Woman to Woman

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Well, that was quick! Shaunti sees the movement toward making animal-cruelty a felony and immediately jumps to “That’s saying that animal and human life are the same!” Only in your mind, Shaunti.

Many crimes are felonies—even those that don’t involve killing a person. Felonies include embezzlement, fraud, grand theft, burglary, and (in some states) possession of certain types of firearms or drugs. Does that mean that heroin is “the same as a human life”? Does it mean that stealing a few hundred bucks from a convenience store is “just as important as human life?” No.

In fact, it just means that the category of crime is severe and warrants additional punishment beyond the misdemeanor level. There’s no “contest” among felonies, no declaration that they’re all equally bad. Recognizing that animal cruely belongs in the category of severe crimes in no way suggests that it’s identical to murder of a human. Not even close.

There. Are we done here?

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Oh wait… I forgot to start the countdown timer to the inevitable abortion tangent: “See how the liberals rush to defend animal lives while gleefully slaughtering thousands of innocent babies! What hypocrites! etc. etc.”

Wonder how long it’ll take them this week….

By Eirik

January 22, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

I agree with Brian…but I have an interesting hypothesis to discuss…

Consider this scenario:

For some reason I’m in Colorado, walking my dog near a frozen lake…and at the same time Dr. James Dobson is walking by the lake…he believes the ice is safe and walks out on it, but it’s not safe and Dr. Dobson falls in.

At the same time, my black labrador retrieve runs out to the ice also…and he falls in.

What do I do? Do I save my dog…who has been a wondeful companion for many years, and has brought me nothing but joy…or do I save the human Dobson…whom I consider one of the most hateful and evil humans on the planet? (I being a gay man )

I’d save my dog, no question! And I would feel absolutely no guilt about it. If Dobson was still struggling I’d probably try and help him though…only because of the irony of such a terrible homophobe being saved by a homo..

But…let’s change the scenario…instead of Dobson the human is a small child…then what should I do? Personally, I really don’t know, although I tend to think I’d save the child and hope my dog could hang on…however I do know this dilemma would never happen because I would never let my dog be near a frozen lake without being on a leash..

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

That’s up to individual choices and values, Eirik. (For what it’s worth, I agree with your decision about Dobson.)

But the question of how animal lives should be treated by the law is a more general one; no one’s asked to choose between human and nonhuman life with this legislation, or how and whether to favor one over the other. Only to acknowledge that animal cruely is a severe offense, in isolation from any other offenses in the “felony” category.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Animal cruelty should be a felony, and count for any Three-Strikes laws, however 99 years for one offense is rather excessive.

The Dobson comment reminded me of the BigQuestion joke awhile back, a photojournalist sees Bush being swept away by hurricane waters, and he can either rescue him or get the pic of a lifetime. Of course the BigQuestion is what camera and film to use.

It brings up an interesting point, if someone rescued their dog over Dobson, could they then be charged with extreme indifference? That might depend on the state, but…

Those three college students who are charged with burning nine churches in Alabama also shot a cow on the first burning night and I believe they are also being charged with animal cruelty, as they should be.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Well, that was quick! Shaunti sees the movement toward making animal-cruelty a felony and immediately jumps to “That’s saying that animal and human life are the same!” Only in your mind, Shaunti.

huh? i would think you know better than that, brian. shaunti is responding to diane’s comment where diane mentions the belief of some who feel that there is difference between a human life and a puppy life - here it is since you missed it:

For those who cringe at felony charges for animal cruelty, they argue that there’s a difference between the life of a human sadist and an innocent puppy. I agree: Let’s keep the puppy.

in fact, nowhere in shaunti’s commentary will you find any opposition to making animal cruelty a felony. you may want to re-read her opening five words since you seem to have missed them as well: ANIMAL CRUELTY DESERVES SEVERE PENALTIES. and you might also have missed where she goes on to say that animal life has value and deserves protection from abuse.

such statements are not at all equivalent with saying that making animal cruelty a felony means that animal life and human life are the same.

on the other hand, i find diane’s comments quite interesting and telling. she expresses not the slightest issue or reservation with sentencing teenagers to 90 years in prison for killing a dog other than to say it “may seem harsh”. diane would rather see the puppy live than a human sadist; such statements provide us with a much clearer picture of what kind of life diane values more. and while i love animals dearly and own multiple pets, it is clear that our society has taken (and continues to take) a decidedly opposite view from diane’s on the value of innocent animal life when compared to the worst of the worst human life. just look at lethal injections for our worst human offenders and compare that to the treatment of innocent animal life in a slaughterhouse.

for the record, i am quite comfortable with certain kinds of animal cruelty being treated as felonies. that doesn’t mean that i believe animal life is on par with human life, nor that shaunti is saying the same thing.

have a good week everybody.

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

bbb: That’s fine, but then what IS Shaunti’s point? The question is whether animal-cruelty cases should be treated as felonies with potential life sentences, and Shaunti’s entire commentary is devoted to the “dangers” of equating human and animal life.

It’s not hard to conclude where Shaunti comes down on the question; if she’s only reacting to a side comment of Diane’s, then she’s actually taken NO position on the felony severity issue… which is nominally the topic of this whole week. So what IS she saying, other than a knee-jerk “Diane said something I can twist into a display of outrage”?

By Jack

January 22, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Hi All. I was villified for saying I would rescue a weakened female from drowning before the male. You state you would save a dog over a human. Sorry but that is sick. There is a big difference between human and animal life. Yes there should be stiff penalties for cruelty to animals but not life behind bars. Maybe life on a shrink’s couch. Those boys that nuked the dog should be made to clean every county dog pound as punishment and then they might think twice before repeating.

By Mara

January 22, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Shaunti says “while it’s true that many murderers started on animals, most people who are cruel to animals don’t become murderers”

I have also heard the conservative saw that “Most Muslims aren’t terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim” to rationalize the wholesale arrest and interogation of men of Arab descent.

but that’s kind of beside the point, though it does illustrate Shaunti’s “logic” throughout her opinion. For example, the thing with upping the punishment for threatening or harming medical researchers. She makes it sound like “liberals” have been egging on those groups and people who advocate this kind of terroristic and fear inducing behavior when, in fact, it’s been conservatives who’ve defended the behavior of those who intimidate, terrorize, and even murder women and health care personnel for merely being associated with, or seeking, abortions. Terroristic behavior is fine when it’s against a frightened 20-year-old woman who’s birth control failed, but it’s absolutely outrageous to use it against an multi-million dollar internationally known research firm like, say, Huntington Life Sciences. It’s been liberals who’ve tried to make intimidation from protest groups illegal.

But what about the other issues Shaunti raises, like thinking that the death penalty works as a detterent for violent crime but life in prison isn’t fair for animal torturers? Or that trying a juvenile as an adult for any number of crimes is A-OK…unless it’s for animal cruelty. Then it’s just a waste of the poor kids life. Talk about inconsistant ideology…

By Lyrazel

January 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Diane, are those 2 boys really going to be rehabilitated in our criminal justice system or will they become worse and next time take acts against people utilizing lessons learned in jail? The boys need therapy, deep intensive one-to-one talking therapy that they are obviously NOT getting from parents. The cost of putting one boy in jail 90 days days would provide him with therapy at most shrinks for about 2-3 years. Would they get ANY help inside?

What about the incurred costs 90 years of prison for puppy killing? America wants to lock up all criminals and throw away the key! Poof! We want only quick solutions but we don’t mention the cost! Our jails are being filled with mentally ill, homeless and jaywalkers whose non-violent offense does not even garner court costs, incarceration costs, transportation costs and parole costs. Think of the expense for the court appointed lawyers, clerks and janitors who operate in the system as it is now and it is ludicrous that other directions of coping with such hideous behavior are not tried first.

I doubt few would say: take a puppy’s life and its the electric chair for ya bubba—>but 90 years IS life so the courts have declared that animal life IS equal to human life by this judgement.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Jack, I believe you were actually “vilified” for saying you would save a woman who was perfectly capable of saving herself rather than save a man who was clearly drowning.

Again, however, the issue is being obfuscated by Shaunti’s attempt to paint it as human life being more valuable than animal life. Now, all things being equal I tend to agree with that statement, but it doesn’t have any real bearing on the kind of penalties that should accompany egregious animal cruelty.

Stop and think for a moment what sadistic behavior towards anything means about the person committing the act. Does it matter if the sadism is directed towards a person or towards a dog? Not really - the act is indicative of the perpetrator’s character.

Stiff penalities for sadistic animal abuse aren’t so much about outrage for the animal as protection for society. Someone who is so truly sadistic as to treat another creature in such a horrific fashion is likely to pose a threat to society, and as such should be removed from it.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

i read shaunti to say that we need to come down hard on people who would kill and abuse animals, but those punishments are extreme if they are too similar to the punishments meted out to those who would perpetrate similar crimes against humans. and if punishments against animals and humans are the same or similar we are playing a dangerous game in terms of how we value various forms of life.

since i find you to generally be a reasonable person brian, i would challenge you to be as critical of diane’s piece as you are shaunti’s. exactly how comfortable you are with some of the underlying ideas and themes she presents, such as:

There are some who still question harsh felony charges for animal cruelty if it means a single human life should waste away in jail. They think a human life is worth more than a dog’s.

diane feels that people who don’t believe in harsh felonious charges for animal cruelty think human life is worth more than a dog’s life, and suggests that they’re wrong to believe that (about the value of human vs animal life)! are you comfortable with that? do you believe a human’s life is worth more than a dog’s life?

now put this in the same piece where she doesn’t see any problem whatsoever with a 90 year sentence for teenagers killing a single dog, and where she says she’d rather we keep the dog and kill the human sadist. when you look at diane’s piece in that light, i think you will see that shaunti is not just responding to a “side comment” of diane’s.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

I don’t want to lock all criminals up, but I sure do want to lock the violent ones away. Personally, I think that non-violent crime should be handled by mandatory restitution programs, rehabilitation programs, salary garnishment, etc. Hit the white-collar folks where they live and help the drug addicts and such get the help they need to clean up.

However, I do consider animal abusers, particularly the truly awful ones, to be both violent and dangerous to society. I think that society’s interests need to be protected from those who are particularly vicious, sadistic and cruel.

By Archie

January 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Equating a human life with that of an animal also starts the slippery slope toward outlawing medical research on animals.

Right on Shanti.

We can’t use life sentence-type penalties to prevent an animal abuser from becoming a human one.

I agree with Shanti once again. My only question is what kind of person would do things Diane describes? It sounds beyond sick but Shanti is right there are other people guilty of animal cruelty that don’t murder. There are probably a number of ways to punish someone guilty of felony animal cruelty, such as maybe making them register just as sex offenders do when they commit a felony offense on the level that Diane describes,whew!

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Does it matter if the sadism is directed towards a person or towards a dog? Not really - the act is indicative of the perpetrator’s character.

of course it matters, john. by and large, we punish offenders based on the degree of their crime against society. if you believe that a human life is more valuable than a dog’s life, then mutilating a dog is a lesser crime against society than mutilating a person, and thus deserves a lesser punishment.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough for you, Bla. I’m not referring to the manner in which the courts determine the severity of the act, I’m referring to the morality inherent in sadistic behavior towards an unwilling creature. Obviously, the neighborhood dominatrix is excused from judgement.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

i appreciate the clarification, john, but i still don’t agree. i find sadistic behavior towards a human to be more immoral than sadistic behavior towards an animal.

By Kevin

January 22, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this

My apologies BC, but I am going to have to be the first to bring up the abortion argument.

Diane said Janssen would remind us: Pain is pain. Animals bleed, cry and struggle and defend themselves against violence just like people do.

OK, I can buy that argument. So I decided to do a little research to determine the approximate time a fetus can feel pain. Many pro-lifers believe pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks. Some pro-choice folks believe pain cannot be felt until after birth. So I tried to find an article that would have the least amount of bias. Here is an article from Discover magazine in December of 2005:

Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven’t formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, “the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn’t reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain.” Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn’t form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.

When I compare Janssen’s statement about puppies feeling pain with the article I posted above, I am sure Diane would come to the conclusion that all abortions after the 28th week are cruel. Just a thought.

By Eirik

January 22, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Then it’s sick Jack..

Save a human I hate instead of an animal I love…for the sake of what is really nothing more than a philosphical notion? Hell no!! Humans are higher on the food chain but they aren’t divine..

What if that human was someone that killed your wife Jack? Is his life still more valuable than your cherished pet (assuming you have one).

By The72John

January 22, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Kevin, not to throw fuel on the flames of this sizzling red herring, but 28 weeks = 3rd Trimester. According to a 2006 CDC report, only 1.8% of abortions in the US are performed after the 21st week, with significant drop off each week thereafter. The Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions after week 24 to be .08%. I can’t find statistics for week 28, but I imagine that the number of abortions performed after this period is almost nil.

So…what was your point?

By Kevin

January 22, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

My point was just what was stated. I don’t care if it is .01%. If you believe that causing pain is cruel to animals, then abortions in the third trimester are cruel.

If I am following your logic, if the murder rate in this country dropped to less than .05%, should we then remove all laws against murder?

I have added enough fuel myself - that is my last comment on the abortion subject for the day.

And I mean this seriously John - good research on your part. You do make a valid argument, but I believe I do as well.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this

There should be double penalties for cruelty to DOGS.

By Jack

January 22, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

No John, she said “weakened” and yes, women and children 1st. Eirik, isn’t that the straw man John always talks about?

By Lyrazel

January 22, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

The72John: However, I do consider animal abusers, particularly the truly awful ones, to be both violent and dangerous to society. I think that society’s interests need to be protected from those who are particularly vicious, sadistic and cruel.

I would agree with you! I just cant agree that the solution for this is imprisonment. It was so obvious these children need help—and prison is not a place where help is administered. Sure there are 12 year old boys capable cold blooded murder and should be locked up for 99 years and then some! Torturing a puppy is a sick crime but its not the same as murder, rape or child abuse. By giving up and tossing away the key on kids we are insuring that on their release these boys-then-men will be an even worse detriment to society because we ignored their chance for help and recovery with a one-stop-fits-all-solution: prison.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

But Erik was not saving a dog’s life over just any old other human life form now, was he? LOL

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

I brake for all animals except Gators (and War Eagles).

By chuck

January 22, 2007 01:44 PM | Link to this

Mara, this was a really outrageous statement:

…in fact, it’s been conservatives who’ve defended the behavior of those who intimidate, terrorize, and even murder women and health care personnel for merely being associated with, or seeking, abortions.

This could not be further from the truth. It is absolutely asinine to even say it. That may be the Boxer/Pelosi/Ireland view of the world but it is not true. I’m about as conservative as it one can be and I don’t know EVEN ONE PERSON who holds that opinion.

As for the topic at hand, let me say at the outset that I think it is horrible to treat a domesticated/pet animal cruelly for one’s personal pleasure. I think it is a disgusting human being that would do that. That said, however, I don’t think that animals should have ANY rights whatsoever. Domesticated animals are property! Wild animals fall under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources to be managed for the public use, not given rights.

I think that animal cruelty laws should at worst be misdemeanors.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel is right—We should feel sorry for the animal abusers.

Hey Lyrazel, did you ever watch the movie “A Clockwork Orange”?

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

Now I had to brake for a chicken this morning, came over the rise and there she was, dead center of the road.

Would not have done that braking for a dog. wouldn’t have gunned it, but there ARE laws about keeping your livestock/pets out of the road. So sawwee, Officer, could not stop LOL

but braked for a Siamese cat Saturday. little bleep darted right across the road as I was going by.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

chuck—If you truly believe that animals are the property of humans, then you are NOT a man of God.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

My point was just what was stated. I don’t care if it is .01%. If you believe that causing pain is cruel to animals, then abortions in the third trimester are cruel.

Kevin, I suppose my point, well, about YOUR point, is that society already largely agrees with you. The support for late-term abortions in this country for any other reason than preserving the life of the mother is basically non-existant, if you rule out the crazy fringe groups. So, you were just stating something that people already seem to agree with.

The reason that partial-birth abortion bans have been unsucessful thus-far is because they have not contained exceptions for the health of the mother. You show me a partial-birth abortion ban that does, and I would support it in a heart beat.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 01:57 PM | Link to this

Personally, I support the Biblical an eye for an eye. A few public whippings might reduce some of the animal abuse.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

I’m about as conservative as it one can be and I don’t know EVEN ONE PERSON who holds that opinion

Who are all those people screaming and shouting at the women and doctors at the abortion clinics, or interfering with people attempting to enter them, or hurling invective and abuse at anyone on the other side of the fences? Who are the people putting up the web sites encouraging the murder of abortion doctors?

I have no doubt that mainstream conservatives don’t support this behavior just as mainstream progressives don’t support people breaking into clinics and releasing animals or spiking trees. But to act as if they don’t exist and are not a very vocal and visible minority is dishonest.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

So john, I guess that means that approximately 28,000 babies were tortured to death. (.08% x 35,000,000 legal abortions). What a great achievement for our country.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I work with someone who was jumping up and down with glee when Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the woman’s clinic, especially glad he had gotten a protector(the off-duty cop who was security there was killer).

Think he is Pentacostal Fundie, so they ARE out there. YOU might not know any, but some of us do.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

HUH?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

Chilao—As much as I love cats, I might have forgiven you if you hit the Siamese. Those suckers can keep you up all night with their meow . Sounds almost like a baby crying sometimes.

By Archie

January 22, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

i appreciate the clarification, john, but i still don’t agree. i find sadistic behavior towards a human to be more immoral than sadistic behavior towards an animal.

Yes, I agree with those statements. I am amazed that Diane suggests that a human life is not worth more than dog’s. That sentence is kinda kooky. Someone who commits the kind of crime that Diane describes should be locked up just not for 90 years or some other sentence one gets for taking a human life. Diane’s argument is exhibit A as to why you need both conservative,liberal,ultra-conservative, and ultra-liberal points of view because too much of any one view then common sense gets totally lost.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

she security officer at the Birmingham Woman’s Clinic there was killeD?

sorry, keying fast

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

THE security officer/off-duty cop?

okay, done for the day. LOL

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Chuck: “I don’t think that animals should have ANY rights whatsoever. Domesticated animals are property! Wild animals fall under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources to be managed for the public use, not given rights. I think that animal cruelty laws should at worst be misdemeanors.”

Non-sequitur, Chuck. How does your conclusion—that animal-cruelty should only be a misdemeanor—follow from your position on animal rights? Indeed, how are they related at all?

My stereo has no rights, but it’s still a felony for someone to break into my home and steal it. Embezzlement is a felony, as is fraud, possession of certain guns and drugs (in some states), etc. What does that have to do with whether the affected property has any rights?

If animals are property, they belong to someone—either an individual owner or all of us (natural resources). Damaging and destroying said property can still be treated as a felony without conferring any rights on the animals themselves. So why do you say that such crimes should only be misdemeanors? What’s your legal and logical rationale for that categorization?

By Archie

January 22, 2007 02:17 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I work with someone who was jumping up and down with glee when Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the woman’s clinic, especially glad he had gotten a protector(the off-duty cop who was security there was killer).

Chilao you work with a nut, but then I worked with a guy that was concerned that authorities were throwing the book at Eric Rudolph. This particular person agrees with all things conservative right or wrong. I used to dog him for having that attitude but as far as I know he has not changed.

Let me say that most people aren’t like the two nut cases described above. I really think Shanti wins this debate hands down but I’m sure Diane will make a good comeback on the next issue.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

The “screaming and shouting” thing is a free speech issue. I would hope that the screaming and shouting would not be hateful, but just encouraging the girl to change her mind. I would defend their right to do that, but as for murdering abortion doctors or treating pregnant girls with anything other than love and respect THAT is NOT BIBLICAL.

Chilao, that co-worker was looney toons.

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

As to Diane’s example of whether a specific animal’s life is worth more than that of a specific, perversely cruel and evil human’s… I’m not seeing the problem, frankly.

As little as I support the death penalty, I’m all for lifetime imprisonment of some of our more dangerous and violent felons. If that’s setting the “value” of their lives below that of their victims—be they human OR animal—, so be it.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

A teenager was going up into the San Gabriels, and killing big horn sheep(males), which he would sell to doctors/lawyers for $500, for the mounted head.

the kid was finally caught and he got FIVE years in Leavenworth.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this

BC—Your argument only applies if someone else damages your stereo (animal). If my stereo is my property , then I can damage it myself with impunity. Crimes against animals apply even when the abuser is also the owner.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

Actually chuck, the .08 figure was for 24 weeks. I’m assuming, as I said before, the figure for 28 weeks was virtually nil. I said that once before, but possibly you conveniently overlooked it.

In fact, at 28 weeks, doctors consider the fetus viable outside the womb. In these cases, abortions are performed in only the most extreme circumstances - clear and undeniable danger to the life of the mother, or horific deformation of the fetus.

So no, there haven’t been 28,000 babies tortured to death, nor were the abortions performed at this point done so by people who “just wanted to get rid of it”. In fact, I suspect that in every single case, the agony that the decision-makers experienced in coming to said decision far outweighs any self-righteous indignation that you could hope to muster.

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

If chuck really considers animals no more than “property,” then it follows he’d be perfectly okay with someone buying a kitten and torturing it to death. Only the owner’s personal property is affected, so therefore no crime has occured…

But instead, Chuck says this should be treated as a misdemeanor! Again I ask: how so?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

But, of course, I must defer to BC’s expertise regarding animal cruelty. Who knows more than BC about caging defenseless animals and torturing them in the name of “research”?

By chuck

January 22, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

I guess it would depend on the financial value of the animal BC. Assuming the case in question concerns the property (dog) of another person, the penalty should be based on the actual value of the dog. If that made it a felony, that would be different from bestowing rights on an animal. If the penalty for stealing/destroying a $500 dog is the same as for stealing/destroying a $500 stereo then we are on the same page. If it is not the same penalty then by definition you are bestowing rights on the animal in question that go beyond its value as property.

The trepidation I have with making the “cruelty” itself a felony lies in the exponential expansion of those rights over time…the slippery slope argument. Liberals are famous for going overboard on issues like this one. There are already proposals to make hunting illegal in some states.

By Lyrazel

January 22, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

Li’l John: Lyrazel is right—We should feel sorry for the animal abusers.

Twisting my words to make them say what you want is a ludicrous pastime. Where did I say:feel sorry? Its easy to mock me but difficult for you to form any sort of opinion and post it, isnt it Li’l John? Can you at least TRY to string your two syllable words together to form a coherent sentence or have you just not reached that ability? Is your glib: I brake for all animals except Gators (and War Eagles)…There should be double penalties for cruelty to DOGS mean anything except you are aware of college sports teams? Go ahead what is your opinion on this topic?

By Eduardo Bernal

January 22, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this

CYTOMEL AND CYNOPLUS AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY. Welcome to the Pharmamx.com Family! We invite you to visit us at www.pharmamx.com and find our great medicine prices. We provide serious and first class service to all our customers 24/7. If we don’t carry a medicine you need just let us know and we will be more than glad to assist you! To show you our gratitude for past purchases and to offer you one more reason to continue purchasing with Pharmamx.com We are offering a limited time 30% discount include on all our medicines. We will keep on giving you the best price and service in the market. Welcome and enjoy your visit to www.pharmamx.com

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, My opinion is that animals are creatures of God, just like we are, so that we have an obligation to treat them with respect. Sort of an extension of the Biblical “What you do to the least of me…..” How this translates into specific laws is a matter of debate, of course.

My attack on your position is based on the fact that you believe that the purpose if legal punishment is somehow to “cure” the offender. Pure Lib drivel. The purpose of punishment is to protect society from further harm.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

As to Diane’s example of whether a specific animal’s life is worth more than that of a specific, perversely cruel and evil human’s… I’m not seeing the problem, frankly.

really, brian? i’m somewhat surprised at your response. if you and diane are right, then why does society so often treat its worst criminals better than it does completely innocent animals?

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

and who, chuck, determines the value of an animal?

is the dog worth what somebody would pay for it from a shelter? what the owner paid for it originally? is it depreciated over time based on the average life expectancy of the breed? or does it go up in value over time based on the joint memories and emotions that a dog/pet brings to our lives?

IMO diane is plenty wrong when she hints that an animal’s life may be just as valuable as a human life. but IMO you’re just as wrong to indicate that an animal’s life can and should be expressed solely in an economic value, and that’s how we should determine the extent of the “crime”.

certainly there is plenty of room for reasonable middle ground here.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

Plus BC, I said at worst

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:02 PM | Link to this

So chuck, are you a man of God, or not?

By chuck

January 22, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Essentially BC, this statement is correct:

If chuck really considers animals no more than “property,” then it follows he’d be perfectly okay with someone buying a kitten and torturing it to death. Only the owner’s personal property is affected, so therefore no crime has occured…

While I think that doing that is offensive and disgusting and would not want to associate with anyone who would do that, I don’t think that a crime would be committed in that situation.

As I stated earlier, a case like the one you outlined should not be a felony. In my personal opinion it should not be prosecuted at all, however, if society felt the need to punish such behavior it should at worst be a misdemeanor.

One final side to this argument, IF we could be assured that such a law would NEVER turn into a ban on medical research, a ban on hunting, a forced vegan society, etc. I personally would like to see them punished in some meaningful way. Again, the revulsion with the act is there, but so is the fear of expansion.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

What in the world are you talking about Brudog?

By Mara

January 22, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

chuck - as for murdering abortion doctors or treating pregnant girls with anything other than love and respect THAT is NOT BIBLICAL

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9410/defensive.html

“We, the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all godly action necessary to defend innocent human life including the use of force. We proclaim that whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child. We assert that if Michael Griffin did in fact kill David Gunn, his use of lethal force was justifiable provided it was carried out for the purpose of defending the lives of unborn children. Therefore, he ought to be acquitted of the charges against him.”

Check out how many of “The undersigned” are affiliated with religious and/or right-wing organizations. And this doesn’t even include groups like “Operation Rescue” and “The Army of God”.

Personally, I think we should bring back public floggings for anyone who abuses the weak and helpless, be that victim a helpless child, elder, physically or mentally impaired person or a dumb, helpless animal. Well, maybe not flogging, but I certainly see no problem in making abuse of any creature a felony.

By Joe L

January 22, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

“The purpose of punishment is to protect society from further harm.”

Yes but punishment doesn’t work. Gobs and gobs or scientific research has proved this. Punishment merely teach avoidance of being caught, not avoidance of the behavior in the first place. Our penal system should have a two-fold effect, the first and most important being to reduce crime. Right now it fails completely in that regard because we make no effort to reform the criminal, we merely make them worse. Second is too remove those criminals who are too dangerous to participate in society from society.

Punishment has no effect on either of these things. Punishment is the knee-jerk emotional reactionary position of the unelightened and short-sighted.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

And to go a little deeper for you, Lyrazel, I will answer the question that I posed last week, for which no one had an answer for: Where does morality itself come from? Is it something that is man-made, and thus can be voted on? A lot of Libs come to this conclusion due to the fact that specific moral judgments often change over time.

The only logical, sensible answer, of course, is that morality comes from God. What is God? My definition is the totality of all real things. Does this God have a particular nature? Absolutely! Is God knowable, in the totality? Of course not, we are only a piece of the picture ourselves. However, as many religious groups believe, God is knowable through revelation, which is a fancy word for inductive thinking .

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

I always wanted my ex with the Brownie Troop to take the troop for an educational visit to the local slaughterhouse, so they would know where their hamburgers came from, but for some reason, she frowned upon that idea. LOL

By Joe L

January 22, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

By your argument Chuck, we should get rid off laws against murder because it could lead to a completely pacifistic society in which no killing is justified whether in self-defense and we have no military. Seriously, extreme slippery slope arguments like this are just out-of-control ramblings.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Of course, “scientists” like BC have a problem with inductive thinking (i.e. revelation, synthetic thinking) because it is not “provable” using deductive reasoning. However, a little thought and research shows that all truth comes from inductive thinking, not deductive reasoning.

By Joe L

January 22, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

No morality comes from reason. Reason is not based on culture or mythology. Morality comes from the clear understanding that a mind can reach without needing a non-existent explanation or justification.

The totality of all REAL things is the universe. It’s matter. That’s not god my friend, that’s physics.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

Joe L—You further prove your idiocy every time you post. “Reforming” criminals has been tried and tried again. That’s what doesn’t work, Joe, and that’s why I don’t want too much of my tax dollars going for such nonsense.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

little joe…SHUT UP! You are ignorant, pathetic and weak. You could have used a little punishment yourself. Make a man out of you maybe.

By Mara

January 22, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

bla - then why does society so often treat its worst criminals better than it does completely innocent animals?

perhaps because many in society agree with the premise that a human is always more important than an animal? Perhaps because to many in society, animals are “property” and not individual beings with feelings of their own? After all, “property” doesn’t have feelings. It’s a commodity with no value other than what someone is willing to give you for it…

You can’t beat your neighbor, but as long as the dog is your dog…

By The72John

January 22, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

The trepidation I have with making the “cruelty” itself a felony lies in the exponential expansion of those rights over time…the slippery slope argument

As an educator, chuck, certainly you are aware that “the slippery slope argument” is actually the slippery slope fallacy. It’s an example of bad reasoning, not good reasoning. That fallacy is perfectly summed up, by the way, in this gem: “IF we could be assured that such a law would NEVER turn into a ban on medical research, a ban on hunting, a forced vegan society..etc”

Most people in this country take a utilitarian and pragmatic stance when it comes to the use of animals in medical research or the conditions under which food animals are raised. I would say the vast majority, in fact. It is beyond credulity to believe that any legislation would ever be introduced that would accomplish any of your slippery-slope examples.

And your comment about “liberals” is as dishonest as your earlier dismissal of the actions of many abortion clinic protestors. Rather say that frings groups of all sorts are known for going overboard - that would be far closer to the truth.

By Joe L

January 22, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

Please no society has ever put a reasonable effort into reforming criminals, mainly because of people like you LIL’ John. People that create a self-fulfiling prophecy. Combined with the ignorant who have never read real science that shows that punishment is a flawed and failed system for changing behavior. We now know without a doubt that no real changes in behavior can occur from punishment and we are merely dooming our society to a revolving door policy that spirals downward.

The only nonsense is the idiocy of sending people into a system that returns them to society worse than when they left. That is the sort of system geniuses like you pat yourself on the back for. Why has crime never ceased to be large problem for society when a true reformist system has never been attempted?

By Joe L

January 22, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

And chuck proves yet again what a sham of a Christian and waste of human space he is.

By Archie

January 22, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

I agree with you most times Joe L but I disagree with your statement that punishment does not protect society from harm because I think it does and you can find some research to prove it. I know that locking up a person for driving drunk can prevent that specific person from harming someone. I don’t know how the research was done that indicated punishment doesn’t work,I mean it does what it does. You need both punishment and forgiveness without a doubt to keep society civilized. I know that locking up a person for not having his/her insurance cards will cause that person to think about having their business affairs in order as far as driving thereby taking the entire process of driving on the highway,roads,etc more seriously thereby preventing harm to society. Now people do make mistakes and people will commit wrong but there are no absolutes implied that each and every single time punishment will prevent harm to society, however, we have to have punishment for wrongdoing.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

Joe—Get a basic education in philosophy, will you? And History. When you base your Morality on Reason alone, then all conclusions reached have equal merit, as long as they pass the test of sterile Logic. Thinking this way leads to folks like Hitler, who utilized excellent Logic in Mein Kampf.

Defining God in terms of Physics is the only way that makes sense. Your insistence that God is a supernatural being reveals tremendous lack of imagination on your part.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

So tell me how you are going to “reform” criminals, Joe? Years of counseling? Puh-leeze. Any good parent here knows the value of punishment, including corporal punishment. Although I don’t have any kids myself, I had to put up with them in my office for 20+ years. The difference between a well-disciplined child and one who never received any punishment for wrong-doing was incredible.

By lozen

January 22, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

What is the big deal about which is more important, animal or human? It depends. My dog is far more important to me than most humans. I think scientific research is very important, but the same painful experiments are done over and over and over.

“If you crossed man with the cat, it would benefit man but lower the cat.” Mark Twain

By chuck

January 22, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

The Hunting Act 2004 is an Act in the United Kingdom passed in 2004. The effect of the Act is to outlaw hunting with dogs (particularly fox hunting, but also the hunting of deer, hares and mink and organised hare coursing) in England and Wales from February 18, 2005.

Laws to ban hunting have been proposed in Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana and other states.

BRAZZAVILLE, 28 Oct 2005 (IRIN) - A blanket ban on hunting in the Republic of Congo has made life even more difficult for the Baka community, an indigenous hunter-gatherer group living in the rain forests near the timber-concession areas in the north of the country.

The League Against Cruel Sports Working Towards a Ban on Hunting 1992: The League’s frontline monitoring of hunts continued to prove effective, with the filming of the Quantock Staghounds chasing a pregnant hind over the edge of a quarry. Labour MP Kevin McNamara proposed a Private Member’s Bill making hunting with dogs illegal.

1993: The League’s County Council campaign saw more than 150 local authorities vote to ban hunting from their land. Labour MP and animal welfare campaigner Tony Banks asked Parliament to pass the Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill.

1994: League investigators recorded the Devon and Somerset Staghounds attempting to drown a stag, which they had shot but only wounded. This resulted in a five-week ban on the hunt.

1995: Labour MP John McFall proposed a Private Member’s Bill banning hunting with hounds. Tony Blair announced a commitment to a free vote on the issue of hunting with dogs, with government time provided if Labour was elected. The Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill passed the second reading stage, before being defeated in the House of Lords.

1996: The League-sponsored Wild Mammals (Protection) Act was passed, finally achieving basic protection for all wild mammals, although hunting remained legitimate. Also in 1996 the League joined forces with the RSPCA and IFAW to form a coalition, the CPHA (Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals).

1997: In May, the Labour Party swept to power with the manifesto promise that: “We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare - including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned.”

The Forestry Commission banned deer hunting on its land and the National Trust did the same following a two-year independent scientific research study. On June 18 Michael Foster, MP for Worcester, introduced a Private Member’s Bill to outlaw all hunting with dogs. On July 29, the New Forest Buckhounds announced they were disbanding and on November 28, MPs gave a massive endorsement to the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill at its second reading. The historic vote was 411 in favour to 151 against.

1998: The Government confirmed it was actively looking at ways to introduce a ban on hunting with dogs. Michael Foster’s Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill completed its Committee Stage, becoming the first anti-hunt bill to advance this far through the House of Commons, but it was blocked by pro-hunt MPs. Nevertheless, the level of support for the proposed legislation left Parliament in no doubt that hunting with dogs was a hugely unpopular activity. It prompted the first Countryside March through London.

1999: July 8: Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans to make fox hunting illegal, before the next general election if possible.

In July Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament, Mike Watson MSP, announced his Private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

In November, the Home Secretary announced the Government’s commitment to back a bill to outlaw hunting with dogs. Jack Straw MP confirmed that the Government would make time for such a bill and that work would begin following an inquiry to be completed in spring 2000. Mr Straw made it clear the inquiry was not to decide whether hunting was right or wrong (which was a matter for Parliament) but for the purpose of “facilitating the House of Commons to come to a conclusion about the matter”. The League welcomed this long-awaited announcement.

2000: Mike Watson MSP introduced his bill to ban hunting in Scotland into the Scottish Parliament. The Government inquiry into hunting (the Burns Inquiry) was published. The information contained in the report gave support to the anti-hunt lobby, accepting that foxes do not die immediately as claimed by the hunting fraternity. A Government Bill to decide the fate of hunting was introduced. This was an “options” bill that gave MPs the opportunity to decide between a total hunt ban, self-regulation for hunts (i.e. the status quo) or the introduction of licensing by a separate body - the so-called “Middle Way”.

2001: MPs debated the “options” Bill and voted by 2:1 for the total ban. However, the Bill effectively fell when the House of Lords voted for the self-regulation of hunting.

When the general election was called, Labour’s manifesto said: “The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban fox hunting. The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved.”

Foot and mouth disease meant that hunting had to be suspended for a year.

In June, after Labour was re-elected, the Queen’s Speech pledged that there would be another opportunity for MPs to have a free vote on the hunting issue.

On September 19, the Scottish Parliament voted by 84 to 34 in favour of the principles of Mike Watson MSP’s bill: i.e. to ban mounted hunting, hare coursing and fox baiting. It then went into the hostile Rural Development Committee, where a number of damaging amendments were made.

The League campaigned for these to be reversed when the bill returned to the Scottish Parliament. In December hunting resumed again after nine months’ suspension due to foot and mouth, and the cruelty and havoc of the hunt were immediately obvious once again.

The point is these things are ALREADY happening, john

The slippery slope is no fallacy, it is reality. Where do you think the idiom came from that says “Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile”?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

chuck—I don’t object to legitimate hunting for food, done with respect, by folks like Ted Nugent. “Sport hunting” is a crime against God, and should therefore be a human crime as well.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

…punishment is a flawed and failed system for changing behavior…

joe - could you please expand on this a little more? i don’t see what you’re getting at, especially when i see lots of evidence that punishment does change behavior. a perfect example of this that’s on point with today’s topic: my dog stopped crapping in my house because he got tired of the punishment that was associated with it. he didn’t like the punishment, so he changed his behavior. some might call it training. i guess i need to understand better what you mean by “punishment”. thanks.

By chuck

January 22, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, “If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we’ll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.” This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don’t like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued for legalizing marijuana by saying, “individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies,” the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of other drugs — so if we don’t support legalizing other drugs, then maybe we don’t really believe in that principle.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Slippery%20slope

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

Um…chuck…the British Fox hunting/general coursing ban is a long-running and contentious issue in that country that largely stems from the concern that fox hunting exists only for the purpose of killing for nothing more than sport. It’s a rather brutal and cruel sport where the dogs generally rip the fox to pieces. There is considerable public outrage towards the sport that may or may not have something to do with the fact that fox hunting is a sport of the aristocracy and England has this long standing class issue to deal with.

And…yet again…Britain.

Let me know when you find someone in this country introducing legislation that would keep deer and duck hunters from doing their thing, OK?

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

BBB: i’m somewhat surprised at your response. if you and diane are right, then why does society so often treat its worst criminals better than it does completely innocent animals?

Because the average set of values society operates on don’t always line up with my personal beliefs and values, of course. No surprise there; that’s what you get in a democracy.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

mara - i certainly hope that chuck’s position on “animals as property” is a minority one. however, let me turn it around on you for a second:

perhaps because many in society agree with the premise that a human is always more important than an animal

where or when is that premise invalid? do you have any non-extreme examples where human life is not more valuable/ important than animal life?

By Monica

January 22, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

Check out how many of “The undersigned” are affiliated with religious and/or right-wing organizations. And this doesn’t even include groups like “Operation Rescue” and “The Army of God”.

Mara, just because a majority of people who signed that petition associate themselves with a religious organization does NOY mean that all Christians uphold that same philosophy. In essence, that argument is the same as the one you condemned Shaunti for making (all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim).

Please don’t think that all Christians are whacko because of the actions of what really is a minority of Christians.

I do agree with your public flogging suggestion. While 90 years in prison seems a bit excessive to me, letting the punishment fit the crime seems more appropriate.

Interesting discussion about the purpose of prison time for criminals: is prison for punishment or rehabilitation? Or is it for keeping dangerous people out of society? Or both?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this

Wow—BC actually admits to having values now. I thought it was all about logic with you. You’re making progress.

So, now that you’ve admitted to having feelings and opinions, BC, upon what do you base them?

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

BBB: Since the label “more valuable” is always one of personal opinion, there are obviously thousands of cases where that premise doesn’t hold true—in the opinions of those who disagree with it.

What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that a value-based opinion like “humans are always more valuable than animals” is somehow an absolute truth, rather than a principle?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

72J—The world must really be ending now that we’ve agreed on a topic.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

Anybody seen THE QUEEN? She has a close encounter with a stag in Scotland, that Diana’s sons and her husband(Philip) are gunning for, a 14-pointer. When it is shot, she pays a visit to see it hanging up, at the same time she is not publicly acknowledging Diana’s death.

By Monica

January 22, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Also, please don’t think all Christians are whacko because I can’t type the word “not!” :)

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

Monica—I have extensive experience with criminals having grown up in a really bad area. The only “rehab” I’ve seen work is when the person finally grows up and begins to recognize the rights of others. True sociopaths never reach that point, no matter how many years of counseling they go through. All of the folks I know who changed did so because they hit rock bottom and didn’t want to be there any more. It had nothing to do with counseling.

P.S. The public flogging was my idea, so thanks. My second choice for punishment would be to have to read Beowulf.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

of course, brian. :) that’s not the part i find surprising. i guess i have the same question for you that i just posed to mara, when does society’s “premise” that human life is always more valuable (to the extent such a premise exists) break down or fail to hold water, in your opinion?

i guess you’ve already answered it by saying you don’t have an issue in agreeing with diane that the dog’s life is more valuable than a bad human’s. aligning yourself with diane, who in my opinion (when considering her entire column) has a fringe position on this issue, is what i find surprising.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

Chilao, maybe I should have given you a year’s pass to the movie theater for your cyber-Christmas gift in light of how many movies you watch. Of course, the Ram figurine may have been the perfect gift for an Aries, eh?

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

blablabla—In my career, I worked with many lonely people whose pet was their reason for living, their only friend. To that person, their pet is at least as valuable as their human friends. If we are basing morality on opinion, you may be surprised to find out how many people feel this way.

The only morally consistent position is to say that all Life is valuable, and to go from there.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

Chilao, to me that scene seemed to mark a turning point for her. I didn’t get the impression that it was meant to offer contrast between her feelings for a dead stag and for a dead human, but that it softened her somewhat. I also felt she saw paralells between herself and the stag, both of them being somewhat regal and getting on in years. Seeing the mortality of the stag made her confront not only her own physical mortality but the tenuous threads by which her legacy to the nation currently hung.

Great movie - thought I would absolutely hate it when my folks asked me to see it with them - I mean, what I knew about the plot did not excite me - but wow, it was excellent.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

Of course, the Ram figurine may have been the perfect gift for an Aries, eh?

I suppose it would be, FOR AN ARIES! LOL

Back to Diane’s comment about choosing the dog. When do we decide that a HUMAN’S interaction with another species causes their forfeiting living in a civilized society, since baking a puppy ALIVE does not seem to meet that criteria, with some….

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

Bla, again - in my case, as I can’t speak for anyone else - it’s not that I agree with Diane that the dog’s life is more valuable than the humans, it’s that I believe that the motivations to torture that would drive someone to brutalize an animal are almost certainly not limited to animals.

I don’t expect that a 16-year-old who secretly puts his cigarettes out on stray cats eyeballs or who guts a stray dog just to watch it die also helps old ladies across the street and happily does his chores. It’s likely - extremely likely if all those episodes of Law and Order and The Closer haven’t been lying to us - that such behavior is generally gateway behavior that will escalate to more and more severe behaviors. It is in society’s best interests to be able to reasonably identify such behavior when it starts.

I also think we’re having a problem identifying degree here. Obviously, a 90 year sentence is extreme, and wouldn’t be warranted in a case of, say, a grumpy neighbor shooting a dog that wandered into his yard. Maybe a 90-year-sentence of any sort would be extreme, but in some cases, maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s just what the doctor ordered. Socieopathic behavior seems to present pretty early on, and it doesn’t go away.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

brian - since we’re talking about how society chooses to punish animal cruelty offenders, and in some cases comparing that with how society punishes human cruelty offenders, i was asking for an example of where society views animal life to be worth more than human life. or better yet, an example of where you believe society SHOULD view animal life as being worth more than a human life.

clearly there are instances of relative importance where animal life may be greater than human life (eirik’s example of his dog and dobson come to mind to illustrate relative importance) - but that’s not what i’m talking about. i’m after a more abstract view of things, on par with diane saying she’d rather have the hypothetical dog rather than the hypothetical bad guy. that’s what i was getting at.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

kimberly will be excited to know that I did some further research, and found out that Virgo and Gemini actually can get along. Linda Goodman uses an analogy of the Wizard of Oz to explain. Gemini is the Wizard, who can create magic out of thin air (think of kim’s Girl Scout cookie diatribe). Virgo is the Tin Man, who even though he doubts his own heart, actually has the biggest heart of all.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

72John - Thanks, I have been trying to find what that scene might have meant and only added the part I did, since that was all that I could understand about it. the contrasts and it being what MAY have made her have an about-face about it. she explained that latter (her view about deaths) to Blair.

I did not think I would like it, but since I love Helen Mirren, had to see it, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

72J—I’m getting scared, we agree so strongly on this topic.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

blablabla—In my career, I worked with many lonely people whose pet was their reason for living, their only friend. To that person, their pet is at least as valuable as their human friends. If we are basing morality on opinion, you may be surprised to find out how many people feel this way.

sure lil john. obviously how you view your pet is going to differ (probably greatly) from how society views your pet. i’m willing to bet a pretty hefty wager that i value my dog’s life more than anybody else on the blog. however, since we’ve been discussing how society views and punishes crimes against animals, using everyone’s different relative values for a pet’s life doesn’t really work. we have to take a more abstract position.

that, of course, is what i’m attempting to discuss, and trying to get out of people. i’m quite uncomfortable with diane’s position - i’m curious as to what other’s think.

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

BBB, and 72John: Actually, I take issue with the argument that animal abuse should be viewed as bad because of its likelihood to lead to anti-human acts.

I consider animal cruelty to be inherently evil all by itself, regardless of any possible consequences that might affect humans further down the road. Arguing, as some do, that animal cruelty is to be discouraged “because it might lead to something really bad, like hurting a PERSON” in my view, cheapens the value of the animal’s life already.

Of course, I repeat, my values are like anyone else’s—mere personal opinion.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

Help me out with a movie question, Chilao. In “Hot Dog, The Movie”, was the Chinese downhill competition at the end symbolic of the underlying tension between America and Europe?

Was the woman lawyer acting unethically in “DodgeBall: An Underdog Story” when she assisted the underdog team?

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Chilao, I also thought it telling that after Phillip, William and Harry spent so much time hunting the stag, that it was someone else on another estate who finally brought it down, and that the “someone else” was a wealthy non-aristocrat.

The hunter (representing the anti-monarchy sentiment of many of Blair’s laborites) managed to do what the monarch’s husband was able to do.

Am I thinking too much about this movie or what? Maybe I need to go see it again.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

My final word on this topic: Pity the fool who harms a bunny rabbit.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

it’s that I believe that the motivations to torture that would drive someone to brutalize an animal are almost certainly not limited to animals

72john - on this part we certainly don’t disagree.

I also think we’re having a problem identifying degree here.

again, i agree. i have a hard time signing up for a 90 year prison sentence for these two teens, but as i’ve said, i’m in favor of enacting pretty harsh penalties against this kind of behavior. i’ve already said i believe certain acts of animal cruelty should be treated as felonious, but my concern is that by meting punishment that is too similar or equivalent to punishment given for sadistic acts against humans, we are not preserving the abstract difference in life between humans and animals.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

Haven’t seen either one.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Keep working at it, BC. One day you’ll put the Science and the Morality together.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

I consider animal cruelty to be inherently evil all by itself, regardless of any possible consequences that might affect humans further down the road. Arguing, as some do, that animal cruelty is to be discouraged “because it might lead to something really bad, like hurting a PERSON” in my view, cheapens the value of the animal’s life already.

Brian - and I don’t necessarily disagree. However, I understand the hesitance of some to weigh the life of a human equally with that of a dog. My personal feelings about deliberate cruelty to animals notwithstanding, it’s the societal concerns that I feel jusitfy the very stiff sentences.

Personally I find wilful cruelty to animals to be abhorent.

By The72John

January 22, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

should be “what the monarch’s husband was UNable to do”.

By Li'l John

January 22, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

You need to raise your movie-going standards, Chilao. You’re missing out on all the good ones watching that boring crap like The Queen. Who wants to see her t**?

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this

And now that I have researched both movies, certainly glad I did not waste two hours TIME on either one. LOL

since I would have considered $1 at a second-run cinema for Hotdog a waste of money as well.

By Chilao

January 22, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

72John - yeah, you might be, thinking too much. But then I miss most symbolism in movies, so….that is why I was trying to research what the stag(with QEII) meant anyway. That whole commercial guest/hunter a whole different excercise.

By blablabla

January 22, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Actually, I take issue with the argument that animal abuse should be viewed as bad because of its likelihood to lead to anti-human acts.

brian, i don’t think that’s what either 72john or i are saying. as far as i’m concerned animal cruelty in itself is awful - on that we totally agree. and i don’t believe that animal abuse should viewed as bad SIMPLY because of the likelihood that it leads to anti-human acts. but i think that 72 has a point that it can or often does lead to anti-human acts. we as a society are smart to nip it in the bud when these vile tendencies are exhibited towards animals. as i’ve said, i believe firmly there should be harsh punishment.

By NetBanker

January 22, 2007 05:35 PM | Link to this

The “screaming and shouting” thing is a free speech issue. I would hope that the screaming and shouting would not be hateful, but just encouraging the girl to change her mind. ROFLMAO!! Chuck…I’m guessing you’ve never seen these types of protestors. Te ‘screaming and shouting’ types I’ve ever encountered at gay rights marches or the ones I’ve seen on TV in front of abortion clinics have never loudly encouraged anything except dying and the fact the the shoutee is going to hell.

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 07:28 AM | Link to this

BBB: I know neither you nor John were making that argument, but I’ve heard it often, as though the animal abuse itself would be “no biggie” if it didn’t lead to violence against humans. Thankfully, no one here has been dumb enough to make that argument.

By Katie

January 23, 2007 07:56 AM | Link to this

There isn’t a punishment great enough for animal cruelty. People think animals are second class citizens, well, you know what, we’re animals too—what does that say about us? Kick a dog and some of us would be willing to shoot you. I know I can easily see a person injured but it kills me to see an injured animal or one that’s been abused. Animals are like our children, they don’t ask to be brought into our homes. Once we take on responsiblity in caring for them it is up to us to make sure they’re healthy and happy. These kids who abuse animals should be jailed for 5-10 years or have the same thing done to them that they did to the animal. And, by the way, I support medical research. If you don’t, deny all medical care. My opinions are for the public and ignorant ones who take in animals as pets then abuse them.

By EW

January 23, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Saunti the slippery slope begins when we allow children to torture animals for the fun of it and as that fun weakens the kids move on to bigger targets, people. The people are usually women. Anyone who can take pleasure out of baking a puppy alive deserves no less than the same fate, put those two punks in an oven and cook them alive. Do you really think they’ll go on to do anything good or productive for society? These two brothers will be a burden to society and a drain on my wallet and my taxes until the day they die. Hopefully they will end up in prison and on a steel gurney with a toe tag soon. I have no problem with 90 years for them, if they are freel, they’ll end up killing someone, they are beyond help.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 09:01 AM | Link to this

Here’s ONE john:

In January of 2005, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest animal rights organization merged with the Fund for Animals, the most radical anti-hunting organization. The newly formed Humane Society of the United States – Fund for Animals listed the elimination of dove hunting in Michigan as its top priority.

AND ANOTHER

Humane Society generated referendum in Maine failed by just 4% to ban bear hunting and trapping.

FARGO, N.D. - More than a month before North Dakota’s legislature starts, landowners and wildlife advocates already are locking horns over a proposal to ban private hunting preserves, known as high-fence game farms.

State Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said he plans to bring a bill to the 2007 session that would prohibit landowners from operating businesses that allow hunters to shoot elk and deer inside a fenced area.

PETA Asks State Park Officials to Ban Fishing in State Parks

Just a few. Do a search and you will find many other attempts to ban hunting.

By Animals Have Rights

January 23, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this

Animals have rights and rely on humans for their decent care and treatment. The way society treats animals reflects how they will treat people. Abusing animals should be a felony and offenders should receive stiff sentences - but not life sentences. Some kind of counseling should be given with the sentence so that bullies can understand that picking on something smaller and more helpless that relies on humans for their treatment is not acceptable.

By SysAdmin

January 23, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this

I present to you this site: carisoprodol [url=http://ecarisoprodol.org][/url] http://ecarisoprodol.org

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

I don’t think hunting should be outlawed. There may come a time when the economy collapses and those cute little bunnies in my yard might be the only thing I can find for dinner. But it should be regulated with the “big picture” in mind, to protect both animals and the environment. Most of us are omnivores, and will continue to utilize God’s creatures for food. Let’s do it as humanely as possible.

As to the objections to the objections to torturing animals, the ranks of the fundies are teeming with sadists. Their history and daily rantings demonstrate this fully. Sadists get quite testy when you threaten to regulate away their favorite hobby.

By Wait a minute

January 23, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

I personally value my dog’s life over a human. I have commited to caring for my dog, a commitment I take seriously! Unlike a child my dog will grow older but never be able to move out on it’s own. I value human life, but with conditions. I value my dogs life unconditionaly. My dog gives unconditional love. Most humans only give conditional love, I admit I do. Anyone, including these teenagers, who intentionally cause harm to another being (human or animal) needs sever punishment. Those teenagers knew what they were doing. They were fulfilling some warped and twisted fantasy. The brutality of the crime is past counseling or rehabilitation. The punishment needs to be severe.

By InTownGal

January 23, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

Some people on here really scare the hell outta me. Does it really matter if the crime is a felony? Cruelty is cruelty especially to something/someone who cannot defend themselves people. The argument shouldn’t be whether or not an animal = human. Should we have the ability to punish someone more severely if society needs to? Whether it be an animal or a person they attacked? If you feel differently, how’s this…Would you want the Moulder brothers to be in the same classroom as your child? Consider this quote: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Mahatma Gandhi Oh, and abortion was NOT the topic here.

By Lori

January 23, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Animal cruelty can be an indicator crime. Many people who torture animals go on later to commite brutal crimes against people. Think about it, if a person could be so cruel to something as pure and innocent as a puppy, what could that person do to another person who ticks them off. Maybe we should remove these people from society before they do any real damage.

By lovelyliz

January 23, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Too bad the punishment can’t fit the crime. We are a bit too civilize to sentence someone who beats and animal to receive that same beating or one who leaves an animal on a chained in bad weather with no food and water to spend days shackled up to live under similar circumstances.

We don’t do this, but we should never lose sight of the correlation between abusing animals and abusing fellow humans.

By J

January 23, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

I don’t want to get into a running argument, so I’ll be brief: 1) I’m sick of conservative moral relativism. A crime is a crime, especially one that involves cruelty and torture on another conscious, sentient being, regardless of the “worth” or “value” we assign to that being. Either be consistent or shut up. (This applies to torturing humans, too.) 2) I’ve worked with animals in a shelter setting for many years, and I’ve forgotten more about animal cruelty than most people will ever see. Compared to a human and how we can apply our brainpower, a dog (or cat) is weak, dumb, and defenseless. Harsh punishment is the ONLY appropriate measure for those who would torture, maim and kill a (relatively) helpless animal. 3) I realize the question was posited with the intention of getting two different answers, but seeing Shaunti contort logic to get a coherent response is just painful. But, that’s par for the course in “Woman to Woman”. Ultimately, this column is a) useless, and b) stupid. AJC editors, please stop trying to manufacture a “debate”. It insults my intelligence.

By Eirik

January 23, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

I’ll come out and say it…I don’t hold that every human life is automatically more valuable than the life of a non-human.

I just read about a cat that saved it’s owner from a fire. Contrast that with one of the Columbine murderers…which creature has shown more value to society?

Can someone explain why human life is more valuable than the rest of the inhabitants of this planet…(without quoting the bible please).

By The72John

January 23, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Chuck, if you’d done a little more digging you would have discovered that the dove hunting issue in Michigan was the result of sport hunters trying to get a 99-year-old existing ban lifted. When it was lifted, public outcry caused the issue to be turned into a ballot referendum where it was soundly defeated by the voters.

What you seem to be having a hard time with, chuck, is separating SPORT hunting from actual hunting. Fox hunting and dove hunting are about one thing - killing something. No food is saved, no populations are controlled. Penning animals in a fence and letting some chicken-s** “hunter” take pot-shots at them? Exactly the same.

When you make outrageous claims like “they’ll ban hunting!” you obviously give the impression that it’s traditional hunting that’s under threat. So far you have failed to produce anything that poses a credible threat to the practice of hunting, and produced SEVERAL examples of cruel practices that have been rejected by the general public.

Good job!

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this

Eirik: I quite agree. Plenty of animals’ lives are clearly worth more (in my eyes) than the lives of a looooong list of humans I could name.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

John,

I agree on the fox hunting issue - it is purely a sport and probably should be banned. But every hunter I know cleans and eats the doves they kill. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be hunting.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

What about the manly hunter types who do canned big-cat hunts?

Cat(lion, tiger, leopard, cougar) raised in captivity, has the door to his box opened and he is allowed to leave in the fenced-in game farms.

Big manly hunter gets to get a cat, wow, what a stud with the little wee-wee and a big gun. SNORT.

Now I actually have nothing against actual HUNTING, deer, elk, etc, but the canned-hunt things are for (well, that thing women have and us guys don’t but straight ones want…LOL)

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

And I don’t think animal cruelty should be a felony simply because the person might grow up to be cruel to a human, I think it should be a felony for cruelty to the animal.

I was actually raised with that Sixth Commandment meaning what it says Thou Shalt not Kill, however being the healthy pagan that I am, I eat meat(sometimes) and if you messed with one of my animals, I would probably have no problem ignoring that commandment. LOL

But just got some humour in the mail: Save a whale; collect the whole set

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Good one, Chilao!

By Scalia

January 23, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Diane is right. Jeffrey Dahmer started the same way. He tortured and killed animals. So if the boys saw what happened to the puppy after painting it, and cooking it, why would they not keep moving on? It is just like a robber getting away the first time. Why would he not try it again?

By chuck

January 23, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

I guess only YOUR examples for YOUR opinions are valid john.

Answer ONE QUESTION for me john: if there is no organized attack on “regular” hunting, why pray tell, did the Georgia legislature pass a constitutional amendment to protect it as a RIGHT?

Currently there are over 20 states considering similar legislation. What’s that about john? If there was no attack on the sport of hunting why would we need these kinds of laws? The answer is that the animal rights wackos are out in force screaming for an end to it. AND, their ranks are growing. Look at the loonies who have posted today if you have any doubts about this.

By My Furry Children

January 23, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

My dog vs anyone else on the planet except a CLOSE family member drowing in a frozen lake..I am saving my dog. I have no legal duty to assist anyone else. I love my dogs. They are my children. Get over it. No, there is no law barring that scenerio as I have no legal duty to assist anyone else.

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Chuck, if their ranks really ARE growing, you may have to reconsider your terminology. Once the majority of the country adopts an attitude—say, opposition to the Iraq war—they are no longer “fringe wackos,” and it’s not reasonable to try to label them as such.

Similarly, not all opponents to animal-cruelty laws are “animal rights nuts,” nor are all environmentalists “tree-huggers.” It’s like trying to label all Bush’s enemies “leftists.” It just doesn’t work.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Here is an interesting study that I found:

http://www.numag.neu.edu/9709/FTheF997.html

The basic generalization from the study was that animal abuse does not have a causal relationship to later human abuse or other violent crimes. Rather animal abuse is more symptomatic in that people who abuse animals are more likely to commit ALL SORTS of crime and that many times these other crimes are committed PRIOR to animal abuse.

In other words. People who commit animal abuse are sociopathic. They commit all kinds of crimes of opportunity whether it is shoplifting, burglary, rape OR animal abuse. It is not an if/then situation but a propensity toward all kinds of criminal activity.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Because Scalia, PEOPLE have the ability to learn and grow as human beings. Doesn’t always happen, but it can.

By Monica

January 23, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

If you have time, you need to find a copy of “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell. It is a short story that you probably read in high school. I can’t find the actual story on the Internet, but there are several summaries. Quite an interesting story! I think Ice T was in a movie that was based on this plot as well.

By Joe L

January 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

“Answer ONE QUESTION for me john: if there is no organized attack on “regular” hunting, why pray tell, did the Georgia legislature pass a constitutional amendment to protect it as a RIGHT?”

Because they are a bunch of reactionary yahoos who yet again are creating non-issues that keep the people that are in actuality hurt by Republican issues and policies from seeing the big picture by scaring them with emotional issues.

Again the fringes on both ends only serve to strengthen their polar opposites while most of the reasonable moderate people in the middle just laugh at both sides and know that we will never swing to either sides extremes.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

it is not an if/then situation but a propensity toward all kinds of criminal activity.

all the more reason to take animal abusers out of society. Thanks, Chuck. LOL

By chuck

January 23, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Here is a copy of that short story online Monica:

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/danger.html

It is a great read, and you are right about the movie. I think Gary Busey was also in it.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

You could very well be right about that Chilao

By Sten19894

January 23, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

My life’s been basically bland today. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. My mind is like an empty room. I’ve more or less been doing nothing to speak of. Not much on my mind recently.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Yes, Monica, great story, the wackie redhead guy on SCRUBS played one of the hunters in the movie.

I especially liked the downtown ending with You’re on my turf, now from Ice-T.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

The movie was Surviving the Game in 1994.

Guy on foot with no weapons, against guys on ATV’s with rifles. sounds like a fair fight. LOL

By The72John

January 23, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

I guess only YOUR examples for YOUR opinions are valid john.

No, chuck…but yours don’t begin to support your assertion that hunting is threatened as an activity. You point to a state-wide referendum that overwhelmingly passed to maintain an existing 100-year-old ban on a particular activity, to a law that prohibits fish-in-a-barrel style shooting that any legitimate hunter would find offensive, and a British law that also has widespread popular support.

None of those points to some lunatic fringe attempting to ban hunting. In fact, they suggest that it is you and your “all animals are property of the State to do with as it sees fit” mentality which is out-of-touch with the mainstream.

Your examples would be like me suggesting that because a REAL “loony” - that Harry Potter banning fool-of-a-woman - wants to ban a particular book then she would also want to ban ALL books.

As to the amendment - does the word “reactionary” mean anything to you? It was in response, as best I can determine, to a state law (already a law in many counties, by the way) preventing the use of hunting dogs on plots under a certain acreage, due to the problems of dogs staying onto other people’s property.

Again, not the practice of hunting that was under “attack”, but a particular facet of it that often intruded on other people.

By the way, Chuck, the fox hunting law allows for dogs to be used to flush the fox in order for it to be shot. It just doesn’t allow for pack hunting for the purposes of tearing the fox apart. Darn those loonies.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Eirik you said Can someone explain why human life is more valuable than the rest of the inhabitants of this planet…(without quoting the bible please).

That’s easy. The only reason these animals have special value to us is because WE have domesticated them. In your example of the cat saving its owner from the fire - do you really believe a wild animal would have done such a thing? No, the cat did it because it has been domesticated and has formed a bond with its owner. Ultimately the cat didn’t save its owner; human training and genetic manipulation through breeding saved the owner. Therefore the human always has more value.

Animals in the wild are cold-blooded killers. One could argue that humans are as well, but let’s not kid ourselves - these animals are capable of far greater acts of violence on a daily basis than most humans.

Even domesticated animals are vicious. Speaking of cats, have you ever seen one toy with its prey? It is one of the most ruthless acts you will ever witness (I would dare say it is more cruel than what the boys in question did to the puppy). A cat will purposely catch and release its prey only to catch them again. It will play with an animal for its own amusement for extended periods of time before it finally makes the kill.

Domesticated dogs still have a pack mentality. My sister has two dogs. She recently told me a story about what her dogs did to a stray cat that came into the yard. The dogs circled the cat, fenced it into a corner, and then viciously attacked that cat and killed it through strangulation (or possibly a broken neck).

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

John C. McGinley is the guy on SCRUBS.

dontcha all just love dat der inanet. LOL

I shunned PCs and home PCs for YEARS, being on CRTs all day, then discovered Library at your Fingertips, got a home PC, and never looked back.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

cats actually “play” with their prey in order to weaken it, so that the prey does not cause physical harm to the cat.

NBC Today this past weekend had some segment where in NYC they had attached small cameras to cats, to show all their predator instincts. Guy had the gall to start the segment with “most people think of their cats as these nice little love-dovey animals”, well that MIGHT be true, but if you know cats, you can only look at them as major PREDATORS.

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

“When a man calls an animal vicious, he means it will defend itself when he tries to kill it.” —Rick McIntyre—

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

LOL @ BC,

that’s kinda like a single raccoon can cause SERIOUS harm to about 6 coon-dogs that have it cornered and might even survive, if the guy with the gun does not show up in time. At any rate, a few of the dogs might need to be put down.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Monica, I read “The Most Dangerous Game” in college. Was it part of the Norton Reader?

Chilao, now you tell me about Library at Your Fingertips after I spent about $10,000 at Amazon.com the last few years.

Kevin, Animals have intrinsic value, their value is not determined by humans. I’m surprised at you and chuck this week since you both represent yourselves as being men of God.

kimberly, your projection of every evil onto “fundies” is wearing thin.

By Eirik

January 23, 2007 01:16 PM | Link to this

Kevin,

I was really just kinda of asking a rhetorical question…but I realize that we value domestic animals for their utility, and many of us value them for their companionship and for what we perceive to be returned love.

But many people, myself included also value wildlife (and not just for venison stew). They give us a connection to a world that many people consider pure. And it is the rest of the animal kingdom that maintains the balance of nature, not humans.

But the point of this weeks debate seems to be whether the lives of animals should be considered as valuble as us(or to some lesser degree). Obviously we consider ourselves more valuable, we certainly don’t want to go extinct, but from the point of view of the total earth…are we the most valuable species?

If you were observing the planet from afar and analyzed the activities of various species would humans be seen as the most valuable species or the species that the planet should do without?

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Anyone get a load of Robert Redford at the Sundance Film Festival? One of the films this year features a 12 year old Dakota Fanning being raped onscreen, another is a documentary about men having sex with horses. Somehow Redford felt that this was the perfect backdrop to morally chastise Bush.

By MrRogers

January 23, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

Eirik—Let me simplify things for you a little. If “value” is something that people are free to determine through personal opinion or popularity polls, then we are in trouble. Such value systems are known as “existentialism”.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

Playing the “value” game is a favorite trick of the Libs, however. Consider “hate crimes”, for example, in which a criminal receives a greater penalty if he assaults someone of a different race.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

cats actually “play” with their prey in order to weaken it, so that the prey does not cause physical harm to the cat.

I know you are a cat lover Chilao - but it just ain’t so.

I am sure the stray cat that killed my pet rabbit I had when I was a kid “played” with him first out of fear of being bitten by the rabbit’s massive fangs.

Same goes for a cat trying to “weaken” a mouse.

BC - I will throw Rick McIntyre out in the woods with a wild boar (no gun, no knife, no weapon of any kind). Rick will learn a whole new definition of vicious as the boar chases him down uses its tusk to cut an artery in his leg so that he will bleed to death. Unfortunately it will be the last lesson he ever learns.

By Jack

January 23, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

Hi Monica. I think that movie was “Surviving the Game” Ice-T and Rudger Hauer.

MFC. I think there is a law on the books that says you need to either assist or summon help.

Hi Chilao & Dog.

Gotta go.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

Kevin, Animals have intrinsic value, their value is not determined by humans. I’m surprised at you and chuck this week since you both represent yourselves as being men of God.

Li’l John you are correct. Of course I would believe their value is determined by God, but this was a secular argument.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

A good story which touches upon this topic in a roundabout way is “Breakfast of Champions” by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The main character, Dwayne Hoover, begins to believe that he is the only sentient being on Earth, that everyone else was placed her simply to provide stimulus for him. In a strange way, this seems to be the attitude most of you here are taking toward animals.

By Brian Curtis

January 23, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Kevin: What does an animal’s killing power have to do with its “value”?

By InTownGal

January 23, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Kevin, this post is not to discuss animal vs. animal but the example in the column was humans (two thugs to be exact) placing a puppy in an oven, after roping its legs together, taping its mouth shut, dosing it with paint and baking it. Your statement, “(I would dare say it is more cruel than what the boys in question did to the puppy).” sickens me. If you believe that these two freaks don’t deserve severe punishment then you have a serious issue with yourself!!! Here is a quote you may have missed in my earlier post. “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Mahatma Gandhi

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:45 PM | Link to this

I don’t mean to pick at you Kevin, but do you have two different belief systems or one? To me, that is a result of embracing a dual reality in which two sets of Physics can operate, i.e “normal Physics” (secular), and “supernatural Physics” (God).

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 01:48 PM | Link to this

I am sure the stray cat that killed my pet rabbit I had when I was a kid “played” with him first out of fear of being bitten by the rabbit’s massive fangs.

well, I think rabbit fangs are similiar to rodent(mice and rats) fangs, so you probably have a point there, those teeth can be quite dangerous if they make the right bite connection. LOL. Put it this way, I would never consider sticking my finger in the mouth of rodents or rabbits. A baby horn-shark might be one thing, gloved, but…

Hi Jack.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this

Howdy, Jack. Glad you are able to log in now and again. The balance of power has tipped to the Loony Left since you left the board.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 01:56 PM | Link to this

I guess I’m the only old guy here who remembers when Jimmy Carter was scared by a rabbit while walking through the woods down near Plains when he was President. The newspapers had a good time with the “Attack Rabbit” stories for a while.

On a serious note, rabbits not only bite, but they can scratch hard with their hind legs. My male rabbit bit me once, and it left a scar.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

Kevin: What does an animal’s killing power have to do with its “value”?

None - I am not sure what you mean. If I have suggested that in my posts - that was not my intent. I was merely reponding to the quote you provided by Rick McIntyre (I don’t know this guy but I am sure he made the statement tongue in check. It has sort of a Mark Twain feel to it!).

By GOB

January 23, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

Answer ONE QUESTION for me john: if there is no organized attack on “regular” hunting, why pray tell, did the Georgia legislature pass a constitutional amendment to protect it as a RIGHT?

Because in large part, Georgia is still a backwater, redneck haven with a majority of those living here convinced that liberals are out to let all the criminals go, take away all their rights and make the America a godless, orgy-filled, gay pride parade.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

JAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCKKKK! Hey! smooch

Mongrel, what, is there some kind of LAW against having two belief systems? What’s it to you, anyway? Why are you always criticizing everyone? Oh yeah….

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Chilao, I do give you more Brownie points for recognizing that rabbits are NOT rodents. Most people, including the writers at AJC, don’t know that.

Once you accumulate enough Brownie points, you get to go on a romantic weekend with your ex-wife, the Brownie troop leader.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this

On a serious note, rabbits not only bite, but they can scratch hard with their hind legs. My male rabbit bit me once, and it left a scar.

that is why cats have all that loose skin hanging down, so a rabbit, or in a cougar’s case, a deer, cannot rip the skin(well, it is much harder) when it does that kicking against the predator thing when the prey is downed.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

The balance of power has tipped to the Loony Left since you left the board.

welcome to the future. hahahahahahaha(now that’s funny..LOL)

on that thought, do you think tonight instead of hearing blah blah, clappity-clap, clap, clap, blah blah, clappity clap clap clap clap clap, blah blah clappity clap clapp clap we might hear blah blah blah blah blah blah clap blah blah blah blah blah blah clap due to the political change in the Congressional membership?

I mentioned the movie The Children of Men awhile back, well the book is much more interesting.(for you readers)

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

kimberly, Since this is a discussion board, I don’t think it’s inappropriate to ask questions or challenge people’s positions. And while there is no law against having a dual belief system in which two different sets of Physics can operate, this very duality lies at the heart of most peoples’ confusion in Life. It is very possible to reconcile the two, but it takes more work and humility than most people can muster.

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

“(I would dare say it is more cruel than what the boys in question did to the puppy).” sickens me. If you believe that these two freaks don’t deserve severe punishment then you have a serious issue with yourself!!!

They deserve severe punishment. I am not sure why you believe that I would think that they wouldn’t. No one else on here thinks I believe that (even those who don’t care for my beliefs). Really - you must do better with your personal attacks.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

And before anyone beats me to the punch, my male rabbit bit me on the finger .

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

Pretty telling that the first piece of legislation passed by the new Democratic-majority House is a bill to shut down conservative talk shows.

By Brenda W. Arbuckle

January 23, 2007 02:18 PM | Link to this

Animal cruelty has grown tremendously in the last few years. Punishment should be meted out but counseling, probation, and retribution would be the most appropriate punishment.

If we’re going to send two mixed race male juveniles to jail for 99 years does that mean we’re going to reopen all the other animal cruely cases (in all of Georgia) and prosecute them just as firmly.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:21 PM | Link to this

So far, everyone here has determined the “value” of animals strictly from their own selfish point of view. Doesn’t anyone see it from God’s perspective?

By Eirik

January 23, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this

Li’l John,

I remember Carter vs the Rabbit, but wasn’t the enraged rabbit swimming after Carter while he was fishing in a boat?

Any “Holy Grail” fans here?

By chuck

January 23, 2007 02:24 PM | Link to this

I have a better one for you “Intowngal”:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its unborn babies are treated.” Chuck

While I find that most liberals are perfectly willing to agree with YOUR statement, very few are willing to agree with mine. Let’s see, it’s okay to pull a baby part of the way out of it’s mother’s and suck it’s brain out with a metal tube, but you can spend 5 years in federal prison for damaging an eagle’s egg.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

It is very possible to reconcile the two, but it takes more work and humility than most people can muster.

Heh. snerk

By InTownGal

January 23, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

No one is personally attacking you…This was indeed your statement, “(I would dare say it is more cruel than what the boys in question did to the puppy).” the column wasn’t asking for a dissertation on the animal kingdom, both domestic and wild, only whether or not the cruelty to animal charge should be increased to felonies. No need to get so defensive, your statement was unclear.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Pretty telling that the first piece of legislation passed by the new Democratic-majority House is a bill to shut down conservative talk shows.

enlighten us, that did not make dat der librul media, is it something you learned from the sites where Chuck hangs out?

Am I the only one going HUH? or is that part of the funneling of money related to the ethics reform bill? LOL I haven’t read the fine print yet so it COULD be…

By Jack

January 23, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Hi Sweet. :)

By chuck

January 23, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Hey Gob…the lunatic fringe rises again. Bite me.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

Exhibit #1 of Lib thinking: Brenda Arbuckle. How is the race of the criminals relevant here, Brenda? Also, you need to learn more about the purpose of the court system. Legal prosecution is carried out by the organized body of people we call the government for the purpose of protecting society from further harm. Retribution has nothing to do with it. If an individual wishes to seek “retribution”, that is what forms the basis of civil law.

By Monica

January 23, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this

Kevin, forgive me for speaking for you… but I think that Kevin knows that using a religious argument on the board will not be given any merit, so he tries to stay away from the Biblical or religious approach. He probably doesn’t have two belief systems; he just realizes that his belief system isn’t shared by all (I’m with ya, Kevin!).

Chilao, I’m actually looking forward to the Address tonight just to see if Bush will receive the obligatory clap clap. Remember that SNL skit with Michael J. Fox as the confused veep (or the speaker of the house)- didn’t know when to clap and when to stand (I don’t even remember who he was, just that he was seated behind the president)? hilarious!

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this

The balance of power has tipped to the Loony Left since you left the board.

but don’t worry, reactionay conservatives will always be around.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

chuck—The greatness of our nation is determined by how we treat the least of us, whether they be animals or unborn babies. It’s crazy to me that you want to treat unborn babies well, but not animals. Libs want to treat the animals well, but not the fetuses.

As I keep saying, the only consistent moral position is that all Life is valuable, and start from there.

By InTownGal

January 23, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck, I love the way the ultra conservatives always wanna bring abortion into the mix. This post was not about abortion to begin with, rather animal cruelty. I am against cruelty to all things LIVING!!! A society should be judged by how it treats all things living, especially those that cannot defend themselves. Just b/c a person, including myself, may not be happy with some current situations in our country, Pres. Bush, Iraq, education, healthcare, to name a few does not make that person a bleeding heart liberal who loves to kill babies. Get another argument or platform besides abortion, IT IS SO OLD!!!!!

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Chilao—The legislation I’m referring to is The Fairness Doctrine, in which TV and radio shows cannot express a one-sided opinion. The networks always got around it in the past by disguising their opinions as “news”.

By Joe L

January 23, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

Lil John:”My male rabbit bit me once, and it left a scar.”

Proof that animals can indeed sense evil.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

Monica - no, I missed that SNL but it was funny just reading about and picturing..

Jack - the reactionary conservative comment was not directed at you, trust you understand that. LOL

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

I guess we’re very different, kimberly. As a Gemini, you can create magic out of thin air, accept it, and move on to the next magic. As a Virgo, I need to know why that magic worked out so well. I am grateful for magicians such as yourself. I’m sorry that you can’t see value in the dimensions I bring to the discussion.

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

Chilao—The legislation I’m referring to is The Fairness Doctrine, in which TV and radio shows cannot express a one-sided opinion. The networks always got around it in the past by disguising their opinions as “news”.

oh, thanks; yeah, that one has been around quite the while.

By Just Being Me

January 23, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck, does your family have a pet?

(Oh, and whoever suggested that Chuck is a representative of Pentecostalism has made a grave error in assumption. Chuck is definitely not a true Pentecostal).

By Kevin

January 23, 2007 02:47 PM | Link to this

Thanks Monica! Yes, that is my normally my approach to the discussions on this board.

By Joe L

January 23, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

“Chilao—The legislation I’m referring to is The Fairness Doctrine, in which TV and radio shows cannot express a one-sided opinion. The networks always got around it in the past by disguising their opinions as “news”.”

Really care to point to how this PASSED? I see you listen to wayyyy to much Rush and his cronies trotting out another Republican bogeyman. The Fairness Doctrine has not been reinstated and only a small group of people are proposing it should be. With this kind of “truthiness” and “no spin” you certainly fit in with the rest of the right.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

Monica—While people pretend that we can discuss issues in a strictly “secular” way, a “value-free” way, a “logical” way, the fact is that we can’t and have it mean anything. While I vehemently disagree with chuck’s vision of a “personal God”, I give him some Brownie points for being honest about his beliefs.

Sorry, chuck, you haven’t accumulated enough Brownie points for a date with Chilao’s ex yet. But hang in there, we’ll get you some strange yet.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Haha! Mongrel, you apparently missed the irony that caused my amusement: You commenting the appropriate level of “humility” in others.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Nope, chilao. The dems want to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine” but only want it to apply to radio. Under the fairness doctrine some government drone determines whether or not both sides of an issue are presented on a radio show and if not, they dictate content, essentially. It is telling that they do not want to apply it to television news or to newspapers since those 2 groups rarely present the conservative side.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Brudog, this statement could not be further from my position:

It’s crazy to me that you want to treat unborn babies well, but not animals. Libs want to treat the animals well, but not the fetuses.

I have not under any circumstances advocated cruelty to animals. What I have opposed is ELEVATING the rights of animals to that of people. Nothing more and nothing less. I could give you countless examples of cruelty to children that have not been punished as severely as these two children are being punished for what they did to a dog. There was an article in the paper a few days ago about a man who got just 5 years for shaking his girlfriend’s baby to death. This is a grown man…27 years-old I think, and these 2 boys are what, 12?

As for your question JBM, we have 4 dogs…a 12 year-old German shepherd, an 8 year-old jack russell/rat terrier mix that we rescued, a 17 month-old shepherd and a miniature dacshund puppy, all of whom I would protect and defend. We love em like family, but I wouldn’t kill somebody over them.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

I actually did watch Hannity and Colmes last night, which is a rarity for me. Dick Morris was on, who used to work for the Clinton White House. All of you Hillary supporters here should take a gander at his new book in which he gives the inside scoop of what it was like working for those two. He actually says a lot of nice things about Bill, but not too many about Hillary. When pressed to say something nice about her, Morris said “I will say that she is the most determined, disciplined, focused woman I ever met”

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

Sorry, chuck, you haven’t accumulated enough Brownie points for a date with Chilao’s ex yet. But hang in there, we’ll get you some strange yet.

now, you know Chuck’s not that kinda guy. He might not like her bisexuality anyway. (but I did, and if the ONLY thing that mattered in a relationship was sex..LOL..but since we know it does not….)

Kimberly - not everyone did NOT get it…LOL (but snerk was a new one..)

By Jack

January 23, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

“it’s okay to pull a baby part of the way out of it’s mother’s and suck it’s brain out with a metal tube,”

It’s better that way. Plastic ones collapse and prevent you from getting all of the best parts. Yummmm…

By blablabla

January 23, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

hheeyyy, jbm. hope you’re doing well, my dear.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Well “intown”, if you are a pro-life liberal, you are the first one I’ve spoken to in many years.

and no JBM, I’m not a pentecostal of any kind…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

By Jack

January 23, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

Bunnies are good slow roasted over an open fire. Try pouring a beer on it when it is almost done and munch. Better than venison.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

kimberly, Don’t confuse my bluster here for lack of humility. In my practice, I worked with the dregs of society along with the ultra-rich. I treated all the same. Other than a few common sense procedures like using disinfectants on the tables after they left, I never treated a patient with AIDS any differently from anyone else. Everyone received the same unconditional love. Even the miscreants (just kidding).

By Chilao

January 23, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

It’s better that way. Plastic ones collapse and prevent you from getting all of the best parts. Yummmm…

yeah, when I read the first comment(Chuck’s saying that we know people in future years will be posting on blogs like they do now with Gandhi’s), anyway, I looked at the red tomato hot sauce that was part of my lunch, and thought Gee, thanks.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

chuck—I would defend my pets to the death.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Actually, a few of the ultra-rich were shocked to find out that they wouldn’t receive special treatment from me just because they had money. In the end, they accepted it, and most even liked being treated like an average Joe.

By Mara

January 23, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack! Plastic ones collapse and prevent you from getting all of the best parts. Yummmm…

STEW!!! And babywraps…mmmmmmmmmm (slurp) LOL!!! (ducking and covering)

Hey Monica. Just to clear something up from yesterday…one of my dearest friends is an evangelical so I know that all y’all aren’t like the crazies we were talking about.

Hi ya, JBM.

By Jack

January 23, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Yous guys trash Chuck all the time but if everyone lived as Chuck preached how much crime would there be?

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:23 PM | Link to this

Jack—I know you’re BS’ing. No bunny rabbits in South Philly.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

Jack, thanks for the recipe! Every year in May or so, my yard is hopping with little hopper bunnies goin’ for the un-mowed wild strawberries. If our country keeps traveling the path of debt and destruction, (failing to learn the lessons so painfully taught by Jack Bauer), then those bunnies might well be our only sustinence.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Monica and Kevin, Hillary is a perfect example of someone who pretends to embrace mainstream values, while underneath it all she is a rabid socialist. God help us all if she gets elected as President.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, yes please do tell us MORE about your humility… HAHAHA!

If we all lived as Chuck preached, what would our suicide rate be?

By Jack

January 23, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Now I really am hungry. :)

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Chilao—maybe that’s what chuck needs to loosen up a little: A date with your ex. I bet chuck would like having two ladies in the sack with him at the same time. Unless they completely ignored him, of course.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

You couldn’t handle being with me anyway, kimberly. All that unconditional love would drive you nuts.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

Another Gemini-Virgo plus, kimberly, is that Virgo doesn’t object when you want time to yourself. We’re not jealous, and actually enjoy the break ourselves to try to make some sense of things.

By Joe L

January 23, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

“Yous guys trash Chuck all the time but if everyone lived as Chuck preached how much crime would there be?”

Lived as he PREACHED or ACTED? Because those two are worlds apart. And there wouldn’t be “crime” since there would be state-sanctioned stonings and such.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

Here’s a three-way made in heaven: chuck, kimberly, and Mara. With lozen on the sidelines shouting instructions.

By Jack

January 23, 2007 03:42 PM | Link to this

We wouldn’t have near as much fun but the prisons would be empty.

The best part of the rabbit is the back. The meat is white just like chicken or turkey and is quite tasty. (better than Jack & Mara’s Stew)

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:48 PM | Link to this

Jack, when the sad day comes when my bunnies leave this world, they will receive a full State Funeral. All flags will have to fly at half-mast.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

I do think I found the perfect job for Chilao when he retires: Adult film director. All we have to do is get him a beanie beret to wear and give him a megaphone.

By kimberly

January 23, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

Really, Mongrel? That’s interesting. I guess that’s why my Virgo first husband left me alone on the weekend to “play golf” with his 19-year-old female employee, or sometimes a random stripper. He was probably just trying to make some sense of things… Specifically, why he felt it necessary to criticize absolutely everything I did. Cried like a baby when I left him though… Go figure.

By InTownGal

January 23, 2007 03:56 PM | Link to this

Hey Chuck, glad to hear that I am the only pro-life liberal you have spoken to in years, even though I have not proclaimed to be such, it does make me feel all nice…haha. Just think it is a good idea to leave the abortion and the religious rhetoric of a discussion alone, b/c we all can agree it is usually not possible to sway a person’s belief one way or the other on these fiery issues, mostly b/c these are inherently personal ones. To return to the original post, it looks like we agree that severe punishment is deserved and needed for a person who would hurt a helpless animal or child. I am not saying the two are equal, but hey, they are both defenseless, living creatures.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Sorry your guy didn’t treat you better, kimberly. You are a beautiful person, with a good heart. And smart, too. Any guy would be lucky to spend time with you. It’s a shame your hubby figured that out too late.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

I figured out the infidelity part, though, kimberly. Apparently your ex had Leo as a Moon sign.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:07 PM | Link to this

The ongoing criticism part is a little harder to explain, however. While Virgo can tend to be critical, normally kindness prevails in a good relationship. Did you give your heart fully in return? Did you hook up with a playa’, and let your heart ignore what your head had to be telling you?

By Jack

January 23, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this

You don’t know how he acts.

Kim. Your ex probably cries in his beer nightly.

Later Tater…

By Just Being Me

January 23, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this

Heyyyyyyyyy there Bla!!! Are you a daddy yet? I lost track of the months, so can’t remember if Mrs. Bla should have been due by now… Gimme an update!

Hey there Mara! I miss dialoguing with you… I’m so turned off by all the spam, though. Hope all is well.

Chuck: I’ve read most of your comments, so I’m not necessarily interested in a debate since I already know your stance. I’m just a bit curious. If someone hung one of your rescued dogs from a tree and set it on fire, you would be satisfied with the offender only being made to reimburse you for the money you spent on shots, vet care and food? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying, so I just want to be clear.

There was one comment that was especially surprising… you said something like “it should be a misdemeanor at worst,” which implies that it really shouldn’t be a crime, but if you must make a law, it should only be a misdemeanor.

Oh, and I am not necessarily a liberal, but I am probably one of those “liberal pro-life” folks you say you haven’t seen in years…

My two cents on the subject: I have one dog, a 3 year-old shih tzu; 2 rescued cats, sisters about 2 years old; and two turtles. I have raised all my pets, turtles included, from the time they were just weeks old, and I would be absolutely devastated to know that any harm was brought upon them, especially intentional harm. If anyone ever did anything to hurt one of my pets, I would want to see them prosecuted appropriately. And, I do think that in the case of malicious, prolonged torture, some jail time may be appropriate, and restitution should be made. I do not think that 90 years, or even 9 years, is appropriate. That’s a bit excessive, to me.

Now, for whatever this is worth, when I was a stupid kid, I did a stupid thing, as stupid kids do. I was about 12 or 13 years old, standing on the 3rd story porch of a friend’s house, when a squirrel jumped up onto a phone cable and started running across the line. I don’t really remember what conversation transpired with my friends and I… don’t remember whether they dared me, whether it was my idea or theirs, whether I felt pressured, or just mischievous… but the next thing I know, I was shaking the cable and hearing the thump of the squirrel hitting the street below. It died.

I will never forget that sound, and I hate that I did something so mean and stupid. But, I turned out alright. I’m an upstanding, law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. I never hurt another creature again and I’m not typically a homicidal person.

So, for that, I’m glad I didn’t go to jail or juvenile detention center, or whatever.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

JBM—Are you a fan of The Andy Griffith Show? One of the most powerful episodes deals with Opie shooting a bird with a slingshot. Very moving.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

The only “animals” I don’t feel guilty killing are palmetto bugs. Pity the palmetto bug who finds his way into my house. I’m much kinder to lady bugs and spiders.

By Just Being Me

January 23, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

No, sorry Li’l John. That’s just a tad bit before my time. :-) But, I’m sure that was a moving episode.

I can tell a story about another time I killed an animal - this time, a goose. Again, my stupidity, but this time, I was an adult, and there was no excuse. But, I wouldn’t want you all to think I’m some evil animal killer, so I’ll keep that story to myself.

The squirrel incident was nearly 20 years ago, the goose nearly 10. I’m still haunted by both.

By chuck

January 23, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

JBM, I always considered you to be a bleeding heart conservative. I think that we agree on a lot of things in theory, but our differences are in how we would implement those beliefs. You are definitely much nicer than me.

I may not have been as clear as I meant to be on that “one statement”. I was referring more to what a person did with his OWN property as far as the misdemeanor at worst comment goes. Certainly someone who does something to someone else’s animal should be charged with a misdemenanor. Sorry I was unclear on that. Sometimes it’s tough to get full points in because of time restraints.

While I would never consider treating one of my pets that way, I would have a hard time taking someone from their family and ruining their lives because of something they did to their own pet. I don’t have any real attachment to “animals universal” as I do with those that I have raised.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

You’re a cold man, chuck. Brownie points deduction for your stance on animals.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this

To equate a living being to inanimate property reveals a deep poverty of spirit, chuck.

By Li'l John

January 23, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

One last time for all of you living at the extremes here: All Life is valuable. Both fetuses and animals alike. In the end, we have to make practical decisions when formulating specific laws, but this has to be our starting point.

By Barbara

January 23, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

I believe animal abuse is a felony and should be punishable by long prison terms. The Moulder brothers are perfect examples of 2 men who will most likely wind up in the prison system at some point for hurting or killing a human being. What they did to that puppy is horrible…what kind of thrill did they get out of that? They need to go away…they are grown men who tortured and killed an innocent puppy.

Everytime I open my oven door to bake something I think about that poor, defenseless puppy and how he suffered. The Moulder brothers need to suffer now for what they did, along with anyone else who abuses an animal. It is a felony and although each case needs to be examined individually, I feel serving time in prison is a must!

By Sten29675

January 24, 2007 04:08 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.

By Sten24836

January 24, 2007 04:59 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.

By Sten85204

January 24, 2007 06:16 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say recently. Such is life. I’ve basically been doing nothing. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. Oh well.

By Sten13606

January 24, 2007 07:37 AM | Link to this

retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.

By Sten40129

January 24, 2007 07:47 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say right now. I haven’t been up to anything recently, but it’s not important. I’ve just been sitting around waiting for something to happen, but shrug.

By Brian Curtis

January 24, 2007 08:50 AM | Link to this

Chuck: I would have a hard time taking someone from their family and ruining their lives because of something they did to their own pet.

That’s where you and I (and, apparently, a whole lot of other people) differ, Chuck. I say that animal life has value regardless of who the nominal “owner” is, and destruction of that life is a crime. Specifically, a felony rather than misdemeanor, which is the crux of the original question.

By Sten63242

January 24, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.

By Chilao

January 24, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

It is actually a Federal offense, for anyone not Native American, to possess ANY raptor(owl, eagle, hawk, falcon, osprey, etc) part.

I am uncertain how that law applies to the turkey vulture, since they also technically are raptors. I can only assume it is included.

By Chilao

January 24, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this

Thank you very much. And tonight I have the high privilege and distinct honor of my own as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words:

Now why did I, at that exact moment, not knowing what was coming, flash on Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night?

By Brian Curtis

January 24, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Qualifier: Wanton, unnecessary destruction of animal life is a crime. Obviously, we kill animals all the time, but the topic is animal cruelty, not vegetarianism.

By Mara

January 24, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Chilao - It is actually a Federal offense, for anyone not Native American, to possess ANY raptor(owl, eagle, hawk, falcon, osprey, etc) part

“it is illegal to capture or kill a raptor; possess a raptor (living or dead), or any pieces or parts of raptors, including feathers, without proper permits from state and federal government agencies. In the United States, wildlife species are considered the property of all citizens and are protected and managed by federal and state governments.”

http://www.birdsofprey.blm.gov/nat-res/bop-legal.htm

couldn’t find the data really quickly, but I’m almost positive that the illegal possession of a raptor, just the POSSESSION of the bird, is considered a felony and punishable as such. One wonders why simple possession of wildlife (any wildlife, actually) is feloneous but the abuse of a trusting, domesticated animal is considered a lesser crime(misdemeanor).

oh and LOL! @ the SNL ref :^)

By Chilao

January 24, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

It really has to do with the great benefit ALL raptors provide, with rodent control(a big grain consumer otherwise), etc. Native Americans(some) get the exemption for ceremonial/religious reasons and obviously falconers and wild-life rehabers have stringent Federal regulations to complete before they can even touch a raptor. I had a redtail hawk drop a beautiful 15-inch feather in my backyard, so of course I immediately turned it in to the proper authorities. LOL

If I had not turned away from the TV at that exact moment, I might NOT have flashed on the SNL thing, but since I did, and the way the words sounded, I got distracted. LOL

By Chilao

January 24, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Besides, we don’t exactly have a good record of keeping species AWAY from on the verge of extinction. So we end up with that dang Federal government getting in the way of us killing all the wildlife…LOL

By lozen

January 24, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Amen Brian on your 8:50 post! People don’t seem to abort puppies and kittens and such; some irresponsible ppl just let them breed over and over and throw the offspring out in the street to starve or overburden the local shelters until they can’t take any more! Hummmm, kind of like what humans do to unwanted children…

By NetBanker

January 24, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

from the point of view of the total earth…are we the most valuable species? Excellent Question Eirik. Honestly, I’d have to say no. I can’t say what that species would be, but without human intervention the Earth’s ecosystem would be in a whole lot better shape. I’d venture a guess that humans have done more to change the face of the planet and foul it than all of the natural events/disasters/ice ages/comet hits have done combined and in a significantly shorter period of time.

Rabbits aren’t vicious? You’ve obviously not seen The Holy Grail!! LOL!

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

I have to give Nancy Pelosi some Brownie points for politeness last night. She didn’t smirk as much as I thought she would.

Chilao—your ex is going to be working overtime by the time I hand out all the Brownie points.

By Brian Curtis

January 24, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

NetB: It all depends what you mean by “valuable.”

Plant species are the most important in terms of providing energy to all other species on the planet; without them, we’d all die off pretty quickly. Algae, for example, are enormously important and valuable—the basis of pretty much the whole oceanic ecosystem.

Then there’s valuable in terms of success rate. There, bacteria rule the earth, by far the most successful and widespread species the Earth has ever seen.

Value can also be a function of rarity, in which case the panda is very valuable indeed, as is the California condor. With over six billion samples of humanity wandering around, scarcity isn’t a concern.

Value is—of all things—a value judgment.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this

Eirik, If you are out there, I stand corrected on the Jimmy Carter “Attack Rabbit” story. Jimmy was in a boat at the time, and an animal which he described as a “swamp rabbit” came swimming toward his boat hissing and gnashing its teeth. Here’s a link with the full story and photos:

http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/killer_rabbit.html

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:26 PM | Link to this

I did miss seeing Cynthia McKinney standing on the aisle at the State of the Union Address. She always made sure she was seen prominently by the cameras.

By MrRogers

January 24, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

BC—I couldn’t agree with you less that value is a “value judgment”. You are defining “value” only in relation to humans. “Value” is intrinsic to the being, and can never be rightly determined by another being. You are thinking of “utilitarianism”, which is very different.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:35 PM | Link to this

Hopefully some of you will become humble one day and realize that Life is a precious gift, a miracle, all Life. It is not of human making.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

A good analogy to me is this: When you are invited to a party, you are a guest, and should act accordingly. The guest is not the host.

Too many humans forget that we are guests on this planet, we do not own it.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

I was out of the room when Bush called for a voluntary reduction in gas consumption. Now that’s what I call leadership. If I were elected Prez, that’s the kind of thing I would do.

By chuck

January 24, 2007 02:41 PM | Link to this

sorry brudog. WE as humans are in charge of the earth.

Genesis 1:27-29 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

chuck—If we are in God’s image, and God is the Creator, then we have a special obligation to honor the Creation. You are putting God out of the picture with your elevation of humans to being equal to God.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this

If I were out of the country, and appointed you to be the caretaker of my house while I was away, that wouldn’t give you the right to damage the house.

By Barshue

January 24, 2007 03:03 PM | Link to this

Book of Barshue Chapter 7, Verse 1287

Man and animal must live together as one as none is superior to the other.

By BarshueDisciple

January 24, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

Book of Barshue Chapter 7, Verse 1287

Man and animal must live together as one as none is superior to the other.

By Renee

January 24, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

Hi everyone. Miss you all much!! Been swamped at work.

Personal opinion, I think animal cruelty is terrible. I can see some forms of animal cruelty could be a felony. But I don’t think an animal life is equal to a human life.

However, someone who can be cruel to animals, theoretically could be a significant danger to humans.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

But that’s where you and I part ways completely, chuck. When I woke up out of my self-centered fog one day and began comprehending the concept of God, it made me humble. For you, it appears, it’s all about the opposite, i.e. the elevation of yourself. You use the Bible and the concept of God for selfish purposes.

By chuck

January 24, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

That’s the real difference between us Bruce. I don’t USE the Bible at all. I read the Bible, I study the Bible and I follow its teaching. It serves as a compass for my life. When people sprout nonsense, I let the Word speak for itself.

I have never made any statement even remotely resembling a claim to be equal with God. As John the Baptist put it, “I am not worthy to carry His shoes.”

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

You’d better be careful about your claim to follow the Bible’s teachings, chuck. You don’t seem to have a problem with inventing new religious holidays, in direct contradiction to the Bible .

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Yep, you’re a Bible “literalist” when it suits your purposes, but aren’t willing to accept Biblical teachings contrary to the B.S. a bunch of Byzantine Catholics voted on.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

In the end, it’s all about spirits , chuck. That’s what God is, the Bible says it plainly. Because spirits have no physicality, they cannot be “captured” by any set of rules, any set of Books. Both the Christ and Godel have confirmed this truth. As such, it is a valid question whether you are following the spirit of Christ or not with all of your condemnations from on high of homosexuals.

By lozen

January 24, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I have some antifreeze if you’ll take the dog on for one little date. How bout it. You can make the world a better place!

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

Good one, lozen. She might even get away with it as long as she doesn’t try the same trick twice.

By Li'l John

January 24, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

Come to think of it, antifreeze is often green. You could probably hide it in some wasabi. I’ll have to find out if kim likes sushi.

By Chilao

January 24, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Hi Renee, sounds like you might be an Accountant, that time of year and all.

LOL @ Lozen’s additives.

If a hookup with the ex(for a reason) is what I get for Brownie points, I shudder to think of my “reward” when I get them taken away…LMAO…so I’ll pass on any prize claims.

By kimberly

January 24, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this

Hi Lozen! You mean like…. “take one for the team?” Haha!

By lockemup

January 25, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Those two pieces of ghetto trash should have been put under the jail. They will end up on welfare anyway so why not put them in jail so we can still pay for them with tax dollars but they won’t be able to steal or deal drugs like those pieces of crap will end up doing!!

By Otherstater

January 25, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

Sorry I am late to this discussion, (and for those who disagree this will probably be my only post), but did I read that someone earlier thought it would be a hard choice on whom to save, a dog or a CHILD?!? This absolutely turns my stomach. BEing a Christian, of course I value human life more. We are created in God’s image and have a spirit. However, we are charged with a responsibily tot he earth and other creatures, and I share in that. Animal cruelty is completely unacceptable. But this conversation has completely changed. Diane started it, and it has blossomed, so I HAVE to chime in.

Distorted fact number 1: Torture and kill a dog, 90 years. Torture and kill a baby, 5 years. Is a dog 18 times more valuable than a human?!?

Distorted fact number 2: The two arguements that I hear are first, that animals are as important as humans. But then I hear that we should have more severe animal cruelty charges so these people WON’T kill humans later. Which is it? The latter arguement is a disgused way to get those who don’t believe that animals are as important as humans to buy into penalties that are just as severe. Then it makes it easier to devalue human life and put humans on the same level as animals. Why does everyone fear saying it? If you feel we are on the same level, don’t hide the arguement behind something else, that just shows me that you don’t feel like your arguement has merit.

Distorted fact number 3: If we are all treated the same, then all laws are gone. In the animal kingdom, there are murders, rapes, cannibalism, thefts, all on a daily basis. If wer are the same, then the jails need to be full of these mammalian offenders, or else our jails need to be emptied. Either way, I hope this shows the falicy of this arguement.

Bottom line: Humans are more importanant than animals, althgough we have dominion over them, we have a reponsibility to treat them correctly; not doing so is deviant behavior.

By Chilao

January 25, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this

Elderly Cobb County woman attacked by dogs:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/01/25/0125metdogs.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild7=7nQyF5hJVfjVz21BQwS3tS21P7tXLbzKyG8tyHM13l2qcLJpRn2Q!1632255492&UrAuth=%60N%60NUOaNYUbTTUWUXUVUZTZUaUWUcUVUZUcUcUcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

see what happens when dogs are let off the chain and allowed to run loose? They can ruin a whole community. LOL

By Sten92743

January 25, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen, but I don’t care. Basically nothing seems worth thinking about. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By Sten78565

January 25, 2007 07:27 PM | Link to this

I feel like a complete blank, but I don’t care. Pfft. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.

By Sten98100

January 25, 2007 08:15 PM | Link to this

Basically nothing noteworthy happening right now, but eh. Today was a complete loss. I haven’t been up to much recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning.

By Mara

January 26, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this

Otherstater - Torture and kill a dog, 90 years. Torture and kill a baby, 5 years

where’d you get your incarceration figures? Really, if someone were to duct tape together a baby’s hands and feet, wind duct tape over the mouth and nose so the kid could barely breath, immerse it in paint to try and burn it to death, and upon failing that, put the child in a gas oven and cook it until it was an unrecognizable peice of carbon…are you saying that whoever did such a thing would only get 5 years in jail?! Really?

that animals are as important as humans. But then I hear that we should have more severe animal cruelty charges

Re-read the posts and didn’t see a single instance of anyone saying that animal cruelty should be punished more severely than murder. I did get the impression that most of us on the “felony” side of the fence were advocating for the punishment to be equal to the abuse of a person, so sure, I guess we do think that helpless, voiceless animals are as important as human victims. Which doesn’t DEvalue human life, it merely gives the lives of our animal friends the same value. Just as raising the price of silver to $642 per ounce wouldn’t make gold any less valuable…

In the animal kingdom, there are murders, rapes, cannibalism, thefts, all on a daily basis

What a doofus you are! Murder? Really?! And here I thought murder required premeditation. Without premeditation, it just doesn’t meet the definition of murder, or don’t you watch Law & Order (or have a Wiki link)? Animals that kill humans or our domesticated herds and flocks are routinely “put down”. Heck, they’re often killed just for harrassing or assaulting other animals we consider more useful. And any animal that attacks a human being is considered “dangerous” and are usually killed. So really, animals are held to a higher standard of behaviour than humans are. Shouldn’t they at least be able to count of equal protection?

As for the rest, since we don’t expect babies, toddlers, or the mentally disabled to discern right (legal) behaviour from wrong (illegal) behaviour, are you saying that animals are more cognitive than these groups and as such, deserve to be treated as more culpable of legal wrong-doing? Hmmmm.

Is the mere killing of an animal tantamount to murdering a human being? Some say yes, most (even most animal lovers) say “No”. Should a poor old lady who can’t afford to feed her dog but can’t bear to part with it go to jail for life? Some say yes, most (even most animal lovers) would say “No”. First time offender, I might even be willing to stick with a misdemeanor penalty, as long as she agrees to get help if she needs it. I wouldn’t say that even the guy who lets his dog grow from a puppy to an adult with the same choke collar embedding itself into its neck should get life in prison. A felony conviction resulting in a few months at the County jail and a fine, sure. A felony conviction isn’t synonomous with “life in prison” you know. But someone who duct tapes an animal into imobility, tortures it, and then slowly kills it in the most horrifying and painful way possible? Not just “yes”, but HELL yes. Put ‘em away and throw out the key.

And that’s what we’re talking about…whether animal abuse should be considered a felony with only the most egregious and heinous acts being punishable by life in prison.

I vote “Yes, it should”.

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

As for the rest, since we don’t expect babies, toddlers, or the mentally disabled to discern right (legal) behaviour from wrong (illegal) behaviour, are you saying that animals are more cognitive than these groups and as such, deserve to be treated as more culpable of legal wrong-doing? Hmmmm.

that from otherstarter did make me consider buying some stock in Haliburton or some similiar Prison building/running corporation. Think of all the incarcerated animals we might be able to sentence, well, sentence then incarcerate…LOL No more euthanasia for Fido, he gets life without parole*.

But since otherstarter stated that was a one-time post, (I ain’t coming back), I merely thought Good Point.

By Mara

January 26, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

Chilao - their own kennel/cage/space, protection from the vicious “strays”, food 3 times a day every day, and they get to go outside every day?!

I predict a regular animal crime spree…cows, sheep, rabbits, cats and dogs out raping, murdering, and devouring each other willy-nilly. Cockatiels and hampsters running rampant through department stores stealing anything and everything. Heh, heh, heh!!!

p.s. - didn’t see the “i ain’t coming back” line…

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

(and for those who disagree this will probably be my only post)

maybe my translation dictionary….LOL

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Paul Theroux, who wrote the books behind the movies Mosquito Coast and Half Moon Street(the book I think is a different name), who also writes travels books, and (mostly dark) novels, was in the Peace Corp in Africa in the 60s, had an article in last month’s Smithsonian where he discusses his pets of choice, apparently geese. He has a small flock. Anyway, he, cynical negative person that he is, believes that animals(pets) do not exactly LIKE us, but merely tolerate us since we are the easy food.

Of course that would also mean our pets would probably ignore us if if was not chow time. And we know that not to be true.

My Mom gave me a book Riding the Iron Rooster, by rail from London to Beijing. I ended up reading all of his travel books and most of his novels, only have the two most recent to catch up on.

By Brian Curtis

January 26, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

So, to answer the question: Yes, animal cruelty should be treated as a felony, with all that entails, including lengthy sentences up to—and including—life imprisonment depending on the severity.

Does anyone have a coherent counter-argument? (One not based in religious misinterpretation, of course.)

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Deep Thoughts For Those Who Take Life Way Too Seriously:

the cheese in the trap.

have.

payments.

lane.

film.

engines

“What the hell happened?”

fall off.

appear bright until you hear them speak.

of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your a* tomorrow.

By Mara

January 26, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

Q. - how many ADD kids does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. - wanna go ride bikes?

By lozen

January 26, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Chat Survival Guide

AOL -A*******holes On Line AWGTHTGTTA - Are We Going To Have To Go Through This Again AWGTHTGTTSA- Are We Going To Have To Go Through This S** Again BFD - Big F-cking Deal BOT - Back On Topic BTSOOM - Beats The Sh-t Out Of Me DBEYR -Don’t Believe Everything You Read DHYB-Don’t Hold Your Breath DILLIGAD-Do I Look Like I Give A Dam FUBB-F-cked Up Beyond Belief FYM-For Your Misinformation GIGO-Garbage In, Garbage Out GIWIST- Gee, I Wish I’d Said That GR&D- Grinning Running & Ducking HAK-Hugs And Kisses HUYA-Head Up Your A$$ L8R- Later LDTTWA- Let’s Do The Time Warp Again LLTA-Lots And Lots Of Thunderous Applause MTFBWY- May The Force Be With You NBFD- No Big F-cking Deal NFW -No F*** Way NRN -No Reply Necessary NYCFS -New York City Finger Salute OAUS-On An Unrelated Subject OATUS-On A Totally Unrelated Subject OATIS- On A Totally Irrelevant Subject OBTW- Oh By The Way ONNA- Oh No, Not Again ONNTA- Oh No Not This Again PITA- Pain In The A$$ VI-Village Idiot

By lozen

January 26, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

Just in case you ever get these two environments mixed up, this should make things a little bit clearer. @ PRISON: @ WORK:

you spend the majority of your time in a 10X10 cell you spend the majority of your time in an 8X8 cubicle

you get three meals a day fully paid for you get a break for one meal and you have to pay for it

you get time off for good behavior you get more work for good behavior

the guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you you must often carry a security card and open all the doors for yourself

you can watch TV and play games you could get fired for watching TV and playing games

you get your own toilet you have to share the toilet with some people who pee on the seat

they allow your family and friends to visit you aren’t even supposed to speak to your family

all expenses are paid by the taxpayers with no work required you get to pay all your expenses to go to work, and they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners

you spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars

you must deal with sadistic wardens they are called managers

THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!!!

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this

A woman in her fifties went to a plastic surgeon for a face lift. The surgeon told her about a new procedure called “The Knob”, where a small knob is placed on the top of a woman’s head and can be turned to tighten up her skin to produce the effect of a brand new face-lift. Of course, the woman wanted “The Knob”.

Over the course of the years, the woman tightened the knob and the effects were wonderful. The woman remained young looking and vibrant. After fifteen years, the woman returned to the surgeon with two problems.

“All these years, everything has been working just fine. I have turned the knob many times and have been very pleased with the results. But now, I have developed two annoying problems. First, I have these terrible bags under my eyes and “The Knob” won’t get rid off them.”

The Doctor looked at her closely and said, “Those aren’t bags, those are your breasts.”

She said, “Well, I guess there’s no point in asking about the goatee.”

By chuck

January 26, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

So, to answer the question: Yes, animal cruelty should be treated as a felony, with all that entails, including lengthy sentences up to—and including—life imprisonment depending on the severity.

No, animal cruelty should NOT be treated as a felony, with all that entails, including lengthy sentences up to—and including—life imprisonment depending on the severity.

Is that a clear, consise counter-argument to the one you posted?

By My Furry Children

January 26, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Otherstater and others - do not jump off a cliff at the same time my dog does. I will save my dog and watch you fall. Of that I am 100% certain. That is my legal right. I have no legal obligation to help you in any way shape or form and will choose not to do so. I owe you nothing - never have and never will.

Besides, as soon as I do save you, you would sue me for throwing your shoulder out as I was grabbing your arm so you don’t plunge to your death.

By GOB

January 26, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck - Can you make an argument for not making animal cruelty a felony without falling back on the “god gave us dominion” argument? Or the one that says they are simply property because god didnt give them a soul?

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

The core question, once again, is how is the value of an animal determined ? chuck, along with many others here, apparently believe that value is strictly a utilitarian question. That is, an animal’s value can only be rightly determined in relationship to human considerations of valuableness. And while chuck attempts to support this ego-centric position with the Bible, his is the ultimate anti-God argument.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Even the folks who say that they individually value their personal pet, and would save it before saving another human, are practicing the same egocentrism by defining the value of their pet in terms of their own emotional attachment.

The only poster who I think has the right perspective this week is Mara, who recognizes that animals have their own individual soul and their own individual worth which is not defined in human terms. Brownie points for Mara.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Chilao—I hope you share with us one day what the Brownie points deductions were like with your ex #2.

By lozen

January 26, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Wal-Mart announced that, on January 1, 2007 , it began offering customers a new discount item - WAL-MART’s own brand of wine. The world’s largest retail chain is teaming up with Ernest &Julio Gallo Winery of California to produce the spirits at an affordable price, in the $2- $5 range. Wine connoisseurs may not be inclined to throw a bottle of Wal-Mart brand into their shopping carts, but “there is a market for inexpensive wine,” said Kathy Micken, professor of marketing at University of Arkansas, Bentonville. She said: “But the right name is important.” Customer surveys were conducted to determine the most attractive name for the Wal-Mart wine brand. The top surveyed names in order of popularity were:

The beauty of Wal-Mart wine is that it can be served with either white meat (Possum) or red meat (Squirrel).

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

will Chef Boyardeaux also be available at Targay?

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this

chuck—You claim to read the Bible regularly. Do you ever spend any time pondering the meaning of words like soul and spirit ? Or how about “from dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return?”

How do you express your humility to God other than gathering with a group of your friends and acting silly?

By Monica

January 26, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

A brand new store has just opened in New York City that sells Husbands. When women go to choose a husband, they pay a flat rate of $10,000 and have to follow the instructions at the entrance: You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are 6 floors and you may choose your husband from the floor you are on, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you CANNOT go back down except to exit the building!

On the 1st floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1 - These men have jobs.

The 2nd floor sign reads: Floor 2 - These men Have Jobs and Love Kids.

The 3rd floor sign reads: Floor 3 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids and are extremely Good Looking. “Wow,” she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

She goes to the 4th floor and the sign reads: Floor 4 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are extremely Good Looking and Help with housework. “Oh, mercy me!” she exclaims, “I can hardly stand it!”

Still, she goes to the 5th floor and sign reads: Floor 5 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are extremely Good Looking, help with Housework and are very Romantic.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the 6th floor and the sign reads: Floor 6 - You are visitor 174,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

Sorry, no refunds.

WIFE STORE To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opens a new Wives Store just across the street.

The 1st first floor has wives that love sex. The 2nd floor has wives that love sex and don’t complain. The 3rd through 6th floors have never been visited.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 03:25 PM | Link to this

Good one, Monica! Also, I have reconsidered making criminals read Beowulf. Public flogging is much more humane.

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 03:33 PM | Link to this

Two Cavemen, one The Boss and the second The Underling, were standing around the entrance to the cave, waiting for the rain to stop, as TheBoss had made plans for both for the day.

The Underling, fed up with being ordered around, asked “Heh, how come you always get to be Boss?”

Boss replied “Well, how old were you when you were a child?”.

Underling paused, not knowing how to answer, but replied “I was seven”.

Boss then said “Well, there you have it; when I was a child I was twelve”.

By Mara

January 26, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

well, looks like those two boys are admitting they did torture and kill that puppy. They’re pleading guilty and throwing themselves on the mercy of the court.

Good thing I’m not the one pronouncing their sentence…

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

I wonder what floor I am on since I don’t even have a job?

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

I have faith you would be fair, Mara. It would be the Aquarian thing to do.

By chuck

January 26, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Gob, I can’t even remember the last time you made an “argument” of ANY KIND. Most of your posts are stupid little one liners parroted from one of your boy friends BC, or 72john, or the like, so pardon me if I just YAWN. You definitely bore me. Get an original thought and we’ll talk.

By Jennifer

January 26, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

The question we ask ourselves is: where do people who demonstrate such cruelty fit into our society or our lives? Do you want them as neighbors? Dating your daughter? Babysitting your kids? Would you even want to accept a fast food burger from them over the counter? A person who finds PLEASURE in inflicting pain on ANY LIVING CREATURE/ANIMAL/PERSON…has no place in my neighborhood or my life. They belong behind bars. They WILL repeat their cruel tendencies throughout their lives, in many many different ways. PLEASE…Lock them up: that is what will make ME feel safe.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:12 PM | Link to this

Jennifer—Brownie points to you for recognizing that the purpose of criminal prosecution is to protect society from further harm . A lot of folks tried to predicate their arguments this week on the relative unworthiness of animals, which belied a lack of understanding of the purpose of our court system, in addition to revealing a deep spiritual poverty.

While studies have shown that a substantial percentage of violent criminals were prior animal abusers, I don’t think you can easily determine what percentage of animal abusers go on to commit other violent crimes. My suspicion is that this figure would be extremely high as well from personal experience.

By Dino Vlachos

January 26, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhahn’s argument becomes totally meaningless as she speciously cites some intrinsic value to medical research on animals. She holds animal research as some kind of icon which is not to be tampered with in any way. So, assuming that she knows as much about dishing out appropriate sentences to abusers as she knows about animal research, her entire argument is null and void.

Animal research has cured nothing, is invalid on almost every level, squanders resources which could be used to help people and is totally unethical. Emory University has white coat con-artists (animal researchers) wasting millions of taxpayer’s dollars annually on redundant, unnecessary, non-productive animal research projects and handsomely lining their own pockets; at the same time, the homeless, people with addiction problems and the mentally impaired go without help or assistance because there are no resources for them.

So, having said that, go ask the families of the victims of Dahmer, Bundy, Gasey, et al whether they would like to see animal abusers get life sentences before they advance to human violence. I bet you’ll get a different opinion.

As as for those who say human life is always more valuable than human life, I ask this question: If they could only save one life, would you save Hitler or the dog that saved the life of the kid in Missouri a couple of years ago. And this is just one of millions of similar comparisons.

Ok, that’s it for me.

By chuck

January 26, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Brudog, I’m guessing you are on the floor the women JUMP FROM!

By stacy5572

January 26, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Some people are just evil. Ted Bundy, the BTK Killer, Jeffrey Dahmer. The list goes on. Would I value the life of an animal over theirs? Yes, any day. And, Shaunti, stick with the facts. Studies show that an overwhelming number of violent criminals abused animals at some point. What studies are there out there of all the poor little animal abusers who don’t end up being murderers? Give me a break. I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who would abuse an animal. Do they need help? They sure do- but if they are over the age of 5, it’s probably too late.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this

Dino—The bottom line is that Emory University is in the animal torture business. You gotta cringe when you think of what those primates go through over there. As such, you’ll have to forgive me when I laugh at any moral pronouncements coming from Emory spokesmen like Jimmy Carter.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

Like I said many months ago, chuck, you can easily whip up on the Lib lightweights here, but you have yet to answer even one of my questions. Your claims of Bible literalness are laughable. As I have shown you many times, you don’t even follow the document yourself that you hold up as Divine.

By Martta Rose

January 26, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

I am posting with my full name because this is an issue I feel strongly about.

As heinous as this crime is, what is far more heinous the Shaunti Feldhahn’s piece. I couldn’t even get first the past paragraph without getting ill. So, she doesn’t feel that the life and suffering of this poor innocent animal is worth felony charges and they we should just “make nice” with these cretins and all will be fine in La-La Land.

Study after study of violent criminals have discovered that almost all of them “experimented” with animals before moving on to people. I suggest Ms. Feldhahn get off her high horse and read some.

The question that keeps bugging me is why? What possessed these two a***** to do this in the first place? When I read these kinds of stories I ever so glad that I never had kids of my own.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:27 PM | Link to this

Ladies, answer me one question about Ted Bundy, will you? Even after he was convicted, he had a large fan club of ladies who wanted to marry him. So what floor was Ted on at the Men’s Supermarket?

By Kelly

January 26, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this

Sorry, not going to read thru 319 comments to see if this point has already been made…

When your right-leaning commentator says “[a]nd while it’s true that many murderers started on animals, most people who are cruel to animals don’t become murderers,” she is technically accurate, but does not paint an accurate picture of the severity of the situation. While most people who are cruel to animals don’t become murderers, studies have shown - and are documented on the Humane Society of the US website - that people who abuse animals WILL escalate to eventually go on to abuse humans, at the very least. Where their violence escalates from there is only a matter of time and circumstance.

If a person accidentally hits a dog while driving should he be sentenced to life? Of course not. But if he plans and plots and schemes and connives to commit murder of a human, or do all the same planning to kill an animal, the punishment should be the same. He has shown the capacity to sit down and plan how to take something’s life away. Nowhere in that process did ethics or morality or decency or potential consequences stop him from committing his egregious act, which tells me those characteristics don’t exist in him in the first place.

These boys are 18 years old, I believe 17 at the time of the murder. They’re not just petty thieves, or schoolyard bullies, or dimebag dealers. They have ALREADY found it acceptable and dare I say FUN to put an innocent, loving, helpless, terrified, puppy IN AN OVEN AND BAKE HIM TO DEATH!!! This is so far from the norm of any daily life activity, it is unfathomable how they could have concocted such a scheme and thought it a good idea to carry it out. Does anyone realize who the last people were to put anything in an oven in order to kill it?

There is no doubt that these boys knew from the beginning that this was a heinous act, and yet they chose to continue with it and see it through. Why do you think they bound and gagged the poor puppy first? So that they wouldn’t hear it crying and yelping, begging someone to come rescue it. They wouldn’t hear it clawing at the oven trying desperately to free itself or get someone’s attention.

Additionally, they didn’t elect to shoot the dog, an act that would be bad enough in and of itself but would at least be a relatively fast ending for the dog, allowing him to die without extended suffering. They choose to draw the death out, relishing in its pain with each act of depravity. Most people hope their elder relatives will be able to die without suffering once their time comes. This is an idea that most people believe to be humane, and yet these boys have demonstrated that this common valuing of humanity is not in existence within themselves.

These boys are not insane; they know the difference between right and wrong. They chose “wrong.” The law should be as hard on them as it would be on any other person who knowingly and intentionally does harm to another living being.

By Rena

January 26, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

Where are these boys’ parents? They should be put on trial for allowing this to even happen. What are they teaching these two boys? I just can’t imagine having kids that would even think of doing such a sick thing like this. This has to be the result of growing up in a very sick psychotic home.

By MrLiberty

January 26, 2007 04:34 PM | Link to this

There’s no reason to even discuss a life sentence for such a crime. These two should suffer the same fate as the puppy. Their parents should have to watch, then the parents should suffer the same fate. Instead the rest of us will pay for the upkeep of these two sub-human scumbags.

These two represent a backward step in evolution. Such deviant abberrations would not be tollerated to live anywhere else in the animal kingdom. There is no reason why we should.

As for animal research, it is no better. It is a complete waste and there is plenty of evidence to support that it has delayed the discovery of workable medicines more than it has helped. There is no slippery slope whatsoever. There should be no animal research either.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Let me review some of my concerns for you again, chuck.

(1) The Bible clearly prohibits inventing new religious holidays. Christmas and Easter are not Biblical holidays, they are pagan celebrations, as any quick perusal of History shows.

(2) The Sabbath = the seventh day, which is Saturday. Sunday worship is non-Biblical.

(3) The spiritual outlook advocated by the Bible is one of humility and love for your fellow man. Virtually every time you mention the Bible it’s for the purpose of telling someone they are wrong.

(4) Christ never condemned homosexuality, yet it is one of the main cornerstones of your “ministry” here on W2W.

By SW

January 26, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Ninety years sounds about right for these two monsters plus take the idiot brain dead juror that held out and toss her in for sixty days minimum for contempt of court. On second thought, bake them alive, who cares? Not me. I would like to see them suffer. I hope they get their due in prison, in the showers. They are young, perhpas we’ll be seeing them on the cover of Prison Bride soon.

By Chilao

January 26, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Guys, I am impressed. End of the week and the Topic At Hand is still actually being discussed(usually dead by Tuesday morning). For your good efforts this week, feel free to take the next couple of days off. LOL

By Sarah

January 26, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

Saunti (what a name, was your mother on drugs..?) is an idiot, always has been and always will be. I hope you can’t breed Shaunti,if you do…get a book of names, use a PRONOUN.

By Kevin

January 26, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

GOB you said:

Chuck - Can you make an argument for not making animal cruelty a felony without falling back on the “god gave us dominion” argument? Or the one that says they are simply property because god didn’t give them a soul?

And what argument has anyone presented that it should be a felony other than “because they will later do the same to humans” or “because that’s my opinion”? But if you want an argument, read my post to Eirik a few days ago. Animals have worth to us because WE domesticated them. The fact that we are discussing this issue on this blog shows that we have far more value than they do. But that’s my opinion. Sorry, but opinions are the only thing that I have seen from your camp.

I do believe the boys should be punished. But one year in jail is more than enough. After a year they should be put on probation, their activities should be monitored, and they should be required to go through several counseling sessions.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:40 PM | Link to this

Martta—Your question, “What made these boys do this?” might be better phrased “What possessed these boys to do this?”.

While mental health “experts” discard the idea of demonic possession today, I think the idea should be revisited.

By Amy

January 26, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

I personally think both those boys should be hog tied and put to death in a gas oven the same way that puppy was. Only then would they understand the true pain and suffering they caused another life. Given that there is no “eye for an eye”, 90 years in prison on my tax dollars will also suffice.

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Kelly, Mr. Liberty, SW—Hopefully you will understand the folly of basing criminal prosecution on emotions one day. The purpose of criminal prosecution is especially not revenge . Seeking revenge is counterproductive and causes the State to lose it’s impartial moral authority.

Old Chinese saying “When you seek revenge, be sure to dig two graves.”

By L'il John

January 26, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

Maybe that will make a good W2W topic in the future: Is the danger of being assaulted in prison just “part of the punishment”, or is it wrong? I don’t think prisoners should be pampered, but I don’t think they should be humiliated or endangered either. Once again, “How you treat the least of me…..”

By Amanda

January 26, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this

Why is the question “Should Animal Cruelty be have a penalty of prison for life?” These two monsters committed multiple crimes, besides cooking a live puppy to death. They destroyed a community’s hard won center that was to help their children and adults learn skills, and have a safe place to “be a community.” They also threatened to “kill you when we get out in 3 weeks” to four children,after they proudly showed them the puppy in the oven! They were already confident that killing a puppy and a little vandalism, would be of nothing consequence. What if they had gotten out in 3 weeks? What if they had carried out their threat because “we can’t treat the death of a puppy like the death of human?”, and they had just gotten a couple of mideamenors, and were out in no time.

Were either of you two ladies at that trial? Well I was for 5 days. On my first day there, Joshua Moulder mouthed, “F—- You B***” because he didn’t like the way I stared at him, while he was yawning and laughing. During the Power Point display to explain their crimes to the jury, on Dec. 13, at 4:45 pm, Joshua Moulder looked at me and mouthed, “I’ll get you B——”. I immediately told the bailiff about his threat. I asked the news camera person if he had caught the threat on tape. Unfortunately no.

Do I think this person is a psycopath with no guilt for his crimes? I’m positive. Neither Joshua nor Justin Moulder showed any remorse, fear, or empathy during the entire trial. My heart was beating fast just from witnessing the horrific testimony and pictures of the torture of the puppy. They yawned and laughed. The only emotion they showed was boredom.

There is a difference between animal neglect, animal cruelty, and willful animal torture. Prosecutor Laura Janssen made the very real and obvious connection between these two monsters and the BTK killer. They deliberately Bound, Tortured, and Killed this Puppy. If the FBI profilers have had statistical proof for over a decade that there is a definite link between this crime and serial killers/rapists then why on earth would we NOT take this crime seriously enough to prosecute it with a very heavy consequence? There is no “treatment” for a lack of conscience. I would be relieved if they were given an extremely long prison sentence. At least the public would be protected for that long.

By Sten80951

January 28, 2007 01:36 AM | Link to this

retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.

By kbova

January 29, 2007 08:15 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, you say it’s extreme to punish these monsters with life for whatever he does to the animal? I think it’s pretty extreme when a puppy is duct taped and put in an oven and cooked from the inside out, yes that is what the vet said. The dog was alive, the dog did not die right away, the dog suffered severely. These two if let loose will do it again and again I am positive. And the next time when it’s a human and you want their heads I will tell you “you’re being a little extreme here”.

By Sharon

January 31, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

Shaunti — You claim to be a Christian, yet obviously don’t recognize the fact that this puppy is also one of God’s creatures. So I guess that in your opinion, it would be okay for a human to be bound and burned to death in an oven too.

The Molder brothers have lost their humanity. It’s past time that they lose their freedom too. The rest of us don’t want them here.