Dogs killed by terrorists - NOT for the faint hearted

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by obhavekenobi78, Aug 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inari_Icewalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 2
    Answer: Because of selfish, insensitive and humans-above-anything-no-matter-what specieists like you, that's why.

    Happy now?
  2. Yodave27 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 2, 2001
    star 4
    Answer: Because of selfish, insensitive and humans-above-anything-no-matter-what specieists like you, that's why.

    Happy now?


    So are you agreeing with his point that some people put animals rights in front of other human beings?

    Before I state my opinion, I just want to make it clear that I'm not an "animal lover". I have two dogs in my house neither of which really like me, nor do I like them. So does this make me a bad guy? I'm not cruel to them, but I rarely show them affection. The other members of my family do. It's more of mutual indifference on both parts.

    And personally, I have to make sure that my fellow men are doing ok before I worry about the safety of my pet. When I was a kid, my dog got hit by a car. Was I crushed? Not really, for the reasons stated above. She survived, which was nice, but if that had been a family member, it would have been much worse.


    EDIT: Back on topic, I agree with those before me that the real terror in the video is that these people have the capability to use such weapons in such a matter. The death of the dogs, while sad, is secondary to the fear for more loss of human life.
  3. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Red-Seven,

    You stated, "That said, I DO NOT think people are upset about this because it represents animal cruelty or because it is right or wrong to kill or euthanize dogs and cats. And, if they are, then I think they are stupid, frankly."

    And to that, I respond with a few quotes from other "stupid" people. Thanks for the compliment. :D


    "For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."
    Pythagoras, mathematician

    "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
    Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

    "To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime."
    Romain Rolland, author, Nobel Prize 1915

    "If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth -- beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals -- would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?"
    George Bernard Shaw, playwright, Nobel Prize 1925

    "What is it that should trace the insuperable line? ...The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
    Jeremy Bentham, philosopher

    "In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought."
    Isaac Bashevis Singer, author, Nobel Prize 1978

    "Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921

    "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
    Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President

    "Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
    Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President

    "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist

    "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
    "What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
    Leo Tolstoy author

    "I cannot fish without falling a little in self-respect...always when I have done I feel it would have been better if I had not fished."
    Henry David Thoreau, author

    "While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth?"
    "Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research."
    George Bernard Shaw

    "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
    "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."
    Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

    "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain whic
  4. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Oh, bloody hell. Yes, dozens of quotes out of context from people much smarter than you or I certainly serves as the arbiter in this case. Anyway...


    Of course you are correct that to kill animals in such a ruthless manner is evidence of sociopathological behaviour.

    However, before you start pulling quotes off of the internet, think about the issue. WHY is the story interesting? WHAT is the significance?

    If your answer to why and what is the death of a dog, because that makes terrorists evil; well, your indictment will stretch to everyone on PETA's hit list (ie EVERYONE).

    If your answer is that it is proof of WMD development and testing on living subjects, denoting a certain level of sophistication, ruthlessness and sociopathy, you agree with me.



    The bottom line is that if you cling to the belief that the significance of the video and news lies in the identity of the victim (in this case, an animal), I would assert that you would be using this event for your own political ends, which is a distraction from the MORE IMPORTANT lessons we should learn from this.
  5. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    "The bottom line is that if you cling to the belief that the significance of the video and news lies in the identity of the victim (in this case, an animal), I would assert that you would be using this event for your own political ends, which is a distraction from the MORE IMPORTANT lessons we should learn from this."

    Well, if you STILL have not learned the lesson after September 11th, then I would STRONGLY urge you to refrain from calling others stupid. What in the world does showing a dog being gassed accomplish? Keep in mind that we already know they possess the ability to use biological weapons (I posted quotes earlier if you care to read them). I could site the use of biological weapons in Iraq, or even the recent Anthrax attacks here in America. So, my question to you would be, since we already knew that the terrorists had the capability of using Bio-weapons AND that they certainly intend to use them, what is the validity of showing this film on television? Do you need to see something die to get the point? If so, did you need to see it 500 times in two days? That is NOT responsible journalism, not issuing a warning. It's called ratings. The point I was making is that millions of similar occurances happenn every year in America, yet rarely ever get any attention. Why?

