Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on June 10, 2011, 09:20:46 AM
-
Glad the dog won.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001763/Man-dies-playing-Russian-Roulette-DOG.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
-
At least they didn't put up a picture of a "Glock 40" or AK-47.
-
Then at around 9pm, he picked up his handgun and announced he was going to play Russian roulette.
He then aimed one or two empty clicks at the dog's head - before turning the gun on himself.
Captain Jim Andrews, of the South Bend Police Department, told the local newspaper his wife 'said he got tired of that, then put the gun to his own head and pulled the trigger'.
She immediately called police. When they arrived Mr Little was still alive, and he was rushed to Memorial Hospital.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001763/Man-dies-playing-Russian-Roulette-DOG.html#ixzz1Osl5c6IF
No, immediately would have been when he said he was going to play Russian Roulette.
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
But that may jist be me.
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
But that may jist be me.
Yeah, it would be really sad if he shot the dog :(
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
Well put.
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
But that may jist be me.
It's not just you. No qualms over his exit from here.
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
But that may jist be me.
I think my postion on this type of idiocy has already been established.
DD
-
My paternal great grandfather reportedly shot the dog first,
then his wife,
then himself.
=(
-
I think the worlds a better place when the sucidal drunk jerk who almost kills his own dog dies instead of the dog.
But that may jist be me.
Nope....I'm good with that, too....but then, I prefer most dogs to most people.....
-
My paternal great grandfather reportedly shot the dog first,
then his wife,
then himself.
=(
Sure, some dogs are easier to deal with than people - primitive beasts that dogs are.
I, for one, am beginning to realize the inherent value of human life, and wish great grandpa would've stopped after blasting Fido.
-
Shame the man died though. Suicide is almost never a solution.
Dog? Dogs are just meat, like pigs or cows.
-
Shame the man died though. Suicide is almost never a solution.
Dog? Dogs are just meat, like pigs or cows.
I'd turn cannible before eating my dogs, but then, I love my dogs and detest most people....
Suicide is an option I wish more people would explore... Unfortunatly, the ones I wish would off themselves never do. =(
-
You know.. dog, pig, liberal, conservative, nazi.. they all taste mostly the same, if you season them properly.
Protein is protein. I'm not choosy. But cats (roof hare) are damned hard to get some eating out of. You have to let them marinate for a couple of days before you can strip the meat off the bones properly.
-
I hope for Lanius' sake that LadySmith doesn't get wind of his last post. Shoes across the pond.
-
How do you say it? Bring her on :P
-
How do you say it? Bring her on :P
Yep, he'd be a goner.
-
She distapeared again... =|
-
Yep, he'd be a goner.
He already is....just doesn't know it yet....
-
She distapeared again... =|
I have a hunch she'll be back again. Just a hunch, no special knowledge or anything.
-
Shame the man died though. Suicide is almost never a solution.
Dog? Dogs are just meat, like pigs or cows.
While I agree in principle, I don't think the usual value-of-human-life comparison applies here. It's not as if the guy was forced to choose between his own life and that of his beloved pet. The situation was entirely of his own creation, the killing utterly gratuitous and unnecessary.
-
Dog? Dogs are just meat, like pigs or cows.
I take it you've never had the privilege of having a good canine companion in your life.
DD
-
Well, actually, humans are just meat, like dogs, pigs or cows. I've never had a dog at home, but for a long time I was the only one who took grandma's dachshund out for walks. I liked the dog.. but let's face it. Cows, dogs, pigs and humans are all social animals capable of complex emotions. We eat some of them and consider that OK. Therefore, I think it'd only be honest to admit that eating any of them should be ok, as long as no undue suffering or torture is caused.
IMO, mortuary cannibalism is fine. I plan on donating all my organs in the event of my death, and if someone will have the guts to make stew out of the flesh, more power to him.
Why burn perfectly good protein no one needs anymore?
-
Wow, lanis.
Dogs are social animals, and have a unique bond with humans.
As for complex emotions, have you ever seen a dog go bonkers after losing someone, be it an owner or another dog in the family.
We have one family of clients with a greyhound named BoBo. They recently lost their irish setter to old age and bone cancer. BoBo had to come in during the days to hang out with one of our anatolians, because he couldn't be left alone and wouldn't eat at home. He missed Rue badly. He now has his own anatolian puppy that the family purchased from us. Last weekend he nearly destroyed a room at the shop when he was seperated from Sully for a few hours.
-
I'd still trade 100 dogs to give my grandfather back his chidhood.
-
I'd still trade 100 dogs to give my grandfather back his chidhood.
You think your great grandathers life is worth 100 dogs. A guy who killed his wife and his dog.
I bet your grandfather was better off without the man. Now, a hundred dogs for your greatgrandmother, I can get on board with that.
-
I'm not saying dogs deserve bad things. In fact, I think they are probable capable of most of the emotions we experience.
On the other hand, I really don't like people who claim men are 'something special', and because we are unique and beautiful snowflakes, Lord's favorite snowflakes as some claim, we can fu(k this planet up.
Elephants, crows, vultures, squid, chimpanzees.. all of them use tools. Elephants probably have their own language. I mean, 300 distinct signals that may or may not be arranged in sentences seems enough for a language. And they're way smarter than dogs. Cats are particularily dim. They're superb predators, but not social, so they lack a big part of intelligence we have.
The only thing that separates us from those animals is that we are much better at technology, and smarter, on average. There seems to be no qualitative difference. Well.. maybe writing, but really.
What needs to be recognized is, that we are part of nature, and we shouldn't put our own interests- large parking lots, cheap beef, ahead of ecosystems. (not that I dislike meat, but in the US, you are downright peculiar about your beeft...- did you know that one professor was not hired for some agricultural university post because he wrote.. I kid you not.. that "cows eat grass*" ?)
*the all-powerful corn and e-coli lobby doesn' like that kind of statements. E-coli is so prevalent in meat because cows fed corn have stomach enviroments e-coli likes more..afaik.
-
What needs to be recognized is, that we are part of nature, and we shouldn't put our own interests- large parking lots, cheap beef, ahead of ecosystems.
Self-defeating argument is self-defeating.
-
Self-defeating argument is self-defeating.
So, you're saying agriculture is not messing up natural ecosystems? What about fertilizer runoff in the Mississippi, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that creates? Entirely a-ok?
-
Well, lanis, we are just dumb animals, after all.
-
=D
I just don't see how you can push the idea that we are part of nature, and just another type of animal "meat," but at the same time argue that we should start caring about natural ecosystems. Do you think we should be animals, or be humane?
-
Cats are particularily dim. They're superb predators, but not social, so they lack a big part of intelligence we have.
Actually, cats have language. We are just either too dull in wit or hearing to understand it, while they understand ours fairly well.
-
I just don't see how you can push the idea that we are part of nature, and just another type of animal "meat," but at the same time argue that we should start caring about natural ecosystems. Do you think we should be animals, or be humane?
We are animals, in that that is our nature, but at the same time, we're something more, because we have far greater abilities due to technology. So maybe, instead of multiplying like there's no tomorrow, we should start behaving in a more restrained way.. so there is a tomorrow.. that doesn't involve mass die-offs and survival only for the hardiest organisms.. rats, humans, cockroaches etc...
-
We are animals, in that that is our nature, but at the same time, we're something more, because we have far greater abilities due to technology. So maybe, instead of multiplying like there's no tomorrow, we should start behaving in a more restrained way.. so there is a tomorrow.. that doesn't involve mass die-offs and survival only for the hardiest organisms.. rats, humans, cockroaches etc...
If technology is the only thing separating us from the animals, where does this desire come from to preserve other species?
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! There is a relevent Heinlein quote for this! Now, where is it?
*off to search*
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! There is a relevent Heinlein quote for this! Now, where is it?
*off to search*
Something about specialization and insects ???
-
Crap! I think its in A Stranger in a Strange Land, which I don't own. =(
-
Crap! I think its in A Stranger in a Strange Land, which I don't own. =(
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/Heinlein.html (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/Heinlein.html)
....and, by the way, I am NOT an animal.....God made humans separate from the animals.....and He made us stewards of the Earth....meaning we're supposed to take care of it and use it to our advantage.....
-
No, its about how humans will do whats in our nature, and if we end up dyimg out, well, then we die out...
Maybe its in The Cat That Walks Through Walls. I think long may have been involved...
-
God made humans separate from the animals
If we were separate from animals, why are we so similar to them? Why do we have the same DNA, the same short lifespan, the same everything? Why can we catch viruses from animals, if we are separate?
-
If we were separate from animals, why are we so similar to them? Why do we have the same DNA, the same short lifespan, the same everything? Why can we catch viruses from animals, if we are separate?
Why do we live on the same planet? Why do we breathe the same oxygen?
You can draw similarities between just about anything, if you like.
-
Why should I feed pearls to trolls?
-
Why should I feed pearls to trolls?
nevermind. too easy to misinterperet.
I still value human life over animals.
It's a personal thing I wouldn't expect everyone to agree or even to understand.
-
Why should I feed pearls to trolls?
Wait. Who's a troll?
-
My friend Blondie may be many things, but he is no Troll.
(searches for old avatar....)
-
The difference between man and other animals is that man has a much greater capacity for reason than other animals. I believe that the notion of "rights" is a moral concept, the purpose of which should be to protect beings which are capable of recognizing it. Only man is capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so man is the only being who should be protected by rights.
-
Only man is capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so man is the only being who should be protected by rights.
So, if something's not smart enough to recognize a right, it's a-ok for a sadist to torture it to death, since it's a wild creature that lacks the capacity to understand rights and therefore shouldn't be protected by any.
Interesting position..
-
Rights are not necessarily the only concept that might limit someone's behavior.
-
Only man is capable of recognizing the concept of rights, so man is the only being who should be protected by rights.
That is a claim but not necessarily a fact.
How many animals do not believe they have a right to self-defense? And if you do not believe that they so believe, what is the source of your belief?
-
If we were separate from animals, why are we so similar to them? Why do we have the same DNA, the same short lifespan, the same everything? Why can we catch viruses from animals, if we are separate?
We don't actually, have the same DNA. Different animals have different DNA seguences, a different ## of pairings, and so forth. Stick a piece of human flesh in another animal -- say a tiger -- and it will be recognized as foreign, and rejected.
So, if something's not smart enough to recognize a right, it's a-ok for a sadist to torture it to death, since it's a wild creature that lacks the capacity to understand rights and therefore shouldn't be protected by any.
Interesting position..
That is a silly argument. Just because an animal may not "recognize" a right, that hardly means it's justifiable to hurt it. Note you yourself use the term "sadist," implying a certain disdain for the actions involved in hurting the animal.
We may argue, loosely (I'd guess) that an animal may have a "right" to self defense, but I doubt any animal perceives of itself "having rights." Animals experience pain, and fear, and will respond to what they perceive is causing the pain, or inflicting the fear. It's called survival. I would say that's pretty instinctive.
Now a human may believe the animal has a "right" to defend itself. I probably would not go to the parapets with a broken bourbon bottle to attack the proposition, but only humans have a concept of "rights."
-
That is a claim but not necessarily a fact.
How many animals do not believe they have a right to self-defense?
Yeah, like TommyGunn said. That an animal defends itself is no evidence that it believes in rights. If you want to say that animals believe in the concept of rights, I think you assume the burden of proof.
-
Rights are not necessarily the only concept that might limit someone's behavior.
True....just because a car engine isn't sentient isn't a reason to mistreat it to the point of failure....esp. if the result of that failure leaves you on the side of the road.....and what exactly would be the advantage in torturing an animal unnecessarily?..... =|
-
...and what exactly would be the advantage in torturing an animal unnecessarily?
Ask a sadist...
-
Note you yourself use the term "sadist," implying a certain disdain for the actions involved in hurting the animal.
Where I come from, 'sadist' is not a very loaded term. A sadisti is simply a person who likes to make someone, or something hurt and derives pleasure from it. Who am I to condemn someone for the way his brain is wired. Sadists did not choose to be that way.. On the other hand, I think they should be watched more closely, especially around annoying pets.
We don't actually, have the same DNA. Different animals have different DNA seguences, a different ## of pairings, and so forth. Stick a piece of human flesh in another animal -- say a tiger -- and it will be recognized as foreign, and rejected.
Nearly the same. Very similar biochemistry to other animals, etc etc. If animals weren't so close in many ways, scientists wouldn't keep using them as model organisms in pharmaceutical research or neurology.
Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with creationists. That's pointless.
Just because an animal may not "recognize" a right, that hardly means it's justifiable to hurt it.
Some Christian around here suggested the natural world exists so we can exploit it. For sadists, that would obviously mean they are free to abuse animals, since they are of less importance, don't belong to anyone, etc etc.. and to them, their right to derive pleasure from causing pain is obviously more important than the rights of the animal. And they're men, and that's only an animal..
-
So, if something's not smart enough to recognize a right, it's a-ok for a sadist to torture it to death, since it's a wild creature that lacks the capacity to understand rights and therefore shouldn't be protected by any.
Interesting position..
If by "a-ok" you mean that it is what I think a rational and mentally healthy person ought to do, I wouldn't agree with you. If you mean that people should not be stopped from doing so by force, I would generally agree. I believe people have a right to do a lot of things that aren't necessarily the best or most rational course of action, as The artist and seeker_two said.
However, I wouldn't necessarily extend that line of reasoning to human children, who initially lack the ability to understand rights but who have the capacity or potential to understand them with a little development. But I do think that children have limited rights, at least as to their parents, until this capacity is developed.
I also believe that the right to harm to animals is limited by the property rights of others. I believe that animals, like all natural resources, can be made into property, and that a person doesn't have the right to harm someone else's property. I believe that a person has the right to harm or destroy his own property, but that is usually a very irrational thing to do that does not benefit one's continued life. I believe that a person who tortures animals just for the purpose of inflicting pain is someone who is probably mentally unhealthy and more likely to initiate force against humans, and probably ought to be regarded with suspicion by rational men (though it isn't by itself a great enough threat to warrant the use of force in self defense). However, I don't think there is anything mentally unhealthy per se about engaging in blood sports like cockfighting or dogfighting. And they certainly aren't anything that people should be prevented from doing by force, since they are completely voluntary activities for all people involved.
This is an issue that provokes strong emotions in people. Unfortunately, many people believe that it is fine to initiate force based on nothing more than emotion as long as you get a large enough group of people together who agree.
That is a claim but not necessarily a fact.
well yeah... I am making the claim that I believe it to be a fact.
How many animals do not believe they have a right to self-defense? And if you do not believe that they so believe, what is the source of your belief?
I don't think animals have any concept of a right to self defense. They have an instinct to preserve their own life, and they are born with some limited knowledge and skills to aid them in doing so. But even if they recognize some sort of prerogative to defend themselves, I don't think they truly recognize the concept of rights/liberty. The source of my belief? The fact that animals do not deal with each other and with humans on mutually voluntary terms, and no animal except for man has ever demonstrated an ability to do so, or to recognize the concept of doing so.
-
However, I wouldn't necessarily extend that line of reasoning to human children, who initially lack the ability to understand rights but who have the capacity or potential to understand them with a little development. But I do think that children have limited rights, at least as to their parents, until this capacity is developed.
Many tool using social animals, like elephants (http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic5/elephant.htm), may too, one day be able to understand the concept of rights, if only we figure out how to talk to them.
-
We don't actually, have the same DNA. Different animals have different DNA seguences, a different ## of pairings, and so forth. Stick a piece of human flesh in another animal -- say a tiger -- and it will be recognized as foreign, and rejected
Nearly the same. Very similar biochemistry to other animals, etc etc. If animals weren't so close in many ways, scientists wouldn't keep using them as model organisms in pharmaceutical research or neurology.
Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with creationists. That's pointless.
What makes you think I'm a creationist? If you think that's what I am, you're wrong. Period.
And "nearly the same" doesn't count in the world of biology. Chicken DNA is chicken DNA and horse DNA is horse, and so on. It isn't the similarities that are important in DNA, it's the differences. That's the point of DNA.
Some Christian around here suggested the natural world exists so we can exploit it. For sadists, that would obviously mean they are free to abuse animals, since they are of less importance, don't belong to anyone, etc etc.. and to them, their right to derive pleasure from causing pain is obviously more important than the rights of the animal. And they're men, and that's only an animal..
Do you consider sadism to be a "normal" human attribute? I don't. I don't consider humans to be "free" to abuse animals, but not because animals have any "rights." I just don't consider it a decent, proper, right behaviour for human beings, that's all. It has little to do with "exploiting" animals, which is another argument entirely.
" ... their right to derive pleasure from causing pain ...." Wrong. They DON'T have that right.
-
Do you consider sadism to be a "normal" human attribute?
Well, it's not a matter of choice, so we can hardly blame sadists for being sadists. It's usually apparent that someone is a sadist long before they understand any of tha morality about that. Kids torturing animals.. etc
And it's reasonably common.
Probably a matter of inaccurate brain wiring, sex circuits crossed with the violence ones, or something like that.-
And "nearly the same" doesn't count in the world of biology. Chicken DNA is chicken DNA and horse DNA is horse, and so on. It isn't the similarities that are important in DNA, it's the differences. That's the point of DNA.
I suppose I should find a better argument. There was this guy around who kept claiming that we were created separately from animals, and that this supposed act of creation makes us different. I think that's bull.. we are obviously a part of nature, and will remain so for quite some time.
-
Well, it's not a matter of choice, so we can hardly blame sadists for being sadists. It's usually apparent that someone is a sadist long before they understand any of tha morality about that. Kids torturing animals.. etc
The propensity for it may be a matter of "wiring" but I sure as *** can "blame" someone who is torturing animals. Let me be more specific: I consider it to be a crime.
And it's reasonably common.
Probably a matter of inaccurate brain wiring, sex circuits crossed with the violence ones, or something like that.-I suppose I should find a better argument. There was this guy around who kept claiming that we were created separately from animals, and that this supposed act of creation makes us different. I think that's bull.. we are obviously a part of nature, and will remain so for quite some time.
I hesitate to say this but I have no problem with that argument at all. >:D
-
The propensity for it may be a matter of "wiring" but I sure as *** can "blame" someone who is torturing animals. Let me be more specific: I consider it to be a crime.
Yeah. I too think torturing animals is something that should be avoided. Not sure whether it should be a felony. Mayhap better to fine it heavily and subject the people caught doing so, red handed, to public shaming.