I didn't realize I was "clouding" any issues, but maybe my definition is different than yours. I assume your use of the word "clouding" is meant to indicate anyone having a dissenting opinion on how important the issue is, or what appropriate punishment is for the man in question, or whether he's even guilty of what he's accused of? I wasn't attempting to divert any conversation or issues. I was pointing out that the replies to this thread were universally overzealous, in that everyone wants to punish the man, excessively as I see it, and that everyone had already determined the full extent of his guilt without any evidence. You've chosen to use my opinion on how important dogs are as a reason to dismiss any possibility that I'm right about how vindictive and judgemental people are being. Fine, I choose to dismiss everyone else's thoughts because obviously they're terribly biased in favor of dogs.
people were replying based on the article. according to that, he purposely put it in there as punishment. if so, he is da scum bag people say he is
People were posting essentially "kill the scum" in reply to an article in which there was no information given proving he was anything more than a moron. They chose to interpret the information as somehow proof that there was deliberate intent to harm (with varying degrees of "harm" supposedly intended). I simply pointed out that they had no actual proof but they were acting as if they did. Even if he's found innocent of actually intending to torture or abuse the dog, he'll forever be known as a dog torturer to a lot of people just because the media reported it so.
The hell he wasn't trying to torture the puppy. He didn't make a mistake, he intentionally hurt the animal. He may not have meant to kill it, but that's irrelevant. Putting ANY living thing inside a hot car as punishment is wrong, immoral, and unacceptable, and if he's stupid enough to do it, then I say he needs to pay the full price, whatever that may be.
And sorry, I don't care what starving people in a war-torn country would think.........that's not how things are here, and therefore it has no bearing on what happens here. I could comment on how any mother in a country like you describe is irresponsible for even having a child under those conditions, but that's another topic. Most of the famine areas of the world have starving kids because they keep having kids and are too stupid to realize what causes it.....or don't care. So I pity those kids, but screw the adults that had them in the first place, when they already couldn't feed themselves.
Amazing how many telepaths and omniscient people here that are absolutely sure that this was intentional torture.
Which is all you want really, attention. You are/were probably the kind of child who performs cartwheels shouting "look at me look at me look at me!" Your first post was only troll bait, it had no valid opinion or merit. You can put any individual act in a context that renders it meaningless. Famine may be bad, but it's hardly 1938 Germany where families were shaved to make pillows and then boiled down for fuel. Did anyone feel the need to chime in on the miner thread with "So what, Hitler made lampshades out of my entire family!"? No. So go get your validation elsewhere, you worthless piece of bug excrement.
You don't think he did it intentionally? Did you even READ the article?
"Hertzer told police that he put the dog in a plastic pet carrier, without water, as punishment for urinating in the apartment. The puppy died of heat exhaustion"
There. He did it intentionally. To punish the dog.
owned!
u know,... you can unintentionally intentionally punish something
i mean how lazy can u get? the guy posted the article right under the link
the part about him punishing isn't far into the article. how cr@ppy are your reading skills? i skimmed the article in a few seconds.Man, some people will stretch till they break in two to avoid acknowledging a point. Who ever said he didn't intentionally put the dog in the car? Not me. I said he didn't necessarily intend to HURT the dog, to TORTURE the dog, or KILL the dog. I said it's possible that he intended only to isolate the dog in the only place he felt at the time was acceptable. I said that he may have just been an idiot and not realized that the heat in the car was going to hurt the dog (as much as you people want to avoid admitting it, it IS possible he didn't think of that; you'd rather assume that he HAD to have known better despite the evidence you see every day that people DON'T always know better).
Notice I continually use the words MAY and POSSIBLY. I concede that my first impressions might be wrong, and that he MAY have intended to do serious harm to the dog, however I see no evidence that shows without a doubt that he intended anything other than the same punishment that other dog owners inflict, namely, isolating the dog and getting it away from where it can continue to annoy the person caring for it. It's been asked why he didn't leave the dog in the apartment and just in the cage, which would avoid him urinating on the floor again. Well, perhaps the dog was barking like a maniac and seriously annoying the guy, so he wanted it out of the apartment, but there wasn't anywhere else he could put it. Maybe he only intended to leave the dog there for a short time until it calmed down, but then was distracted by other matters and realized later how long it had been out there (still going on the possibility that he didn't see the heat as being a problem, since he DID open the windows on the assumption that it would allow cool air in). The difference between myself and the rest of you is that you've decided he's guilty without seeing ANY evidence or even hearing what the man has to say for himself, while I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's innocent of intentional cruelty and simply not too bright and is one of the people for whom warning labels are put onto everything.
