ArnoldRimmer said:
To me, the man didn't look like he was just pretending to be homeless. And even if he really did "use" the dog for begging: that was hardly the primary or even the only reason he had the dog. Most homeless people are extremely attached to their dogs, if only because it's the only loyal friend they have and doesn't look down on them for being homeless. And even if one considers it immoral to use animals for commercial reasons: With that motivation in mind, wouldn't it be much more effective then to break into, say, an advertising studio that uses cute animals in TV commercials? Well, they didn't do that, probably because they were very well aware that they might get charged and face legal consequences. A homeless man is a much easier victim, he wouldn't possibly take a lawyer and bring these animal rights activists to court. |
If he's actually homeless, then yeah, I agree with you. But assumptions...
Also, I very much doubt they did that just because that guy could've been using the dog for "commercial reasons". I think it has to do more with the treatment of the animal and if he's being left without food and water for several hours, unnecesarily, if the guy was indeed a faker.
Then, again:
| Derek89 said: But assumptions... |
