Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 how do you figure? i have never felt pain or suffering from eating my dinner. Then you dont remember being four years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Then you dont remember being four years old. your definition of "suffering" at four years old is extremely melodramatic. i think we all understand what is meant when we say his treatment of the dog was cruel, i dont think this is worth discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 your definition of "suffering" at four years old is extremely melodramatic. i think we all understand what is meant when we say his treatment of the dog was cruel' date=' i dont think this is worth discussing.[/quote'] If you think I'm being melodramatic then neither have you seen a four year old at the dinner table. If its not worth discussing then why is it worth replying? And if you cant back up your arguments why attack christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 If you think I'm[/i'] being melodramatic then neither have you seen a four year old at the dinner table. read the post again... i was saying the four year olds definition of suffering is melodramatic. If its not worth discussing then why is it worth replying? And if you cant back up your arguments why attack christ? its just stupid of you to ask me to back up THAT part of my arguement. the defintion of "cruel" isnt something we need to have a debate on. we all know what it means. arguing the defintion of a word is just a tactic to draw attention away from the actual discussion when you dont have any valid points to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 read the post again... i was saying the four year olds definition of suffering is melodramatic. its just stupid of you to ask me to back up THAT part of my arguement. the defintion of "cruel" isnt something we need to have a debate on. we all know what it means. arguing the defintion of a word is just a tactic to draw attention away from the actual discussion when you dont have any valid points to make. No, whats stupid is asking for a debate centered around a word that everybody defines differently. I didn't ask you to back anything up. I wasn't debating the definition of the word, I was simply pointing out that cruel is not always the same thing as wrong. What discussion? You didn't seem to be discussing anything at all. When I got here you were simply trolling without any scientific interference, which is rather ironic considering who you were 'discussing' with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Don't ridicule me. We don't need to, you ridicule yourself quite effectively every time you post, Dog-smotherer. ----------- As for the whole "It was an accident" crap, that doesn't fly. Yes, he might not have known the exact consequence of that action, but it's clear he did not take good care of this animal. It survived, but it obviously wasn't trained, nor was he aware of *BASIC* aspects of keeping this animal. So it's not common knowledge. *SO WHAT?!* You buy an animal, you bloody well research it first, it's needs, it's tendencies, what you need to do and how. If your pet dies because you don't feed it, or you pet dies because you fed it poorly and didn't know any better, in both of those cases, it's not an accident, it's *neglect*. Because you have *no* business owning it if you don't know how to care for it. When you buy that animal, you are accepting responsibility for it's life. Christslave failed in that responsibility by his own ignorance and stupidity. His denail and failure to accept responsibility for this, hiding behind his moronic beliefs, shows that he is a worthless excuse for a human being, only qualifying as human on account of mere genetics. He deserves no courtesy, no respect, nothing but our scorn, derision and antipathy. His continued presence on this board and this world is a stain. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 No, whats stupid is asking for a debate centered around a word that everybody defines differently. you seem to be the only one focused on that word. everyone else is talking about this guy smothering his dog and your bringing up an arguement about whether a few posts used a word that can be interpereted differently by different people. get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I, sadly, ended up killing my dog because of his stubbornness to listen to somethings, although he was very loving and whatnot. So, then, was it better that my dog was less domesticated/tamed, or worse? After all, it led to his death after I muzzled him with duct tape and he died during the night (yes, I feel bad, I know. Don't deceive yourself in thinking me a psycho, I did not intend to kill him, but he wouldn't stop barking during the middle of the night). OH MY GOD! You sick, evil person! All living things deserve recognition as sentiant people. If your child wouldn't stop crying, would you duck tape their mouth shut? Let alone kill them! You're evil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 you seem to be the only one focused on that word. everyone else is talking about this guy smothering his dog and your bringing up an arguement about whether a few posts used a word that can be interpereted differently by different people. get over it. Ah, well if you cant defend your dogma then I wont try to draw you into a debate. It is just confusing to me that