The whole point, which Don Tiny seems to have ignored, is that if you take the hardline stance that no matter what else, "Human > Animal" then dog fighting should either be legal or human fighting should be illegal. He's speaking in absolutes.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Sounds like a TNA PPV.

If it's Hogan Vs. Nash, I would definitely buy that PPV.

_________________

_________________
This is my signature...

There may be other ways...
http://tucsoncitizen.com/usa-today-news ... to-imbibe/

College students have long done crazy things, from swallowing gold fish to jamming themselves into telephone booths. Not all things they try are dangerous, but some are.
Two new cases in point: consumption of controversial alcoholic energy drinks likely to be banned today; and a bizarre method of trying to get plastered by absorbing alcohol through the eyeball.
The eyeball shots don’t succeed and definitely fall in the category of risky behaviors, experts say.
“This is an activity that has no upside to it,” says David Granet, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of San Diego.
The theory among the students seems to be that alcohol can be absorbed through mucous membranes, and the eyeball and inner side of the eyelids are covered in mucous membrane, so, voila!— vodka eyeball shots. There are more than 30 homemade videos of young men doing this on YouTube.
Not only does it fail to get someone drunk, “it hurts and it will cause permanent damage to the surface of the eye,” Granet says.

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance

No, I haven't missed anything.

A situation involving a human death is in no way comparable to an animal death. That's what you are missing.

Go learn what a Venn diagram is, and then draw two circles that don't overlap; label one "human slaughter" and the other "animal slaughter" - then you can quite literally see my point - unless you are interested in obfuscating my very obvious, very simple posit, in which case you might as well draw a snowman humping a basketball as that would more accurately depict your interest in / attentiveness to what I'm saying.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

So you are saying that there is no situation in which we can consider a person who is involved in the death of a human to be worse than someone who is involved in the death of an animal?

Take this example instead:
1) Two men are walking down the stairs. One of them slips, accidentally kicks the other person who then falls down the stairs and dies of his injuries.
2) A man is out in his yard and grows tired of hearing the neighbors dog bark. He grabs his shotgun and shoots the dog dead.

Which do you think is worse? Would you punish the man in #1 as severely as you would punish the man in #2? Would you punish the man in #1 at all?

In my opinion, while the loss of the man in #1 is more tragic, the actions of the man in #2 is worse.

If all things are completely equal you are exactly right. However, there is a grey area when you add in the concept of a "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" act.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

This could have ended a while ago...

_________________
This is my signature...

Ending after this post would have been appropriate.

_________________

Yet, I will continue on (if this goes long enough I might actually get to 1,000)




Joe, come on, you are totally changing lanes. You have a responsibility to not kill someone. If getting drunk might end up with you killing someone, don't get drunk, or hand over your keys before you do, whatever. That does not, in any way, equate to someone being fair game to be violated because they drank too much. I don't see a comparison at all, here. You are responsible for YOUR actions when you're drunk; that's not the same as being fair game for anything anyone else wants to do to you...?


BR, your example is a good one, and it can be further exemplified this way: I'm sure everyone here sometime in their lives has done something that, under unfortunate circumstances, could have ended up in a fatality. I bet no one here has mercilessly brutalized and killed dogs. That right there kind of proves the point.


Actually Rick, here's one for you: Say Kyle Orton throws a football as hard as he can, at close range, at a poor defenseless puppy. But he figured that with his puss-arm, there's no way the dog could get hurt. But the dog actually is killed. Is that better, or worse, than Jay Cutler throwing another red zone interception?

If I commit a crime that results in the death of one human life, I am a bigger piece of shit scumbag monster than someone who responsible for a thousand dog deaths. The
Slobodan Milošević of the canine world would be a better person than me.

_________________

MIB you are correct, I don't like the Stallworth example, except that it's somewhat mitigated in that the guy jumped out into traffic and it's possible the inebriation wasn't the reason for the death. I don't want to get into that debate since I am the last person to defend drunk driving (just days ago I called to draw-and-quarter that guy in Bolingbrook ). My argument is more general in that if the death of the person is out of line with the intent.

Ok. I'm just trying to do my part in the "March to 1000".

_________________

Thanks! (936)

I'm not the best one to answer this question.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yeah, it was a bit of a lane change, but it is a related conversation. I was just pointing out that in certain situations we as a society don't hold particular people responsible for what they do when they are "pants-on-head" drunk.

_________________
Don't take it personally.