Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • #8
    #8

    How exactly are those of you calling each other "idiots" and "disgusting" helping the OP? Stop making it about yourselves.

    The fact is, the dog needs to see a vet, the OP is aware (by the obvious guilt) that they need to apologise to their mum and knows what they did was wrong, and the brother needs help (both in terms from a doctor in regards to medication if they're not already on it - or a review if it's not working - and the family sound like they could use some support generally, whether that's from social care or a voluntary service).

    OP, if your dog hasn't improved, go to the vet. If your mum isn't back yet, just leave her a note for now - tell her you're sorry, where you've gone, and that you really want to talk to her when you get back. Call her or send her a text on the way to the vet if you prefer, at least until you can speak in person.

    The rest of you need to calm down, get off your little soap boxes, and stop being so dramatic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    OP apologise to your mum until she forgives you. No one is perfect, but atleast you have the conscience to own up to your mistake. Mums should be highly respected, if not then karma will get you back when you have kids. Learn to control your anger. There's a famous saying by imam Ali: "A moment of patience in a moment of anger prevents a thousand moments of regret".

    In the meantime supervise the condition of your dog until your mother comes back. If she deteriorates then call the emergency. Hope she makes a speedy recovery.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stratagems)
    I put the word "assault" after battery to make clear the intended meaning of battery. Battery is a criminal offence. Seriously, of all the things to nitpick...

    Yes, it's understandable that OP would have been upset. And no, it's not a good thing that given that the act is done that she may "think twice". She didn't need to be kicked to "think twice". Upon seeing the condition of the dog, that might have been sufficient. The vet bill would have additionally been sufficient. Also, whilst her other son may have a pattern of behaviour, it appears as though there was one other incident. I can see why the parent may have thought it may not happen a second time.

    And I'm not "twisting" the intended effect. I directly quoted the OP - " asking her how she likes it". OP may have kicked her out of anger, but the intention was for her to see "how she likes it" which is to invoke understanding and empathy. OP could have asked her "how would you like it?" but didn't. OP's intention wasn't for an outcome of "anger".
    You said 'battery assault is a criminal offence'. It isn't. Battery and assault are differing criminal offences. If you're going to start saying things like 'X is a criminal offence' you can expect to be pulled up on it, especially on TSR. Correcting your incorrect terminology isn't nitpicking.

    I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. I am not condoning the behaviour of the OP. My point is, in my view, if he has already kicked the mum and nothing can be done to change that, I hope that in the future there will be some positive arising from it if she no longer lets her other son take the dog out. Not that kicking Mum is a good idea, or that it's an ok thing to do. But, if this does mean in the future the dog no longer suffers, I am glad that is one of the outcomes of this otherwise bad behaviour.

    Also I have no idea why you think it's ok for a parent to risk harm to the dog for a second time. 'I see why she would think it wouldn't happen a second time' why exactly is this? The other son has an aggression problem that has already resulted in harm to the dog. Why would you POSSIBLY think it wouldn't happen again? 'Seeing the condition of the dog' obviously wasn't enough for this woman the first time the dog was harmed. All other issues aside, this parent should not be allowed to own animals if she isn't going to protect them from harm caused by her children. The first time it happened some action should've been taken i.e. giving the dog away to prevent harm to it. It's completely unacceptable and unfair to keep animals in that condition, I find that more disgusting than kicking your Mum who has facilitated animal abuse twice. The Mum got a bruise, the dog was covered in blood which suggests the harm was pretty severe.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by PangXie)
    Surely it's irrelevant who OP prioritises because the dog's there and the mum has (understandably) absented herself. Deal with the dog now, apologise later.

    (For the record, I'm with those who would take a severely wounded animal to the vet before making an apology that can wait.)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There is no reason he cant deal with both and push each as far as he can.
    he never answered whther he had the money for the vet or insurance plus the vet said obserbe so he would have to be significantly concerned that it was an emergency. I cant tell im not there, plus he is going to have to find a vet who is open and able to probide treatment..
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Ciel.)
    He says it here "He has attacked her (and us) before and I've told my parents not to let him take her because his history. They let him take her anyway "
    Oh come on, he didn't truly beat her up. You consider a kick or two beating someone up?
    Actually its something very serious and means he cant control his actions. You can be fuming, but it doesnt mean the response is violence against your mum. It will take her a long time to forgive him over this and she wont forget it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stratagems)
    Likewise, you might not want to word it to say "x is not a bad thing if y arose" because without x, y would not have occured.

