I'd kill the SOB

[gopunk]

So in effect your answer is, we buy dogs because we can. We dont buy people because we cant control them and it's against the law. How pathetic. Have you any morals? Have all the moral reasons not to own someone else totally escaped you?

you're entirely right, i forgot, we don't buy other humans because we are humans too, so we can empathize with them better than we can with creatures of other species.

Unreal. totally unbelievable.

the ONLY advantage humans have over other animals is use of their brain, use of logic, reasoning, etc. are you going to neglect to demonstrate the usage of those facilities? if you think i'm wrong, go ahead and explain why. if you are just going to sit there and tell me i'm wrong, then your argumentative capabilities are no better than that of a monkey with a learning disorder.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Im off to bed. It's with a heavy heart that I will attempt to sleep. I cant believe how low we've fallen, that we are now equated with dogs. Really sad.

Its a long way up from where you are standing

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: gopunk
if you are just going to sit there and tell me i'm wrong, then your argumentative capabilities are no better than that of a monkey with a learning disorder.

LOL... that is funny.

 

[Nemesis77]

What I (and I guess most others here) are comong from is this:

Which do I value most: humans or dogs?

Answer: humans

Which do I value the most: a dog or a sick, twisted human who intentionally causes pain to other creatures?

Answer: a dog.

 

[TNTrulez]

Heh. If you were to kill the guy after he killed the dog you would probably get life in prison. Now, lets think which is more important: your life or the dog's? I would take my life over the dog's life anytime.
It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly. I don't care if you have an emotional bond with your dog. A dog should be seen as a possession and persons taking away that possession should be punished accordingly. You cannot "murder" a dog in the same way as you cannot murder a computer.
There are conservatives and there are liberals. Just because you have your point of view on something does not mean that many will agree with you. If a guy go psycho and start murdering people then he should be given death. There is no other justification for the death penalty.
Summing it up: I don't care about what you feel after your dog dies, just like I don't care if you're sad because your computer died. I don't know you and I view your emotions as un-important. Laws should not be based on emotions but on physical facts. A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Heh. If you were to kill the guy after he killed the dog you would probably get life in prison. Now, lets think which is more important: your life or the dog's? I would take my life over the dog's life anytime.
It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly. I don't care if you have an emotional bond with your dog. A dog should be seen as a possession and persons taking away that possession should be punished accordingly. You cannot "murder" a dog in the same way as you cannot murder a computer.
There are conservatives and there are liberals. Just because you have your point of view on something does not mean that many will agree with you. If a guy go psycho and start murdering people then he should be given death. There is no other justification for the death penalty.
Summing it up: I don't care about what you feel after your dog dies, just like I don't care if you're sad because your computer died. I don't know you and I view your emotions as un-important. Laws should not be based on emotions but on physical facts. A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.

how old are you? just curious also, why should a dog be seen as the equivalent of a computer? i don't care how you think it should be, i'm asking you why you think it should be.

anyways, you are wrong, a large part of our punishments are based on giving the victim and/or their families closure. otherwise, what is the point of the death penalty?

not to mention, punishments are also given out to prevent people from committing further crimes, in other words, we jail people to keep them from society. do you really want a guy who solves his problems with violence running around your children? i wouldn't.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
What I (and I guess most others here) are comong from is this:

Which do I value most: humans or dogs?

Answer: humans

Which do I value the most: a dog or a sick, twisted human who intentionally causes pain to other creatures?

Answer: a dog.

If you value a dog's life more than a twisted human's, then why should those humans value your life more than they value a dog's or a cow's? If you go hunting or fishing, you intentionally cause pain to other creatures. What makes you different from that sick, twisted human?

 

[datalink7]

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.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
What I (and I guess most others here) are comong from is this:

Which do I value most: humans or dogs?

Answer: humans

Which do I value the most: a dog or a sick, twisted human who intentionally causes pain to other creatures?

Answer: a dog.

If you value a dog's life more than a twisted human's, then why should those humans value your life more than they value a dog's or a cow's? If you go hunting or fishing, you intentionally cause pain to other creatures. What makes you different from that sick, twisted human?

when you go hunting or fishing, hopefully, you are doing so because you want to eat those animals. not because you want to cause them pain.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Heh. If you were to kill the guy after he killed the dog you would probably get life in prison. Now, lets think which is more important: your life or the dog's? I would take my life over the dog's life anytime.
It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly. I don't care if you have an emotional bond with your dog. A dog should be seen as a possession and persons taking away that possession should be punished accordingly. You cannot "murder" a dog in the same way as you cannot murder a computer.
There are conservatives and there are liberals. Just because you have your point of view on something does not mean that many will agree with you. If a guy go psycho and start murdering people then he should be given death. There is no other justification for the death penalty.
Summing it up: I don't care about what you feel after your dog dies, just like I don't care if you're sad because your computer died. I don't know you and I view your emotions as un-important. Laws should not be based on emotions but on physical facts. A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.

Wow, a lawyer and a philospher. Too bad you've missed the point entirely. Not too shocking though, considering the average brainpower of anyone who replaces a n 's' with a 'z'.

The point, Professor, is that killing someone who killed your dog is at worst 2nd degree manslaughter and quite possibly a walk due to extreme emotional disturbance.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Heh. If you were to kill the guy after he killed the dog you would probably get life in prison. Now, lets think which is more important: your life or the dog's? I would take my life over the dog's life anytime.
It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly. I don't care if you have an emotional bond with your dog. A dog should be seen as a possession and persons taking away that possession should be punished accordingly. You cannot "murder" a dog in the same way as you cannot murder a computer.
There are conservatives and there are liberals. Just because you have your point of view on something does not mean that many will agree with you. If a guy go psycho and start murdering people then he should be given death. There is no other justification for the death penalty.
Summing it up: I don't care about what you feel after your dog dies, just like I don't care if you're sad because your computer died. I don't know you and I view your emotions as un-important. Laws should not be based on emotions but on physical facts. A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.

how old are you? just curious also, why should a dog be seen as the equivalent of a computer? i don't care how you think it should be, i'm asking you why you think it should be.

anyways, you are wrong, a large part of our punishments are based on giving the victim and/or their families closure. otherwise, what is the point of the death penalty?

not to mention, punishments are also given out to prevent people from committing further crimes, in other words, we jail people to keep them from society. do you really want a guy who solves his problems with violence running around your children? i wouldn't.

I'm old enough to vote. I compared a dog to a computer because I hold them to be of the same value. Why do I think that way? It is just because I think rationally. The death penalty is faulty and I do not think it should be done at all. I would jail people who have done violence against humans. I certainly would not jail someone that kills a dog. If you want to keep people that solves problem with violence from coming in contact with your children, then you would have to wipe out all of the world's military forces first. That's is what they are there for: to solve problems with violence or threat of violence.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
If you value a dog's life more than a twisted human's, then why should those humans value your life more than they value a dog's or a cow's? If you go hunting or fishing, you intentionally cause pain to other creatures. What makes you different from that sick, twisted human?

Those humans? I guess you are referring to the scum I value less than a dog? Well, if they are scum, I don't expect them to value my life. As I don't really value theirs.

Sorry, I don't hunt. But hunting can serve a purpose. In Finland at least hunting is used to keep the number of wild animals at tolerable levels. If moose-population (for example) is not cut down, it will cause the number of moose-relates car-accidents to shoot up (those accidents are usually lethal). As for fishing... I do that occasionally. But if I catch a fish, I also eat it.

 

[gopunk]

I'm old enough to vote. I compared a dog to a computer because I hold them to be of the same value. Why do I think that way? It is just because I think rationally.

vote in what country? vote for federal, state, and local officials? as in, if they had a election for the united states president, you could vote in that election?

please enlighten all of us who do not think rationally, as to why a dog's life is as disposable as a computer.

If you want to keep people that solves problem with violence from coming in contact with your children, then you would have to wipe out all of the world's military forces first. That's is what they are there for: to solve problems with violence or threat of violence.

why first? why can't we start with this sick SOB?

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Heh. If you were to kill the guy after he killed the dog you would probably get life in prison. Now, lets think which is more important: your life or the dog's? I would take my life over the dog's life anytime.
It is sad that society today values animals' (non-human) life so highly. I don't care if you have an emotional bond with your dog. A dog should be seen as a possession and persons taking away that possession should be punished accordingly. You cannot "murder" a dog in the same way as you cannot murder a computer.
There are conservatives and there are liberals. Just because you have your point of view on something does not mean that many will agree with you. If a guy go psycho and start murdering people then he should be given death. There is no other justification for the death penalty.
Summing it up: I don't care about what you feel after your dog dies, just like I don't care if you're sad because your computer died. I don't know you and I view your emotions as un-important. Laws should not be based on emotions but on physical facts. A murderer does not get punished because he caused anguish to the victim's family; he gets punished because he harmed to the victim.

Wow, a lawyer and a philospher. Too bad you've missed the point entirely. Not too shocking though, considering the average brainpower of anyone who replaces a n 's' with a 'z'.

The point, Professor, is that killing someone who killed your dog is at worst 2nd degree manslaughter and quite possibly a walk due to extreme emotional disturbance.

Is your argumentative skill so low that you have to resort to personal attacks such as making fun of my name? Heh.

No chance that you could walk after throwing someone out of the window. It would probably be manslaughter because you did not plan it in advance. I don't care how you put it, but you are going to get some jail time for sure. That emotional disturbance crap doesn't work in the court system.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: gopunk
I'm old enough to vote. I compared a dog to a computer because I hold them to be of the same value. Why do I think that way? It is just because I think rationally.

vote in what country? vote for federal, state, and local officials? as in, if they had a election for the united states president, you could vote in that election?

please enlighten all of us who do not think rationally, as to why a dog's life is as disposable as a computer.

If you want to keep people that solves problem with violence from coming in contact with your children, then you would have to wipe out all of the world's military forces first. That's is what they are there for: to solve problems with violence or threat of violence.

why first? why can't we start with this sick SOB?

Vote in the United States in federal as well as local elections. I value a dog's life as much as I value my computer. If you think something different, then that is your choice. I am not trying to convince you but just stating my opinion.

What if I don't think he is sick? Also, are you calling him sick as in physically/mentally ill? I know you're probably not but just pointing that out.

As for those people who says they eat what they hunt. What if I throw that dog down the building and the proceed to have a BBQ from that dog's flesh? Doesn't that just ruin your rationalization for hunting?

 

[gopunk]

I value a dog's life as much as I value my computer. If you think something different, then that is your choice. I am not trying to convince you but just stating my opinion.

no no, if that is your opinion, and you think rationally, you should be able to explain your opinion. i want to hear your explanation.

What if I don't think he is sick? Also, are you calling him sick as in physically/mentally ill? I know you're probably not but just pointing that out.

um, yes i am calling him sick as in mentally ill. i believe anybody that would take an innocent life in anger is mentally ill.

As for those people who says they eat what they hunt. What if I throw that dog down the building and the proceed to have a BBQ from that dog's flesh? Doesn't that just ruin your rationalization for hunting?

no, i wasn't trying to rationalize hunting, merely saying that it is not on the same level. imo, people should only hunt as a last resort.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

I'd apologize to the man. Then we'd both go downstairs and take whatever is left of the dog and have a nice meal. No sense in letting good meat go to waste.

 

[jaeger66]

What if I don't think he is sick?

Meaningless, since I'll be the one dishing out the carnage.

As for those people who says they eat what they hunt. What if I throw that dog down the building and the proceed to have a BBQ from that dog's flesh? Doesn't that just ruin your rationalization for hunting?

No, since a wild animal has no bond with a particular human.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
I'd apologize to the man. Then we'd both go downstairs and take whatever is left of the dog and have a nice meal. No sense in letting good meat go to waste.

 

[jaeger66]

No chance that you could walk after throwing someone out of the window. It would probably be manslaughter because you did not plan it in advance. I don't care how you put it, but you are going to get some jail time for sure. That emotional disturbance crap doesn't work in the court system.

All you need is one pet owner out of 12 to hang the jury. Happens all the time.

 

[datalink7]

It is just because I think rationally

What rationality are you using? Perhaps you could point it out? I seemed to have missed it...

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

What if I don't think he is sick?

Meaningless, since I'll be the one dishing out the carnage.

As for those people who says they eat what they hunt. What if I throw that dog down the building and the proceed to have a BBQ from that dog's flesh? Doesn't that just ruin your rationalization for hunting?

No, since a wild animal has no bond with a particular human.

You'll be dishing out the carnage, and I, along with others like myself, will be punishing you.

Wild animals don't have bonds with humans. I'm claiming that those bonds are unimportant to me. Bonds between humans-humans are important to me, but not between humans-animals.

As for the rational explaination thing, it is three at night so I'll let you think that through on your own based on what you have read in my posts. If you can't do it then asks others.

 

[gopunk]

As for the rational explaination thing, it is three at night so I'll let you think that through on your own based on what you have read in my posts. If you can't do it then asks others.

translation: i have none.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bandXtrb
Humans are just animals with egos.

ding ding ding we have a winner

i love how some people think that they're just worth more than another animal just because.... talk about a distorted sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say a fireman has to choose between saving your grandmother's life or saving a pet lizard. According to your radical view, we're not more important than any other animal, and the reason we favor humans is because of some "distorted sense of entitlement." Ok, so I present this case to you. Convince me that I really have no legitimate reason for saving your grandmother instead of someone's pet lizard. I made it intentionally easy in this case. But your view ends up being no more valid than my view that humans are more important than animals.

 

[datalink7]

As for the rational explaination thing, it is three at night so I'll let you think that through on your own based on what you have read in my posts. If you can't do it then asks others.

Considering most of the "others" disagree with you (excepting ThePresense), I would think that it is your side that needs explaining.