Amazing.
I'm struggling mightily to raise $42,000 to bring to public awareness a painless cancer treatment that was suppressed and in danger of being lost using the same website as Dershowitz. Meanwhile, this guy blows $60,000 to recover his dog. One man, one dog, sixty-thousand dollars.
Of course, he has raised more money so far than I have.
Human beings sure are funny.
Would You Spend $60,000 to Fight for Custody of Your Pet?
SodaHead Living
2012/05/15 18:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
217 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
403 votes
|
|
65% | |||
They say a dog is a man's best friend, which explains why one man has already spent $60,000 to get his beloved pooch back from his ex-girlfriend. Manhattan art gallery employee Craig Dershowitz, 34, has spent $60,000 of his savings to win custody of his puggle, Knuckles, TODAY.com reports.
Knuckles currently resides in California with Dershowitz’s ex, Sarah Brega. Dershowitz and Brega dated for four years and broke up in March 2011, but shared custody of "Knux" until November, when Dershowitz claimed in court papers that she "kidnapped" the dog, "Today" reports. Dershowitz says he purchased the dog when the couple was together two years ago, and that Brega was supposed to return the dog once he found a new place to live after their split, but she refused to do so.
Now that he's out of dough, Dershowitz wants you to help fund his legal fight to get his dog back (see his website here). But Brega says Knuckles is doing just fine where he is. "Knuckles lives a happy and healthy life in California with me, where he has ample room to play, and lives in close proximity to a beach for off-leash dog-park outings,” Brega said in court documents.
She also told "Today" in a statement: "(Knuckles has) been with me his whole life. It is unfortunate that (Craig) is using the courts and a fraudulent fundraiser to continue to harass me. He is taking advantage of unsuspecting donors. Craig thrives on media attention and he is seeking it out in order to further his career while exacting revenge."
Its just like the love you got for your sports team. Back in the 80's, people over here used to kill each other for the love of the fav team.
I love my cat as much as I love my mom and dad. I would even give up my own life for my cat's, Thats how precious and important he is in my life. Love is greater than anything (atleast for me)
So I would do everything to save my loved ones, regardless of what species they are, cos I love them all the same.
• Total estimate of 3,262 unsheltered individuals.
• 614 more unsheltered individuals than the
previous year Citywide.http://www.nyc.gov/h...
1 in 5 NY'ers LIVE IN POVERTY - http://gothamist.com/2011/09/...
But this imbecile throws $60k away, to ensure that he gets to decide what knuckles eats!
AND WE WONDER WHY OUR COUNTRY IS FALLING APART!
Why does the reality of those suffering or in need create the need for you to respond by expressing your disapproval of my views?
You choose to point out that some of those on the streets might choose to waste the money on booze, smack or solicited sex. First of all, $60k (in this example) doesn't have to remain a cash handout but might do more good as start up cash for a training program or as funds to help restock starving food pantries.
Also, it seems that you have chosen to accept or rationalize ignoring those in need based on the addictions of the minority guilty of making bad choices! The problem with this way of thinking is made clear when one realizes that he/she has also made bad choices, needed and accepted the help of someone else and because of that help has been able to avoid winding up in a position where he/she is ignored because others in the same situation use drugs, drink or solicit sex. BUT WAIT... THIS HAPPENS IN ALL CLASSES OF SOCIETY! In fact, it more reasonable for a homeless or needy person to spend $5 to get high or to block out reality than it is for a non homeless person to waste $60000 to ensure his dog has a place to sleep, an endless food supply and protection from the elements!
I SURE HOPE YOU NEVER FIND YOURSELF IN A POSIT...
Why does the reality of those suffering or in need create the need for you to respond by expressing your disapproval of my views?
You choose to point out that some of those on the streets might choose to waste the money on booze, smack or solicited sex. First of all, $60k (in this example) doesn't have to remain a cash handout but might do more good as start up cash for a training program or as funds to help restock starving food pantries.
Also, it seems that you have chosen to accept or rationalize ignoring those in need based on the addictions of the minority guilty of making bad choices! The problem with this way of thinking is made clear when one realizes that he/she has also made bad choices, needed and accepted the help of someone else and because of that help has been able to avoid winding up in a position where he/she is ignored because others in the same situation use drugs, drink or solicit sex. BUT WAIT... THIS HAPPENS IN ALL CLASSES OF SOCIETY! In fact, it more reasonable for a homeless or needy person to spend $5 to get high or to block out reality than it is for a non homeless person to waste $60000 to ensure his dog has a place to sleep, an endless food supply and protection from the elements!
I SURE HOPE YOU NEVER FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION OF NEED! IF SO, REMEMBER THERE ARE THOSE IN THE SAME SOCIAL CLASS AS YOU, WHO WILL ABUSE THE HELP THEY GET. I GUESS THAT MEANS YOU DON'T DESERVE ANY HELP...RIGHT?
"Sincerely, I hear what you are saying, but sometimes it is not our job to police the masses."
No offense, but you don't have a clue what I am saying! Caring about others isn't the same as policing others! Ironically, by pointing out the illegal activities of some, it seems you are suggesting that its our job to police others!
This is an an opinion site, thus that in itself allows, nay beckons, me to reply with my views just as you, yourself, put your opinion. And to call someone an imbecile for attempting to save something that he cared so much about shows your intolerance as well. People have a choice, our pets do not.
See the problem?
Its also interesting that you find it more important to incorrectly attempt to correct me in regards to imbecilic behavior!
CHOOSING TO AID A PET OVER A HUMAN CERTAINLY FITS THE DEFINITION!
im·be·cil·ic (mb-slk)
1. Stupid; silly.
2. Well below par in mental acumen.
http://www.thefreedictionary....
Your 'loved ones' comment is a straw man. Sorry, but that would not happen because there is an interest vested with blood and family ties that goes beyond the person in the shelter or in a doorway sleeping. Domestic pets are NOT designed to be homeless. What a truly ignorant, if not inflammatory, thing to say.
I do not 'need for' a friend that does not expose my flaws. I am well aware of my flaws and am not so weak as to believe that MY actions are above those of others, nor that my actions are perfect. It is your belief, your assumption, that I would be lining or insulating myself that is the failure of your argument. I am well aware of the reality around me, thus I choose to assist those that are helpless over those that want handouts. Do not lecture me on losing sight of reality, as you, yourself, are so blinded by your own self-righteousness that you suppose your messed up values on others and mark others wrong or below you if they do not pick up that...
Your 'loved ones' comment is a straw man. Sorry, but that would not happen because there is an interest vested with blood and family ties that goes beyond the person in the shelter or in a doorway sleeping. Domestic pets are NOT designed to be homeless. What a truly ignorant, if not inflammatory, thing to say.
I do not 'need for' a friend that does not expose my flaws. I am well aware of my flaws and am not so weak as to believe that MY actions are above those of others, nor that my actions are perfect. It is your belief, your assumption, that I would be lining or insulating myself that is the failure of your argument. I am well aware of the reality around me, thus I choose to assist those that are helpless over those that want handouts. Do not lecture me on losing sight of reality, as you, yourself, are so blinded by your own self-righteousness that you suppose your messed up values on others and mark others wrong or below you if they do not pick up that self-righteous behavior themselves.
And I again say, I am not intolerant of homeless people, I simply choose not to help them.
As for your definition, I have one here for you:
Definition for self righteous:
Web definitions:
holier-than-thou: excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...
YOU CHOOSE IRRATIONALITY! GOOD THING OTHERS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT ALL THESE HANDOUT SEEKERS AS PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEM, STUCK IN A RUT.
"Your 'loved ones' comment is a straw man. Sorry, but that would not happen because there is an interest vested with blood and family ties that goes beyond the person in the shelter or in a doorway sleeping. Domestic pets are NOT designed to be homeless. What a truly ignorant, if not inflammatory, thing to say.
