Human > Animal : because human is intelligent.
Hunter > Animal : because hunter values the life of the animal and realizes he should only kill to survive. The death of the animal is a sacrafice for his own life.
Human who throws animal out of window like toy < Animal : because he does not value life and doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. He prooves he can only express his emotions through extremes and is now capable of doing anything irrational, including killing another human should the situation arise.
A dog is not a computer, it is a living species, when you throw it out of a window it's life will probably be terminated. It cannot be repaired, it cannot be replaced. The data on my computer cannot be replaced either, all 240 GB of it, but luckily I back that data up. If you threw my computer out of a window, I would be out around 5,000 dollars (depending which pieces you threw out) but I would always have the data - the rest is replacable. Also, while you try and trivialize the worth of an animal's life, realize you are trivializing a part of the owner's life as well.
I don't think I would kill him, nor would I think he should get the life sentence. I would probably WANT to kill him and WANT to have him suffer the pain he just caused me. But the logical solution is that he get some time in jail and some time in a mental institution. This idea would probably get changed after I realized how much money we end up paying for people like this and I would probably want to see him killed again, but my ideals on jail/punishment are always changing.
And to reinstate something someone else said, none of this holds true if there is a piece of the puzzle missing from this story. If the dog had bit 3 people in 2 weeks and was a serious threat to the neighborhood, I would feel a little bit more understanding (Not a whole lot more, but a little).
Hunter > Animal : because hunter values the life of the animal and realizes he should only kill to survive. The death of the animal is a sacrafice for his own life.
Human who throws animal out of window like toy < Animal : because he does not value life and doesn't understand the consequences of his actions. He prooves he can only express his emotions through extremes and is now capable of doing anything irrational, including killing another human should the situation arise.
A dog is not a computer, it is a living species, when you throw it out of a window it's life will probably be terminated. It cannot be repaired, it cannot be replaced. The data on my computer cannot be replaced either, all 240 GB of it, but luckily I back that data up. If you threw my computer out of a window, I would be out around 5,000 dollars (depending which pieces you threw out) but I would always have the data - the rest is replacable. Also, while you try and trivialize the worth of an animal's life, realize you are trivializing a part of the owner's life as well.
I don't think I would kill him, nor would I think he should get the life sentence. I would probably WANT to kill him and WANT to have him suffer the pain he just caused me. But the logical solution is that he get some time in jail and some time in a mental institution. This idea would probably get changed after I realized how much money we end up paying for people like this and I would probably want to see him killed again, but my ideals on jail/punishment are always changing.
And to reinstate something someone else said, none of this holds true if there is a piece of the puzzle missing from this story. If the dog had bit 3 people in 2 weeks and was a serious threat to the neighborhood, I would feel a little bit more understanding (Not a whole lot more, but a little).
So you mean to tell me that gopunk is still on ATOT while the fire is blazing all around him? Sigh.. I choose the kitten 
This is what i would do to the guy....
Cut him up in little inch by inch pieces with a chainsaw.
Feed the pieces to Osama bin laden.
Kill osama bin laden.
Cut osama bin laden in little inch by inch pieces with a chainsaw
Cremate the inch by inch pieces.
Throw the ashes recovered fro mcremation into a volcano.
Cut him up in little inch by inch pieces with a chainsaw.
Feed the pieces to Osama bin laden.
Kill osama bin laden.
Cut osama bin laden in little inch by inch pieces with a chainsaw
Cremate the inch by inch pieces.
Throw the ashes recovered fro mcremation into a volcano.
The real point is not whether you have a reason to save your grandmother or the lizard(though that is a very extreme circumstance), it's whether is moral and/or objective. The reason you would prefer to have your grandmother saved is either 1) you would prefer to save the life of someone who shares a larger portion of your genes with you(def. the grandma), thus helping to preserve your genotype. or 2)you have formed a stronger emotional attachement with your grandmother. While these are both valid reasons for choosing the grandmother, one must still realize that you are allowing a life to perish, and technically, there is no good choice, merely a minimizing of damage. I don't mean to critique either side, but I do wish to point out that the preferable choice may still not be a good choice and I think it's a little morally reprehensible to casually answer yes or no to any question like this.
What we have here (to state the obvious first) is differing opinions on how valuable dogs lives are. This will mean different people believe in different consequences for killing said dog.
