Is There A Viral Rash In Thailand That Is Similar In Apperance To Measles
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
-
Latest posts...
-
91
Crime Brazilian Couple Arrested at Samui Airport with 20 Million Baht Worth of Cocaine in Luggage
Another totally idiotic comment! If that was the case then why did the number 2 Mercedes driver, in an identical car not beat him all the time? -
8
Ground Fault ..... How?
Yes, no grounding and they all work, apart from this EV charger. -
26
Crime Pit Bull Mauls Woman’s Toe – Police Request CCTV Despite Missing Digit
No dog should ever be allowed to roam freely - none. The safety of the public must come before any misguided sense of freedom for domestic animals. Dogs, regardless of breed, should always be securely contained and under control. Far too often, we hear the same tired phrase after an attack: "He’s never done that before." But once is already too late when someone is mauled, traumatised, or killed. IF dog owners were more strictly and consistently held accountable for the actions of their animals, would we see fewer attacks? Almost certainly. If the consequences were immediate, severe, and unavoidable, owners would be far more likely to ensure their pets were kept in secure, escape-proof environments, with no opportunity to harm others. Any unprovoked attack by a dog on a human should carry an automatic and significant penalty for the owner - fines, criminal charges, and, where appropriate, bans on future ownership. Anything less is, in effect, enabling negligence. A toothless system sends a message that irresponsible ownership is tolerable, and that victims - often children - are just collateral damage. Moreover, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: some breeds simply should not exist in domestic settings. These dogs were bred specifically for aggression, for fighting, for dominance - traits that remain even if someone claims to have "trained it out." The very fact that extensive training is required to suppress aggressive tendencies in certain breeds is itself proof that these animals are not appropriate as pets. No one has an inalienable right to own a dog bred for violence. The wellbeing and safety of the wider community must take precedence over an individual's emotional attachment to a particular breed - especially when that breed is statistically overrepresented in severe attacks. The desire to own a "pittie," or any similar so-called 'dangerous breed', should never override public safety. Banning such breeds is not about punishing dogs. It’s about taking proactive, rational steps to prevent avoidable tragedies. We do not allow private citizens to own wild animals, for obvious reasons. It’s time Thailand treated breeds with violent potential with the same caution and legal scrutiny. A safe society is one where responsibility is non-negotiable, and where danger is not allowed to masquerade as a pet. -
8
-
115
-
5
Report Generous CEO Donates 108 Million Baht to Ang Thong Hospital
especially those billionaire-politicians
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now