i guess that at the beginning there is a video on some stupidal media, and since then, the "messiah" got new followers.
Mission accomplished sista, you're a hero for the m****s.

edit : ho ! and now she's asking for money, good job
calling herself "nomuynormal" makes sense.

source
https://linkanonymous.com/fr/?https...plorables-y-la-escracharon-en-redes-sociales/

edit 2 : "" Flor. @nomuynormal. She | psicología y Python dev ‍ | Fan de la astronomía y astrología | a veces http://Instagram.com/esc............ ""

astronomy AND astrology, which makes a lot of sense
another one of those kids who thinks they gonna save the world
when actually they're a huge part of the problem.

oh by the way ....

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2022

A different angle.

As a kid we had dogs as an adult I´ve had a dog myself.... I like dogs period.

Where I live there is one dog for every five people and thats a lot of dogs imo.
the vast majority of dogs really provide nothing but farting, eating and sleeping. many dog breeds have been bred so hard that they have trouble breathing, have dysplasia etc etc my guess is that 95% of all dogs are pets created and modified by us humans for many hundreds of years.

Maybe it's time to get a different view of dogs and stop having them as pets but use them for what they are good at, give them a proper active life where they make a difference - most dogs live a really bad life when they are pets.

Stealing a puppy from a man who lives on the street because the thief thinks she can give the puppy a better life is a complete delusion ... a dog's needs are very simple: care, food, sleep and fart ... that's it

 

My conflict here... I want to say Lois's answer is my favourite but I have no confidence in discussing the specific case. I didn't see it first hand - and I can't trust myself to see past my own prejudices. If I do trust my prejudices I will also jump to the same conclusions about the virtue seeking idiotic girl causing damage - but I have to accept that this is me guessing on something I just did not see! It MIGHT be so different.

A more general discussion (no specific cases) interests me more.

What is fair, just, and morally decent? How much compassion is the right amount?
(1) For individuals it's one story.
(2) For a collective society it's a separate story.
Those two stories are not harmonious.

(1) For individuals - man we are screwed!
We are hard-wired to be totally unreliable at getting this right.
In a nutshell...
I KNOW (in the core of my being) that my child is more valuable than yours.
I will save MY child in preference to saving 10 of my neighbours kids.
You KNOW (in the core of your being) that your child is more valuable than mine.
You will save YOUR child in preference to saving 10 of your neighbours kids - including mine you bastard!

Why is it like that? what are the consequences? and what should we do about it?
It is a fools errand to imagine that we can reprogram humans to be 'fairer'. And it would be reasonable to accuse a parent of being morally weird if they did NOT regard their own children as the most important treasures on the planet.
As for kids on the other side of the planet - how much do you really care?
As for homeless people in the next town - how much do you really care?

Read about Compassion Fade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fade
You don't REALLY care about remote people - you just like to believe that you do!

Spoiler: A caricature example

My scruffy description below is based on actual experiments but memory is so foggy that I'm just inventing silly details - might as well be called fiction - but the point remains valid.
Consider the psychology experiment described below - very crude summary (imaginary numbers, etc)...

• People are shown a photo of a starving girl. Their empathy-concern (motivation to respond) is measured at (say) 80 on a scale of 1 to 100
• People are shown a photo of the same starving girl plus her starving brother. Their empathy-concern drops from 80 to 60 (read that again - it goes DOWN)
• People are shown a photo of a group of many starving kids including the exact same starving girl plus her starving brother. Their empathy-concern drops even further from 60 to 35 (read that again - it's still going DOWN)
• People are given data (no photos) about thousands of starving kids. Their empathy-concern drops to almost nothing. It's now been converted to (replaced by) a weak cognitive evaluation with very little emotive content.

These emotive responses (heading in exactly the wrong direction!) are the right emotive-mental tools handed to us by evolution for protecting our nearest and dearest. But they are totally hopeless emotive-mental tools for organising an ethical and just society that is so much broader than the tiny local contexts within which our emotive biases evolved.

Spoiler: Extract from wiki on Compassion Fade

A single child fallen down a well or dying of starvation stirs our hearts and moves our hands (and wallets) to action. Yet as soon as the number of victims increases to two, compassion—both affective and behavioral—begins to wane. Such compassion fade (i.e., decreases in helping behavior or support for it) has been widely documented in the humanitarian domain and is troubling for at least three reasons. First, it defies our normative beliefs about how we should value the lives of those in need. Second, it contradicts our intuitions about how we ourselves would react when asked to aid others. Third, it suggests that confronting large-scale humanitarian and (perhaps) environmental crises—from mass starvation to climate change—may not only involve overcoming political and economic hurdles but also insidious psychological ones as well.

So, from an individual's perspective - we quite simply can not trust our emotive judgements.
We are hard wired to be biased to the extreme. This is a recipe for failing the needs of a broader society even when our individual empathies are (sometimes) working well, but our empathies are also highly vulnerable to being 'played and exploited'.

(2) So what is better from a society's perspective?
There are no easy obvious best answers. Carefully thought out moral-political philosophies are required. Those have been evolving for centuries. Unravelling all the implications, pros and cons, of the alternatives requires a hefty exploration.
Within any such exploration, one unavoidable area of research has to be...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
Extract:- The original position (OP), often referred to as the veil of ignorance, is a thought experiment used for reasoning about the principles that should structure a society based on solidarity. The phrases original position and veil of ignorance were coined by the American philosopher John Rawls.
In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.

---

So, be fair and compassionate because in an ideal world it might be you homeless on the street praying that no evil misguided half-wit steals your dog.

Ain't life tricky?

 

Last edited: May 16, 2022

(I'm going to say this, from my perspective of how I see things here, maybe I'm wrong)
here in Argentina, Buenos Aires (Capital of the country)
There is like an ideology that divides people, between rich and poor people. But this in the eyes of society, not mine. Namely. The poor person is seen as a person who is lazy, who does not want to work, who lives off the state. And then the rich person who is a worker and who will never lack for anything and is worthy of doing anything.
So "The indigent" already belongs to that sector. "Surely he is on the street because he doesn't want to work" "surely he has the dog because that way they give him more money" etc. But the wealthy person, "oh yes" "it's okay to take the dog out, because she has money and could always take care of him and he's one of ours".
I insist, that's how I perceive it when reading the comments on social networks.

 

1.) Go to the police and report the theft.
2) Call the local press/newspaper and tell them about the incident.

 

the police helped the girl to take the dog. Not based on what law. Sometimes the police do that. What goes through their heads.

The press has already spread the fact, albeit partially. That is to say: You are going to read a medium that says that "I stole it because I hit him" and another will say "I stole it from him because he was homeless." It depends on the press they say one thing or another. But the press always turns a blind eye to what society thinks. If society says "bravo I stole the dog", the press will say "The girl who saved the dog". But if society says, "the bad girl who stole a dog", the press will say "a girl with no heart stole a dog". You understand me?

 

I understand you very well and thank you for this information.

 

Last edited: May 16, 2022

Considering all the wars, the killing, the destruction of our environment going on in the world, I can't say that this dog is a priority exactly.

 

Concern of course would be if the homeless person can meet the dogs needs. It probably boils down a bit to what he'd feed the dog. My guess is, it would be a random diet of whatever he can find. And I think we all know that "human" food sucks for a dog. On top of that, some dogs rarely run into health issues, some have a lot. For example, my two dogs, one is very low maintenance. The other, a small breed, has constant problems requiring many trips to the vet. I don't see how a homeless person could make that work. It's a subjective thing though.. it may not be an issue at all for some dogs.

I know a lot of people are like "whatever, it's just a dog", but I personally think animals > people I bet the homeless guy would really develop a good bond with the dog and try and give the pup what it needs, but that only goes so far. I've got a great job, but there are times where those vet bills have been difficult.

That all said, it's not the place of some random citizen to go up and take a dog away from someone (nor the police's duty). At least, in my country. There are animal groups (SPCA here in Canada) that could be reached out to. And I'd say it really should only be a concern if the animal is clearly in some sort of danger.. if it's malnourished or unwell of some sort. If everything looks good, leave well enough alone.

 

Last edited: May 16, 2022

Be careful with this sort of logic.
I understand it ,but.
Because of war, killing and destruction, first the dog is not a priority anymore, then, the ones who are not close are not a priority, then the neibour is not a priority, then you are not a priority...

 

Do you want to get to the fact of why this person is homeless, there are so many billionaires & millionaires who horde and love money so much and only greedily want more and more like drug addicted junkies, they would even have their family members killed to get more money, they don't give a damn about anyone who is homeless, poor, suffering, starving or abused, if these wealthy parasites were relieved of all their assets and distributed them across the world to those in need the world would be a better place. If you think they donate to foundations and organizations to help the poor, think twice the get tax write offs for this and the organizations hire already wealthy friends and family members and then pay them huge salaries with exceptional benefits to administer the funds supposedly to help the poor but there is such an insignificant amount left after this that it is totally insignificant. e.g the clinton foundation her salary was a large 6 figures and even “Clinton Aide Says Foundation funds Paid 3 million for Chelsea’s lavish Wedding, (wikileaks) Think hard if you contemplate donating to any thieving organizations, just give what you can when you see to a homeless person on the street, they will appreciate it immensely, I personally even had some ask me instead if I would mind buying them a some take out from a nearby fast food restaurant that denied them entry because of their appearance. I often take time to speak with some of them if they wish, you might just be surprised at what led to their homelessness. I have been like this for my entire adult life, I am no saint, but just an average person who was raised by values my family instilled in me to always help the less fortunate when and if we can. Sorry for the long rant but I can't change the opinions I have on this subject.

 

For me it goes beyond a dog and the homeless. It is the act that counts, and if we naturalize it, then it will be normal to take the dog out of a homeless person for being homeless, and thus human rights will continue to be ignored.
I agree with Oly, then they will come for you. And it reminded me of a poem.



"First they took the Jews,
but since I wasn't Jewish, I didn't care.
Then they took the communists,
but since I wasn't a communist, I didn't care either.
Then they took the workers,
but since I wasn't a worker, I didn't care either.
Later they took the intellectuals,
but since I wasn't an intellectual, I didn't care either.
Then he continued with the priests,
but since I wasn't a priest, I didn't care either.
Now they're coming for me, but it's too late."

Bertolt Brecht.

 

its unhoused, people/person without housing , people/person without homes , and "homeless" is a slur now

 

What you say is true An animal needs a lot of care. But I think that what motivates us to fight for what we want is love. Because a person can have all the money in the world, but one day they have to go to another country to live (as I know many cases). It will not cost them to give their dog to someone, because if many people see it (with money or without money), it is an object to show "oh look, my dog is a purebred" "my dog cost me so much money" etc. So as I was saying, maybe the homeless person doesn't have a lot of money, but maybe he doesn't eat to feed his dog, or maybe they offer him what they offer him, he wouldn't give it to his dog, and look, he said "not even for a car I give my dog". That is why I believe that it is love that is capable of achieving everything. And it's not that I'm talking specifically about this homeless man. What hurts me and seems pathetic to me is that they have taken the dog away from him for the simple fact of being homeless.

 

That is totally ridiculous, it is like how a store helper title, evolved into a salesgirl or salesman, then to sales clerk, then to sales associate and now sales engineer, how fucking stupid sounding, when did you need university engineering degree to be able to help a person purchase a stupid product in a store, e.g. Where is the toilet paper sales engineer I can't reach the pack at the top of the shelf. wake up forget the ridiculous over exaggerated imbecilic woke idiocy. Homeless is homeless (not having a house, apartment or dwelling to live in because they haven't enough or any money to pay for one) this will never change even though useless ignorant woke scum try to change homeless into something totally stupid sounding because they don't have a clue as to what to do with their useless lazy loser lives. Time for a worldwide wake-up call.

 

Did this "Karen" pay for the dog or just steal from the least fortunate? Karma is a bitch and will hunt her down.

 

I used to work in drug treatment advocacy back in the day, and one of the things that was a thing back then was 'involving carers'.

I remember being at an event once where there was one such 'carer' speaking. She was a grown-assed woman who took a fancy to a homeless dope fiend who used to beg in her neighbourhood. Like most career beggars, he had the ubiquitous dog on a string because -- like all beggars know, there's a big portion of the British population who don't give a fuck if a human lives or dies, but they'll happily empty out their purse if there's a chance that a dog will go hungry.

Anyway, said hausfrau took pity on said drug addict and his dog. Took them both into her house. Started banging the dopefiend and feeding the dog.

Now, she was his 'carer' and so whenever there was an event in the area that needed a 'carer' to speak, this insane woman would show up and talk about how badly done to the poor drug addict she was banging was doing. The state needed to be as nice to this poor guy as she was. Everybody should be banging him and giving him money for dope -- just like she did.

The whole thing struck me as completely insane. The man was in his early forties -- she was in her late forties. What the fuck did he need with a carer? The idea comes from those people with severe mental health issues who can't care for themselves so live in their parents homes -- but this guy was perfectly capable of caring for himself. He just preferred to smoke crack and shoot heroin. And this insane woman was enabling his addictions in return for the occasional hump.

The idea that the state would give this woman a platform to spout her insanity to health care professionals was just bizzare to me.

 

(this plagiarised from William Safire)
The following sarcastic remark from a woman living in a slum. (oops sorry - I meant a 'socially deprived area')
"I used to think I was 'poor'.
Then they told me I wasn’t 'poor', I was 'needy'.
Then they told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as 'needy', when actually I was 'deprived'.
Then as fashion rolled on, and 'deprived' became too judgemental, I became 'underprivileged' instead.
Then they told me 'underprivileged' was overused, so I became 'disadvantaged'.
I still don’t have a dime! But now I have a great vocabulary."

 

Shouldn't that be defined as stealing? It is stealing in the guise of pity.

 

This is an organization that gives roof for homeless, in France, because they have analyze that the roof have to go first for people to rebuilt themselves: