitty police, or a shitty legal system that only allows some donation-funded organizatin to enforce laws against unnecessary cruelty against animals, well, that's too bad.

But it doesn't mean you should blow money even to prevent unecessary dog suffering.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-07-04 01:06am

Certainly not, but dogs exist in a symbiotic relationship with humanity, and large scale efforts to put to sleep strays, sterilize dogs, eliminate rabies, improve wolf-based ecosystems, etc, will have positive benefits for people. Also, if properly planned, we can use this money for those tasks instead of money that would have already been spent on them, and use that money in turn to directly aide people.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2008-07-04 01:07am

There are a lot of things people could do in their everyday lives to maximize utility, but they don't. Instead, they spend money on themselves on things they don't really need, but want, in order to "have fun" or "be entertained"

If you are going to say we shouldn't (or it's immoral) to donate money to animal welfare, there's no reason not to say it's also immoral to spend money on frivolties like pets or other luxuries. Everyone's acting immorally as long as people are suffering elsewhere. Your wants are trivial in comparison.

So how much do you maximize utility?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-04 01:48am

I already said that it's one of the "we don't really need that spending" type, but instead of being small and tolerable, it's intolerably large and wasteful.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2008-07-04 01:58am

I am not saying we shouldn't spend on humans who are suffering first. If you can only do one, I would go with Humans. It's a matter of scale, as you said. But still wrong, according to the standard--just not as wrong. I think preventing malaria and building schools and wells would have been a better choice.

I also don't think most people would be consistent in this, even when it comes to weighing human vs human interests, much less human vs non-human. Doesn't make it right. Just reality.

P.S.: I want your opinion. Do you think we ought to have things like vets or welfare standards for agriculture and medical testing? Or programmes designed to save species from poaching and extinction?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-07-04 02:03am

I want your opinion. Do you think we ought to have things like vets or welfare standards for agriculture and medical testing? Or programmes designed to save species from poaching and extinction?

Yeah, of course animal medicine is an important dicsipline in zoology. And medical knowledge of plants and animals is important in many industries, not limited to food agriculture and food cattle breeding, but also in bionics, human medicine, and general advancement of biology.

As for saving species from extinction, I believe it should only be done in case it is shown that extinction of said species would offset the eco-balance or otherwise harm the biosphere.

If it wont (the death of Pandas), I don't care at all.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-07-04 02:50am

I normally agree with Stas, but I have to sharply veer here. While I understand and generally sympathize with the basic premise that humans should be our first and foremost concern as they are our fellow man and species, I can't just draw a line in the sand and say we should treat all animals the same..as a resource or emotional companion that we have to always think of as being as beneath us as many southern plantation owners felt about their black slaves.

While this example is not meant to be a direct comparison to Stas and his arguments, I feel it's still relevant as a contrast because the line has to be drawn somewhere. No we should not put animals on an equal footing as human beings when comparing rights and responsibilities. But even though animals that are 'beneath' us are not as evolved, or if you will as 'superior' as we are, does this justify us completely disregarding their state of being as an individual or a species? If you agree that it does not and we should have some consideration due to individual merit or because we directly interfere in their lives, especially in the case of pets.., then we have to accept some ethical framework as to their existence.

Dogs in particular as someone has mentioned previously are domesticated. They CANNOT be turned loose in the wilds and reasonably be expected to thrive. It is our doing that enabled them to be human friendly, and to suggest that we can turn our back on them by simply stating they are beneath our consideration compared to all other humans is the HEIGHTH of arrogance. It's not much different from exiling all humans with extremely low IQ's and branding them as unworthy of equal consideration because they are too dumb to know.

It's not easy to draw the line here, but there IS a line to be drawn.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-07-04 02:56am

That why I'm not willing to condemn the deceased woman for doing this. Dogs are "special"; like the Duchess said, they are in a symbiotic relationship with humans, and I think that since we domesticated them and they've done so much for us over the centuries, we have a moral obligation to help them out as a group.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2008-07-04 03:02am

That why I'm not willing to condemn the deceased woman for doing this. Dogs are "special"; like the Duchess said, they are in a symbiotic relationship with humans, and I think that since we domesticated them and they've done so much for us over the centuries, we have a moral obligation to help them out as a group.

Agreed. I can't see how anyone can ignore this fact and have a conscience with regards to canine welfare. They have literally had their lives altered to be devoted and beneficial as hunters, protectors, lovable companions, etc. How can we as a species say they are as unworthy of consideration as a centipede because they don't have OUR level of intelligence? I don't think this is the kind of yardstick we should be measuring our ethics on.