Some Photographs of the 12SLBR for George

Here is the 12SLBR kit from Astro-Physics.   It comes with the a new RA motor bracket, two shoulder bolts, and instructions.  (Click to enlarge.)

 

Here we see a close-up of the shoulder bolts.  Part number F0009.  There are no distinct images in the instructions of these bolts.  It's hard to know if these are the correct length.

When I test fit the new shoulder bolts in the bracket, they stick out in a conspicuous way.  (The bolt is tilted a bit in the photograph.)

The part that concerns me is that on the other side of the bracket, the end of the bolt doesn't clear the bracket itself.   So it can't actually attach itself to anything.   When the kit arrived I installed everything and when it came to this step, the shoulder bolts wouldn't catch on anything.   Unless I'm missing some simple principal here, it seems like it's the wrong bolt length ?

On a side note, the above image showing the "inside" of the bracket differs from the image on the website for the 12SLBR.   This may be of no consequence, but I tend to notice little details like this.

https://https://astro-physics.com/12slbr

Here is an image of the new shoulder bolt next to the bolt which it's replacing.  My guess is that if the shoulder bolt's threaded portion was maybe 1/8 inch longer, it could catch the threaded hole on the other side where the worm/motor assembly lies.

I wanted to include an image of the supplied motor bracket compared to the image shown in the instructions.   Note that in the instructions, the new bracket has one less hole than the bracket that it's replacing.  (See image 1-f compared to the prior images showing the original RA bracket.)

I wonder if there's a version of this bracket where the hole for the new shoulder bolt is a little deeper so the threads can attach to the worm assembly?   (Click to enlarge.)

And I'll end with an image of both brackets.  They look like the same bracket.   Except the old one is a little weather worn.   

The False Logic of Pet Defenders

This doesn't initially seem like it's related to horror movies, but I'll try to tie it in in a subsequent entry.

So, there's an argument that "animal lovers" typically use when talking about the violence of wild animals and pets.   In the context of pets, people will always say that animals are not bad, but there are only bad owners.   Usually, this will get a bunch of "likes" online when talking about pets who have enacted (committed) violence against humans.

Is this true?   As an absolute general statement, it seems sketchy at best.   Unless you are blind and willing to ignore evidence, there are plenty of examples of pets who have attacked, maimed, or killed children.   Even with the domestic dog, there is this strong propensity to make the dog blameless.  Yet, if the dog is truly blameless, why do we even discipline a dog for a minor behavioral issue?  And then when the dog does something truly violent, why do we invoke an even more counter-intuitive response of saying that the dog shouldn't be punished?

Is it because a dog doesn't understand the moral and ethical consequences of violence?   Is this similar to making a claim that a human being who is "insane" or "incompetent" is not really responsible for his/her crimes?  If the answer is yes, then are we saying that certain human beings and dogs in general are basically in the same category?   Doesn't this mean that dogs deserve a set of conditions that allow them to enjoy the same rights and privileges of a "compromised" human being?

It seems like the position that pets are somehow morally incapable of making decisions about violent behavior potentially places them in a position to require that we give them the same rights and privileges as human beings.   This is a problem because the vast majority of them do not enjoy those rights and privileges.  It brings to mind the problem of class or hierarchy in human societies.  Slaves, serfs, and the lower-class have historically enjoyed less rights and privileges based upon what would appear to be "natural" reasons that have to do with some sort of super-natural, unquestionable hierarchy and categorization.

In a way, I think I'm getting at the idea that we invoke the "human" as a category when it serves to justify certain acts or practices.   "Animal lovers" clearly feel a need to defend their pets or even the "normal" bad behavior of a predator like a shark which attacks a human.   In the case of the dog which attacks a child, if it's true that the pet is somehow blameless, then why do we euthanize the dog?   It seems like a contradiction.  Or an unfortunate "random event"?   Yet, if we did allow a dog that has attacked a child to remain at large, what would we be saying?  

We would be saying that dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they are not human.   But if we define humanity in a way that largely includes the well-being and freedoms of being an agential entity (I guess this is another way of saying "human"?), then dogs should enjoy some rights and privileges even though they may not be able to ascertain the moral and ethical gravity of enacting violence towards others.   The funny thing about laws is that there is no imperative for a person to understand the historical or legal necessities and justifications of a law.
You just have to follow the law for the law to be effective.   If the law is designed to protect human beings in the first place, does it really matter if the law breaker is a dog or mosquito or a virus?

On one level, it seems like we are simply saying that humans take precedent over dogs in practical situations.   We can't risk a dog attacking another child or human being.  A human that does the same thing would either be institutionalized or imprisoned.  Because that human is a human.    We wouldn't generally "euthanize" a human for a first-time infraction.

And what about the owners of pets who do enact violence towards others?   On the one hand, we seem to be saying that misbehaving pets are simply because of a bad owner; but on the other hand, how many pet owners are being put on trial for manslaughter when a pet kills a child?   Shouldn't that pet owner spend time in a maximum security jail for violent offenders?   Yes, there is legal action that can be done against pet owners, but isn't there a big difference between a dog which attacks a child and a human who attacks a child?

When we say a dog is blameless yet we treat them essentially as slaves, are we ultimately just trying to enforce a contradiction that is designed to reify the unstated superiority of the human?