This guy should get the maximum... ------------------ INSERT NAIL HERE >> X << FOR NEW MONITOR join the club! Rockets Psychedelic Groove House Club on Yahoo! Stop annoying X10 ads!
maybe, he should get thrown in a shredder! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
He must be a sick individual,so I think he must be put down! For is sake ------------------ AKA Rendiggler
I don't think the max sentence here is even close to enough. Three years for what he did? ------------------
It's funny that animal activists get all offended when a man kills his dogs, yet they go home and eat their chicken for dinner.... Just pathetic. If people care so dearly for animals getting hurt, then why do they eat them? I agree, what this man did was horrible, but aren't people who eat meat just contradicting themselves by caring? No offense here, just my 2 Cents. ------------------ RKMAN Proud believer of the 2001 World Champion Houston Astros. [This message has been edited by RKMAN (edited July 14, 2001).]
Uhh I think its a little different when the animal is used for food to being killed apparently for no significant reason. ------------------ [This message has been edited by wizard (edited July 14, 2001).]
It's true. It's damn true. ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
So it would be okay if the man ate the dog...hmmmm.... ------------------ RKMAN Proud believer of the 2001 World Champion Houston Astros.
heh. You're probably not going to get much support if you're trying to relate throwing puppies into a shredder with eating a Big Mac. But, really, doing something like that illustrates a problem upstairs that has little to do with eating. Rok ------------------ "Do you know what nemesis means? 'A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent'. Personified, in this case, by a horrible c***: ME." - Brick Top, Snatch
I'm not sure if I want to get into this again...but what the hell. Please take the time to read this whole post and let it sink in before y'all start to flame me. We don't care about cows because they are not our pets like dogs (hypocracy). I don't think this is absolutely horribe, but it is wrong, and this is why: because cows (pigs and chickens too) are not our pets we do the ABSOLUTE WORST THING to them possible. We eat them. We fukkin eat them. Does no one see a problem with this? Let's bring in a point a earlier made. We don't care about people we don't know. Same reasoning as above...but do we eat people?!? It should make sense to all you meat eaters (I'm a meat eater). Give me some logical reasoning as to why you can't eat people, then appy that same logic to animals and show me that you are not a hypocrit. I dare you. This is why it is a big problem. We might not eat people, but our hypocracy makes it sooo easy for us to turn our backs when crap happens 24/7 because it's not a part of our lives. Jamaican riots, Jews and Palestinians, Nigerian Christians and Muslims...THEY ARE ALL KILLING EACH OTHER!!!! Not to mention the homeless, the hungry, and the poor. To me, this is real messed up ****, but do you ever see this stuff on the BBS? NO!! I only can recall Jeff's compassion being expressed a few times. That folks is the root of hypocracy! We are horrible people who don't give a **** about other people because we don't know them. Same thing with animals. We can fukkin EAT ANIMALS and at the same time express sadness on this BBS about a damn dog being put in a shreddar. HYPOCRITS, do you understand me? I understand y'all...it's because it's your pet...but, if you feel sad about it, stop the hypocracy and don't eat meat! What's even worse is that YOU don't shouldn't have any emotional connection to this dog...it's NOT YOUR dog; thus, it didn't comfort you; you didn't protect it, love it, vice versa... So back to the main point...We as humans, believe that it is wrong to kill another human in general because humans have INHERENT WORTH (though sometimes I tend to question that)...so, why is it right/wrong to eat animals? Do animals have inherent worth? If yes, then under all situations you should not kill an animal except for self defense or the heat of passion or government imposed death penalty (and all that other crap that we use to justify murder). However, since many of us eat meat, we DO NOT believe that animals have inherent worth, or at least not enough worth to keep us from eating them (which is very little worth...we don't NEED to eat meat, or at least the crazy amount we do it now..the way we are eating meat now is way beyond simple survival needs). So, if we are from the meat eating side, then it is definitely hypocritical to be so much up in a fuss about this damn dog...the guy was violent, he was wrong, but think about how cows are slaughtered the next time you eat...and if you still eat that and feel bad for this dog, you are a hypocrit. And I've already explained above what hypocracy leads to.
Exactly why should some animals have more rights than others! It makes no freaking sense! ------------------ Reactions after The Rockets got Eddie Griffin for 3 draft picks "Eddie For 3 ... Yes!!! O Mother!!!!!!!"
