You may not want to read this

#51
#51
Thrasher865 said:
Oops we violated Internet message board rule #3: never show outrage for something if there has ever been anything worse that has happened.

Mods, please delete thread.
Click to expand...

It should be about priorities. A dog is just a dog, 108 women and children were murdered by the Assad regime. Sorry if I value or feel more outraged over human life than an animal life.
 
#52
#52
this is how most serial killers start,then they move on to humans.
 
#53
#53
loggervol said:
this is how most serial killers start,then they move on to humans.
Click to expand...

That may or may not be true (it is certainly a pervasive urban story, though); however, what one cannot say with any certain is whether most individuals who have tortured animals turn into serial killers.

For example, even if you brought forth demonstrative evidence that 100% of all serial killers, throughout history, had first tortured animals, it would still be possible for one to present evidence that stated that only 0.000001% of all individuals who tortured animals ever moved on to torturing/killing humans.

Furthermore, if one were to compile data and present demonstrative evidence that shows that even 99% of all individuals who torture animals will move on to torturing/killing humans, one should still have to present a strong argument as to why this person could not possibly fall into the 1% that will not ever harm humans in order for me to even begin to support punishing that person.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
can we agree that this person has no respect for life
 
#57
#57
loggervol said:
i'm sure you eat yokies everyday.
Click to expand...

Do dogs, unlike all other beasts, possess the capacity for abstract rational thought, without which a being could not possibly have "free-will"? If not, then their life is just as valuable as that of every other beast and any notion of animal rights (even the most valuable animal rights) stops at the very tiniest human right. Hence, someone "tortures" their own animal (i.e., their own atomaton piece of property) and no one else has any right to step in and restrict said persons liberty, life, property, finances, etc.

As for whether or not I eat yorkies, I've had dog meat and I would eat it again.
 
#58
#58
therealUT said:
As for whether or not I eat yorkies, I've had dog meat and I would eat it again.
Click to expand...

Is throwing a dog down the stairs and in the dryer part of the tenderizing process? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the proper preparation of dog for consumption.
 
#59
#59
95 Vol Alum said:
Is throwing a dog down the stairs and in the dryer part of the tenderizing process? Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the proper preparation of dog for consumption.
Click to expand...

It's not. However, the dog is not my property and, therefore, I do not care.
 
#60
#60
the way this guy killed and tortured this dog does it matter whether it has human qualities.do think humans are the only ones that have fear or hurt.
 
#61
#61
loggervol said:
the way this guy killed and tortured this dog does it matter whether it has human qualities.do think humans are the only ones that have fear or hurt.
Click to expand...

I do not care whether or not animals can either feel pain or suffer. It matters whether or not this individual has harmed another human. He has not.

Again, all sorts of animals are treated to conditions in which, if they do experience anxiety, fear, and suffering, then they are certainly experiencing great anguish on a daily, if not hourly or less, basis: cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, lab rats, horses, etc. Yet, we do not care about this suffering because we take pleasure in eating these animals and understand that is the cost of satiating our desire and appetite. This person may have experienced pleasure while he was torturing his dog and that dog's pain was simply the cost of satiating his desire and appetite for pleasure.

If we are going to allow that causing pain, fear, suffering, and anguish to animals in order to serve as pleasures, then we might as well make that universal, and charge everyone involved in any meat industry with animal cruelty.

Just because dogs are more often pets (i.e., house-slaves, if we are going to provide humanity to beasts then we should then note that we are taking away their freedom of movement/choice/etc. if we are not to treat them as simply determined automatons) than mice, rats, bunnies, pigs, sheep, etc. does not mean that they are qualitatively distinct from those beasts in a manner in which they should be respected as human. They are chattel; they are property; and, one has a right to destroy their own property if they so please.
 
#63
#63
therealUT said:
I do not care whether or not animals can either feel pain or suffer. It matters whether or not this individual has harmed another human. He has not.

Again, all sorts of animals are treated to conditions in which, if they do experience anxiety, fear, and suffering, then they are certainly experiencing great anguish on a daily, if not hourly or less, basis: cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens, lab rats, horses, etc. Yet, we do not care about this suffering because we take pleasure in eating these animals and understand that is the cost of satiating our desire and appetite. This person may have experienced pleasure while he was torturing his dog and that dog's pain was simply the cost of satiating his desire and appetite for pleasure.

If we are going to allow that causing pain, fear, suffering, and anguish to animals in order to serve as pleasures, then we might as well make that universal, and charge everyone involved in any meat industry with animal cruelty.

Just because dogs are more often pets (i.e., house-slaves, if we are going to provide humanity to beasts then we should then note that we are taking away their freedom of movement/choice/etc. if we are not to treat them as simply determined automatons) than mice, rats, bunnies, pigs, sheep, etc. does not mean that they are qualitatively distinct from those beasts in a manner in which they should be respected as human. They are chattel; they are property; and, one has a right to destroy their own property if they so please.
Click to expand...

While you will debate the logic/cultural application, I believe the distinction people are drawing is that torturing strictly for human pleasure is intolerable here vs. killing for food, clothing, reducing spread of disease, and other human needs.
 
#64
#64
95 Vol Alum said:
While you will debate the logic/cultural application, I believe the distinction people are drawing is that torturing strictly for human pleasure is intolerable here vs. killing for food, clothing, reducing spread of disease, and other human needs.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways, although less pleasurable, for humans to nourish themselves other than eating meat (particularly eating meat more than once a week).

Bottom line is I do not care why he killed his dog because dogs are property and, at the end of the day, it is his dog.
 
#65
#65
i can tell you don't care.i'm saying that someone that finds pleasure in killing and touturing a pet of his own has no repect of any life.i guess you also don't see that.what keeps him from getting pleasure from killing someone that he hates or dislikes?theres no emotional attachment to that person.really anybody that he doesn't know would be a target right.maybe even his own people that he does know?
 
#66
#66
loggervol said:
i can tell you don't care.i'm saying that someone that finds pleasure in killing and touturing a pet of his own has no repect of any life.
Click to expand...

And, I am telling you that they simply have no respect for non-human animal life. When they kill and torture humans, then I will be concerned.

loggervol said:
i guess you also don't see that.what keeps him from getting pleasure from killing someone that he hates or dislikes?theres no emotional attachment to that person.really anybody that he doesn't know would be a target right.maybe even his own people that he does know?
Click to expand...

So, because one has no emotional attachment (one does not sympathize/empathize with beasts) one cannot have emotional attachments to humans? That is a giant assertion of which you have no proof/evidence.

Finally, I could care less about the fact that someone might one day harm humans; I care about it when they do. At that point, punish the individual; prior to that, there are no grounds for punishment.
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
And, I am telling you that they simply have no respect for non-human animal life. When they kill and torture humans, then I will be concerned.



So, because one has no emotional attachment (one does not sympathize/empathize with beasts) one cannot have emotional attachments to humans? That is a giant assertion of which you have no proof/evidence.

Finally, I could care less about the fact that someone might one day harm humans; I care about it when they do. At that point, punish the individual; prior to that, there are no grounds for punishment.
Click to expand...


The fact that your argument carries some validity behind it is masked by the overwhelming sense that everyone here would like to hear you pitch the same story after you had been thrown down the stairs twice and waterboardrd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
Hardwood_fanatic said:
The fact that your argument carries some validity behind it is masked by the overwhelming sense that everyone here would like to hear you pitch the same story after you had been thrown down the stairs twice and waterboardrd.
Click to expand...

Now you are equating dogs to humans? As a human, I would pitch a fit were someone to purchase me, keep me on a leash, and restrict almost all of my freedoms. Pitching a fit over being thrown down the stairs and dunked for twenty seconds at a time (hardly being water-boarded, by the way) would, for me, be much less serious complaints than the preceding complaints regarding a complete absence of liberty.
 
#69
#69
So according to trut, we should have no animal cruelty laws. But what does he know? He just wants attention for his high level of intelligence.
 
#75
#75
utvolpj said:
one would think trut would at least be behind the dog torturer right? He could probably wait until that guy is struck to worry about it
Click to expand...

Haha. If "bad people" actually got struck by lightning and had bad things happen to them almost directly in response to their bad deeds, I would probably believe much more in an interventionist and personal God (it would be nice; probably much less genocide).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top