billsmart

Without humans, dogs, being predators and carnivores, would prey on the other local wildlife. If the population was too large to support all the dogs, their population would eventually diminish to a level that was sustainable. The large and unnatural size of the dog population has been caused by humans who have imported them, and then discarded them, leaving them to try to fend for themselves. The "soi dog problem" is just a symptom of human hubris and human disregard for any other life form. My point it, we created this problem, and it should be up to us to "fix" it. Many are recommending wholesale slaughter of soi dogs, but that would just be a short-term, local solution. The real solution is for humans to change the way they view themselves in relationship to the world. I'm sure that will not happen, so, unfortunately, we (humans) will go on destroying other animals and plants to provide us with the conveniences we think we need and deserve. We'll keep doing that until we've destroyed most of the Earth's resources. Then, the real solution to problems like this will occur.

Yes, we do have a different understanding of the word "share." Your one phrase, "we need to manage them" tells me all about you I need to know. You don't want to "share." You want to "dominate" and "manage" other forms of life, and the environment as whole, to provide you with comfort. You, IMO, have no regard for all the other life on this planet and are hiding your head in the sand regarding the long-term effect of that approach. You, and others like you, IMO, ARE the problem.

My course of action is described in the last section of my recent book on this subject (humankind's destruction of the Earth's environment, not soi dogs). It is told in an analogy called The Starfish Story. I'd encourage you to read the story here: The Starfish Story – Original Story by: Loren Eisley - Ataturk Society of America

The only long-term solution is to get rid of the humans.

I didn't mean to refer to YOU personally. WE means HUMANS, our species. WE, both Thai and foreigners, brought the majority of these dogs here. There are some native wild dogs, but most of them are gone now. I didn't bring any dogs with me to Thailand when I came either. My Thai wife and i have been looking after a large number of dogs ever I have lived on this property in the mountains, which has been about 15 years now. I think this number, 14, is now the most we've ever had. All our neighbors have dogs also, but usually no more than two or three. I am 76, so I don't know how I'll be two years from now when I'm 78, but I don't expect my attitude about the dogs will change.

I addressed this in my last response to you, so I won't repeat all that here. It is YOU that is taking a microsopic view of the problem, and it is through a microscope that is only viewed from a human perspective. Stray dogs are just one, tiny part of the problem Human's continuing destruction of the Earth's biosphere is the macroscopic neutral view of whole problem. We (humans) are a cancer on this planet. Stray dogs are just a small, almost imperceptible symtom of that.

No, I couldn't care for thousands of dogs. I've indicated a reasonable plan would be to relocate them to somewhere where they would not be considered a nuisance. The place to which they are relocated would provide them with shelter, feed them, and pay for any veterinary expenses they incur. The people who own or use property where the dogs defecate should be responsible for cleaning it up, if that's what they think should be done. Relocating them is a cop out? What do you call killing them, a solution? What you, and many others, fail to own up to is WE (humans) CREATED this "problem" by bringing all these dogs here in the first place, and also by expecting our living conditions to be free from all other forms of life. WE, in fact, are the problem, not these dogs, or the snakes, or the mice, or any other of the animals and plants that we should expect to SHARE this Earth with.

I don't live in a town. I live on about 16 rai in the mountains. I now have 14 dogs, all who were abandoned along the mountain road which runs past our property. These three dogs would be welcome here. Being popular is not my main concern.

First of all, I recommended they be relocated somewhere they would not be thought to be a problem. But more fundamental is the fact that killing something because you think it's a problem is just not an acceptable thing to do.

I'm a US citizen, and this news, of course, is horrible. However, whether the young girl is guilty of a crime depends on when she killed him. The news article, and none of the reports I've heard on TV, doesn't say. If she killed him while he was in the act of raping her, or immediately after he raped her, or even if he attempted to rape her or told her he was giving her to a "client," that would be considered self-defense and there would be no crime. If she killed him the next day, or several days after the rape, that could be considered aggravated manslaughter or justifiable homicide. If she killed him the next month or year, that could be considered premediated murder. But, as for the civil penalties, the $150,000, I don't know why that would ever be awarded in the case of the first two timelines.

