Unethical Quote Of The Month: Ethics Mega-Dunce Kim Sill

“If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”

—Kim Sill, founder of the Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, California in her shop’s weekly newsletter.

Pro tip for Kim: if you are going to say something really stupid and offensive in public, at least do it grammatically.

Other than that, this obnoxious, virtue-signalling Constitutional scholar is informing all that she wants to tear down a crucial support-beam in the entire democratic structure of the United States. While discrimination on the basis of political affiliations and viewpoints is not forbidden under civil rights and public accommodation laws, it is a surefire way to guarantee civil unrest and a society that is divided and miserable in which to live. The pet store’s bigotry—and that’s what it is, bigotry—violates the spirit of the First Amendment and the well-established formula for a fair and open society.

But never mind, Kim knows best.

Here is the rest of her screed:

“We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons. If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you. If you lie about being a NRA supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud. If you believe that it is our responsibility to protect ourselves in public places and arm ourselves with a gun–do not come to us to adopt a dog…if you are pro guns and believe that no background check is necessary, then do not come to us to adopt. We will grill you before you even get an appointment and visit our rescue. If we ask you ‘do you care about children being gunned down in our schools?’ If you hesitate, because your core belief is that you believe teachers need to carry firearms, then you will not get approved to adopt from us. If you foster for us and believe in guns, please bring our dogs and/or cats back, or we will arrange to have them picked up. Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem. We support teachers, children, and businesses who provide services to the public, but we’ve had enough of all the senseless killing.”

The woman is the Pet Nazi. “No dog for you!” She is also, of course, a few biscuits short of a snack:

  • “Assault weapons” has no meaning in that context, like “weapons of war.” It’s not responsible to  proclaim such certitude about matters you haven’t taken the time and effort to understand.
  • Oooh, try that lawsuit! No one should answer an irrelevant question in order to adopt a dog, and while lying about an organization membership is unethical, since the information in question has no legitimate nexus to the benefit obtained, fraud is more than a little stretch.
  • What exactly does Kim want? Few gun advocates believe that citizens have a responsibility to be armed; that would imply mandatory gun ownership. Nobody thinks the Second Amendment requires that, unless it’s Kim.
  • “No background check” absolutists are also a fringe group, and they have no impact on public policy at all: background checks aren’t going away….not that Kim has any business asking about that, either.
  • “Grill” me? Bite me. Even the most anti-gun zealot shouldn’t agree to be “grilled” on a matter that has nothing to do with pet adoption.
  • Who doesn’t care about children being shot in schools? The gun policy issue has nothing to do with caring or a lack of it. “If you hesitate..” what, there’s a timer on these questions? How does a pause indicate that one believes teachers should be armed? That’s not a “core belief,” either.
  • This is a random “I hate guns and I hate people who don’t hate guns” free association rant. Find an editor, Kim. Learn the rules of rhetoric. If you “believe in guns”—what does that mean? Believe they exist? Believe that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own them? Believe that owning some guns should be a right? Belief that there are times when a gun is valuable for self-defense? I don’t think Kim even knows what she means, other than “Guns bad!” To be fair, she is probably typical of the average anti-gun hysteric.
  • “Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem.” How could the pet adoption policies of the shop possibly be part of “the problem,” if the problem involves guns?  Now, if she’s talking about the problem of closed minds, ignorance, hypocrisy, hysteria and hate dividing the country and crippling democracy, Shelter Hope Pet Shop is definitely part of the problem.
  • “[W]e’ve had enough of all the senseless killing.” Aww, isn’t Kim special! What a contrast she is to all those Americans who want more senseless killing. Translation: “We’re doing something about  gun violence, even though what we are doing has nothing to do with gun violence, and can’t possibly have any effect. At least that’s better than nothing!” Shorter translation: “I’m an idiot, and have nothing constructive to add to public discourse at all except anger, hate, insults, and emotion.”

Here is what Kim is really doing: using the needy animals she is obligated to seek loving and responsible homes for as a device to pursue her political and social agenda, potentially condemning the innocent creatures to a prolonged stay in cages, or adoption by less than optimum owners so she can grandstand on an issue the dogs don’t care about and that should not affect their fates at all.

She’s not fit to run a shelter or pet shop.

_____________________

Pointer: The Blaze.

13 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Ethics Mega-Dunce Kim Sill

  1. Asking about how long the prospective pet might be left alone in one’s home, or how the adopters might deal with an issue like an adult dog who was never house-trained, are legit questions, and ones that the hubby and I have been asked when adopting shelter pets. Getting “grilled” about gun control isn’t, with the possible exceptions of adopters wanting to train a dog to go hunting with them, or if a background check of an adopter shows a past record of shooting dogs with guns. (And in the latter case, no animal shelter would let that person adopt one of their animals anyway.)

  2. The Oxford dictionary defines Persecution as; “subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.”

    Isn’t Kim Sill publicly announcing to the world that she is using her blatantly obvious social justice warrior bigotry to literally persecute others? Kim Sill is a blithering imbecile.

    Kim Sill wrote, “Shelter Hope Pet Shop in no way will continue to operate if we are even remotely part of the problem.”

    Kim Sill’s hate and bigotry, and people like her, is the problem in our society right now.

    Social Justice Warriors: The 21st Century Scourge

  3. If you seriously employ the term “assault weapon” (or worse yet, “style”) in your argument against firearms ownership, you are some combination of ignorant, hysterical, stupid, or deceitful, and no one without those impairments should heed anything you have to say on the subject. Authoritarian zealots like Kim would likely slit the throats of her charges rather than suffer any affront to her bigotry and delusions.

  4. Oooh, try that lawsuit! No one should answer an irrelevant question in order to adopt a dog, and while lying about an organization membership is unethical, since the information in question has no legitimate nexus to the benefit obtained, fraud is more than a little stretch.

    More to the point, such a claim would likely be subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

    We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons.

    So? That’s fine, I’d say. She doesn’t have to support anybody. Her job is to find good homes for pets, and eliminating candidates based on an utterly irrelevant set of criteria is as stupid as it is unethical.

    I guess she won’t feel good about herself unless she actively condemns and tries to harm the interests of law-abiding Americans with whom her politics clash. That’s today’s standard-issue left liberal virtue signalling. It is shameful, juvenile, unprofessional and actively inimical to the pets she is trying to rescue to good homes.

    She needs a scarlet letter, and that right soon.

  5. I’m in dire need of some good news; hopefully she’s getting b!tchslapped into the cheap seats over this.

    Like what’s happening to Idiot Savant Joy Behar over this:

    Here’s The Thing: Once black People Get Guns In This Country, THE GUN LAWS WILL CHANGE Trust Me

    Hilarity ensued: OK Republican Senate candidate T.W. Shannon to Fox News Digital. “We know that a big part of the NRA movement was to arm African Americans, to protect them from the Democrats that made up the KKK. So I think Joy Behar really owes an apology to African-Americans for this incendiary comment.”

    Others weren’t so cordial .

    If only this were this racist Lefty’s Waterloo

  6. APPLICATION TO ASSOCIATE WITH ME
    SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR VERSION

    Please note that this application will be automatically declined unless accompanied by a complete financial statement, complete psychological profile and an authorization to access your medical records and online browsing history. If that history has been wiped, it will also be automatically declined. You will also need to provide three letters of recommendation, at least one from a woman and two from people of color.

    Please provide your:

    Name:
    Address:

    Social Security number:

    Schools attended and degrees received:

    Parents’ names and addresses:

    Siblings’ names and addresses:

    Spouse’s name and address:

    Names, genders, and sexualities of any children:

    When would be a good time to interview your:

    Parents?

    Spouse?

    Yoga teacher?

    Therapist?

    Longest standing gay friend?

    Longest standing friend of color?

    Indicate how you identify:

    Racially:

    Sexually:

    Politically: (any affiliation beginning with R is a disqualifier, please cease your application, leave, and rethink your life.)

    Religiously if any: (if the answer is Catholic or Evangelical then you can leave, this application isn’t going anywhere)

    Have you ever been a member of, or applied to be a member of, the armed forces, any law enforcement agency, or any corrections agency? (if the answer is yes, please cease your application, leave, and consider making a donation of at least $10,000 to your local Black Lives Matter chapter)

    How many of the last elections did you vote in?

    Who did you vote for in each? (Any name beginning with T is a disqualifier, please cease your application, leave, and rethink your life.)

    Please list all your charitable donations over the past four years, including the amount and who they were made to.

    How many protests have you been involved in over the past three years?

    How many Black Lives Matter protests?

    How many pro-choice protests?

    Do you own any guns? (if the answer is yes, cease your application and leave, the blood of schoolchildren is on your hands.)

    What kind of vehicle do you drive?

    Do you have any bumper stickers on it?

    What do they say?

    When last did you eat meat?

    Where do you get your coffee in the morning?

    Do you celebrate:

    Christmas?

    Veterans’ Day?

    Columbus Day?

    If the answer to any of these is yes, you might as well leave, because I won’t associate with a white supremacist.

    That should do it. Please assemble the other documents and submit them in the envelope provided. Do not call to check on the status of your application. We will let you know if it has been approved. Until then, please remain silent.

  7. This is what happens when a human can’t understand that there is a valid point of view other than their own.

    On the other hand, even if a person were refusing to do casual business (as opposed to business-to-business deals) over a more clear-cut issue, such as racism in the 60s, I’m uncertain how well that would play out compared to establishing a relationship with a racist customer and exposing them to the ideas of equality. (I can better understand refusing to do business with a company that had racist policies, since most businesses only respond to monetary incentives.)

    True, peer pressure from an unprincipled person can erode weakly-held principles, but a person with strong principles often finds they can spread them to others. Maybe Sill is afraid that Second Amendment principles will rub off on her if she associates with gun owners.

    On that note, another group I’m helping with is making a list of demands for gun control legislation. I’m not convinced that legislation is the right approach here, but they’re willing to get feedback from firearms experts and Second Amendment supporters, so I was wondering if people here would be interested in checking out the list they’ve got and offering feedback on it. Any concerns, criticisms, or suggestions you have would be helpful!

    Jack, would you please share my email address with those who are interested?

  8. EC
    Might I suggest minimum sentences when a gun is used or possessed illegally.

    Do not use it as an enhancement. The law should just say that anyone using a gun or possession of a gun while in the process of crime shall be imprisoned for no less than 20 years irrespective of age or mental status.

    Focus on crime control not gun control and you will be more effective in developing solutions. Guns do not make decisions people do so you must find out why they choose to make such decisions and make your solutions so they alter the decision process.

    • This may have been meant as a reply on a different comment, but higher sentences for using guns in crimes does sound reasonable. And yes, altering people’s decisions is the most effective method in my opinion. If we can make it so people don’t find themselves motivated to commit crimes or do harm, that will solve many problems.

  9. Kim works tirelessly in an unpaid position to save animals. It is her prerogative to adopt her rescues to whomever she choose. This is not a government agency; it is her private endeavor for which she receives no compensation. The small adoption fees barely cover the cost of rescuing these dogs.

    • Irrelevant. Read the Rationalizations list. See “The Saint’s Excuse” and many others.She can still do all that good work without punishing people who don’t agree with her, and withholding care from needy dogs on that basis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.