    My original point was politically motivated, which is CLEARLY open for discussion in this forum, is it not?

    And, if you would like to know where I pulled those quotes, just ask. You had the site wrong, but those quotes do nicely as well.

    "Oh, bloody hell. Yes, dozens of quotes out of context from people much smarter than you or I certainly serves as the arbiter in this case. Anyway... "

    Those quotes are pretty direct. No context needed. Seeking an arbiter was not my goal, my goal was to respond to your assumption that holding these particular view points makes one stupid. Obviously, I have posted quotes from people who are considered not only great leaders of mean, but in most cases intellectul pioneers. If you wish to ignore them, that is your choice, but please refrain from making assessments that other viewpoints are stupid. There are better and more polite ways of making one's points.
  6. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    Red Seven,

    It was not my intention for the debate to turn this way.


    At least now you've admitted it.



    I should clarify one point, though. You are right that CNN is showing the video for sensationalism, and I'm sorry if it creates some sort of moral dilemna for you, which I responded to in my first post (the difference between putting down animals in shelters and testing WOMD on them). As for the propaganda value of showing something visually that was already known: a) not everyone believes facts, no matter how many times they are told b) people discount external threats over time, so that if they are not faced with some sort of reminder, the perception of threat ceases to exist c) video evidence acts as a confirmation via independent source, which is useful in journalism and intelligence gathering.

    I should have stated that my opinions are what people SHOULD have taken from the videos, and not portrayed my opinions as that of the general public or the news directors at CNN.


    I still maintain that to concentrate on the dog, instead of concentrating on the test, is an emotional reaction. Again, as I've said repeatedly, this wouldn't be important (in the non-ratings sense) if the dogs were being used as target practice on the gun-range. The focus should be on the WOMD, not that it is a canine snuff video.




    Just out of curiosity, what was the real message of September 11th, that I have missed? I'm a bit puzzled.
  7. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Red Seven,

    It was not my intention for the debate to turn this way.


    "At least now you've admitted it"

    Actually, I posted that three days ago. What was the ininuation you were trying to make? That I didn't intend for the debate to turn into an animal rights debate? Please let me know as I am now curious.

    As to you final question, ONE of the lessons learned is that America, or any nation for that matter, is not inpervious to attack. I don't need to see a dog die to remind me of that. As far as this statement:

    "Again, as I've said repeatedly, this wouldn't be important (in the non-ratings sense) if the dogs were being used as target practice on the gun-range."

    Obviously, this is a pointed attempt to "get my goat", but believe me, I have SEEN much worse than you can verbalize in any attempt to anger me. You can bet the farm that if some redneck decided to use dogs as target practice it would make the news.

    "So, my question to you is, how does the actions taken by the terrorists in question compare to the situation in the United States?" The action taken was killing a dog, correct? How does the act of killing the dog (action taken by terrorists) compare
    to the actions we take that result in the death of millions of pet animals here in the United States? It does't matter to me, in this particular question, what their motivations were or the context of the killing. That doesn't mean I don't value human life. It just means I wanted opinions from others on this particular topic.

    That is okay, right?
  8. ADMIRALSPUZZUM Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2002
    star 4
    2 things to say here, for, for people who are animal rights folks.

    1. If your being bitten by a mosquito, do you kill it or let it drink your blood?
    2. You DO know that plants and such are living creatures right? So I'm curious as to why people think its any different than eating meat.
  9. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    "1. If your being bitten by a mosquito, do you kill it or let it drink your blood?"

    It is obvious that there is a rather large difference in swating an insect that is harming you and killing a being for selfish reasons.

    "2. You DO know that plants and such are living creatures right? So I'm curious as to why people think its any different than eating meat."

    Plants are void of a central nervous system, they do not feel. They are not autonomous, therefore they do not think for themselves. What aspect are you confused about?
  10. ADMIRALSPUZZUM Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2002
    star 4
    Then what is an animal if an insect is not considered one?
  11. V8ER_H8ER Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1998
    star 4
    If we all would have just listened to Bob Barker none of this would have happend. :)

  12. ADMIRALSPUZZUM Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2002
    star 4
    LOL yes, Bob Barker, listen to him, you must!

    Ah, thanks for the clarifications about the mosquito
  13. Dusty Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    star 1
    Ah this discussion reminds me of a shirt is just bought. It's black with green lettering. It says "How many vegetables had to die just so you could eat that stupid salad?"
  14. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    Dusty,

    Thank you for you intellectual comments. While your choices in regard to your personal wardrobe selections are interesting, I do not believe they are at all relevant to this particular discussion. Perhaps you should start a thread in order to delve in depth into this topic.

    I would ask that if you cannot post an opinion or thought on the matter being discussed in this thread that you please refrain from posting at all. If you do have something to add that would be of value, then by all means, please do.
  15. Inari_Icewalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 2
    Yes, obhavekenobi78, I wanted to add this to the list of poignant quotes you provided earlier:

    "Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism; yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own." --Robert Louis Stephenson

    With regard to the over-used and absurd retort, wondering, "how many vegetables die to make a stupid salad," I must point out that you have shown your hand and it's not a strong one.

    Many plants, in fact, have developed evolutionary adaptations which attract animals, birds, and insects to them. Some, such as in the case of the orange tree, for example, even grow fruit which is sweet and edible to a variety of creatures, in hopes that the fruit, once ripe and dropped from the branches, will be consumed, thereby further propagating its seeds. In other words, the plant isn't offering itself on the chopping block, just seeds encased in a fleshy fruit, specifically grown to be consumed.

    This is very different from hauling an innocent life form out of the water, bashing it over the head, and then proclaiming that you're a "superior species" simply because you've figured out a way to do this, and in particularly violent way (oh, and humans aren't the only tool-makers or species with problem-solving abilities, so tread carefully if you attempt this path for your position).

    I should point out here that humans are the only known species which murders others of its own kind without provocation, and when there is no danger present. Before you launch into the assertion that "animals kill each other," be certain you understand the ramifications here. Animals may selectively kill and consume each other for sustinence, or to protect themselves and their offspring from threats of danger; also, if harsh environmental conditions occur, they may occassionally commit infanticide. Humans murdering humans is, only rarely, justified in the name of self defense. The other categories, killing for consumption and infanticide, we socially ban. So, how do we classify the rest [read: majority] of all the murders which take place? The reason I ask this is because there seems to be such a focus on the "terrorist activities," when all we are really talking about here are different forms of violence, directed at a variety of victims.

    And mosquitos? I just flick them away.

    There are two simple rules that Ghandi and other learned and enlightened people have proffered along the way for compassionate living: Harm not others, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I chose to see the "other" as all other life forms as often as possible.

    You may attempt to argue that there are too many situations, even in ordinary daily life, for a person to stop and use this measure with every decision in life. Aristotle disagreed with this. He asserted that one should, at every turn, ask oneself this: "I can do X, but should I do it?" His conclusion is that if a person is willing to do this on each occassion wherein a decision is required, it does two things. It becomes easier to do, and one will learn universal truths through the experience, and one will also be liberated by the exercise. I tend to agree with him.

    Lastly, to Red-Seven's statement that, "I still maintain that to concentrate on the dog, instead of concentrating on the test, is an emotional reaction. Again, as I've said repeatedly, this wouldn't be important (in the non-ratings sense) if the dogs were being used as target practice on the gun-range. The focus should be on the WOMD, not that it is a canine snuff video," I'm sorry, that makes precious little sense. Let me make this more clear: The whole point is that it's violence, and perhaps it's very telling that the reactions toward the act of violence suffered by the victim (domestic dog), in the larger scope of "terrorism," is actually an expression against violence itself, no matter what form it is in. And violence against the defenseless will usually arouse
  16. V8ER_H8ER Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1998
    star 4
    Genesis 1:26

    "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

    First off, I'm a Christian so what you just read I believe fully. I'm not turning this into a religious debate, but since people use evolutionary topics to promote the welfare of animals, I'll then use Christian.

