Meh. Good fellow. That’s the spirit, Steve, that’s the spirit.
Wow, this must be about the fastest that an SDMB thread has got to the sixth page (no, don’t link to one that got there faster; i’m making a general observation). I’m sure that someone has already made this point, but i can’t be bothered to sift through the trainwreck and find out.
Sure, 45 grand is a lot of money for a cat. For me, though, there is some redeeming feature in the penalty if it teaches irresponsible dog owners to keep their fucking pets under control. We’ve had quite a few threads on these message boards where people have told tales of being intimidated and even attacked by dogs on the loose (here’s one from just a couple of weeks ago), and in my opinion people who let their dogs do shit like this should face consequences stiff enough to deter others from similar irresponsibilty.
Should the woman have received 45 grand for the loss of her cat? Well, maybe it seems a bit excessive, but i certainly think that she deserves more than just the replacement cost of another cat. Just because some people believe that animals are on the same level as mere inanimate objects does not mean that everyone feels the same way, or that losing a cat is the same to this woman as losing a chair or a pillow.
But even if she doesn’t get the whole 45 grand, i don’t think that the penalty itself is especially excessive for someone who, after repeated warnings, continues to let his dog roam the neighborhood and make other people’s lives more difficult.
Yeah, such as those people whose neglect is bad enough that their pet has to be removed by a rescue group.
Oh, are you referring to the dog that we took on? The one that we gave up to a rescue group because it was the right thing to do when we realized we got in over our heads?
That’s not abuse, that’s not neglect. That’s responsibility. Someone better equipped to handle the dog now has a fine pet, the dog is happy, we’re happy, and we learned that we are not prepared to handle a pet right now, not with Robin and I in school and with me working a 12-hour shift 5 times a week. If that’s OK with you, that is.
We could have been pricks and had the dog euthanized, but what for? We could have just slipped the leash and had the dog run away, but what for? No, what we did was responsible, and you’re full of shit. But you knew that before you said anything, you were just hoping that I wouldn’t say anything to refute your implication. Anything else you have to say? I thought not.
Wit is wasted on an individual who thinks a cat is worth more than a human.
And it must be pointed out that she intends to donate any money she receives to an animal protection group. She is not profitting from this award.
Are any of the posts really contributing anything to this thread? Has this thread been anything more than a slapfest over how much love is appropriate for pets? Out of the six pages that this thread has swelled too, how many of the posts are anything more than people posting the gut reactions that they’ve had?
And please do not tell me when to post. I payed my fee same as you. My posting rights are the same as yours.
I opened this thread thinking that maybe the thread had turned into a discussion of the possibilities of the trauma she suffered. Turns out I was wrong.
IMHO, she sued for revenge. She wasn’t looking for money, just a measure of payback for her dead cat. My brain keeps catching on the “smoking claim.” Sounds like one story too many.
Threadshitting is not illegal. It’s just rude and unpleasant. You decided to post - without reading the thread, no less - to say that every post in the last six pages was worthless. You’re entitled to that opinion. I’m entitled to conclude - and with a good deal more reason, obviously - that you’re an obnoxious little threadshitter. If you don’t want to discuss the issue, go elsewhere. I don’t condemn every thread that I don’t personally enjoy, especially not the long debates. You should have the courtesy to do the same. I can’t force you to, but you should.
Former smoker here with a contrary take on that.
I did finally quit, after several failed attempts and twenty years of smoking. On some of those tries I stayed clean for several months, once a full year. Then something intensely stressful occurred and I found myself back on the butts.
If this woman smoked for a long time and finally quit some time before this happened, yeh, I can easily see how the emotional shock of it would have got her smoking again, where if it hadn’t happened she would have remained a former smoker.
The news stories don’t give enough detail to know whether my hypothesis is correct, but I think it’s reasonable. On that basis, yes, resuming smoking would be an element of her damages.
It’s amazing how much time you gave him to respond.
Thank you. It’s nice to see someone not bleat “she’s crazy” like a sheep.
I was unaware that sheep could speak… does this mean that they’re talking wool babies?
You couldn’t even be bothered to walk the poor dog. That’s rather more than “being in over your heads”, it is neglect. Responsibility would have been not thinking a pet is an automaton that’ll turn off when you can’t cope with paying attention it for even a few minutes a day. Responsibility would have been not trying to take on the care of an animal when you are so obviously ill-equipped, as you whined about in your next paragraph.
Pfft. I took care of an elderly and terminally-ill pet while working two jobs and attending school full-time. You’re just incompetent, neglectful, and unwilling to admit that you should not be allowed to have pets.
What a remarkably stupid thing to say. Were you thinking I’d use my psychic powers to know what you were going to post and then pop in before you hit “submit reply”?
I said DON’T get me started!!!
Well, actually they did - for the doggies anyway.
The thing that makes your rudeness so funny is how pointless it is. Throughout the whole course of this dialog, you’ve basically argued with yourself. I made a general, nonscientific statement about emotional bonds in response to someone who stated that an emotional bond with a cat was all in your head. I made the point that all emotional bonds were in your head, specifically the limbic system.
Perhaps it was some adolescent trauma that compelled you to rip non sequiturs out of your ass and sling them around. Who knows what might have motivated you. But here you came, typing out common knowledge factoids culled from one of your bookmarks about how it isn’t just the limbic system that is involved in emotions. As though it were some great revelation or sharing of secret knowledge, you stated that there is controversy (gasp) over what comprises the limbic system. Nevermind that that had jack shit to do with the point. You announced that the statement I had made — an observation about emotional attachments to cats — oversimplified brain anatomy and physiology. The brain, you wanted us all to know, is a complicated thing.
You even declared that “all everything” that exists exists in your head, as though the universe were created on the day you were born. When I acknowledged that you were right, that emotions affect all areas of the brain, but pointed out that that was beside the point since emotions originate in the limbic system, you tried to make it seem like you had corrected me on some point or other — a point that in fact I had never made. Then you sought to make it sound like I was equivocating because I used the term “originated” in a subsequent post that I had not used in my first one. Well, you sir, used exactly 87 new terms in subsequent posts that you did not used in your first one. If your standard was that we type our first post over and over verbatim, then you fell below it.
Meanwhile, let me quote to you from my cereal box. The comments are written by Júlio Rocha do Amaral, MD , Teacher of clinical pharmacology, anatomy and physiology, Medical Manager of Merck S/A Indústrias Químicas (pharmaceutical and chemical industries), Redactor of didactic manuals on anatomy, physiology and pharmacology used by Merck S/A, Editing supervisor of the following scientific publications: Senecta, Galenus and Sinapse, Redactor of clinical trials and protocols since 1978, Assistant coordinator of courses on Oxydology sponsored by the Human Being Institute and UNIGRANRIO (University of Great Rio), Head of Psychiatric Service, Neurosciences Department, The Human Being Institute, Co-author of the book “Principles of Neurosciences” and Jorge Martins de Oliveira, MD, PhD, Full Professor and Master of UFRJ (Rio de Janeiro), Associate Professor of UFF, Scientific Coordinator, Coordinador and Director of the Department of Neurosciences of the Institute of Human Being (RJ), Fellow in Research by Saint Vincent Charity Hospital, Cleveland, USA, Full Member of Brazilian Academy of Military Medicine, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Writers Physicians, Graduated by Superior School of War (ESG):
*In 1878, the French neurologist Paul Broca called attention to the fact that, on the medial surface of the mammalian brain, right underneath the cortex, there exits an area containing several nuclei of gray matter (neurons) which he denominated limbic lobe (from the Latin word “limbus” that implies the idea of circle, ring, surrounding, etc) since it forms a kind of border around the brain stem ( in another part of this text we shall write more about these nuclei).
The entirety of these structures, that, years later would receive the name of “limbic system”, developed with the emergence of the inferior ( primitive) mammals. This system commands certain behaviors that are necessary for the survival of all mammals. It gives rise and modulates specific functions that allow the animal to distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable. Here specific affective functions are developed, such as the one that induces the females to nurse and protect their toddlers, or the one which induces these animals to develop ludic behaviors (playful moods). Emotions and feelings, like wrath, fright, passion, love, hate, joy and sadness, are mammalian inventions, originated in the limbic system. *
Here is their text on the main areas of the brain involved in emotions, i.e., the limbic system. You’ll find there the point you made about other structures interfering with emotional expression as well. But since we were talking about normal people, and not lobotomized zombies, and their emotional bonds with pets — the point had fuck all to do with anything. If you’re going to be rude, at least be interesting.
[…scratching head…] Aren’t you the one who just excoriated me for being too technical in order to sound smarter than I am? And now when I make a simple comment in a thread about emotional bonds with cats, you join an anal retentive know-it-all in bashing me for being simplistic? Nothing you (or he) wrote contradicts what I said. Never did I say that emotions begin, stay, and end in the limbic system. Never did I say that other parts of the brain are unaffected by emotions. Never did I say that all internal states boil down to the limbic system. You once claimed that I did not read your posts before responding. I suggest that you examine yourself for any similar fault.
I would like to know more details on her smoking habit. I used to smoke myself and know that stress does make the little bastards more appealing. Given the amount of other problems she had, the smoking just seems like one problem too many.\
Excalibre, calling this thread a long debate is stretching things. What I read was an endless screed of “You’re crazy to love your pet that much/You’re an asshole if you don’t love your pet that much” garnished with loads more insults than necessary. If you want to write me off as obnoxious little threadshitter, feel free.
That would be a matter of trial tactics, as decided by her lawyer. When you’re suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress causing pain and suffering (I assume that, or some such legal theory was the basis for the complaint), you have to show not merely that the defendant did a rotten thing, but also that it caused specific, provable harm. In such a case, it’s preferable to allege as many kinds of harm inflicted as you can offer evidence for. That way, if the trier of fact finds that one aspect of damage is not proven, the plaintiff has other grounds for a finding in his/her favor.
Emotional distress can affect a person in a multitude of ways, and a good lawyer will bring out every way in which it affects that particular plaintiff, while not throwing in clearly bogus claims that will make his/her overall case look weaker. It’s the lawyer’s job, not the claimant’s, to explore all the possible grounds for a claim and to select those which will best support the case.