This message was self-deleted by its author

[AtheistCrusader]

239. It's not 'punishment'. That is ridiculously unfair.

Your books can't lash out and disfigure a child. Your books require minimal care; no fire, no water, physical security. That's it.

Yes, some of us take the axiom 'your possessions end up owning you' quite seriously and view liabilities that prevent mobility as a problem or an obstacle to escaping poverty, but TTW's problem is a living creature, not a book(s). It is not unfair to your books to put them in storage, or hide them, or move them around however. It is unfair to do that to a living being. Your books aren't engineered to hostility and extreme protectionism. Nor have your books exhibited these traits. Your books can't land you in jail by doing something of their own volition. That dog can. Your books are not a liability in any sense comparable to the dog.

That dog could, under the right circumstances, kill someone.

Would they dare to say that about TTW's baby?

There are reasons that permanently re-homing the dog is necessary for the mental characteristics of that breed, for safety. Humans do quite well in foster care, so yes, I would advocate her giving up a child in her current state, but it need not be permanent. She cannot provide for that dog. I'm not talking dollars either. This is quite another issue.

What would you say if the living creature in question was, instead, a poisonous snake? She might be emotionally attached to it, but is she in any place to provide for it? It might not be biting anyone now, but it has a fair bit of potential.

Combine a mincome with a basic right to housing and food: bye bye homeles problem.

By itself this would not fix her problem. It might make her more comfortable, but that clearly isn't the issue.