Kristi Nom Reminds Us We Are Animals

[Diogenes]

I referenced Singer to demonstrate the categorical distinction made among some pro-choice advocates between an organism with sentience and an organism without, as would be apparent to anyone who's taken a critical thinking class, let alone is passionate about philosophy.

-Sam

I presume you are pro-choice (though to what degree idk) and you anti-puppy shooting in this particulars of the Noem case. It's reasonably to believe you share Singer's position while being tactful to merely reference Singer as an aside. Such a tactic is already employed by Hypatia who routinely quotes and otherwise references otherwise while not giving her positions.


I'm curious where you draw the line of elective abortion and where it should be outlawed.

[Sparko]

The dog didn't "go on to attack humans". We've been over this extensively. By Noem's own account, it "went to bite her" as she was intervening with it killing chickens. If you put your hand near a dog in the middle of a prey attack, it's probably going to whip around at you, too. That's just the dog not recognizing, in the moment, the difference between a human hand and its prey.

That doesn't make the dog dangerous to humans. If I put down every dog that nipped or bit at my hand when I was pulling away from it's "prey play" or scrapping with another dog ...

-Sam

Sam, you are merely going by what she wrote/what was reported and what you are imagining happened. You were not there, you did not know the dog, so your judgment of what "really happened" is just that, your imagination.

I myself would not put down my dog if he did what she reported, but then I actually know my dog very well and know that his temperament is not normally violent, and he is usually a nice calm dog. In fact, he did snap at me once when I went to intervene between him and another bigger dog where he appeared to be frightened and I tried to separate them. I have no idea of what the temperament or personality of Noem's dog was, and neither do you. But Noem did, so why not accept her judgment on the matter?

[Sam]

Sam, you are merely going by what she wrote/what was reported and what you are imagining happened. You were not there, you did not know the dog, so your judgment of what "really happened" is just that, your imagination.

I myself would not put down my dog if he did what she reported, but then I actually know my dog very well and know that his temperament is not normally violent, and he is usually a nice calm dog. In fact, he did snap at me once when I went to intervene between him and another bigger dog where he appeared to be frightened and I tried to separate them. I have no idea of what the temperament or personality of Noem's dog was, and neither do you. But Noem did, so why not accept her judgment on the matter?

Because Noem's account of what happened doesn't justify the action she took. And if there are exculpatory details not contained in her book, Noem hasn't provided them even despite having numerous chances to do so. Noem hasn't alleged with any detail that this was a habitually violent dog; her one example of the dog "attacking" a human is when she intervened with a fowl-hunting dog's attack on chickens. And that's a situation I'm familiar with.

Even if the dog was dangerous in certain circumstances, I would expect a person to exhaust their options before shooting it. But Noem's account doesn't give any indication that the dog required rehoming, let alone euthanizing. Why would I blindly accept her judgement on the matter when this is the story and these are the details that she chose to offer to show her leadership qualities?

-Sam

[Sparko]

Because Noem's account of what happened doesn't justify the action she took. And if there are exculpatory details not contained in her book, Noem hasn't provided them even despite having numerous chances to do so. Noem hasn't alleged with any detail that this was a habitually violent dog; her one example of the dog "attacking" a human is when she intervened with a fowl-hunting dog's attack on chickens. And that's a situation I'm familiar with.

Even if the dog was dangerous in certain circumstances, I would expect a person to exhaust their options before shooting it. But Noem's account doesn't give any indication that the dog required rehoming, let alone euthanizing. Why would I blindly accept her judgement on the matter when this is the story and these are the details that she chose to offer to show her leadership qualities?

-Sam

Sam, I haven't read the book, have you? You MAY be entirely correct, but you can just as easily be entirely wrong. You don't know Noem, or her dog, or the history of the dog. Not mentioning every detail in a book is not the same as it never happening. She clearly indicated in interviews and in the book that the dog was "untrainable" - that suggest trying to train it and failing. Over a period of time. Dogs can have personality and mental problems just like people. And why would you rehome a dog you know to be violent? That is just opening you up for a lawsuit if that dog harms someone else later.

You are trying to act way more authoritative on this subject than you have any right to be. But I guess that is nothing new.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because Noem's account of what happened doesn't justify the action she took. And if there are exculpatory details not contained in her book, Noem hasn't provided them even despite having numerous chances to do so. Noem hasn't alleged with any detail that this was a habitually violent dog; her one example of the dog "attacking" a human is when she intervened with a fowl-hunting dog's attack on chickens. And that's a situation I'm familiar with.

Even if the dog was dangerous in certain circumstances, I would expect a person to exhaust their options before shooting it. But Noem's account doesn't give any indication that the dog required rehoming, let alone euthanizing. Why would I blindly accept her judgement on the matter when this is the story and these are the details that she chose to offer to show her leadership qualities?

-Sam

I suspect that Ms Noem is, judging from her photographs, the literal blue eyed darling of some here.

[Cow Poke]

I suspect that Ms Noem is, judging from her photographs, the literal blue eyed darling of some here.

You're just jealous.

[rogue06]

Sam, I haven't read the book, have you? You MAY be entirely correct, but you can just as easily be entirely wrong. You don't know Noem, or her dog, or the history of the dog. Not mentioning every detail in a book is not the same as it never happening. She clearly indicated in interviews and in the book that the dog was "untrainable" - that suggest trying to train it and failing. Over a period of time. Dogs can have personality and mental problems just like people. And why would you rehome a dog you know to be violent? That is just opening you up for a lawsuit if that dog harms someone else later.

You are trying to act way more authoritative on this subject than you have any right to be. But I guess that is nothing new.

Interestingly, Noem says that she took the dog in after others decided it was too aggressive and decided to get rid of it.

She does mention taking it hunting and trying to train it but had no success.

[Sparko]

Interestingly, Noem says that she took the dog in after others decided it was too aggressive and decided to get rid of it.

She does mention taking it hunting and trying to train it but had no success.

I don't know the dog or the situation so I have no opinion on it other than I hate to see any pet put down. I had to put down two of my dogs when one had cancer and the other ended up blind and deaf and was starting to get dementia. Hardest thing I have ever done.

I just think that if all they could find to complain about in her book was this situation with a dog, then it must be a pretty good book. I will leave all the hand-wringing to the liberals on the matter.

[rogue06]

You're just jealous.

Given that the comment came out of nowhere.

[Sam]

Sam, I haven't read the book, have you? You MAY be entirely correct, but you can just as easily be entirely wrong. You don't know Noem, or her dog, or the history of the dog. Not mentioning every detail in a book is not the same as it never happening. She clearly indicated in interviews and in the book that the dog was "untrainable" - that suggest trying to train it and failing. Over a period of time. Dogs can have personality and mental problems just like people. And why would you rehome a dog you know to be violent? That is just opening you up for a lawsuit if that dog harms someone else later.

You are trying to act way more authoritative on this subject than you have any right to be. But I guess that is nothing new.

The excerpts from Noem's book are publicly available, were you interested in those details, and as I wrote earlier, Noem has not provided any exculpatory details not already public, despite having numerous chances to do so in front of friendly media. Noem's depiction of the dog being untrainable refers to its utility at hunting — but, even if it were not trainable in general, that would not remotely equate to "violent" or "dangerous". Noem gives no indications, to anyone who's dealt with dogs in the situations she describes, that the dog posed a danger to humans.

"Being familiar" isn't "acting authoritative". You're asking why I'm not willing to give Noem the benefit of the doubt and I'm explaining why: the details she provides aren't sufficient to justify what she did and, being personally familiar with dogs that bite people under certain circumstances (e.g., chicken killers, food insecure, hurt), I have no reason to believe that Noem wasn't facing a completely common occurrence.

That's why.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

Bottom line -
those who aren't gonna vote for Noem will now not vote for her even harder.
Those who are gonna vote for her will overlook this mountain of a molehill.

Oh, and, apparently, she has blue eyes.

[rogue06]

Bottom line -
those who aren't gonna vote for Noem will now not vote for her even harder.
Those who are gonna vote for her will overlook this mountain of a molehill.

Oh, and, apparently, she has blue eyes.

I think this has likely sunk her chances of being named as OMB's running mate.

[Cow Poke]

I think this has likely sunk her chances of being named as OMB's running mate.

Could well me, and I won't shed a tear. On the other hand, Trump seems to love being "in your face", so...

[rogue06]

Could well me, and I won't shed a tear. On the other hand, Trump seems to love being "in your face", so...

But he wants to be the one who's in your face.

[Cow Poke]

But he wants to be the one who's in your face.

But if he takes on Noem, it's REALLY "in your face".
But, you're right - it's usually much more self-centered.
But since you're so seldom right, I'll give you this one.
But you know I'm only kidding.
But you probably don't know about which part I am kidding.