Hopefully, the dogs will be relocated to somewhere they won't be thought to be a problem.

My biggest concern is that my own country, the USA, might reduce or even stop my Social Security (old-age pension) payments. The USA is going through a very divisive political time right now, and unfortunately, anything is possible. And yes, knowing what I know now, I would sell everything and move to Thailand again today. Or, if not that, move to some remote place in or to an island off the US state of Alaska.

I hope they don't kill them. This the exactly the same "problem" with soi dogs that's being raised. These animals are here doing whatever they can to survive. We (humans) are the ones that are invading their territory. We should at least do all we can to make sure they are treated "humanely" (although that term is an oxymoron ???? ), and moved off to somewhere they can live without being constantly disturbed by hubristic humans.

I use Lazada a lot. Sometimes I cannot find what I want, but most of the time, I find something that at least somewhat matches the term I use for a search.

I was going to only react to this article with a sad face, but I just noticed there are none! There are only four choices, and all are positive! Has AseanNow decided to prevent any negative reactions to articles or posts? ????

What was he charged with? ????

So now, does his agreement to pay her for his groping now officially classify her as a "working girl"? ????

All plants are living beings, just like mammals and other animals like birds, lizards, insects, fish, etc. Most plants are killed in the process of eating them. There are some that aren't and those are the fruits of plants. There are people called "fruitarians" that only eat fruits. But, if they think that by doing that, they are avoiding killing other beings in order to live, they are wrong. An example of that is that even your skin kills bacteria. If you are living, you do so at the expense of other lifeforms. That's just a fact.

Killing and eating animals or plants is not the same as killing them for your convenience or just for fun. All life is sustained by the taking of other life. That's just a rule of nature. When is comes to damage, humans cause more damage to the Earth than any other animal, including dogs. We are like a cancer on this planet.

Thanks for your honest answers. I disagree with both of them, but I'm sure that's not a surprise to you.

You first gave me a choice of killing one living being or list of others. My response was that I could not make that decision based on what you described as "value," but, if I had time to even make a decision, I would consider the number of lives and the possibility of success. Just above, I asked you a very simple question. I gave you a list of humans with different characteristics, and asked you to tell me which one you'd hit with a car if you had to hit one. In other words, which one of these humans do you "value" the least? And, as usual, you don't have an answer. You can ask a lot of questions, but never respond to any yourself. I'd call that a classic case of "futile."

I didn't say I would "rather" do anything, like swerve. I said I would rather NOT do that. I'd rather NOT ever have to be in a situation like that. I did say that depending on the circumstances, and if I had time enough to make a decision, I would consider the number of lives involved and the place I could swerve to injure or kill the fewest beings. What I did say is that, if i had the time, I would NOT make the decision based on the any "value" I might put on the lives in question. All the lives are the same value to me. What you asked me is like me asking you, "If you were driving and there was a 4-year-old child, a 10-year-old child, a teenager, an adult woman, and an adult man on standing in a line on the road and you had to hit one, which one would you hit?" Yes, I agree with your last point, though. In fact, I think "futile" is a good description of you in general.

The funniest (saddest) thing I've seen (or heard, actually) about wearing masks is that some people actually think it's being done to "control" them, and not as a method to help curb the spread of COVID-19. ????

My actions would not be based on a valuation of "worth." My actions would first of all be spontaneous, and not necessarily based on any thinking. If I had the time to think, I would probably first rescue the one who I thought I was most confident in my ability to save.

Ooppps, even more "futile" dialog... In this thread, I try to construct my answers from a neutral perspective, or at least not a human-only perspective. About your "madness" comment, I don't know what you're talking about. Try barking. ????