William MacDonald wrote:These examples are all irrelevant to the OP's question.
Well, not in the big picture
; I'm interested in changing Japanese society for (what I perceive to be) the better in the long run
. As I acknowledged in my original post, there's relatively little that the OP can do in this unfortunate situation.
William MacDonald wrote:Option 3 was my option. It the highest chance of complete success.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree here, and let the readers decide who is offering the superior solution, the person who would offer money to someone drowning puppies, or the person who wouldn't.
William MacDonald wrote:But clearly you have a better option Word, and I'd love to hear it...
I would express (according to Japanese standards) my displeasure with the person's actions, explain that I believed what they were doing was illegal according to my understanding of Japanese law, and encourage them to give me the puppies so that I could attempt to coordinate with a Japan-based adoption agency in order to find homes for the puppies. I would strongly encourage them never to do such a horrific thing in the future.
I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that solution, and if you don't, you'll simply assume that I would "yell and swear" at the individual in question and attack me for that, because that's pretty much all you've done throughout this argument--assume ridiculous things, then attack me for them.
William MacDonald wrote:...because clearly you think you're so much wiser than everyone else.
I don't. I think I'm a decent person, I think I have a good, defensible set of principles, and I think you're a pretentious jerk. Wise? Meh. I learn things every day; I've got a long, long way to go before I'll ever think of myself as "wise."
William MacDonald wrote:Nice quoting word, except you forget that the context is the OP's question, that of a depressed dog in a cage that was, in his opinion, too small. If you called the police there is ZERO likelihood of them arresting the owner, absolutely ZERO! They're broken no Japanese law at all (I read the article you linked, it deals with injury, killing, witholding food/water sufficient to cause injury and abandonment - NOT cage size or regular walks). However, there is a small possibility that the owner of the animal might press charges for trespassing, harassment, or that the police might arrest you for misuse of the emergency number or wasting police time. I was entirely accurate when I wrote that the police are far more likely to arrest you.
Actually, if you'll read my response again (a bit more carefully this time around), you'll notice that the context was NOT the OP's question, but your claim that the owner was "within their rights ... to take their anger out on the animal." I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that, but Japanese law makes it clear that "no person shall . . . inflict cruelty to animals without due course," and I don't believe being angry about an gaijin's complaint qualifies as "due course." It's possible that a Japanese person, police office, or court might disagree. I guess you disagree. I also made it clear that "these laws have been poorly enforced, historically, and punishments for violations are generally not applied except in the most extreme of situations, and sometimes justice fails even in those situations, but animal abuse
is against the law in Japan, and as such, violations
may (and should (no, MUST)) be reported to officers of the law when witnessed." I linked the actual law just prior to that statement, so that the OP could learn more about what truly constituted "animal abuse" according to Japanese legal definitions.
William MacDonald wrote:... so I'm 100% correct, not 100% wrong.
Even if I grant you that you misunderstood the context within which I intended that response, I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that one runs the risk of being arrested for attempting to report perceived animal abuse. Please cite a verifiable example of a time when such a thing has happened in the past.
William MacDonald wrote:
word wrote:You have done very little here but misrepresent the statements of others, attack ridiculous straw men, encourage questionable (if not illegal) behavior, contradict yourself, and spread misinformation and outright lies. Good show, man. Keep it up.
Except that the above more accurately applies to you word. Frankly I'm done with dealing with you. On this thread you've spead misinformation that could have got the OP and other JETs into serious legal trouble (you stated that it would be okay to call the police in this situation).. all for the sake of "winning" an argument on a forum? You're a menace word, and you deserve to be banned from these forums.[/quote][/quote]
I called you out on your malarkey, called you out on your self-contradiction (something you've still failed to acknowledge), called you out on your assumptions and straw man fallacies, called you out on your blatant lies to people on these forums, and I
could be banned?
For what it's worth, I don't think you
should be banned; you're an intelligent dude and you have the best of intentions; you often post a lot of really good advice here, but I want you to be able to see what you're doing in this particular thread. Let's forget about your self-contradictions and that other nonsense; you encouraged people not to report crimes.
I could not have made it easier for anyone to understand what I was trying to do when I posted those links to applicable Japanese laws. I linked to an entry concerning the laws, linked to an example, and qualified my links with an acknowledgement that these laws are sometimes not enforced well. It's up to the OP and the other readers to decide what they should do with that information. I wanted them to understand their rights and responsibilities in any given situation. I believe in participants of the JET program; they're not all the greatest people ever to walk the face of this planet, but I think, on average, they're a bright, well-meaning, sincere, compassionate group of people, and I am faithful that they, when well-informed, will make the right decision. You, sir, are not informing them well, in my opinion, and I have stated as much here.
You know what? For my personal insults, I am truly sorry. I realize that I have done nothing but weaken my position by calling you a "pretentious arsehat" and the like. You and I are alike in a great many ways, and a proclivity toward obnoxious condescension is a characteristic we both share, unfortunately. I think you have chosen a very, very weak position in this particular argument, and have inadvertently argued for questionable behavior for which, under normal circumstances, you would never intentionally encourage. I'm not sure why you jumped on my statements in the beginning; everyone else seemed to understand my intentions. I understand that I probably made things a lot worse with my response, but I think you're being wildly disingenuous in your interpretation of my statements and advice in this thread, and I think you know better. Let's both try to do better, shall we?