YOU PRESUPPOSING ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE FAMILIES JUST LIKE YOURS. WHAT A SHALLOW VIEW. YOU FOLLOW THAT UP BY CLAIMING "BLOOD" SOMEHOW ALLOWS YOU TO ACCEPT AND HELP AN INDIVIDUAL. IT MAY SURPRISE YOU, BUT MOST HOMELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO FAMILY TO FALL BACK ON! NO ONE TO PROVIDE THAT INITIAL HANDOUT THAT STOPS MOST FROM BEING HOMELESS!
"Do not lecture me on losing sight of reality, as you, yourself, are so blinded by your own self-righteousness that you suppose your messed up values on others and mark others wrong or bel...
YOU CHOOSE IRRATIONALITY! GOOD THING OTHERS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT ALL THESE HANDOUT SEEKERS AS PEOPLE JUST LIKE THEM, STUCK IN A RUT.
"Your 'loved ones' comment is a straw man. Sorry, but that would not happen because there is an interest vested with blood and family ties that goes beyond the person in the shelter or in a doorway sleeping. Domestic pets are NOT designed to be homeless. What a truly ignorant, if not inflammatory, thing to say.
YOU PRESUPPOSING ALL THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE FAMILIES JUST LIKE YOURS. WHAT A SHALLOW VIEW. YOU FOLLOW THAT UP BY CLAIMING "BLOOD" SOMEHOW ALLOWS YOU TO ACCEPT AND HELP AN INDIVIDUAL. IT MAY SURPRISE YOU, BUT MOST HOMELESS PEOPLE HAVE NO FAMILY TO FALL BACK ON! NO ONE TO PROVIDE THAT INITIAL HANDOUT THAT STOPS MOST FROM BEING HOMELESS!
"Do not lecture me on losing sight of reality, as you, yourself, are so blinded by your own self-righteousness that you suppose your messed up values on others and mark others wrong or below you if they do not pick up that self-righteous behavior themselves.
INTERESTING OPINION YOU HAVE. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW I HAVE REPRESENTED AN ATTITUDE OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS?
THE ONLY THING I DID WAS DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION. THATS NOT SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
THANKS FOR THE DEFINITION.
holier-than-thou: excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile".
ACCORDING TO YOU:
1. DOGS ARE SUPERIOR TO THE HOMELESS
2. YOUR OPINION IS THE ONLY OPINION WORTH HEARING
3. I'M INTOLERANT
4. I'M SELF RIGHTEOUS
AGAIN, YOU FIT THE DEFINITION ABOVE NEARLY TO THE "T"
Preaching tolerance is a myth. The minute you tell people to tolerate this or that, you become intolerant to anything that contradicts your tolerant preaching..
BTW... there is a brand new option that takes the work out of copying a text. If you highlight with your cursor, the words you would like to copy and right click with your mouse, you will see an option to "copy"! I'm not gonna tell you everything, you need to figure that out for yourself! It sure is a time saver though.
I'll be surprised if you don't find yourself living among those you hate for no reason!
Here's a clue for you 'friend'. While I could care less about what you do or who you are, I will happily give you these words of advice. Be cautious at what you wish on others. Because sometimes, ignorance and hatred will come back home to roost.
It is funny,however, that you would state that I have hate towards others, when I never mentioned hatred towards anyone. I stated that I have love of animals over people. That was as I stated, and nothing more. In your haste to label me, you overlooked that, and instead chose to put your poorly thought out definition on me instead.
You do not have to worry 'friend'. I have more than enough to keep me going though a well planned savings.
(SHEESH!)
But then again .. my own ex didn't care about anything other than lining his pockets during the divorce decree ..
(Was worth it to pay out .. for the sake of my family)
I would try to get him back any other way I could.
Guess that guy misses that dog so badly.
ie, Debts, investments, the needy, family, books for kids, food for a starving food pantry, warm clothes for those without a roof to protect them and keep them warm and dry. (UNLIKE THE SPOILED MUTT IN THIS INSTANCE WHO WAS BORN WITH A WARM PROTECTIVE COATING AKA...FUR TO ENABLE SURVIVAL IN THE WILD!)
I think you get my point!