    Yes, I'm fully aware that battery is the act while assault is the threat. I added assault (and meant to add a "/") as "battery and assault" belong in the same semantic field and thus provide familiarity and context rather than just "battery" on its own, so I could save myself having to explain it (twice). Evidently not. *roll eyes* Anyway, I'm out of here.
    Ok yeah you meant to add an / except you wrote it twice without one, and you seem to think nobody else on this forum would know what battery is? People on TSR aren't idiots. Most people have heard of battery. You said 'battery assault is a criminal offence' it's nothing about semantic fields, you stated the law wrong *eye roll*

    Also you still haven't understood my point because the way you've laid it out is incorrect. I'm not explaining it a third time.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by infairverona)
    You said 'battery assault is a criminal offence'. It isn't. Battery and assault are differing criminal offences. If you're going to start saying things like 'X is a criminal offence' you can expect to be pulled up on it, especially on TSR. Correcting your incorrect terminology isn't nitpicking.

    I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. I am not condoning the behaviour of the OP. My point is, in my view, if he has already kicked the mum and nothing can be done to change that, I hope that in the future there will be some positive arising from it if she no longer lets her other son take the dog out. Not that kicking Mum is a good idea, or that it's an ok thing to do. But, if this does mean in the future the dog no longer suffers, I am glad that is one of the outcomes of this otherwise bad behaviour.

    Also I have no idea why you think it's ok for a parent to risk harm to the dog for a second time. 'I see why she would think it wouldn't happen a second time' why exactly is this? The other son has an aggression problem that has already resulted in harm to the dog. Why would you POSSIBLY think it wouldn't happen again? 'Seeing the condition of the dog' obviously wasn't enough for this woman the first time the dog was harmed. All other issues aside, this parent should not be allowed to own animals if she isn't going to protect them from harm caused by her children. The first time it happened some action should've been taken i.e. giving the dog away to prevent harm to it. It's completely unacceptable and unfair to keep animals in that condition, I find that more disgusting than kicking your Mum who has facilitated animal abuse twice. The Mum got a bruise, the dog was covered in blood which suggests the harm was pretty severe.
    Maybe its time he and the dog moved out then neither of them would be at risk. You srill only have Ops version of events.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Actually its something very serious and means he cant control his actions. You can be fuming, but it doesnt mean the response is violence against your mum. It will take her a long time to forgive him over this and she wont forget it.
    It will probably also take OP a long time to forgive his mum for allowing his aggressive brother to harm his dog for a second time though
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by infairverona)
    It will probably also take OP a long time to forgive his mum for allowing his aggressive brother to harm his dog for a second time though
    All the more reason for him to leave and fend for himself then. As i said you only have his side of the story. I bet its not easy having to cope with a mentally disabled child. She was maybe negligent, his violence was deliberate.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Maybe its time he and the dog moved out then neither of them would be at risk. You srill only have Ops version of events.
    Agreed we only have 1 set of events but I don't think that matters regarding my concerns about the dog's welfare. The important parts here would be if the brother had harmed the dog before. If this is true, the mother should have had some foresight that this could happen again, and even if OP did not ask her again not to let his brother take the dog as he claims, she shouldn't have allowed it. If the brother had never previously harmed the dog perhaps it was less likely to happen but I would still be concerned that someone with aggression issues is around an animal.

    Completely agree with you though that the dog and the other brother obviously need to be separated, whether that is the dog being given away or the OP and dog moving out. The other brother probably needs to be in the home more if he needs assistance from his parents for his conditions so the dog or the OP and dog should go really
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    All the more reason for him to leave and fend for himself then. As i said you only have his side of the story. I bet its not easy having to cope with a mentally disabled child. She was maybe negligent, his violence was deliberate.
    It's not easy having a disabled child but I don't think that justifies allowing animal abuse for a second time. I also don't think it needs to be that either action was 'worse' than the other. For me allowing the animal abuse is about on par to the violence towards the mother. Neither was ok and I don't necessarily think that negligence or failing to act is always 'less bad' than a deliberate bad act but that's a whole other philosophical kettle of fish
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Agreed we only have 1 set of events but I don't think that matters regarding my concerns about the dog's welfare. The important parts here would be if the brother had harmed the dog before. If this is true, the mother should have had some foresight that this could happen again, and even if OP did not ask her again not to let his brother take the dog as he claims, she shouldn't have allowed it. If the brother had never previously harmed the dog perhaps it was less likely to happen but I would still be concerned that someone with aggression issues is around an animal.