It's not trolling for me to point out to people that they're getting violently upset about something without enough information to justify it.
Notice I continually use the words MAY and POSSIBLY. I concede that my first impressions might be wrong, and that he MAY have intended to do serious harm to the dog, however I see no evidence that shows without a doubt that he intended anything other than the same punishment that other dog owners inflict, namely, isolating the dog and getting it away from where it can continue to annoy the person caring for it. It's been asked why he didn't leave the dog in the apartment and just in the cage, which would avoid him urinating on the floor again. Well, perhaps the dog was barking like a maniac and seriously annoying the guy, so he wanted it out of the apartment, but there wasn't anywhere else he could put it. Maybe he only intended to leave the dog there for a short time until it calmed down, but then was distracted by other matters and realized later how long it had been out there (still going on the possibility that he didn't see the heat as being a problem, since he DID open the windows on the assumption that it would allow cool air in). The difference between myself and the rest of you is that you've decided he's guilty without seeing ANY evidence or even hearing what the man has to say for himself, while I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he's innocent of intentional cruelty and simply not too bright and is one of the people for whom warning labels are put onto everything.
It's not trolling for me to point out to people that they're getting violently upset about something without enough information to justify it.
I don't think anyone's getting upset with no reason.
Even if you're right, (and you're not, I don't think) and the guy just put the puppy in the car to isolate it, or whatever you said, THEN we get to one of my other points....the one where if the guy is THAT stupid, to put a puppy in the car like that and forget about it, then he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.
See, it doesn't matter whether he meant to kill the puppy or not. All that matters is that he DID. Negligence, intentional, doesn't matter. He did it. He admits it. Throw the book at him. He'll probably only get a fine, anyway. I hope they have a way to forever ban him from owning another animal, too.
Even if you're right, (and you're not, I don't think) and the guy just put the puppy in the car to isolate it, or whatever you said, THEN we get to one of my other points....the one where if the guy is THAT stupid, to put a puppy in the car like that and forget about it, then he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.
See, it doesn't matter whether he meant to kill the puppy or not. All that matters is that he DID. Negligence, intentional, doesn't matter. He did it. He admits it. Throw the book at him. He'll probably only get a fine, anyway. I hope they have a way to forever ban him from owning another animal, too.
wow, what priorities we have. people are starving all over the world and a dead pppy gets an outcry. dont you think fining the guy $1500 will teach him not to kill another puppy? what about dealing with the shame in his own family circle?
You:Lord Evermore are a sick fuck...You have NO compassion...and that guy will get in trouble for violation of the Cruilty to Animals Law...Instead of that poor dog...picture what you would look like as a dog roasting to death......yeah...I rest my case
At least I don't have to resort to swearing and name-calling in a public forum where such things are forbidden (odd how you're not banned like is supposed to happen if the moderators had any consistency and weren't biased).
I have an opinion. It's at odds with your own. That doesn't make me a sick anything. I have never advocated the torture of any animal, I suggested only that some people would fairly well lynch the man without knowing the entire story or taking any time to find out what really happened. You know a final event, a dog died, you know nothing else. I am simply someone who considers a dog's life worth less than the life of a human, and I don't feel the life of a human should be destroyed for the accidental death of a dog, whether it was through ignorance or simple neglectfulness, if it was unintentional.
Lord Evermore is a Sick Fvck, and I've been around these forums long enough to hear plenty to support that. You will never change the heart and mind of an imbusile(sp?)....so let's stop trying, ok? We can go into details about some really weird crap he's spewed, if we need to, but his best bet would be to get out of this thread and stay out. Capiche?
Tisk tisk tisk, bypassing the language filter -- and this coming from an old time member.
I'll have to side with evermore on this one (not very common, note that). A bunch of you are judgemental chumps, you really don't know the whole story so you might as well shut up right now.
Man! (or maybe I shouldn't use such a masculine term) -- where's Red Dawn with his nancyboy comments when you need him? I've shot a dozen birds in my time, probably some squirrels, a handfull of prairie dogs...not very uncommon with red blooded american boys. Before you get whiney on me about the prairie dogs, they're harmful to cattle, carry disease, etc, and this was cattle ground, not my back yard.
What's more, this thread is hypocritical to the hilt. If anyone brings up a thread about opposition to people killing babies you knobs show up with the "I don't see you adopting any orphans so stfu" rhetoric. Well, I don't see you guys adopting all the animals in shelters so maybe we should just go around offing all the pets we want?
So people living and dying all over the world in worse conditions than this dog doesn't phaze you, how about the homeless people in your town that you scoff at when they're around? They're more sentient than any dog you'll ever own, but you don't bat an eye when one dies of starvation or freezes to death.
The guy made a mistake, he's a dumbass, get over it and find something more important to worry about. The dog is dead, it has no soul, no future life, its suffering is over. The owner can get a new dog. Slap this guy with a fine, maybe some community service.
Yeah, he wouldn't want anyone to ban him for stating his opinion in a non-hostile way, which is more than I can say for others in this thread.Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Lord Evermore is a Sick Fvck, and I've been around these forums long enough to hear plenty to support that. You will never change the heart and mind of an imbusile(sp?)....so let's stop trying, ok? We can go into details about some really weird crap he's spewed, if we need to, but his best bet would be to get out of this thread and stay out. Capiche?
I wasn't aware that my personality was up for discussion, really. I'm free to have any opinions I want, so long as I harm no one and don't break any laws. Not one of the points I've made in this thread is invalid, except if one considers anything contrary to your own opinion to be invalid.
Matt, that was not hostile, I hope. Was it? If you want hostile, I'll get there.
You mess with an innocent animal and I will get real hostile. Wanna make light of it, minimize it, or even condone it, my blood pressure will go up. If I catch you doing any cruell acts to innocent animals, I'll probably go to prison, because whoever did it would probably die, if I caught them in the act. I have people and pets I care about, who are all my family. Hurt them....be prepared to be hurt.
You mess with an innocent animal and I will get real hostile. Wanna make light of it, minimize it, or even condone it, my blood pressure will go up. If I catch you doing any cruell acts to innocent animals, I'll probably go to prison, because whoever did it would probably die, if I caught them in the act. I have people and pets I care about, who are all my family. Hurt them....be prepared to be hurt.
What do you do when someone messes with an innocent HUMAN?!?!?!?
It's a dog, cry me a river.
A FEW dogs I had got hit by cars, or died in some various ways. Because someone did not tie them up, bring them in the house, put them outside because they were bad, etc.
Please, send my father to jail.
With hostile I was referring to other posters. Your post hostile? No. Hypocritical, quite frankly, yes, but let's not get into that tonight.
Wow, though, I sure hope you're a vegan or at least a vegitarian with comments like that.
My friend, dogs have souls and so do cat's. Maybe it is you who has no soul! :|
Don't even go there with me!
What should I be giving up? I'm not the ones that said I'm not worth responding to yet who continue to do so. I'm not the one insisting that my emotional reaction to a situation is the definitive guide to how one should react and that anyone who takes a logical and unbiased approach is wrong and "sick". I'm not the one attacking the personality of another member of the forum.
if he was stupid, or evil or both, he should just be locked up either way so he cant harm anyone or anything else. just like that guy who barbequed a cat on CNN, morons shouldnt be allowed in society. its not safe for them, its not safe for us.
and get over the boiling blood thing, its just a hyperbole, if i say "that puppy killer makes me so mad it boils my blood" u dont say "that unpossible! i proving it!!"
and yes u could cook an egg in a car
and get over the boiling blood thing, its just a hyperbole, if i say "that puppy killer makes me so mad it boils my blood" u dont say "that unpossible! i proving it!!"
and yes u could cook an egg in a car
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter