Comments on: Let’s Arrange a Marriage, Shall We?

By: BlackCat

BlackCat — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 01:18:27 +0000

I have a question... how can you possibly hang a dog in self-defense? You don't just accidentally hang someone. It's almost always premeditated, unless, of course, you're coincidentally next to a fully equipped gallows. There was some amount of thought that went into that.

While I completely agree that you can't always blame the parents for what their children do, I do think, however, that the parents are responsible for their own actions. The fact that Mike Huckabee tried to cover up what his son did, and pretend that it never happened, is, to put it frankly, damning.

By: brownboy

brownboy — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:34:06 +0000

1/ people need to separate the philosophy of hinduism from superstitious beliefs of uneducated folk who are doing their best to make amends with their past grevious actions

2/ killing a dog (any animal) to get our rocks off is just sick, we should all be so lucky as to marry someone as heartful as a dog, a dog is too good for these blokes.

It's interesting that hinduism considers dogs worthy of marriage, when the US (and the world in general) are still debating as to whether gay marriage is acceptable in the eye's of God. What would (s)he, the almighty, say about this domestic partnership I wonder?

By: A N N A

A N N A — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:25:55 +0000

By the way, it’s not just that torturing animals is a sign that someone may be dangerous in the sense you seem to mention as careless – it’s actually a sign that the person may turn out to be a psychopath – i.e. someone who lacks empathy and the understanding that other people exist and have feelings – i.e. the sort of person who can commit murder or serial killings

I agree completely. In fact, if you follow the next-to-the-last-link that’s in my post, you’ll find that I was trying to say exactly that vs merely “careless”. It’s from the Humane Society, regarding the proclivity of such people to become serial killers, etc.

By: Camille

Camille — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:47:24 +0000

Thanks, rob, and the feeling is mutual

By: Bengali Chick

Bengali Chick — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:30:49 +0000

I love this: “fuzzy angels with paws.” Awwwwwwwwww!!!!!!

By: gigi

gigi — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:55:28 +0000

People who are cruel to animals should be locked up for a long time- not so much as punishment but to protect society. There is a correlation between sadism toward animals and sadism toward people.

By: Alana

Alana — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:25:18 +0000

By the way, it’s not just that torturing animals is a sign that someone may be dangerous in the sense you seem to mention as careless – it’s actually a sign that the person may turn out to be a psychopath – i.e. someone who lacks empathy and the understanding that other people exist and have feelings – i.e. the sort of person who can commit murder or serial killings, or if they’re very white collar, and smart, simply destroy peoples’ life savings or the like. i.e. someone you definitely want investigated and watched if they’re doing this sort of thing as a child – especially if they’ve done it more than once.

By: rob

rob — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:12:47 +0000

Camille, Thanks for the response--I certainly share your sentiment that we shouldn't take whatever disagreement we have on small points the wrong way. I'm tempted to leave it at that, but let me throw out one observation--you seem to be willing as an interpretive matter to stick with the legislative history of the SC anti-lynching statute (about which I'm not sure of the details, though I'd of course agree that historically speaking in the US lynching has been an overwhelmingly white-on-black crime) to conclude that it's narrowly-focussed, rather than reading it as, as it appears on its face, as applying to a broad variety of mob violence. Fair enough. But then when it comes to the PETA ads, you're not willing to go with the "intent" of PETA (I think you'd agree with me that that intent wasn't to offend any human sub-groups (even if, as you argue, the effect was to offend them)) and you instead interpret the ads as comparing groups of humans to animals in moral worth, rather than going with what I take to be the intent of the ads, which is to say "just as X is obviously wrong," so too is "Y treatment" of animals wrong. These issues of interpretation are, or course, notoriously difficult to resolve (and the inconsistency re: intent that I'm pointing out hardly proves you wrong, but does suggest that it's a complicated topic), in short (or even long, on even life-long) missives, so please interpret me as saying "it's not obvious that you're right" rather than as me saying "you're obviously wrong." If I get a little heated at times I don't mean to denigrate you (or anyone else), just to express my disagreement with a specific point. I'm certainly glad I have a couple of ABD cousins, or else I would have become convinced-- between my DBD cousins and your responses to me on SM (I'm partly, but only partly, kidding)--that my combination of pro-PETA (not that I'm adamant about it or a fully observant veg.) and pro-Jindal views render me the personification of an ABCD! But, seriously, it's all good Camille, look forward to future exchanges of views!

By: gm

gm — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:00:11 +0000

Sorry about the duplicate post – can the repeated message be deleted? thanks

By: gm

gm — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:55:44 +0000

I detest abuse and senseless killing in any form, whether it is directed at a human life or another animal life (especially a kind dog or cat).

Did this guy who ended the dog's life do it in self defence, or was it an accident, or was it to euthanize a suffering soul? I am not able to tell. I am sure the Boy Scout curriculum does not include killing dogs.

(The only exception to my first statement is for spiders. Any spider that enters my abode will make a quick exit off this mortal coil. Spider bites, though rare, can be very dangerous and there are young kids constantly running around in the house after school ends. It's purely self defense since trying to shoo them outside is a royal pain. Besides, Mother Nature has an abundant supply of that life form. Although there may be some varieties that are endangered, I guess. I never intentionally stomp on a spider outside, though.)