    As far as I'm concerned man has the right to kill any animal as long as it fits into the reasons God put it here on earth.

    Cattle, deer, fish, chickens, etc are our food. Man has every right to take advantage of that.

    The verse said that we have dominion over animals. Some have taken this to mean that man can do whatever he wishes to animals. That is wrong also. Dominion means to rule or have authority over, it sets us appart from animals. God, likewise, has dominion over us. He treats us fairly and so we should treat animals with respect and all fairness.

    One should not go around popping cats and dogs for the fun of it. However, if a mouse is climbing through my basement walls, I think its fine to set up a mouse trap.

    People have to use common sense when it comes to animals. I think there can be two extremes when it comes to this issue. Those who think its wrong to hurt any animal I believe are in the wrong as well.

    We have to remember that everthing God made has a purpose and not to exploit it.
  17. Inari_Icewalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 2
    If you read the original Greek and Hebrew writings, that isn't exactly what it says.

    Thomas Aquinas rewrote many of those passages with a new paradigm and perspective, and it veers away from perceiving non-humans as beings whom the Divine entrusted with humans to safeguard their care and protection.

    Be careful about using "the Bible," as it has been translated from at least three languages, edited, and rewritten MANY times. If you want to argue that this is all through "Divine inspiration," that's rocky footing considering that human transcription is as subject to human error as with any other pursuit.

    It's also a sign that someone can't critically reason for themselves when they use nothing but religion to foster and further their position.

    Beware the ones who claim to speak "for god."
  18. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    V8ER-H8ER,

    If you are going to present the Bible as an argument for animal cruelty, then I am at a loss. I think you are justifying the aspect of meat eating, correct me if I am wrong. If this is the case, then you will find that the Bible is full of contradictions on this subject, so I would assert that you would start at the beginning, Genesis. The passage you quoted earlier curiously left out the most important aspect. Here is the passage:

    28 And 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.

    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Where here do you find God stating that man should eat meat? You are correct in you initial assessment of the word Dominion. It denotes the utmost responsibility, something that we as humans have miserably failed at. Dominion. More like domination wouldn't you agree?

    Another aspect of the failing of man to properly exercise our dominion is evident in the scarring of the environment and the current state of health.

  19. V8ER_H8ER Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1998
    star 4
    First of all, there is no proof that the Bible has been alterd in anyway from the original text. Also, Hebrew scholars followed a law that if they made one mistake along the way of copying the text they threw it out and started over. However, this is not to get into a debate about the infalability of the Bible.

    Yes, according to the Bible God had made it so animals and humans lived in harmony. This is because there was to be no death in the perfect world. Howver, man sinned and when he did he realized he was naked. God, himself, killed animals and took their skins to cover Adam and Eve(Gen. 3:21). God then threw them out into the the wilderness where they were forced to farm and raise cattle. Cain even killed able over the fact that God recognized Able's animal sacrafice and not Cain's fruit sacrafice.

    All I'm saying is that according to what I believe there is nothing to say that the killing of an animal for food or other reasonable purpose is wrong.
  20. Inari_Icewalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 2
    First of all, there is no proof that the Bible has been alterd in anyway from the original text.

    This is patently incorrect, considering the "orginial" bible was revised during the Cannon of Worms, wherein it was decided to exclude certain books from the then-bible, and again by the direction of King James I of England, hence the "King James Version." I'm really takenn aback that you'd assert that no alteration has taken place, when clearly, there has.

    I believe there is nothing to say that the killing of an animal for food or other reasonable purpose is wrong.

    "Other purposes?" Just what "other purposes" did you have in mind? Cockfighting, perhaps? I'm confused here.
  21. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    "All I'm saying is that according to what I believe there is nothing to say that the killing of an animal for food or other reasonable purpose is wrong."

    What about killing billions of animals? How many can you justify for "reasonable pupose"? Do you have to have that Ice Cream? How about those Altoids that contain boiled skin and bones? Ever notice how all of the products that are animal derived are destructive to us or the environment(many times both), yet we continue to act as if we have no responsibility? What makes us so special? If you wish you can answer all of these questions.

    I know we have spun way off topic, but that is fine with me as long as the discussion continues to be civil.
  22. V8ER_H8ER Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1998
    star 4
    I beleive I was quoted as saying something to the affect of "common sense." Torture and sensless hurting of animals is wrong. However, using them for purposes such as clothing and food are not.



    Back to our other little debate. As far as Canon of Worms, I know nothing about it. When I did a search on the web I came up with nothing. I also checked my Reformation text book, just incase, and found nothing. So any further help in that area would be great. Also, the greek in which the King James Bible was translated from still exist. The King James Bible was translated from the oldest texts still surviving at that time. Nothing goes back farther.

    However, what we are talking about is the Old Testiment. That is a matter altogether different. If you are bored sometime, look up the process in which Hebrews use to copy their texts. Its mind blowing how exact they must be. The slightes error and the whole text was thrown away. There was and is no room for error.

    People like to say that the Bible has changed, and wether or not books are taken out, the original text does not change.
  23. Inari_Icewalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2001
    star 2
    I'm very sorry, but merely because one hasn't yet had the opportunity to access a body of literature or scholarly work does not render it non-existent.

    Here's an example:

    http://www.education.bl.uk/projects/bibles/section1.html

    You'll note here, that there are bibles (plural), and that there firstly, isn't "just one."

    As for your question regarding the King James revision of the then-bible, see here:

    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

    I found both of these references fairly quickly.

    Regarding your statement, "I beleive I was quoted as saying something to the affect of "common sense." Torture and sensless hurting of animals is wrong. However, using them for purposes such as clothing and food are not.", I challenge you to observe a random slaughter house and then report back your findings. If you do not believe that animals are tortured, mutilated, skinned alive, and abused while being sent for butchery, again, there are many places I can quickly locate where such atrocities have been well-documented. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) is responsible for monitoring and inspecting the process of animal death and dismemberment for the purposes of conversion into meat products, and they, too, even understaffed, have documented many cases wherein animals were thrown alive into boiling vats, were sawed in half while still alive, observed multiple chickens stuffed into 3'x3' cages and living in their own feces (egg-laying hens).

    Does this not constitute abuse? Is this not an attempt to negate any responsibility humans have toward animals, if we claim to be the "superior species," or if a divine power charged us with their care and protection?

    I beg to differ with you on what is "OK to use them as food and clothing" when getting there constitutes pain, abuse, and senseless torment, no matter how it is performed.

    And please do not claim these things do not happen, just because you've not done the research or had the opportunity to read any documentation from goverment agencies or other investigative entities.


  24. V8ER_H8ER Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 1998
    star 4
    The core of the debate is wether or not its wrong for me to eat meat or use animal skins for clothing.

    I have said that torturing and abusing animals is wrong. If Food Plant A down the street is sawing live pigs in half then they are in the wrong. They should be fined, shut down, what have you. However, they all don't do it. Even still, that doesn't make the eating of meat and waring of animal skins wrong.

    I hunt deer. With a single shot the animal goes down. I then skin it myself and take it to a butcher to make into steak and links. That animal died to feed me. I did not torture it and used probably 75% of the animal for food. I have found deer in the woods killed by wolves with maybe one or two bites taken out of it. I feel that my hunting for a week or two a year is less wasteful and more humane. If you were a deer, would you rather starve to death, be torn appart by wolves, or perhaps die instantly and supply food for a man.

    Granted this is an ideal situation, and the ham in my sandwhich may not have come from a pig that was killed in a humane way. However, I can not know where all the meat I eat comes from, and I will not change my eating habbits because of the possibility that the meat came from a plant that slipped the governments understaffed fingers.
  25. Genghis12 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1999
    star 6
    How about we ask the terrorists to just kill people who wish to die.

    Solves everyone's problems. No moral dilemna of committing suicide and being sent to hell. The terrorists get to kill godless Americans. The terrorists were going to kill people anyway...

    The fact is, terrorists kill things to terrorize people, causing as much pain and suffering as possiblt to the maximum number of people.

    Euthanasia is used to end a person's life in as painless a way as possible.

    The difference is in the ethics of the killing, not the morality of it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.