Poor dog mauls boy, please don't kill it :(

[Farm Boy]

But you're not going to shoot me because I might shoot you at some point in the future. Yes we all refrain from doing things that will certainly do us no good, but we can't eliminate the danger in lives completely.

No, but destruction of dangerous animals is a public duty, just as is the incapacitation of dangerous humans, or regulating ownership of volatile chemicals.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This type of reaction genuinely disgusts me.
People show more compassion for animals than humans. I honestly don't get that.

I remember reading a story a few years ago. Some kind of wild animal, possibly a big cat had killed a human. The animal was than put down. A few days later a whole campaign had been setup to accept donations in order to look after the offspring of the wild animal. They raised thousands of dollars.

Meanwhile the human victims are forgotten.

Yeah! F*ck those dirty, evil completely innocent and motherless cubs! What sort of society have we become when we stop doing the decent thing, which is of course to let orphaned baby animals starve to death without even the slightest pang of remorse?!!? It's political correctness gone mad.

Any crime committed by an animal (and yes, it IS a crime, even though that concept makes no sense) should be visited on that animal's children, and their children, for at least 4 generations. Anything else would simply be barbaric.

(This post was brought to you in conjunction with Irony Plc)

 

[civver_764]

No, but destruction of dangerous animals is a public duty, just as is the incapacitation of dangerous humans,

Why destroy one and incapcitate the other?

What do you mean by 'public duty'? Where does it come from?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why destroy one and incapcitate the other?

What do you mean by 'public duty'?

Look, it's our damn planet and those damn animals had better learn that fact. If they come anywhere near us, acting all "dangerous", it's our moral duty to slaughter the f*ckers without hesitation. And their children.

The sooner all animals are dead the better.

 

[Commodore]

You said when, not if. I'm not sure there's much to discuss when you see it in such a black and white manner.

And if you knew thing one about dogs you would know that it is in fact a matter of when and not if. So you have to make a choice between your dog and your child, and that choice isn't really a choice. You also can't risk putting that dog with another family because it will maul their child too (remember, it is a case of when and not if). So the only option left is to kill it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Look, it's our damn planet and those damn animals had better learn that fact. If they come anywhere near us, acting all "dangerous", it's our moral duty to slaughter the f*ckers without hesitation. And their children.

The sooner all animals are dead the better.

Is that supposed to parody me?

Why destroy one and incapcitate the other?

What do you mean by 'public duty'? Where does it come from?

Public duty comes from the public, one would suppose. And we incapacitate humans these days, rather than destroy them(*usually), largely under the premise that we may have been incorrect on the facts involved. But in situations where humans do not have the resources available(or that they are willing to spend) to safely and indefinitely control humans that are believed to be dangerous, we destroy them too. Or, if you really want to bait the answer because it's the tone you want, we destroy one because it's a dog, and we incapacitate the other because it's a human. One is more valuable to us than the other. We wouldn't destroy an endangered bear(like this. We do through other less direct means, unfortunately). We don't destroy the killer whale thing that offs its trainers. The value has to outweigh the risk. Which is why we do allow people to be free absent criminal convictions. Which is why we do allow regulated ownership of volatile chemicals. Dangerous dogs? Not worth it. Shelters are full of them already.

 

[civver_764]

Public duty comes from the public, one would suppose.

Nonsense, "the public" doesn't even exist. I could tell you 'the public' says one thing, and someone else could tell you they say another thing, and what ever 'the public' says in your world depends solely on whoever you agree with.

And we incapacitate humans these days, rather than destroy them(*usually), largely under the premise that we may have been incorrect on the facts involved.

This applies fully to cases involving animals.

But in situations where humans do not have the resources available to safely and indefinitely control humans that are believed to be dangerous, we destroy them too.

Sometimes it seems absolutely necessary, but for the most part it can and should be avoided.

Anyways, I promise you I can find many people that will tell you I'm dangerous based on real facts about my life. I very well might even cause someone's death one day. I don't know you, but I bet the same could be said for you.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nonsense, "the public" doesn't even exist.

m'kay?

 

[warpus]

No, but destruction of dangerous animals is a public duty, just as is the incapacitation of dangerous humans, or regulating ownership of volatile chemicals.

I find it sort of annoying when people say "destroy" when they're referring to a living being. No, you want to kill it.

Destroying is for inanimate objects, killing is for living beings. That sort of seems obvious to me - why are people insisting on saying "destroy" when they mean "kill" ?

Just so it sounds nicer I guess?

 

[Farm Boy]

No, destroy is the term for killing living chattels or wildlife because they are a hazard or for disease control(or the like). Slaughter is when you kill an animal for processing it as a resource. Cull is for killing one to improve genetic or long term health of a group/herd. Euthanize is for killing one out of mercy. The words have specific contexts you use them in for clarity of communication. But, I suppose if you are less accustomed to husbandry you might mistake it as you have. That's not a criticism. There is never any misunderstanding here that you aren't killing the animal silly man.

 

[Borachio]

But you're not going to shoot me because I might shoot you at some point in the future. Yes we all refrain from doing things that will certainly do us no good, but we can't eliminate the danger in lives completely.

Indeed we can't.

But we can take sensible steps to ensure that unnecessary risks are avoided. Putting a dangerous dog down can be one of these, on the balance of probabilities as we assess them, and some kind of cost-benefit analysis.

It's just a matter of risk assessment.

 

[Quackers]

No, destroy is the term for killing living chattels or wildlife because they are a hazard or for disease control(or the like). Slaughter is when you kill an animal for processing it as a resource. Cull is for killing one to improve genetic or long term health of a group/herd. Euthanize is for killing one out of mercy. The words have specific contexts you use them in for clarity of communication. But, I suppose if you are less accustomed to husbandry you might mistake it as you have. That's not a criticism. There is never any misunderstanding here that you aren't killing the animal silly man.

Mmmhhh, i can smell the burn.

 

[warpus]

No, destroy is the term for killing living chattels or wildlife because they are a hazard or for disease control(or the like). Slaughter is when you kill an animal for processing it as a resource. Cull is for killing one to improve genetic or long term health of a group/herd. Euthanize is for killing one out of mercy. The words have specific contexts you use them in for clarity of communication. But, I suppose if you are less accustomed to husbandry you might mistake it as you have. That's not a criticism. There is never any misunderstanding here that you aren't killing the animal silly man.

I understand the words you use are used correctly and I suppose I should apologize for calling you out on it. It just seems very wrong to me to use the same word for destroying a fax machine as when you kill a fox or your dog. When you do that a lot of emphasis is put on the "not really a living thing, okay to discard" type of thought and that's what ends out standing out in your argument for me, which is why I reacted emotionally.

I suppose I should start a movement to change that if I want change, but most people don't really seem to use the word like that unless it's an official release or news report or something. So when an everyday chap like you does it, it comes across even more like a spear through the heart of a helpless puppy.

That puppy can't just be discarded like a fax machine can! We don't recharge it, we feed it. We don't watch it print, we watch it give birth. We don't upgrade it, we're stuck with whatever we've got. It's a living being. We don't destroy it, we kill it.

And that's where the pitchforks came out you see.

 

[Farm Boy]

I understand the words you use are used correctly and I suppose I should apologize for calling you out on it. It just seems very wrong to me to use the same word for destroying a fax machine as when you kill a fox or your dog. When you do that a lot of emphasis is put on the "not really a living thing, okay to discard" type of thought and that's what ends out standing out in your argument for me, which is why I reacted emotionally.

I suppose I should start a movement to change that if I want change, but most people don't really seem to use the word like that unless it's an official release or news report or something. So when an everyday chap like you does it, it comes across even more like a spear through the heart of a helpless puppy.

That puppy can't just be discarded like a fax machine can! We don't recharge it, we feed it. We don't watch it print, we watch it give birth. We don't upgrade it, we're stuck with whatever we've got. It's a living being. We don't destroy it, we kill it.

And that's where the pitchforks came out you see.

But we use the same speech structure when intentionally killing humans too, it's just that we do these things less frequently and the speech of justice tends to trump. You execute a criminal, or you murder an innocent. But if you get into other circumstances you do destroy infantry units in war. We refer to some intentional losses of life as "slaughters" when it seems like people are killed as livestock is processed. I'm really not trying to be callous here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

We have certainly destroyed a number of Huns, Nazis, Japs, Commies, Iraqis, and Taliban, just to name a few.

 

[Farm Boy]

We have certainly destroyed a number of Huns, Nazis, Japs, Commies, Iraqis, and Taliban, just to name a few.

Indeed. We destroy targets. We suffer casualties or losses. We euphemize when we talk about the culling of female children through abortion in certain societies, we euphemize when we talk about culling a pregnancy due to birth defects. We dehumanize when we talk about "the enemy." Thing is, I don't have to dehumanize a dog. It's already a dog for all the things that entails. Same with a deer, or a cow, or a killer whale or an elephant. They're all different things.

 

[Synobun]

And if you knew thing one about dogs you would know that it is in fact a matter of when and not if. So you have to make a choice between your dog and your child, and that choice isn't really a choice. You also can't risk putting that dog with another family because it will maul their child too (remember, it is a case of when and not if). So the only option left is to kill it.

I can see how attacking my intelligence would convince me of your reasoning.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think it is strange, nor negative, that most people actually value human life more than animal life. I suspect it mostly has to do with animals not being of our species and not being able to communicate with us in any comparable degree.
That said, no one here asks for all animals to be pre-emptively killed. This specific dog has killed and also now mauled a human. I think it is pretty safe to claim that this dog is not safe to have around.

If one is in a mountain and sees a bear, and he has a gun to protect himself, it would be rather idiotic for him to spare the bear's life just because the bear is purely acting on instinct when it starts to close in on him so as to attack. I mean this is also why in human vs human violence there exists the "self-defence" parameter, where it can logically apply. An animal cannot even be reasoned out of attacking if it is prone to.
Also notice that in cases of wild animal attacks there can be a decision to just hunt the animal down, by people who were not attacked in the first place but were acting in the public interest following such a violent event.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I don't agree with your reasoning. Unlike a wild bear, it has bbenshown that dogs can be rehabilitated. Again, with the Vick dogs, all but two were later adopted by families, and even the dog considered the most violent spent the rest of his life loved at a dog sanctuary, where handlers wanted to take it home, but were barredby the court. Again, everybody is making assumptions. We do not know if there are resources to rehabilitate the dog, or the details behind these incidents.

 

[H4run]

is the dog are going to be executed or not for mauling the child is a tough question. If animals attacked human it is logical for the victim or other human to do self defence or defence the other, that mean if I walk pass the street and I see a kid mauled by Pitbull, if I pick up the stick and hit that dogs in the head that might can kill the Pitbull in order to save the kid, this action is not only permissible but morally recommended.

However if the Kid mauled by the Dog, and after the incident you want to find out the culprit. Using moral reasoning you hardly blame the dog because they are animals, they don't consider what they do as a mistake, it is part of their nature, the only one who can be blame for this incident is the man who own the dog, because he is the only person who able to bear responsibility for what the dog did.

But we already did this for centuries, the animals that harm human must die, and deep in our heart we not do that to anticipate other child or other peoples to get harm in the future but we did that to establish justice, to give the sense that the culprit was punish, and justice is prevail. But in this case if one not execute the dogs it may end up no one will get executed, it mean the sense that justice being establish will absence. Killing the dog might not bring back the kids eye, but not punishing anyone or anything to what happen to this child might surely grieve both of the kids and family, as it turn the table completely that the kid actually not a victim of this incident, even though it might be not truth but the family or the kid might find or feel it that way, and no one is wrong for the harm that is suffered by this kid. For those who symphatize to the dog just think what if this kid is your own son, so you might able to see this case in various side.

The only reasonable answer is to form a law regarding pet owner especially those who have special pets like again Doberman, Pitbull, and other kind of Pet including exotic Pets like Fox, Snake, or others, without this the dog will likely to be punished to satisfy the victim, to give the sense that justice is been apply. Sound awful.