you flame somebody for killing a dog (and making justifications) when you yourself have no doubt done worse. I'm not sure where you got the 'smothering' part from because it wasnt from what he wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 OH MY GOD! You sick' date=' [u']evil[/u] person! All living things deserve recognition as sentiant people. If your child wouldn't stop crying, would you duck tape their mouth shut? Let alone kill them! You're evil! Im starting to think this thread may be a joke. Although, I stopped laughing after I heard the first 5 trolls and realized they were serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Are you that ignorant? For all you know, I was 5 years old. For all we know? How old were you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Ah, well if you cant defend your dogma then I wont try to draw you into a debate. It is just confusing to me that you flame somebody for killing a dog (and making justifications) when you yourself have no doubt done worse. im sorry, what thing is it, that you have no doubt i have done, that is worse than killing my family pet due to my own ignorance and anger issues and then trying to act like it was justifiable and refusing to take responsibility for my actions? i have been defending my "dogma" through this entire thread. you want me to defend my word choice. THAT is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 To be honest I wouldn't mind if he had hit the dog with a shovel to kill it. You sick, twisted bastard. Your one of those "animals are simply dumb moving objects" anti-nature nazis, aren't you? He didn't asphyxiate the dog, I personally don't even see how he caused the death at all. It sounds like you guys are simply persecuting him for his name. What the hell have you been reading? He taped a dog's mouth shut overnight, a sick dog with a cough!! What the hell do you think killed it? A coincidental dust-bunny attack? And if we are not attacking his name, we are, or at least I am, attacking his foul perversion of a faith meant to lead to all-around well-being and good will among men. I have respect for the intent of the Christian Faith, whether or not I respectfully disagree with individual christian faith or their doctrine. I don't understand how every single person who has replied in this thread could condemn this man for killing his dog You can't comprehend our reaction because you, like Christ Slave, don't qualify as a "person". I find it hard to believe that none of you has ever killed or caused the suffering in anything. Surely not all of you are vegans? You ignorant, arrogant, rancid little tumor, there is a clear difference between killing an animal for a valid reason or by an honest accident, and smothering a pup because it was disturbing your "spiritual time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 It is just confusing to me that you flame somebody for killing a dog (and making justifications) when you yourself have no doubt done worse. Unless one of us has killed other higher level animals (including humans) for no other reason besides arrogance or annoyance, or if one of us is a rapist or someone who starts wildfires out in the woods, or does something equally disgusting, then there is no concievable rationality in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAlert Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Are you that ignorant? For all you know, I was 5 years old. I told you it was an accident, and you you seem to think it's so far-fetched to muzzle a dog that anyone who would muzzle a dog is a psychopath. Let this sad, dualistic trend of thinking be on your own conscience, then! Especially those of you who want to judge me for making a mistake in accidentally killing my pet, as if you yourselves have never made any mistakes in your life. Are you so perfect? Do you think I did not feel bad? Who said I was excused? Who said I thought that I am excused? Did you not understand the repentance in my wording? Oh I have made mistakes, lots of them. But have I ever done something like you.....I doubt that. Why DID you duct tape the dog's muzzle anyways? Wow, I am still amazed.... AND YOU SAY YOU WERE FIVE, AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DUCT TAPE A GERMAN SHEPARD'S MOUTH SHUT!? SERIOUSLY, LEARN HOW TO LIE DUMBA** And another note I must add, I myself am a proud and devout Catholic. I have read many of your posts, and frankly Christ Slave, I think you act like the devil. You MISINTERPRET Christianity IN the most PERVERTED way possible. I think it false love to love a cat that loves you for physical things...just as I think it's false-love to love someone for "sexual appeal", their money, or something else. In fact, such things are [math]prostitution[/math']. I'd rather own a loving, spiritual German-shepherd than a feline-prostitute any day. AND YOU CALL CATS PROSTITUTES? What's wrong with you, you sick bastard? I have had my cat since I was 2, I love it with all my heart, and it is clear it loves me too......BUT NEVER HAVE I THOUGHT OUR LOVE TO BE LIKE THAT OF PROSTITUTES!!! YOU ARE A PERVERT! WHAT MORE CAN ANYONE SAY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Haven't you heard? The poor pup was rebeliously and rudely barking, disturbing both the neighbors' sleep and the bastard's religious mojo. Apparently, the argument is that the poor thing should just have listened when the monster demanded he stop making noise. And to be fair, he never said he was five. He simply said that for all we knew, he might have only been five. Still, even that's pathetic and slime-choked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAlert Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 THAT IS EVEN MORE PERVERTED THEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAlert Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 also Amazing How Suddenly Part Way Through The Thread The Excuse Suddenly Turns Into Him Trying To Discipline The Dog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 My parents and teachers wonder why I'm so bitter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I think it false love to love a cat that loves you for physical things...just as I think it's false-love to love someone for "sexual appeal", their money, or something else. In fact, such things are prostitution. I'd rather own a loving, spiritual German-shepherd than a feline-prostitute any day. YOU BASTARD! I have 3 cats, all of whom clearly love me. And not for food, because we are family. I love my cats with all my heart, and the love is mutual. You make a mockery of the term human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I'd like to know why he so randomly decided that a dog is the spiritual superior of the cat. Do not dogs perk their ears at the rattle of the can opener? They revel in the chemical signals of scent-markers and the stroking of their fur, and the annihilation of small and furry creatures. Also, never once has my leg been humped by a horny cat, though many dogs have attempted to so. Cat's are loving, but they are dignified, and still retain the wild grace and noble demeanor of their ancestors, whereas these things have been nearly bred out of their canine counterparts, in favor of the stunted psyches of yappy little Shitzus (sp?) and poodles, the lovable dopiness of labs and Golden Retrievers and the fierce dedication of German Shephards and Malamutes. Why? BECAUSE WE INTENTIONALLY BRED THEM THAT WAY THROUGH CAREFUL SELECTION OF ANIMALS THAT DISPLAYED THOSE TRAITS ON A FREAKIN' GENETIC LEVEL!!!!!!!!! Why do they love us unconditionally, and look upon us as their protectors? BECAUSE THEY ARE PACK ANIMALS WHO HAVE BEEN BRED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RETAIN THEIR PUPPY-LIKE DEPENDENCE ON THEIR "PARENTS"!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I agree, he's a large wad of septic scum, but take it down a notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Can't, my dial's busted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 to paraphrase callipygouse, maybe we should all chill abit? after all, critisism is only constructive if its constructive critisism. sorry if this comes off as all high-and-mighty, but its better to calmly teach him why it was wrong in the hope that he'll learn (and thus not do it again), rather than just to shout at him. christ slave - wether a dog dies or not, duct taping its mouth shut is cruel. they may not be as intelligent as humans, but they still feel, everything from phisical reports (eg pressure, texture, temperature) to 'push-pull' feelings (pleasure, pain, satisfaction, stress) to emotion (happyness, sadness) and as such should be treated with courtasy and respect. noone is suggesting that you give your dog a room all of its own with a four poster bed and cook it roast beef every day, but duct taping its mouth shut would have been uncomfortable and unpleasant for it. youll notice iv said nothing of the dogs death -- many people accidentally kill their pets by giving them chocolate (which contains a chemical which can be fatal to animals) and so the accidental killing of a pet is forgivable -- but even ignoring the fatality, duct taping a dogs muzzle shut is unnaceptable. you said that the dog had caused problems before with barking? maybe you should have invested in some classes to learn how to properly and effectively train him. it would have been more humane for him, and more effective for you. after all, you put him in the position whereby he resided in your house -- the descision as to his residense was entirely yours -- and so you had a responsibility to his well fare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 What the hell have you been reading? He taped a dog's mouth shut overnight' date=' a sick dog with a cough!! What the hell do you think killed it? A coincidental dust-bunny attack? [/quote'] I must admit, I don't know much about dog anatomy but I'm pretty sure that dogs have a nose and are quite capable of using it. You can't comprehend our reaction because you, like Christ Slave, don't qualify as a "person". You caught me, I'm an alien from Jupiter. You ignorant, arrogant, rancid little tumor, there is a clear difference between killing an animal for a valid reason or by an honest accident, and smothering a pup because it was disturbing your "spiritual time". I'm sorry, but could you explain this difference? I don't follow your same set of morals. Unless one of us has killed other higher level animals (including humans) for no other reason besides arrogance or annoyance, or if one of us is a rapist or someone who starts wildfires out in the woods, or does something equally disgusting, then there is no concievable rationality in your statement. So your morals are based on how disgusting the action was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts