So, it's okay for everyone else to be "so fricking insistent" about their opinions, but it's not okay for me to defend my opinions? Considering that 90% of this thread is replies to me, it seems people do care what I think, even if it is only that they disagree.
Parabol: your little quote means nothing to me. I don't feel foul, and I don't feel shamed for being human.
Sepen: I never asked to be made Elite, and I never made any claims to that title being a reflection on my personality. Nobody ever said compassion was a requirement for it, either. I have great compassion when it's deserved. I'd never torture an animal or stand by while it happens. However I don't feel the life of a human should be destroyed because he made a mistake and a dog was accidentally killed.
dahunan: I stand by my "true colors". I think it's stupid that people can get so upset about a dog accidentally being killed (because despite everyone's repeated assertions that he "meant to do it", you still don't know all the facts and you do NOT know that he meant to do it, you simply choose to believe he did). While it is sad that a dog suffered, it is not a tragedy of national importance, nor one that should cause this man to lose a year of his life.
incallisto: no, I didn't say it's alright to torture a puppy or that its life is worthless. I said only that its life was not so important that half the country should be up in arms because a man made a mistake. You repeat the same things that others have, that he "meant to do it", but again, you really don't know, you just choose to believe that; your feelings about the importance of dogs sways you toward the more vindictive view of events. I choose to look at it logically and see that there is not enough information to say whether he intended to torture the animal or not, and if he did not, then he does not deserve a year of his life taken away. If it is found that he was intentionally cruel, then perhaps he does deserve prison time for it. But at this point, all of you have simply judged him before knowing everything about the case.
CptObvious: essentially the same argument; you've made a judgement based on insufficient evidence, because your OPINION is that he had to have known what he was doing. But you don't know.
I do not believe dogs are smarter than humans in terms of sentient intelligence. Certainly they're better (or at least some breeds are) at things like tracking or things like that, but that does not imply they're "intelligent" as I use the term. Remember, dogs chase their own tails and moving cars. I do not believe that a dog's life is as important as a humans, either. Every dog on the planet dying would not be as important as the death of one human (except insofar as the scientific investigation into why all dogs died, of course, since the investigation into the death of the human could be handled with fewer people).
Facebook
Twitter