Tossing dog off balcony gets man 3 years in jail

[Sheep]

This guy will do more time in prison than any of those hot female teachers that molested their students.

Heh, why are those teachers even IN prison? Those kids deserve a medal, the luckiest kid in the world medal!

SheepStar

 

[mike c]

i'd only toss the ugly teachers in jail ... but the "hot" ones ... we need more of those.

 

[WmAx]

Wow. Hmurchison seems to be getting lambasted here for attempting to be one of the very few applying some logic (instead of simple emotional response) to the situation.

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal. No animal has rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can't see a reason to consider a dog's life in itself as of greater value than a pig's life, for example. But the latter is a common dinner plate item in this country, there for people prefer to turn a blind eye to it's cruel existence (along with most other dinner plate animals). Pigs can make great pets, btw. Or let's take into consideration hunting, which can easily result in prolonged painful death for the animal in the case of a non-direct vital point shot. Do we convict hunters for such an error? Should we?

Personally, I have no problem eating a pork barbecue sandwich. I have no problem eating a hamburger. I would have no problem eating a dog burger or a cat roast. Perhaps some delicious dolphin soup on a cold day. Monkey medley, anyone?

Not to say I don't think animals deserve some protection. They do, of course, but for logical ones, not ones based on just feeling( though this seems to be a popular way to design laws ). If the item (dog) was owned by another, he should be subject to criminal and civil charges, just as any other property crime is subject. I can also understand some laws that may be applied for purposes of protection of specific species, due to possible environmental reasons (for example, animal X has a direct role in a specific critical ecological step, and the animal is in short supply for the purpose).

I would bet many would consider me a non-compassionate person at this point. Hardly true. In fact, in grade school, I once attacked a kid for purposely pulling the wings off of a helpless moth in front of me. I felt compassion for even a moth. Truth be told, I still feel some small amount of compassion for even insects when they are killed. But at some point, when I took the opportunity to stand back and look at things as objectively as possible, I realized that it just can't make sense to consider killing a dog (as an example) as some vile crime whilst eating a murdered slab of cow is considered by the same people as a standard innocent daily activity.

-Chris

 

[Gasman]

Wow, I have never seen a person disect every component as much as Chris.
Which is good, most times.
This, IMO, is not one of those times.
I suggest, you look more into domesticated animals (not moths).

Modifiable social hierarchy — Social creatures that recognize a hierarchy of dominance can be raised to recognize a human as its pack leader. Bighorn sheep cannot be herded because they lack a dominance hierarchy, whilst antelopes and giant forest hogs are territorial when breeding and cannot be maintained in crowded enclosures in captivity.

 

[Gasman]

Also, if you could..
Please slow down on editing a post, after people have replied.
Even for the slight spelling correction.

"Last edited by WmAx : Today at 01:07 AM. "

EDIT;
Ok, I now see what was added (thanks to Tomorrows post below).
"for example, animal X has a direct role in a specific critical ecological step, and the animal is in short supply for the purpose"

 

[Tomorrow]

Wow. Hmurchison seems to be getting lambasted here for attempting to be one of the very few applying some logic (instead of simple emotional response) to the situation.

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal. No animal has rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can't see a reason to consider a dog's life in itself as of greater value than a pig's life, for example. But the latter is a common dinner plate item in this country, there for people prefer to turn a blind eye to it's cruel existence (along with most other dinner plate animals). Pigs can make great pets, btw. Or let's take into consideration hunting, which can easily result in prolonged painful death for the animal in the case of a non-direct vital point shot. Do we convict hunters for such an error? Should we?

Personally, I have no problem eating a pork barbecue sandwich. I have no problem eating a hamburger. I would have no problem eating a dog burger or a cat roast. Perhaps some delicious dolphin soup on a cold day. Monkey medley, anyone?

Not to say I don't think animals deserve some protection. They do, of course, but for logical ones, not ones based on just feeling( though this seems to be a popular way to design laws ). If the item (dog) was owned by another, he should be subject to criminal and civil charges, just as any other property crime is subject.

I would bet many would consider me a non-compassionate person at this point. Hardly true. In fact, in grade school, I once attacked a kid for purposely pulling the wings off of a helpless moth in front of me. I felt compassion for even a moth. Truth be told, I still feel some small amount of compassion for even insects when they are killed. But at some point, when I took the opportunity to stand back and look at things as objectively as possible, I realized that it just can't make sense to consider killing a dog (as an example) as some vile crime whilst eating a murdered slab of cow is considered by the same people as a standard innocent daily activity.

