Should Johnny Depp's dogs be put down?

fin12

RZoran wrote: »

I never said he shouldn't have to obey but I would probably be investigating some starstruck customs & immigration agent instead of publicly threatening to put down his dogs. Also are you really trying to say shy people can't be in the movie business or travel? Private island, constant sunglasses, hats, lack of interviews outside of promotion, etc. Not exactly a secret.

I'm not talking about shy people, and I just dont believe that he is a shy person. Johnny Depp is a well traveled guy and has probably being to Australia a good few times before this and for him to be oblivious to their strict rules regarding what can be brought into the country, I just dont buy it. Hes being in the movie industry long enough to realize that fame and being an actor go hand in hand.
Like if he doesn't like what comes with being an actor he should just stop or at least stop ****ing complaining about it, even poor Britney who you can tell really struggles with interviews doesn't complain about it, as this prick does and anybody that compares being photographed to being raped has lost all sense of reality.

darkpagandeath

International quarantine laws exist for a reason, sorry for the dogs having a special owner that thinks they are above them.

sdanseo

5rtytry56 wrote: »

No. But Mr Depp should ensure the passage of his pets from Oz asap. It's also his 100% his fault for placing the dogs in thus predicament.

I agree. People who don't know the rules or ignore them deserve the consequences, although I think putting the dogs down would be overstepping the boundaries of common sense; just put them back on a plane to LA.

zugrook

Wow, the reason this thread even exists should dumbfound the simplest of our species let alone being on sky news.

darkpagandeath

sdanseo wrote: »

I agree. People who don't know the rules or ignore them deserve the consequences, although I think putting the dogs down would be overstepping the boundaries of common sense; just put them back on a plane to LA.

And what if they carry something they now picked up from Aus just let them into America ?

Tarzana2

RZoran wrote: »

He lived in France or his private island for years so why so certain they are American dogs?

They're not certain, that's why they needed documentation.

RZoran

fin12 wrote: »

I'm not talking about shy people, and I just dont believe that he is a shy person. Johnny Depp is a well traveled guy and has probably being to Australia a good few times before this and for him to be oblivious to their strict rules regarding what can be brought into the country, I just dont buy it. Hes being in the movie industry long enough to realize that fame and being an actor go hand in hand.
Like if he doesn't like what comes with being an actor he should just stop or at least stop ****ing complaining about it, even poor Britney who you can tell really struggles with interviews doesn't complain about it, as this prick does and anybody that compares being photographed to being raped has lost all sense of reality.

Lots of famous people complain about being photographed, he up and left Hollywood and even bought a private island. Not exactly Johnny Kardashian and he got into the business in the 80's. You really comparing old style gossip magazines where people were professional paparazzo to modern day any jack ass with a phone and any number of websites willing to pay. Wow, the guy is human and said something over the top! Most people say the same crap everyday.

Lets just ignore how he paid for Hunter Thomas's funeral after his suicide or Or he paid the legal fees to free the Memphis three from death row. Oh moving from a low tax country to one of the highest taxed in France also shows how much of a hypocrite he is....

Also the guy smokes like a mental patient, barely talks in real life, and I know people who have seen his medical reports from when he got insured for a film.

Every country has port of entry airports where even people on private jets go through immigration. Australia needs to sort out how they messed up instead of threatening to kill dogs and forcefully blocking poor migrants from reaching their waters.

RZoran

Tarzana2 wrote: »

They're not certain, that's why they needed documentation.

I never said they didn't but who's fault is that? The authorities who left him into the country or the individual.

Heckler

fin12 wrote: »

I'm not talking about shy people, and I just dont believe that he is a shy person. Johnny Depp is a well traveled guy and has probably being to Australia a good few times before this and for him to be oblivious to their strict rules regarding what can be brought into the country, I just dont buy it. Hes being in the movie industry long enough to realize that fame and being an actor go hand in hand.
Like if he doesn't like what comes with being an actor he should just stop or at least stop ****ing complaining about it, even poor Britney who you can tell really struggles with interviews doesn't complain about it, as this prick does and anybody that compares being photographed to being raped has lost all sense of reality.

For being one of the most photographed men in the world he's certainly one of the least vocal. Silly move bringing the dogs. An agent or whatever should have handled that procedure.

He donated a million dollars to Great Ormand Street hospital after they treated his daughter when she was ill many years ago and got no attention for it. He also turned up dressed as Jack Sparrow to read to kids for a day. He never got sought any publicity for this and it wasn't recognised till well after. My brother, a doctor at GOSH, met him and his partner at the time, Vanessa Paradis, and said they were a lovely pair. Ask for no special treatment.

I happen to think he's a great actor. Make some bad choices recently sure. I know who Kim Kardashian abstractly is but I have no idea why she is famous. I think she is an heiress ?

Whatever else, Depp has a talented body of work behind him that puts him leagues above the likes of Kardashian. Everybody makes stupid comments everynow and again.

Tarzana2

RZoran wrote: »

I never said they didn't but who's fault is that? The authorities who left him into the country or the individual.

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.

kylith

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

somesoldiers

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

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.

Boom_Bap

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

Hitchens

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

take everything

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

RZoran

Tarzana2 wrote: »

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

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

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.

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'?

silverfeather

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Are you really 'really angry'?

Yes are you taking the piss or just pissing me off?

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.

chops27

Johnny depp should be put down not the dogs!

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.

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!

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?

rubadub

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.

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.

silverfeather

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.

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.

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?

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.

silverfeather

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.

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.

silverfeather

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.

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.

Canis Lupus

silverfeather wrote: »

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.

That's a lot of writing.

silverfeather

Canis Lupus wrote: »

That's a lot of writing.

Agree with me now then. :-)

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

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.

You are confusing points.

I never said pronouns are not used for animals. Pronouns are even used for inanimate objects.

But the particular words anyone and nobody refer to people.

And animals are not people. Rex could well be in the hall, but even if he was in the kitchen or the utility room he would still not be a person.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

You are confusing points.

I never said pronouns are not used for animals. Pronouns are even used for inanimate objects.

But the particular words anyone and nobody refer to people.

And animals are not people. Rex could well be in the hall, but even if he was in the kitchen or the utility room he would still not be a person.

'Is there anyone in the hall? Just Rex.'

Read Black Beauty, ;-) they are used all the time.

silverfeather

And personal pronouns and gendered pronouns are never used for inanimate objects in the English language save except for slang. In fact in poetry using he or she is called personification isn't it? Yet we use he and she for animals because they are animate and not inanimate.

silverfeather

My dog is not just anyone you know. He has a name. Indefinite pronouns have been used for animals. Some people still use 'it' referring to animals it's considered more correct for animals with little or no relationship to humans though. Similarly any dog might be used. Sometimes you might say 'give one of these to all of the people over there' instead of 'anyone over there'.

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

And personal pronouns and gendered pronouns are never used for inanimate objects in the English language save except for slang.

Actually ships and countries are very often referred to as "she". As are other concepts, justice is also a "she" and Judges will often use that in the most formal of judgements, far from slang.

But even if you refuse to accept that, your dog is still not a person. So far you have thrown his bowl and the leg of a table and lots about gendered pronouns at it...but I'm afraid Rex is still a dog.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually ships and countries are very often referred to as "she". As are other concepts, justice is also a "she" and Judges will often use that in the most formal of judgements, far from slang.

But even if you refuse to accept that, your dog is still not a person. So far you have thrown his bowl and the leg of a table and lots about gendered pronouns at it...but I'm afraid Rex is still a dog.

More commonly in slang. Rex is a dog I never suggested he was biologically anything else. He is not a human person. Was ET a fictitious person ?

What is it that makes a human a person? Would an intelligent alien be some type of person?

Some philosophers believed some though not all animals demonstrated adequate qualities to be considered within the consept of personhood.

One of these is Richard Dawkins but only for apes. He is part of the treat ape rights movement which is a movement set up to recognize the personhood of apes.

silverfeather

What is so special about humans we are just naked apes?

silverfeather

What is a person? Is a human body in a vegetative state or a coma still a person? It's a tricky and sometimes uncomfortable question. IT used to be protected by a lot of Christian teachings which where soft cushioning for uncomfortable issues such as abortion and the status of a human fetus etc. Consciousness is generally thought of as a bastion of person hood and a defining quality of it. Animals have this to what degree I don't know. But some to a huge degree, dolphins , apes etc. We are apes. My DOG IS A DOGGIE PERSON ! He has a distinct personality he has quirks.

When I ask those questions and there are gabs in my answers sometimes i have to see the world through feeling a little and try and wait for reason to catch up. You can't wait too long though or else you lose all hope of reason.