That's an incredibly disturbing picture of the girls who skinned the dog. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They are relishing their act and that hurts too. Goofyfish may be right and that may be a feral dog meal for them. But the photo just doesn't sit right with me. How many people who carve up and eat dogs to survive have a camera to take pictures of the butchered dog?
You people cling to arguments like: “The reason we have survived all these years is because of our intelligence. We create things to make us superior and we have the ability to learn from generations before us” But at the same time you contradict yourselves by taking revenge over a dead baby. Be the intelligent human being you claim to be and realize that the dog did not think the pros and cons of the scheme trough. It acted the only way it could. I blame you for your behaviour since I trust you to have some control over your emotive state. Though, if you’re seeking for thrills and go against an angry dog, head to head, without rifles and such, go for it.
Which was exactly what I was trying to do! You seem to have taken the low road and attacked me, and anyone else that opposed your viewpoint. OK, you say it doesn't matter how it happened. I'm saying, I think it does. Our views differ on what is disrespectful or disgraceful. Animals and Humans are different. I think it is much worse to mock a dead person than a dead animal. Humans are much more emotionally complicated. Even though it means nothing to the dead person, their families would be hurt by it. I don't know where to go with this, this whole thread is going nowhere. There is no point in bickering back and forth about our differing viewpoints like this. We both have different ideas of what is socially acceptable and politically correct, there isn't much we can do to get around that.
okay, and what? you're saying its not cool to skin a dog? i dont care, as long as the beast deserved it. now, if i saw a wolf (bit off subject, but it is a canine), would shoot it, skin it, and use the fur to fashion myself an Ulfsark (or Wolf (ulf) skin (sark), which was an old Viking clothing item, that used the animal's head as a hood. I, for one, think that it is sick to smile aboot it and photograph it. it is. however, interesting. dogs are know to be disease carriers. mayhaps they were looking out for the good of the community. or they could be just nutty-ass sickoz. the fact is, we dont know. we can assume, and blah, but we wont know unless we inquire the stinkwankers themselves.
No, I wasn't making an argument yet. what 'people'? what's wrong with that now? Does that mean that we should be held to a standard of perfect detachment from our emotions and instincts? And acting that way, it deserves my revenge. Just as you think those girls deserve your hatred. If that dog killed their beloved pet, (as I think someone said) their emotional reaction is very natural. Perhaps not reasonable, but natural. My 'emotive state' may be more or less justified. In the case of the baby, I think it is quite justified; most normal human beings might lose their reason after such an event. In the case of just hunting animals for thrills, it's something that I think is pathetic but not particularly disturbing or 'wrong'. You're anthropomorphizing the dog. The only reason that you whine so much is because you respect it's life in a way that was originally meant for a human.
When you form a syndicate of attributes you can not claim to go absent of some characteristics when a situation differing from the usual occurs. You struggle between two different motives and create a conflict, and at the same time you diminish the ornaments of intelligence that you hold dear. There is nothing wrong with realizing the human advantages. Still, don’t cast them aside whenever you feel like appointing miens of justification covered with animalistic drives. And those girls deserve my despise solely for the reason that human beings are intelligent. I can’t hold a dog responsible for functioning in a genus that should not be allowed to include human laws and characteristics. Pathetic man is the man who defiles a dog because it killed a baby. Put it to sleep if that’s how you feel, but the one who skins the dog and rips its limbs off, whilst knowing that the dog had no cunning plans behind the act, is a simpleton who extemporizes in an act that holds no meaning other than some silly fervours of ”I’m hurt, emotionally”. I respect the nature of dogs, yes. Duh... niggers of course.
I don't have any problems with people killing or hurting animals. I'm not sure I understand what's so bad about it. Animals aren't people, so they are pretty damn close to worthless. Why can't we do whatever we want with our pets? They are, after all, property and unhuman. Things only have value by what we assign them. A dog is only as valuable as you or I make it, Perkele. If I want to skin my dog, it's my perogative. And if you want to coddle yours and make out with it, and maybe take turns mounting each other, whatever. It's still a dog, and it's either mine, or yours or those Russians. There is no sacred universal dog that makes dog killing special or heinous. So when I punch my dog, I get to punch my dog. That's the value I give Rover– punching bag. And I could give a damn if you see a future housemate in my pup's eyes, unless of course I wanted to sell him to you.
Yes roman, you brave and courageous man. Go and assign positions of worth as you see fit, I will use the same disciplines to assign values to aspects that I encounter. Do whatever you want to your doggy. Go to your peers and praise the humankind as you distill rage and use your dog as an outlet. And owning a dog is selfish. You enforce your sense of self as you use the tool that is a dog to be whatever you wish it to represent, in your case, a punching bag. What does that tell us about you, then?’ Cuddling with a dog is just as sick as using it to maneuver with your shortcomings.
Yes indeed. But we can club animals pretty damn good, so that makes us slightly above worthless. Perkele, Yes, thanks, I shall assign a value scale. It's a theoretical scale, from -1 to +1. Unless Great Cthulhu wakes from R'yleh, nothing gets a negative value, except maybe antimatter. But other than that, I don't see anything so bad that it has to be eliminated, or is a threat to all life. 0 is something of complete nonvalue, and again, nothing gets 0, as something always means something. No one gets a 1, either, as there isn't anything that is absolutely worth preserving. I take that back. The only thing that gets a 1 is me. The self gets a 1. That means the self gets to assign values. I like how circular margaritas make everything Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Is any kind of physical aggression because of my insecurities? What about your effiminate bitching? Does that mean you love cock, or what? I mean, I could see me getting angry at somebody killing a good hunting dog, or busting up a nice gun, but animals don't get very much above that. And who said I love humans all that much? I just happen to value humans a little more sense I fear them more than I fear animals. Animals aren't insidious. Animals can't incarcerate me.
Don't forget that we are aslo excellent at clubbing other humans...that would lift us above slightly above worthless.
Alright, I'll bump the clubbers up a notch. There's a joke around here that involves seals, or maybe discotheques. I can't handle that kind of pun right now, though. All this bubbling rage, you see.
Wait, about humans that club humans that club humans? And the humans that club them? I think clubbing only goes so far. It's probably a natural log function or something.
Yeah ok roman, we have an accord. I love the penis and you use physical aggression to cover up and compensate for your shortcomings, insecurities, inadequacies and other vice defective qualities. Other than that… You don’t give respect nor value to animals, got it, buh bye.
But what if it's perfectly natural to cast them aside, and produces little harmful consequences? Like sex for example. You despise them for their intelligence? Why should there be a question of responsibility in the first place? Why do you assume the girls are dispensing 'justice'. Maybe their pride is no different than if they filled up a deadly hole that their friend fell in. Happy and feeling pride, they pose above the filled-up hole. Pathetic, yes, but most humans have the kind of instinctual rage in connection to the loss of their young, that might make them do that. "I'm hurt, emotionally" is very real. That's the whole problem.
I’m rather calculative concerning sex (or…I rather have a jerk than put up with a bimbo for several hours) therefore I stick to my point. I despise them for casting their intelligence aside. (now… I’m talking about the scenario which I constructed here, so don’t start goofing around in circles) I find this posturing petty and pathetic, its so pointless it makes me wonder what kind of a bunch of airheads are these people for taking pride over something like this. This fucking thread is going around in circles, its dead. I’m out. Beat the dog, fuck the child. But don’t be proud about it.
fucking SUPERIOR? Just because someones superior to another being doesn't give them the right to hunt then down for the sport and amusement of it. That's similar to saying a dictator has the right to slaughter innocent people for his enjoyement. Now tell me, who the hell agrees with that?
SUPERIOR? Just because someones superior to another being doesn't give them the right to hunt then down for the sport and amusement of it. That's similar to saying a dictator has the right to slaughter innocent people for his enjoyement. Now tell me, who the hell agrees with that?
we head you the first time. dont have to post it twice... but.... if you are a superior species, that gives you the right to destroy a lesser species for the sake of survival and the evolutionary process. if its for fun and amusement, or if the thing dying is innocent, then killing it is wrong.
