billsmart

Well, it looks like you think more discussion is NOT futile. No, I would not swerve by car into a kid to miss something else. I might consider that if it was a large group of something elses, like a pack of dogs or a dozen lizards on the road. I would, of course, try to swerve the car to hit nothing, but that's no always possible.

Yes, I agree...

No, I don't believe a soi dog has MORE rights than me. I do believe a soi dog has as much rights as me. YOU're the one who believes YOU have more rights than a soi dog, a cat, a snake, a mosquito, a lizard, a fish, a tree, etc. That is called "hubris," and it is destroying our planet.

Scent.

All you're answers on only from a human perspective. I also take offense at your use of the term "invested." It sounds too capitalistic to me. In any event, all your answers already ASSUMES that a human's life is worth more than a dog's. That, as I've said in some of my former posts, is hubris, and is, IMO, the basis of all this "soi dogs kill them all" attitude, and in a broader sense, the same attitude that is destroying all of the Earth's entire biosphere. Humans are the problem here, and in most places for most problems.

I'd ask you to read my book, The Icarus Syndrome, but I know you won't. It is, I identify human technology as the proximate cause of our continuing destruction of the Earth's biosphere, and the two primary causes are human hubris and human overpopulation. I also come to the conclusion in the book that we are already "over the cliff" on all of this. Here is a link to the book for anyone that is interested... The Icarus Syndrome (books2read.com)

What you say above is more accurate is you replace "soi dogs" with "humans." We are the real "vermin" and cancer that is destroying all life on this planet.

Yes! You're correct! I call that "hubris" and it is the topic of my recent book, The Icarus Syndrome. And, yes, we also value other life in a manner that is somewhat equivalent to how close it is to our own. I've attached an image of that I used in the book. Hubris is what is causing humans to destroy the environment on this planet, and the "soi dogs problem" is just one small example of that. ????

OvorBuggun2: I asked a question. Can you answer it? I asked why you think a human's life is worth more than a dog's life (or any other life)? If you can't answer that, all the arguments you've presented are worthless.

Thank you for clearly stating this problem. You would remove 1000 dogs is only ONE of them MAY attack a child at some point in the future. Now, in your statement above, if by "remove" you mean "relocate them somewhere they could have a better life," then I'd think that would be something to consider, but still wouldn't agree wholeheartedly. The child could also be removed/relocated. The bottom line is that a human's life is not worth more than a dog's life. Why would you think otherwise?

No, its not a different matter. Humans kill and kill and kill animals and plants all over the Earth. You're, at worst, complaining about a few dogs attacking humans in Bangkok (or wherever it is you live).

I wouldn't say "dogs for on the attack for no reason." I think they have a reason. It might be terrirorial; it might be out of fear; it might be frustration driven by hunger. It's my opinion that dogs that are well fed and cared for don't go on the attack. But, as I've said here many times, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against an aggressive and vicious dog. I'm saying you should not judge all soi dogs by a single or a few vicious ones and should not believe a remedy is to "kill them all." A better remedy would be for the neighborhood to "adopt them all.:

"Inconvenience" is now being willing to share the territory with them. Many humans want the place they live to be free from all other life forms. They move into a place, tear down everything that's there, build their home, and then want all the animals they've displaced to just disappear, or they'll kill them. You send me all the reports of a four-year-old, or any other human, getting hurt by a dog, and I'll send you 1,000,000 times that amount of reports of humans killing other animals for convenience (defined above) or even just for fun.

It tells me that you just wash your hands of any problems and blame them all on someone else.

You first sentence could apply to humans who do not wear masks or keep their distance in public. I don't see regular reports of people getting attacked by dogs. I do see regular reports here on AseanNow of people who are in favor of killing soi dogs. In fact, this very thread is the result of someone shooting a dog (not even a "soi" dog but someone's pet) with a rifle. What you are suggesting with your last sentence is to judge all soi dogs by the few that are aggressive. That's what I object to. It's the "kill them all" attitude that disgusts me.

Good. Keep it that way. And, if a dog, snake, rat, or human attacks you, you have the right, IMO, to defend yourself up to and including killing them if that what it takes.

No, you should go out and walk on the streets. As I've said earlier, if you are attacked by a dog, cat, snake, rat, or human, you should defend yourself. If that means killing the attacker, kill it. What I'm saying you shouldn't do is go out and kill soi dogs (or anything else) just because you are AFRAID they will do something that will harm you. But, actually, it's worse than that. In the case of most of the posters in favor of killing soi dogs, they just want to kill them because they are an inconvenience.

Your statement above "They are not there because of me at all they are there because of others" tells me all I need to know about you. ????

No different than humans who think they own the planet and everything else is subject to their whims. Humans kill many more other life forms every day than soi dogs or rats.

They can try to walk wherever they want. They might get shot at if they walked on some other human's private property. Or maybe challenged with snarls on some soi dog's "home turf." If they feel fearful walking in places like these, then they shouldn't go there anymore, or if they want to, try to make prior arrangements with the one's in charge of the property. I guess they could also eliminate the human who owns the property or the soi dogs who live there, but I think that would be the last resort.

Female dogs, if they are spayed, are not of interest to either male or other female dogs. They are not subject to either male sexual advances or other females seeking dominance. That's been my experience with the dogs I have, anyway.

The males need testosterone to help defend themselves against other male dogs (and maybe a stray human ????).

I don't feel "responsible" for them. I feel compassion for them. I assume you by "running free...knock a motorcyclist off" you are implying the dog was chasing the motorcyclist. That doesn't happen up here, at least I've never seen it, but I'm sure it happens in other places. I have seen cars up here purposely swerve to hit dogs and kill or injure them. In either of these cases, I don't feel responsible for the dog's or the human's actions. They are responsible, however, and should be punished. If it continues for too long, they should be put down. I do think in both cases that the dog or the human should be

I agree. Killing them is just to "easy" of an answer. They are there because of "us," so "we" should do something for them to help live their life in relative ease.

We do have the females spayed, but leave the males as-is because they need all the testosterone they can get living up here in the mountains.