If someone threw a cow or a chicken into a shredder the same sort of public outcry would be heard. It's not the animal, it's the inhumane and senseless way in which these animals are being killed. If he were hungry, and those puppies were all he had to eat, and he ate them, do you really think people would be upset? Hell, they ate PEOPLE in the Andes when that plane crashed. If you can't differentiate, then I'll have to use my new favorite word, "delusional". ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
Dreamer, first, reread my post entirely. Second, if you think the ways cows are being slaughtered are humane, YOU are delusional. Third, why are you saying it's okay to eat puppies when ONLY it is all that there's left to eat. So I guess dogs have more inherent worth than chickens? I think that is almost impossible to prove. Fourth, if it's not the animal and the act, what the hell are you saying? You're saying the effect on what is being hurt/injured/killed doesn't matter? So, does that mean if I throw my toy GI Joe into the shreddar, I am wrong? Because, it's not the toy, it's my violent act? Again not following logic here. Fithly, YES PEOPLE WOULD BE PISSED if some one ate puppies. That's because people (including me, but at least I'm aware and trying to better myself) are HYPOCRITS. Dogs and Cats have this unbelievably high status in American society. They make movies humanizing them (which is part of the problem or maybe a good thing if you believe in animal rights). They also made Babe, yet people eat pork products all the time. But with dogs and cats: DID YOU KNOW THAT MORE MONEY WAS SPENT ON RAISING DOGS THE LAST FEW YEARS EVER? I could be wrong, but I rememeber reading somewhere that more is spent on dogs than children's education. Sixthly, read my post above entirely again and try to have an open mind. And if you disagree, use some logic and maybe we can make some real progress in discussion. Oh yeah, I'm making sure to add this , cause I'm not pissed off or anything and hope not to piss y'all off either.
I have to agree. In addition to the manner in which they were killed, what was even more sickening was why they were killed. If an animal is slaughtered for food, fine. However, this guy ended up throwing them into a shredder simply because "he was tired of the making a mess". An alternative to that would've been to give them away. Like someone already said, had he eaten the dog for sustenance because he was starving, I'd have no problems with it. I'm curious as to whether some of you guys even read the article or just post based on beliefs and a "pro" vs. "against" stand. I'm someone who believes that animals and humans have equal rights until I get hungry. At that point hide your damn chickens and cows 'cause it's on. ------------------ "I'll tell you this, the older I get, the less I trust people. It's true. It's damn true." -- gr8-1 going through some growing pains.
Kim, I've never owned a cat and I've never owned a dog, so I don't have any "high" value on them as being pets. They'd be near the end of my menu wishlist. Why? Simply because I was conditioned growing up that they were not a food source. It has nothing to with their pet value. Give me a break. There are aborigines that eat grubs (God bless 'em), but I know they'd be right there with dogs and cats as stuff I wouldn't eat simply because I was conditioned to think they're "gross" growing up. I still don't know how people eat escargot. That's sick and guess what? I've never had a pet snail. I used to despise the thought of people eating crawfish because I thought it was "gross". I tried it once and now I'll tear into crawfish with no problem. However, there are societies and cultures that condone eating dogs and grubs and I have nothing against that. So you guys saying "it's 'cause it's a pet", please find another argument because that's a generalization that is not necessarily untrue. ------------------ "I'll tell you this, the older I get, the less I trust people. It's true. It's damn true." -- gr8-1 going through some growing pains.
If indeed this person is guilty of the alleged crime, he deserves a far worse punishment than the man who recently got a 3 year sentence for throwing the cute little dog into traffic. The latter crime was quite horrible, although in the man's defense, it was somewhat of a passionate crime, considering how the women rear ended his car, and possibly, the dog may have bit him, although that is questionable. That does not justify the crime by any means, but it makes it much different than this one. First of all, this man killed FOUR dogs, not just one. He also apparently did it in cold blood, and in a horrifying and inhumane manner. He also had obvious alternatives such as giving away the dogs, as opposed to throwing them into a shredder. So, if a guy can get 3 years for throwing a dog into traffic in a fit of anger, this man should get at LEAST 5-10, based on the previous ruling. Also, I'm still mad about how angered people are about the first case involving the dog being thrown into traffic in California. Husbands kill their wives every day over matters far more trivial than a traffic accident, and people suddenly are pissed off when some 'innocent' dog gets thrown into traffic? Please. Are these wives that get shot or stabbed or beaten to death not 'innocent' as well? I mean, it's just a dog, not a person. ------------------ Women have suffered for too many years. Let's all pull together to end women's suffrage once and for all!
