Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2013/07/walm ... hot-truck/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wal Mart denies firing her for being a twit about a friggin DOG but it doesn't matter. What a twit. It's a DOG. It is not a sentient being. It belongs to the guy. What a guy does with what belongs to him IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS as the guy said.

Really. We would be a better society if everybody who acts like this over DOGS would be shot immediately. That's mean a lot of people. But we really need to get rid of this crap.

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2013/07/walm ... hot-truck/

Wal Mart denies firing her for being a twit about a friggin DOG but it doesn't matter. What a twit. It's a DOG. It is not a sentient being. It belongs to the guy. What a guy does with what belongs to him IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS as the guy said.

Really. We would be a better society if everybody who acts like this over DOGS would be shot immediately. That's mean a lot of people. But we really need to get rid of this crap.

Is a dog capable of suffering..?
She did what she thought was right / you have a different opinion
If we went around shooting pedophiles Johnny, you'd be on the run right now

Each person gets to act in accordance with their own personal code of conduct
Why is that so disturbing to you..?

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2013/07/walm ... hot-truck/

Wal Mart denies firing her for being a twit about a friggin DOG but it doesn't matter. What a twit. It's a DOG. It is not a sentient being. It belongs to the guy. What a guy does with what belongs to him IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS as the guy said.

Really. We would be a better society if everybody who acts like this over DOGS would be shot immediately. That's mean a lot of people. But we really need to get rid of this crap.

Fuck you. You wouldn't do that to a child. Animals are capable of suffering and feeling pain. Christ, you are fucked in the head.

JohnStOnge wrote:What a guy does with what belongs to him IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS...

**** you. You wouldn't do that to a child. Animals are capable of suffering and feeling pain. Christ, you are **** in the head.

I can't believe you just apparently equated leaving a dog in a car unattended to leaving a human child in the a vehicle unattended. That, to me, says it all about how screwed up in the head our culture has become when it comes to outlook towards animals of other species.

She did what she thought was right

It was his dog. What she thought was right was wrong. When it comes to what people do with THEIR OWN animals, mind your own business. Dogs are not people. They do not have rights. When they belong to somebody they are property.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:What a guy does with what belongs to him IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS...

May I take that as another instance of equating dogs to human beings?

JohnStOnge wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:

May I take that as another instance of equating dogs to human beings?

Nope. Those were your words. Quoted directly. By never mentioning dog you left it completely open to interpretation.

JohnStOnge wrote:

She did what she thought was right

It was his dog. What she thought was right was wrong. When it comes to what people do with THEIR OWN animals, mind your own business. Dogs are not people. They do not have rights. When they belong to somebody they are property.

So mutilating and maiming animals is perfectly A-ok in your book, as long as the person doing it "owns them". Got it.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It was his dog. What she thought was right was wrong. When it comes to what people do with THEIR OWN animals, mind your own business. Dogs are not people. They do not have rights. When they belong to somebody they are property.

So mutilating and maiming animals is perfectly A-ok in your book, as long as the person doing it "owns them". Got it.

He has confirmed this before. He is a sick son of a bitch.

We can easily judge our moral progress by the way we treat our animals...
matched only by:
You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats those he deems "under his command"

So mutilating and maiming animals is perfectly A-ok in your book, as long as the person doing it "owns them". Got it.

I think the way a person treats animals may tell you something about them and you can make your judgements about associating with them in various ways. But when people own animals those animals should be considered property. They ARE property. And the people who own them should be able to do whatever they want with them. No way people should be put prosecuted, etc., because they make their roosters or dogs fight each other. No way the police should be in any way involved or concerned about somebody leaving their own dog in a hot car. So on and so forth.

We've gotten into this thing where we act as though certain animals are sentient beings with rights. And we should never have gone down that road. And, yes, if you say that you're going to interfere with a person leaving his dog in a hot car you are saying that dog has rights.

Just as an FYI, here is a reference to a list of animals to be considered if you want to think that maybe other animals on our planet might be sentient beings:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/ ... eness.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice that dogs are not among them. This thing where people see dogs as beings is nonsense. They're just pack animals. People interpret pack instinct as many things it's not. They lick your face, for instance, because that's an instinctive behavior that results in returning members of the pack regurgitating food.

JohnStOnge wrote:Just as an FYI, here is a reference to a list of animals to be considered if you want to think that maybe other animals on our planet might be sentient beings:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/ ... eness.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice that dogs are not among them. This thing where people see dogs as beings is nonsense. They're just pack animals. People interpret pack instinct as many things it's not. They lick your face, for instance, because that's an instinctive behavior that results in returning members of the pack regurgitating food.

John...
Dogs can and do experience a range of emotions / including suffering...
shouldn't that be enough..?

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Just as an FYI, here is a reference to a list of animals to be considered if you want to think that maybe other animals on our planet might be sentient beings:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/ ... eness.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice that dogs are not among them. This thing where people see dogs as beings is nonsense. They're just pack animals. People interpret pack instinct as many things it's not. They lick your face, for instance, because that's an instinctive behavior that results in returning members of the pack regurgitating food.

John...
Dogs can and do experience a range of emotions / including suffering...
shouldn't that be enough..?

No. They must be sentient.

Wal Mart employee did the right thing. Anyone who would leave a dog in a hot car is an asshole.

JSO is just trolling here. No way believes half the shit he posts.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
John...
Dogs can and do experience a range of emotions / including suffering...
shouldn't that be enough..?

No. They must be sentient.

Isn't part of being sentient the awareness of the well being of others..? (I'm sensing a disconnect here)
And if we're not actively gauging the well being of others who is..?

BlueHen86 wrote:Wal Mart employee did the right thing. Anyone who would leave a dog in a hot car is an asshole.

JSO is just trolling here. No way believes half the shit he posts.

The sad thing is I think he does

quando omni flunkus moritati

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
No. They must be sentient.

Isn't part of being sentient the awareness of the well being of others..? (I'm sensing a disconnect here)
And if we're not actively gauging the well being of others who is..?

I was referring to dogs...satirically...



(I'm guessing JSO would have a similar difficulty in understanding why I release fish, or feel a little remorse when I unintentionally kill them.)

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Isn't part of being sentient the awareness of the well being of others..? (I'm sensing a disconnect here)
And if we're not actively gauging the well being of others who is..?

I was referring to dogs...satirically...



(I'm guessing JSO would a similar difficulty in understanding why I release fish, or feel a little remorse when I unintentionally kill them.)

I totally understand the argument about what is / and what is not sentient
But that argument doesn't (shouldn't) extend beyond cruelty and suffering
They are two completely different subjects with wildly different outcomes if played all the way to their logical end

(Shouldn't he know that?)

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was referring to dogs...satirically...



(I'm guessing JSO would a similar difficulty in understanding why I release fish, or feel a little remorse when I unintentionally kill them.)

I totally understand the argument about what is / and what is not sentient
But that argument doesn't (shouldn't) extend beyond cruelty and suffering
They are two completely different subjects with wildly different outcomes if played all the way to their logical end

(Shouldn't he know that?)

Yes he should. It's kinda our gift back to the earth, our miracle, and our struggle. To rise above animal instinct...to be good stewards and such...

(Or something like that... )

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was referring to dogs...satirically...



(I'm guessing JSO would a similar difficulty in understanding why I release fish, or feel a little remorse when I unintentionally kill them.)

I totally understand the argument about what is / and what is not sentient
But that argument doesn't (shouldn't) extend beyond cruelty and suffering
They are two completely different subjects with wildly different outcomes if played all the way to their logical end

(Shouldn't he know that?)

He does know it, he's just trying to stir up conversation. It's something that he and his underaged "life partner" like to do when things are slow on the interwebs.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I totally understand the argument about what is / and what is not sentient
But that argument doesn't (shouldn't) extend beyond cruelty and suffering
They are two completely different subjects with wildly different outcomes if played all the way to their logical end

(Shouldn't he know that?)

He does know it, he's just trying to stir up conversation. It's something that he and his underaged "life partner" like to do when things are slow on the interwebs.

You may be right. Sometimes if SH and JSO might be the two best trolls on the board.

Dogs can and do experience a range of emotions / including suffering...
shouldn't that be enough..?

No. They're not people. And we shouldn't be bothering other people about what they decide to do with their animals. At least not as a matter of law.

It's fine if someone thinks badly of someone else because of the way they treat their animals. It's fine if they choose not to associate with them, deal with them, hire them, etc. But when we say that we're going to make laws to punish people...fine them or even imprison them... because they're mean to their animals that's going to far.

Like Michael Vick going to prison because he made dogs fight each other. That was ridiculous. Again: It was really nobody else's business. What he did didn't hurt any other person. There was absolutely no legitimate reason to come down on him like that. Like this society doesn't have more important things to worry about than one person having his dog fight another person's dog when both people are totally OK with it.

As far as emotion goes: I think people attribute human emotions to animals based on behaviors they interpret that way.

Vick didn't really go to jail because of the fighting...you do know that, right?

quando omni flunkus moritati