-Chris

Chris,

I don't see any application of logic in his point any more than with the application of legal judgment in the subject case. One component of the discussion you're missing is that laws (U.S., state, local, etc.) in general and the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are very different things. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about animal abuse. But it also does not speak to fraud or theft. Yet those activities are illegal in most places. Why? Because of the previously mentioned adopted laws based upon societal values and morals. Whether or not you (as an individual) have compassion for humans, dogs, ants, or any animal or vegetable lifeform is irrelevant. If it has been legislated to be against the law...then that is what it is. Period. No further argument is required. Your only option is to violate a law (which the dog thrower did), obey the law (and go along with the majority in this representative democracy of ours), or try to change the law.

The justice system is not a system of logic. It's a system of values. This guy violated the law. He must pay the price. You don't like a law? Logic may require you to try to change it...but if successful, the logic will still be built upon values...yours.

 

[Sheep]

Wow. Hmurchison seems to be getting lambasted here for attempting to be one of the very few applying some logic (instead of simple emotional response) to the situation.

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal. No animal has rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I can't see a reason to consider a dog's life in itself as of greater value than a pig's life, for example. But the latter is a common dinner plate item in this country, there for people prefer to turn a blind eye to it's cruel existence (along with most other dinner plate animals). Pigs can make great pets, btw. Or let's take into consideration hunting, which can easily result in prolonged painful death for the animal in the case of a non-direct vital point shot. Do we convict hunters for such an error? Should we?

Personally, I have no problem eating a pork barbecue sandwich. I have no problem eating a hamburger. I would have no problem eating a dog burger or a cat roast. Perhaps some delicious dolphin soup on a cold day. Monkey medley, anyone?

Not to say I don't think animals deserve some protection. They do, of course, but for logical ones, not ones based on just feeling( though this seems to be a popular way to design laws ). If the item (dog) was owned by another, he should be subject to criminal and civil charges, just as any other property crime is subject. I can also understand some laws that may be applied for purposes of protection of specific species, due to possible environmental reasons (for example, animal X has a direct role in a specific critical ecological step, and the animal is in short supply for the purpose).

I would bet many would consider me a non-compassionate person at this point. Hardly true. In fact, in grade school, I once attacked a kid for purposely pulling the wings off of a helpless moth in front of me. I felt compassion for even a moth. Truth be told, I still feel some small amount of compassion for even insects when they are killed. But at some point, when I took the opportunity to stand back and look at things as objectively as possible, I realized that it just can't make sense to consider killing a dog (as an example) as some vile crime whilst eating a murdered slab of cow is considered by the same people as a standard innocent daily activity.

-Chris

Said the forum Robot. Personally, you should stay out of this thread, at least until you become human.

EDIT: In case anyone was wondering, this isn't meant as an attack, I converse with WmAx outside of the forum. 0111101001010001. Chris, did you hear about Tila's TV show? I'll send you the link I saw.

SheepStar

 

[mike c]

let's keep the discussion on the topic and not about the posters.

I see that hm and wmax are acting like devil's adovacates and that is good for discussion, no? if we all agreed, this thread would have stopped at page 1.

 

[Sheep]

let's keep the discussion on the topic and not about the posters.

I see that hm and wmax are acting like devil's adovacates and that is good for discussion, no? if we all agreed, this thread would have stopped at page 1.

Contrary to popular belief, a post talking about staying on topic, doesn't actually stay on topic .

I hate Devil's Advocates.

SheepStar

 

[Tomorrow]

Said the forum Robot. Personally, you should stay out of this thread, at least until you become human.

EDIT: In case anyone was wondering, this isn't meant as an attack, I converse with WmAx outside of the forum. 0111101001010001. Chris, did you hear about Tila's TV show? I'll send you the link I saw.

SheepStar

Yeah, we know you're really a sheep in wolf's clothing.

 

[Adam]

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal.

Yep, and as important as any human animal.

If the item (dog) was owned by another, he should be subject to criminal and civil charges, just as any other property crime is subject.

Ahhh, that thinking reminds me of about 150 years ago in the South.

It's the general mentality of some humans that they can own other forms of life that is frustrating to me. It's all about where you draw the line. Perhaps some reading this aren't all that offended by human slavery. Probably saw the Dateline special where the reporter bought a girl (and I mean actually purchased her for good) for $1000 and started counting their pennies.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Heh, why are those teachers even IN prison? Those kids deserve a medal, the luckiest kid in the world medal!

I have to agree. How is an oppurtunity to get it on with a good-looking teacher a bad thing?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said "The more I know about people, the better I like dogs." I tend to agree with that sentiment.

 

[WmAx]

Yep, and as important as any human animal.

You are not by any chance a member of PETA, are you? That's a stance held by almost no one that I have observed, even in this thread. However, your statements here are commonly found among the more hardcore of PETA members.

Ahhh, that thinking reminds me of about 150 years ago in the South.

It's the general mentality of some humans that they can own other forms of life that is frustrating to me. It's all about where you draw the line. Perhaps some reading this aren't all that offended by human slavery. Probably saw the Dateline special where the reporter bought a girl (and I mean actually purchased her for good) for $1000 and started counting their pennies.

A non-sentient being can not be compared to a sentient one. The only sentient beings on this planet are humans. How can one compare a being that is conscious of it's existence and can intelligently create/deduct and comprehend, compared to a being that can do more than learn very basic reactionary skills?

When dogs/cats/rats/chimps/dolphins/etc. develop substantial cognitive ability, and thus are able to actively be responsible for themselves(and others), have the ability to follow laws and understand basic principles such as right and wrong, I'll agree with you.

I suppose we should throw out all medical data/knowledge that was developed through critical use of 'owned' lab animals also, since this was obviously a horrible crime (according to your implied reasoning) that was committed. How many billions of humans would have died because of this? Consider that the majority of medical knowledge is developed using animal test subjects.

But I doubt even PETA's top brass would actually do this, if meant THEIR lives. One glaring example is the hypocrite, the vice president of PETA, whom uses diabetes medication to remain alive-- medicine that was developed.... from animals.

I am curious. If you had a disabling, progressive disease that was going to kill you, and the cure required killing animals (let's say dogs for this example), would you accept the cure?

-Chris

 

[Adam]

You are not by any chance a member of PETA, are you?

No.

A non-sentient being can not be compared to a sentient one. The only sentient beings on this planet are humans.

Beliefs like that are brought on by human arrogance, ignorance, and/or intellictual laziness. Humans cannot as a species agree on how to measure human intelligence. However, many humans will freely believe that humans are more intelligent than other animals because we can't communicate with them.

Even if humans were more intelligent, intelligence does not equal value.

Your kind of thinking is not that far removed from that which leads to slavery and genocide. Once you can convince yourself that some group of life forms (human or otherwise) are inherently less valuable, then it's a lot easier to justify treating them worse than you would your own "kind."

I am curious. If you had a disabling, progressive disease that was going to kill you, and the cure required killing animals (let's say dogs for this example), would you accept the cure?

If my acceptance of the cure would in and of itself lead to more deaths, then no, I would not.

It's the moral question of the ends justifying the means. We could sit here all day (and week and year) pointing out instances in which individuals or groups have benefited from the deaths of others. Think of the medical advances that were achieved during human experiments in WW II (and likely since then). We have benefited from those, so I guess you would claim that those were entirely justified. Oh, wait, perhaps not...because those were humans.

 

[WmAx]

No.



Beliefs like that are brought on by human arrogance, ignorance, and/or intellictual laziness. Humans cannot as a species agree on how to measure human intelligence. However, many humans will freely believe that humans are more intelligent than other animals because we can't communicate with them.

Even if humans were more intelligent, intelligence does not equal value.

Your kind of thinking is not that far removed from that which leads to slavery and genocide. Once you can convince yourself that some group of life forms (human or otherwise) are inherently less valuable, then it's a lot easier to justify treating them worse than you would your own "kind."

They are inherently less valuable, as per the reasons mentioned previously. The reasons I gave are known facts -- please provide credible evidence in the opposition that the animals can meet these basic requirements.

Or, perhaps, you simply want to see unilateral rights granted for all animals, regardless of any other practical variables, which I suspect may be the case here.

If my acceptance of the cure would in and of itself lead to more deaths, then no, I would not.

Thank you for the answer. I would suggest (seriously) that you join PETA, since you said you are not a member. Their beliefs are extremely similar to the ones you have stated here as of this point.

I can't hold a conversation about this subject with you at this point, since you have now stated that you would willingly sacrifice your life for an animal.

I would presume, based on what you have said so far, that you avoid all leather/fur goods and do not consume meat products.