I feel a victim (or family of in case of death) of any crime should get to set the sentances for crimes committed against them. In other words, after the criminal is found guilty by the court system as it is now, the family should set sentancing, and not the courts. This way the victims would be best satisfied by the outcome in case the courts feel differently about what the crime did to them than the victim does.
You guys are arguing that killing cattle for meat is ok, but killing a pet is wrong because someone is attached to that person, and therefore the penalty for killing a pet should be death.
So then you are also saying that stealing $100 from Bill Gates is ok because he wouldn't miss it at all. The consequences of an action don't make that action right or wrong. The action is either right, or it is wrong. It doesn't depend on whether it makes ppl sad or not.
I have no problems eating meat. And i dont think it is ok to kill someone else's pet. But i don't believe that because a pet is a family member, that they should be treated like human beings.
this reminds me of a star trek, where a guy is sentenced to death for stealing something. in that culture the family that was wronged decides the punishment, because something that isn't worth anything to one person is worth a fortune to another. it just seems wrong.
So then you are also saying that stealing $100 from Bill Gates is ok because he wouldn't miss it at all. The consequences of an action don't make that action right or wrong. The action is either right, or it is wrong. It doesn't depend on whether it makes ppl sad or not.
I have no problems eating meat. And i dont think it is ok to kill someone else's pet. But i don't believe that because a pet is a family member, that they should be treated like human beings.
this reminds me of a star trek, where a guy is sentenced to death for stealing something. in that culture the family that was wronged decides the punishment, because something that isn't worth anything to one person is worth a fortune to another. it just seems wrong.
Circlenaut
Platinum Member
- Mar 22, 2001
- 2,175
- 5
- 81
I have ferrets I love them but THEY ARE REPLACEABLE. One of my ferrets died of old age, then I went to a shelter and picked up another one. They only things pets provide for me is release of stress!
I've not seen that episode of Star Trek, but what I proposed would not give the victim or victims family that much control over sentancing. It would be more along the lines of the system now, where a judge can't 9even if they wanted to) sentance someone to death merely for stealing. The victim or victim's family would have to follow the guidelines set by law on sentancing, but in a capital punishment case they would choose between life imprisonment and death penalty instead of a judge/jury.
TNTrulez,
If you spent more time practicing Buddhism, rather than amassing abstract knowledge of it, you would realize how ridiculous you sound. Buddhism's beauty is not in its complexity, but in the simple tenets it puts forth. While there is much written about the various stages of enlightenment, types of dukkha, organizations of the body, and so on, experiential development (meditation) is the key. Shed your western inclination to intellectualize - this is where you liberal arts kids (and professors) go wrong. You treat buddhism as a christian, spouting verse here and there, immersing into ritual instead of the essence, basically trying to cook-book your way along. The buddhists goal is not to achieve an encyclopedic knowledge of pali/sanskrit classifications, but the very reverse - to attain the clarity of true awareness andunderstanding through experiential insight.
If you spent more time practicing Buddhism, rather than amassing abstract knowledge of it, you would realize how ridiculous you sound. Buddhism's beauty is not in its complexity, but in the simple tenets it puts forth. While there is much written about the various stages of enlightenment, types of dukkha, organizations of the body, and so on, experiential development (meditation) is the key. Shed your western inclination to intellectualize - this is where you liberal arts kids (and professors) go wrong. You treat buddhism as a christian, spouting verse here and there, immersing into ritual instead of the essence, basically trying to cook-book your way along. The buddhists goal is not to achieve an encyclopedic knowledge of pali/sanskrit classifications, but the very reverse - to attain the clarity of true awareness andunderstanding through experiential insight.
I feel that this guy should be locked away for a long time. Not because, as some people have suggested, that I think dogs are worth more than humans, but because people should finally learn that expressing themselves through anger is wrong. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. This guy is dangerous.
Lithium381
Lifer
- May 12, 2001
- 12,452
- 2
- 0
in response to the first bulk or responses.....i'd have laid a beatdown.......no reason to throw the dog...he deserves as was stated before be thrown in jail and be raped by bubba......sick sick sick
I've owned quite a few dogs in my time. I've been attached to all of them (I've cried more than once when they finally "left"), but does this man deserve to die? H3ll no! It's a dog. Understand that. Between the two men the guy deserves an ass kicking. Nothing more. As far as the law I'd say if he gets more than 2 years then somethings wrong with our judicial system. No dog is worth more than a human's life, and as much as many of us love our dogs they are not on the level of a human.
You'd kill someone for killing a dog? I'd kill you. But then someone would probably kill me for killing someone who killed someone who killed a dog.
I do not understand how some of you think it is OK that he lobbed a living animal 23 stories out of a building. That is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention unwaranted. He doesn't value life. Hello?
Oh my God! This thread had me laughing like hell. It consists of very intelligent responses and quite philosophical, if you ask me. Most of the factual statements come from the realists who believe human life has a set value higher than other specie.
The Presence, I never thought we would agree on something, especially reading your Middle East opinion posts. But this one has got me liking ya like crazy! You gave very smart answers. I'm surprised you never saw this side of ATOT members, though. I remember several past posts about pets and how violently the pet lovers acted or spoke.
They always make that statement "you must not own a pet". That is absolute crap. Funny enough, there are still some sane pet owners who know you can love a pet but it is unsensible to equate a pet with a human being. *Sigh!*
It feels great to know there are still some of you who share that view. I dreaded to speak at some point 'cuz I was scared I would be lynched by animal lovers--human haters. I used to frequent a forum where almost 100% of the members were pet crazed people who would cry over the death of a pet as though their family members had died, but they would shed no tears over the death of even a human baby. And if one dared question them or gave a dissenting opinion, they would assault the person(s) and wish them death. It was scary. *Sigh!*
They usually argue that pets are innocent. Is not that an assumption we make at a human level? Of what divine authority are we to be all-knowing and tell what really goes on a pet's mind? Last I checked, animals defend their species too. Yes, their intelligence is lower than that of a human and they can be trained, but so can a little kid be trained to turn against the human race. The same innocence assumed about an animal is assumed of a human baby and kids.
On that note, I should say TNTrulez, you have got some smart responses. Your first response was very intelligent, philosophical and sounded so lawyerly. You happen to be thinking like our system works. I'll suggest our opponents should go take a basic course on property law. Pets are not human and are not covered by laws as human beings are. Pets in fact are treated as property. Thus, an owner can sue under the confines of property law. Yes, there are some amends like there are to different kinds of property.
Pets are simply treated as property by law. Why do you think you are allowed to buy pets? When humans like Blacks were treated as slaves, the law reflected it indicating they were a property. Slave owners sued when their slaves were stolen or abused by someone else. Slaves were not allowed to vote. It is because they were perceived as properties.
When you buy pets, you concede to them being properties. How would you dare to equate a property with a human being covered by the bill of rights?
But more importantly, it invalidates your arguments. For, when you buy an animal, not only are you conceding to it being a property, you are holding it captive from its natural essence. You're assuming superiority to the pets yourselves. Anything far from the state of nature is captivity (albeit a broad use of the language). Whether you like to admit it or not, you are holding a pet captive, by law I should add.
It is only now that the ridiculous so-called animal rights groups are going far to try to pass bills or laws that would recognise animals as having the same or close rights as humans. Some of them include the rights of pets not to be held captive by human beings, also known as pet owners.
Anyway, Go Punk and the rest of you, the law of the nation at the moment invalidates your claim in practice at least.
Datalink, you claim that TNTrulez is mistaken about punishment for the following reason:
"'A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.
Untrue. Take O.J. Simpson for example. He got off for murder, but had to pay millions in civil court for 'emotional' damage."
Well, honey, please try a little more to learn about the laws of your nation. There's a distinction between civil and criminal law. The burden of proof at a criminal level is a preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof at a civil level is waaay below that. It just takes the plaintiff to prove three different levels. It concerns liability and libelness, not serving time in prison and losing your freedom to travel from place to place. O.J. was found liable in the civil case, but it is not the same as criminal. The consequence of his guilt meant monetary compensation, not time in prison. The original poster clearly referred to criminal cases 'cuz that is what this discussion was about from the start. Your reference to O.J. on the other hand concerned civil litigation. As said, civil court is instituted for a very different purpose from criminal court.
P.S.: TNTrulez, I happen to subscribe to moral egoism too. I think denying that human nature is self-interested does no good for mankind. Self-interest would be harmful just as collectivism could be too. What makes self-interest special is, we all must reach a compromise at some point in time for our individual gains. We must transact with and coexist with other human beings, so we know it means bargaining and sacrificing sometimes.
The Presence, I never thought we would agree on something, especially reading your Middle East opinion posts. But this one has got me liking ya like crazy! You gave very smart answers. I'm surprised you never saw this side of ATOT members, though. I remember several past posts about pets and how violently the pet lovers acted or spoke.
They always make that statement "you must not own a pet". That is absolute crap. Funny enough, there are still some sane pet owners who know you can love a pet but it is unsensible to equate a pet with a human being. *Sigh!*
It feels great to know there are still some of you who share that view. I dreaded to speak at some point 'cuz I was scared I would be lynched by animal lovers--human haters.
I used to frequent a forum where almost 100% of the members were pet crazed people who would cry over the death of a pet as though their family members had died, but they would shed no tears over the death of even a human baby. And if one dared question them or gave a dissenting opinion, they would assault the person(s) and wish them death. It was scary. *Sigh!*They usually argue that pets are innocent. Is not that an assumption we make at a human level? Of what divine authority are we to be all-knowing and tell what really goes on a pet's mind? Last I checked, animals defend their species too. Yes, their intelligence is lower than that of a human and they can be trained, but so can a little kid be trained to turn against the human race. The same innocence assumed about an animal is assumed of a human baby and kids.
On that note, I should say TNTrulez, you have got some smart responses. Your first response was very intelligent, philosophical and sounded so lawyerly. You happen to be thinking like our system works. I'll suggest our opponents should go take a basic course on property law. Pets are not human and are not covered by laws as human beings are. Pets in fact are treated as property. Thus, an owner can sue under the confines of property law. Yes, there are some amends like there are to different kinds of property.
Pets are simply treated as property by law. Why do you think you are allowed to buy pets? When humans like Blacks were treated as slaves, the law reflected it indicating they were a property. Slave owners sued when their slaves were stolen or abused by someone else. Slaves were not allowed to vote. It is because they were perceived as properties.
When you buy pets, you concede to them being properties. How would you dare to equate a property with a human being covered by the bill of rights?
But more importantly, it invalidates your arguments. For, when you buy an animal, not only are you conceding to it being a property, you are holding it captive from its natural essence. You're assuming superiority to the pets yourselves. Anything far from the state of nature is captivity (albeit a broad use of the language). Whether you like to admit it or not, you are holding a pet captive, by law I should add.
It is only now that the ridiculous so-called animal rights groups are going far to try to pass bills or laws that would recognise animals as having the same or close rights as humans. Some of them include the rights of pets not to be held captive by human beings, also known as pet owners.
Anyway, Go Punk and the rest of you, the law of the nation at the moment invalidates your claim in practice at least.
Datalink, you claim that TNTrulez is mistaken about punishment for the following reason:
"'A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.
Untrue. Take O.J. Simpson for example. He got off for murder, but had to pay millions in civil court for 'emotional' damage."
Well, honey, please try a little more to learn about the laws of your nation. There's a distinction between civil and criminal law. The burden of proof at a criminal level is a preponderance of evidence. The burden of proof at a civil level is waaay below that. It just takes the plaintiff to prove three different levels. It concerns liability and libelness, not serving time in prison and losing your freedom to travel from place to place. O.J. was found liable in the civil case, but it is not the same as criminal. The consequence of his guilt meant monetary compensation, not time in prison. The original poster clearly referred to criminal cases 'cuz that is what this discussion was about from the start. Your reference to O.J. on the other hand concerned civil litigation. As said, civil court is instituted for a very different purpose from criminal court.
P.S.: TNTrulez, I happen to subscribe to moral egoism too.
I think denying that human nature is self-interested does no good for mankind. Self-interest would be harmful just as collectivism could be too. What makes self-interest special is, we all must reach a compromise at some point in time for our individual gains. We must transact with and coexist with other human beings, so we know it means bargaining and sacrificing sometimes. Luvly, I'm not saying that a human life has less worth than a dog's life. What I'm saying is this guy should be put away because of his low value of life in general. It's all about intent. In anger he intended to kill to get his way. You don't see a problem with this? His next killing may involve a human being. He realizes the pain and anguish this causes his victim, and lets not forget there is a human victim in this case as well.
For a "human lover" I'm surprised you forgot about the human victim here.
For a "human lover" I'm surprised you forgot about the human victim here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter