Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should Johnny Depp's dogs be put down?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    You don't fck with Aussie customs officials, everyone knows that.


  • Options
    #63
    somesoldiers
    Registered Users Posts: 13,845 ✭✭✭✭somesoldiers


    Just heard this called "The War on Terrier", made me laugh. Least it's not "something-gate"


  • Options
    #64
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But they are still dogs, not people, so words like "nobody" and "anyone " have no application.
    Thank you Captain Pedantic, you saved the day yet again, where would we all be without you.


  • Options
    #65
    Boom_Bap
    Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    This is going to be the greatest episode of Border Security: Australia's Front Line yet.


  • Options
    #66
    Hitchens
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭Hitchens


    well .......dog(s)gone! :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,800 ✭✭✭take everything


    Love the Agricultural minister's response: it's time the dogs "buggered off back to the US".
    Refreshing Australian bluntness. :D


  • Options
    #68
    Larianne
    Registered Users Posts: 35,954 ✭✭✭✭Larianne


    anncoates wrote: »
    It did raise the worrying thought that all Government officials there are like a cross between Jackie Healy Rae and Alf from Home and Away.

    Nah, I'd say the official knew this was his chance to make international stardom so had to make an impact!

    And here we are talking about him. :D


  • Options
    #69
    wendell borton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭wendell borton


    No_Comply wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks killing two dogs over some red tape is a heartless imbecile.

    I know there are laws and procedures he should've followed, but they're dogs for God's sake, not exotic creatures that will destroy their flora and fauna!

    The dogs are there now. Just deport all three of them. Johnny Depp couldn't be that hard to find!

    Australia is one of a couple of rabies free countries, here included. If it was to get into the country a lot more dogs than Depp's two would end up being put down.


  • Options
    #70
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Really angry he didn't sort it out. He has the means to. I hope he does the right thing i'm sure he will.


  • Options
    #71
    RZoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭RZoran


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    The dogs haven't been let in. Maybe they thought he'd be able to produce documentation by fax or email or whatever. Perhaps a bit dazzled by his fame, but correct to not bend the rules for him. Anyway, the dogs should be sent home not killed, which I'm sure is what will happen. Someone just made a fuss for a bit of attention, I guess.

    This doesn't excuse Depp, Australia is entitled to have the strict regulations they have and they need to be applied across the board. It was his responsibility to have the necessary documentation, just like everyone else.

    Here is an idea, how about the Australian government doesn't provide $20 million in incentives for the film to shoot there in the fist place. How about the major studio behind it makes sure Depp knowns about the rules. Locals and imported US film workers are not going to exactly be experts on animal imports. Depp is obviously not like everybody else. His assistant/agent takes care of his life and that person happens to be his sister so it is not like he is going to fire her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    RZoran wrote: »
    Here is an idea, how about the Australian government doesn't provide $20 million in incentives for the film to shoot there in the fist place. How about the major studio behind it makes sure Depp knowns about the rules. Locals and imported US film workers are not going to exactly be experts on animal imports. Depp is obviously not like everybody else. His assistant/agent takes care of his life and that person happens to be his sister so it is not like he is going to fire her.

    Oh dear lord. :pac::D:pac:


  • Options
    #73
    RZoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭RZoran


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    Oh dear lord. :pac::D:pac:

    Yea, google the problems they had with other animals on the set in Australia already.


  • Options
    #74
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    RZoran wrote: »
    Yea, google the problems they had with other animals on the set in Australia already.

    I've never been to Australia. I have a good idea of how strict they are re: the introduction of outside flora and fauna. If I was going there, I would solidify my knowledge. Anyone going there needs to educate themselves on same. No excuses, no apologists on their behalf. And someone as well-travelled as Mr. Depp should be more knowledgeable than most, not less.


  • Options
    #75
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    silverfeather wrote: »
    Really angry he didn't sort it out. He has the means to. I hope he does the right thing i'm sure he will.

    Are you really 'really angry'?


  • Options
    #76
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Canis Lupus wrote: »
    Are you really 'really angry'?
    Yes are you taking the piss or just pissing me off?


  • Options
    #77
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    fin12 wrote: »
    No but him and his wife so arrogant, thinking their above the law, just cause they're Celebrities. I'm glad this will be an inconvenience to him.
    Not at the sake of the dogs.


  • Options
    #78
    chops27
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭chops27


    Johnny depp should be put down not the dogs!


  • Options
    #79
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    chops27 wrote: »
    Johnny depp should be put down not the dogs!
    I was thinking that then thought that's too far. But seriously he actually snuck them in. There is actually a risk the U.S will not let them back in now.


  • Options
    #80
    chops27
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭chops27


    It was a really stupid thing for him to do, everyone knows how strict the Australian are!! Hopefully the dogs will be alright, Depp could do with a lesson though, just cause he's a celebrity doesnt mean he can do whatever he wants!


  • Options
    #81
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    chops27 wrote: »
    It was a really stupid thing for him to do, everyone knows how strict the Australian are!! Hopefully the dogs will be alright, Depp could do with a lesson though, just cause he's a celebrity doesnt mean he can do whatever he wants!
    He is cold hearted vain idiot. His children are ferral he doesn't seem to raise them with much more care than the dogs what can you expect?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    rubadub wrote: »
    Thank you Captain Pedantic, you saved the day yet again, where would we all be without you.

    Ah no, pointing out the hysterical isn't being pedantic at all, and addressing animals in any way, shape or form as if they are humans is borderline hysterical. Or a silly attempt to colour the issue. It isn't pedantic to observe that they are just animals.


  • Options
    #83
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Deleted User wrote: »
    "Nobody" will die.

    They are not killing "anyone".

    The issue is whether dogs will be killed. Seems a bit ott to me. But they are still dogs, not people, so words like "nobody" and "anyone " have no application.

    If you take ANYTHING FROM THIS THREAD TAKE THIS.
    The very idea of animals rights the VERY BASIC TENET is that non human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. Further more that their most basic needs such as lack of suffering be afforded similar consideration to people. Not that they are equal to people but that they MOST BASIC NECESSARY NEEDS FOR LIFE but afforded a similar consideration.

    All animals have an interests particularly in NOT being put through pain. Being unable to enter into social contract it is up to PEOPLE to protect those rights.

    The first known animals protection legislation was passed in our own very country.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    silverfeather wrote: »
    If you take ANYTHING FROM THIS THREAD TAKE THIS.
    The very idea of animals rights the VERY BASIC TENET is that non human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives. Further more that their most basic needs such as lack of suffering be afforded similar consideration to people. Not that they are equal to people but that they MOST BASIC NECESSARY NEEDS FOR LIFE but afforded a similar consideration.

    All animals have an interests particularly in NOT suffering. Being unable to enter into social contract it is up to PEOPLE to protect those rights.

    The first known animals protection legislation was passed in our own very country.

    All well and good, but as I said animals are not people. So words like nobody and anyone have no application to them.

    If you put a thousand sentences in caps locks, it would not change that.


  • Options
    #85
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Deleted User wrote: »
    All well and good, but as I said animals are not people. So words like nobody and anyone have no application to them.

    If you put a thousand sentences in caps locks, it would not change that.
    The implications of saying that are untrue.

    See Locke and Hobbs on Person vrs Human Person.


  • Options
    #86
    Canis Lupus
    Registered Users Posts: 9,893 ✭✭✭Canis Lupus


    silverfeather wrote: »
    Yes are you taking the piss or just pissing me off?

    Why get 'really angry' over a couple of dogs and an actor you don't know?


  • Options
    #87
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Canis Lupus wrote: »
    Why get 'really angry' over a couple of dogs and an actor you don't know?
    The issue is something that affects me, by that I mean emotionally. Perhaps it's even illogical to you.

    I don't put it on par with human rights. Either a cause punches you in the stomach or it doesn't.

    How do you see the world? I see it partially through reason and partially though feeling.

    This feels wrong. It is the way this makes me feel.

    Animals are subjects of a life. They are subject to pain and so am I. We share that experience. We are subject to joy often from each other.

    I don't share as much with them as I do humans.

    I am not stupid or insipid. But I sometimes see the world through feeling. In fact that is sometimes how animals and humans reach each other.

    It's how I find compassion for even the most horrible things. Even writing this I am actually thinking possibly Depp feels such a gob****e now. Or perhaps I am naive and he really is a total ****.

    Sometimes I see the world through feeling. And then reason catches up.


  • Options
    #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    silverfeather wrote: »
    The implications of saying that are untrue.

    See Locke and Hobbs on Person vrs Human Person.

    You got a link to this?

    I need a laugh, animals are people too sounds like just the ticket.


  • Options
    #89
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You got a link to this?

    I need a laugh, animals are people too sounds like just the ticket.

    I did not say animals were people. The terms one or body is not particular to people. Anybody is a pronoun. A person can be referred as a that within grammatical correctness. Is a dog an 'it' or a 'she'? They too are personal pronouns. If you scratch a dogs bowl or collar you say 'Rex's collar, if you scratch his ear you talk about whose ear. Why that is Rex's ear. Do you talk about a table whose legs are scratched? Of course not! Do you say good BOY to your pillow for resting your head at night? No! Nouns and personal pronouns are absolutely used correctly for animals. Anyone and anybody can be used for animals. That is not to say they are humans. 'Is that anyone's bowl? No that is Rex's bowl. '


    Locke
    It's not about animals. But Locke makes the distinction between man (human) and person.

    What is it that makes a human a person and NOT a vegetable?? The brain ...feelings ...sensitivities....well animals have these ...they are animal beings not human beings. But they are not a 'that' their legs belong to them not to the table.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    silverfeather wrote: »
    I did not say animals were people. The terms one or body is not particular to people. Anybody is a pronoun. A person can be referred as a that within grammatical correctness. Is a dog an 'it' or a 'she'? They too are personal pronouns. If you scratch a dogs bowl or collar you say 'Rex's collar, if you scratch his ear you talk about whose ear. Why that is Rex's ear. Do you talk about a table whose legs are scratched? Of course not! Do you say good BOY to your pillow for resting your head at night? No! Nouns and personal pronouns are absolutely used correctly for animals. Anyone and anybody can be used for animals. That is not to say they are humans. 'Is that anyone's bowl? No that is Rex's bowl. '


    Locke
    It's not about animals. But Locke makes the distinction between man (human) and person.

    What is it that makes a human a person and NOT a vegetable?? The brain ...feelings ...sensitivities....well animals have these ...they are animal beings not human beings. But they are not a 'that' their legs belong to them not to the table.

    All well and good and I note what you say about Rex's bowl and the leg of the table (we won't dwell on the Locke reference, it was weak), but comfortable with my earlier assertion...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    ...animals are not people. So words like nobody and anyone have no application to them.

    You may disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Deleted User wrote: »
    All well and good and I note what you say about Rex's bowl and the leg of the table (we won't dwell on the Locke reference, it was weak), but comfortable with my earlier assertion...



    You may disagree.
    You may not disagree and consider yourself correct. Anybody may be used correctly for animals you may not think it politically correct but it is grammatically correct.

    My dog, whom I may call Rex is in the hall. It comforts me to stroke him. You do not use which or that or 'thing'. You don't say anything. We tend to use pronouns for pets in literature more than wild animals though I'll grant you.


Advertisement