-Chris

 

[Gasman]

However, many humans will freely believe that humans are more intelligent than other animals because we can't communicate with them.

Even if humans were more intelligent, intelligence does not equal value.

EXCELLENT point Adam.
I do think, Chris feels as though he (or rather human species), is the most intelligent on this earth
Yet we as a human species, have shown our incompassionate nature time after time - for none other than, the quest for what WE consider more knowledge.

Hey, I would love to believe that, but I am not that foolish.




And it is statements like this, that make me wonder if, a human like this is void of pity or of tenderness is even considered.

I would bet many would consider me a non-compassionate person at this point. Hardly true. In fact, in grade school, I once attacked a kid for purposely pulling the wings off of a helpless moth in front of me.

It's a dog. About as important as any other non-human animal.

They are inherently less valuable

 

[WmAx]

Chris,

I don't see any application of logic in his point any more than with the application of legal judgment in the subject case. One component of the discussion you're missing is that laws (U.S., state, local, etc.) in general and the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are very different things. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about animal abuse. But it also does not speak to fraud or theft. Yet those activities are illegal in most places. Why? Because of the previously mentioned adopted laws based upon societal values and morals. Whether or not you (as an individual) have compassion for humans, dogs, ants, or any animal or vegetable lifeform is irrelevant. If it has been legislated to be against the law...then that is what it is. Period. No further argument is required. Your only option is to violate a law (which the dog thrower did), obey the law (and go along with the majority in this representative democracy of ours), or try to change the law.

The justice system is not a system of logic. It's a system of values. This guy violated the law. He must pay the price. You don't like a law? Logic may require you to try to change it...but if successful, the logic will still be built upon values...yours.

Thank you for the reply. You are absolutely correct. Logic is not usually an important factor in law making.

You are also right about values. But values refers to no specific concept. I suppose one can equate it to preference. My 'valued' preference is quantitative logic. I find that everything works better and can be increased in efficiency when logic is applied in strict discipline. Others have a 'valued' preference of no quantification/logic. Simple gut feeling/reaction. This is lazy. But it's easy. More convenient.

As for rights, the constitution does lay out the right to property. One instance of such a reference is addressed in the 5th amendment("No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.").

State laws are supposed to be, and usually are, required to be in tune with the Constitution. States can generally add things, but they can not take away rights established by the Constitution; they are almost always revoked and made unenforceable if they do, if taken to high court.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I can't hold a conversation about this subject with you at this point, since you have now stated that you would willingly sacrifice your life for an animal.

You can't hold a conversation with someone merely because you disagree? Why? Lack of intelligence, perhaps, or maybe fear of being proven wrong?
(FWIW I think an animal's life is more valuable than that of some people. Right-wingers and lawyers, for example.)

 

[Adam]

First, let me say that I am enjoying the discussion. Thank you, Chris.

They are inherently less valuable, as per the reasons mentioned previously. The reasons I gave are known facts -- please provide credible evidence in the opposition that the animals can meet these basic requirements.

You missed my point, or ignored it. You cannot provide credible evidence that they don't. Humans do not have the ability (at least yet) to adequately characterize the intellectual capability of, well, anything - even ourselves. That and you gloss over the statement of mine that intelligence is not equal to value.

If you truly believe that just because some other human said it or wrote it down that it must be true...then you must be going broke buying all of those audio tweaks advertised out there.

I would suggest (seriously) that you join PETA, since you said you are not a member. Their beliefs are extremely similar to the ones you have stated here as of this point.

I have no interest in joining that organization just because I may hold one or more common beliefs. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

I can't hold a conversation about this subject with you at this point, since you have now stated that you would willingly sacrifice your life for an animal.

Sure, go away and feel like you've won because you now refuse to discuss the issue. Humans are animals. Feel free to go look up that scientific fact. I am proud that I would sacrifice my life to save that of another.

There are life forms that I consider more valuable than others, but that's not true in general for forms of life. For example, I consider members of my family more valuable than you (nothing personal, btw). I do not, however, consider humans more valuable than dogs (or dogs more valuable than humans).

I would presume, based on what you have said so far, that you avoid all leather/fur goods and do not consume meat products.

Your presumption would be based on not reading (or remembering) my posts here. Look up my post in response to majorloser's statement about eating chicken. Humans are omnivores, and as such we eat meat. I am not against that practice. However, I am against cruel treatment of the animals that will give their lives for us.

Adam