On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 10:55:29 +0000 (UTC), RJH
wrote:

On 5 Dec 2020 at 10:32:56 GMT, "T i m" wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 05:37:39 +0000, williamwright
wrote:

On 04/12/2020 18:05, T i m wrote:

Basically Bills view on the world is that if you can afford it, and
presumably it's not actually illegal, he / anyone should be allowed to
do it, no matter how much it might impact anyone / thing else.

That's more-or-less correct.

I know?

That's how the world works.

No, that's how your world works.

I'm pretty sure most people would add something after 'afford it' - like 'and
it's the decent thing to do'.

Agreed, however, I really believe some (luckily only a minority *are*
sufficiently selfish (as deemed by 'most people') and so wouldn't.

It's why many laws have come about of course, to mange those who are
'antisocial' and can see so follow any other (non legal) societal
limits. And many don't even follow the legal limits and end up in
court / prison etc.

And leave out the 'irrespective of harm'.

You would like to think.

I have
a feeling that Bill is deploying a bit of mischief . . . E&OE etc. ;-)

That may well be the case, even if he doesn't realise it himself.

He obviously cares for his dogs so does care for some animals, he just
hasn't worked out how illogical his dealing with animals actually is
and because he's old, probably never will. ;-)

Cheers, T i m