On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:51:07AM -0400, frank theriault wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:41 AM, ann sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> > > seriously, there isn't anyway it couldn't at least be annoying to the dog... > > > > I think anyone that would do that to an animal is putting there own welfare > > well above the doggie's > > > > food coloring does not = benign... > > > > It might not be criminal but it is certainly not nice. > > I have to agree with you here, Ann. The thing about it (other than > the fact that it's possibly mildly toxic as well as annoying for the > dog) is that the animal has no choice in the matter. A human can > weigh the pros and cons and decide if they want to do it; the dog > obviously has no say, so to impose something like that on it just > isn't fair, IMHO.
So, by that logic, I assume you support all the bans on photography in public places? After all, that's imposing something (the act of being photographed) on the subjects - something in which they have no say, and which they apparently often feel is annoying and unfair. In the spectrum of human mistreatment of animals, I really have to feel that applying colouring (probably tested on humans :-) to an apparently healthy and well-fed dog, who appears to be enjoying the attention he gets, just doesn't even register as a real issue. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