    Completely agree with you though that the dog and the other brother obviously need to be separated, whether that is the dog being given away or the OP and dog moving out. The other brother probably needs to be in the home more if he needs assistance from his parents for his conditions so the dog or the OP and dog should go really
    Anyway I really hope the dog is ok and makes a full recovery. Perhaps they are concerned someone with aggression issues should be around his mum. Its a serious line to cross. I doubt many ever cross it. Hopefully it will all blow over.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    The majority don't do it because times have changed and children no longer leave and go straight into work at 18. Back in my parents' and grandparents' days people left at 16 or 18 to work, not to go to uni. If you go to uni as many more 18 year olds do now, obviously your parents may have to be willing to have you back in the summer if you can't afford rent. That's not because parents these days are better parents, it's because more young people go to uni now than they used to. I don't think it's at all because parents love you more. Plus it's more expensive and harder to move out now compared to when our parents were young. You're comparing apples and oranges.

    I think it's a bizarre mentality to have that because your parents raised you ok you somehow 'owe' them for doing what any normal parent would do. I would always help out my parents if they needed it despite them not being so willing to help me out when i've needed it before, but that's because they're my parents and I love them, not at all because I feel obligated to
    The fact still remains that parents are going the extra mile and doing what they don't have to do, in accordance with their legal obligations. These kids are able to access higher education because their parents are willing to support them financially. They should not be so entitled as to expect it as the bare minimum rather than being grateful, because it really isn't. They could still start working straight after school despite that going to university is more common now.

    I'm sorry that your parents were that way to you but doesn't loving someone make you feel a sense of responsibility towards them in the first place?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Actually its something very serious and means he cant control his actions. You can be fuming, but it doesnt mean the response is violence against your mum. It will take her a long time to forgive him over this and she wont forget it.
    You are missing the whole point. Who cares about her? That poor dog went through hell.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The fact still remains that parents are going the extra mile and doing what they don't have to do, in accordance with their legal obligations. These kids are able to access higher education because their parents are willing to support them financially. They should not be so entitled as to expect it as the bare minimum rather than being grateful, because it really isn't. They could still start working straight after school despite that going to university is more common now.

    I'm sorry that your parents were that way to you but doesn't loving someone make you feel a sense of responsibility towards them in the first place?
    I guess that depends if you think legal obligations are the most important thing then, I certainly don't (and I say that as a law graduate and law student!) Things aren't intrinsically right just because they're the law. You don't need parental support financially to get a degree; I had none, and I have a degree through the good people at Student Finance England, tax payers, and working part time through my 3 year degree. I think you're very lucky if your parents support you financially at university and I certainly don't think this kind of financial support is the 'bare minimum' so I think there's been a misunderstanding there! Basically what I meant was, for good parents I don't think the parental support in all senses stops just because you've suddenly turned 18. I don't think that extends to financial support for university, but it may extend to letting you live at home for free over the summer for example. Although I also paid rent and bills when I did that so again don't really feel like I owe anything for that?

    And no, it doesn't at all. By that logic my parents wouldn't love me, and I don't think that's true either! I also don't really think 'responsibility' and 'owe' have the same meaning, like my responsibility to my parents is because they're my parents and I love them, not because I feel I owe them anything. You can turn down responsibilities in a different and possibly easier way than things you 'owe'. Like, it might be a man's responsibility to pay child support, but getting through the CSA system is useless and he can easily escape it. Whereas if he owes a bank, the bailiffs will turn up
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Ciel.)
    You are missing the whole point. Who cares about her? That poor dog went through hell.
    No, its about both of them,. just thinking one side is more important than the other is ridiculous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    No, its about both of them,. just thinking one side is more important than the other is ridiculous.
    Are you delusional? She completely ignored what her precious son did to that poor dog. And it wasn't just once.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    First off, get the dog to a vet. Tomorrow, tell parents dog can no longer be in brothers care, he is not fit to look after said animal. I they do not arrange to remove the dog from his care that day, contact RSPCA and explain the situation.

    Its not something you should have to do but it sounds like your parents are imbeciles and the dog does not deserve their biased and evidently poor judgement
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Ciel.)
    Are you delusional? She completely ignored what her precious son did to that poor dog. And it wasn't just once.
    Why wouldI be delusional. there are two issues, not just one, plus you only have the OPs version of events. Perhaps you are used to taking one side without hearing what the other has to say.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student403)
    Not helpful. OP realises he/she shouldn't have done it and is in instant regret.

    It's not your business to judge. Either advise or leave.

    Everyone makes mistakes.
    I don't think kicking your own mother to prove a point is a mistake :rofl:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.