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

Farm Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't really see that as a good comparison. You kill enemy soldiers - you destroy units, which contain more than just human lives.
 
Well, it's more the "dehumanizing." It's still done. You still destroy a target. Even when that target is a man, or a man on a contraption, or a man carrying a contraption.
 
our local St Paddy day parade was marred by the killing of a poodle by a german shepherd - the shepherd was there representing a dog rescue organization that saves "troubled" dogs from death after they've killed or hurt others
 
Farm Boy said:
Well, it's more the "dehumanizing." It's still done. You still destroy a target. Even when that target is a man, or a man on a contraption, or a man carrying a contraption.
Click to expand...

Not in every day language, not unless you're a dehumanized robot or something.
 
warpus said:
Not in every day language, not unless you're a dehumanized robot or something.
Click to expand...

Have you been in the military? Because I can tell you we never used the term "kill" when referring to a target we successfully engaged, whether it was man or machine. We would use "neutralized" or "destroyed". We wouldn't even refer to human targets as human; they were either "foot-mobiles" or "dismounts".

So that language may not be everyday usage for civilians, but it most certainly is for soldiers and we most certainly are not dehumanized robots.
 
Commodore said:
So that language may not be everyday usage for civilians, but it most certainly is for soldiers and we most certainly are not dehumanized robots.
Click to expand...

Sometimes. Related thread to come.
 
Why do people insist on getting up on a soapbox for unrelated reasons? As Farmboy said previously, "destroy" is an accepted term. It in no way denotes an indifference. This is why so many of these threads end up on a planet far far away from where it started.
 
It certainly denotes a desire by many to not call it "killing", as Commodore pointed out.
 
Formaldehyde said:
It certainly denotes a desire by many to not call it "killing", as Commodore pointed out.
Click to expand...

It's rooted in the idea that you need to have a reason to kill an animal. I find it hard to believe this would be a novel idea, so just bear with me if this is 1+1=2 condescending, that's not the intent but it seems like it might be a disconnect.

Yes, we kill animals. But if I say "the dog was killed," or "we killed 20 of our cattle today," or "we need to kill that herd of deer," valuable information is missing. Because you haven't provided any justification. You don't just kill things, even if you breed and raise them to be killed. There has to be a reason. Is it time to harvest the animal for meat/leather/everything else? It's time to slaughter it. The killing has a reason. Do you need to cull out some unhealthy heifers? Killing them needs a reason. Sometimes you need to "destroy" an animal too. Usage of that word usually indicates less of a "good use" than the other terms. Usually something unfortunate is happening if you are "destroying" animals. It's indicated that this is wasteful, but probably necessary. Referring to the necessity of "destroying" some dangerous animals brings with it the implicit statement that "this is something we would rather not be doing, it's not a good use of the animal." Does that explain why I get confused when what I think is respectful language is eyed warily and considered being tossed back by people who insist on using, in my eyes, less respectful language for the situation?
 
I am certainly not suffering from any "disconnect" in regard to this matter. After all, I wasn't the one who objected to it, and I still haven't.

But I do wonder about those who find exception to such a clearly accurate remark on my part.
 
Formaldehyde said:
But I do wonder about those who find exception to such a clearly accurate remark on my part.
Click to expand...

The only exception I take to it is an assumption on my part. My assumption is that your focus on the word "kill" as it is omitted demonstrates a desire to emotionally distance oneself from the act of killing. To that assumption my exception is this: the word kill alone is inadequate. The act of killing an animal requires justification, the word selected indicates what that justification and purpose purportedly is. "Let's go kill the dog" seems to me to express a desire for taking the action itself, not the purpose. Which seems a pretty sick thought to me.

Now if my assumption is incorrect, and you are indeed expressing a sentiment closer to my above paragraph, then why do you have to wonder?
 
Only using the word "kill" in these contexts is also quite "adequate".

And, again, what I wonder about is why you even felt the need to respond to my quite accurate remark. That you even feel the need to continue to do so.
 
Formaldehyde said:
Only using the word "kill" in these contexts is also quite "adequate".
Click to expand...

That's what I disagree with. But if you see it that way Formy, wonder away!
 
How many times are you going to have to repeat the use of the word "destroy" in a multiple paragraph discussion of the topic if you refuse to use "kill" as a completely acceptable synonym?
 
Formaldehyde said:
How many times are you going to have to repeat the use of the word "destroy" in a multiple paragraph discussion of the topic if you refuse to use "kill" as a completely acceptable synonym?
Click to expand...

As many times as it takes in the hopes that people learn to do better.
 
Its not the dogs fault and its not the kids fault. Its the parent of the kid and the owner of dogs fault.

Iv got a pit bull and he is the most friendly dog in the world to my family and even once he gets to know a stranger he is nice to them. But he does not like little kids, if they get close he walks away, he always ignores them and walks past them but if they get to close he growls and shows his teeth. But little kids are silly and they want to play with the dog.

You can't leave a leave a kid with a dog. you can't even let them interact unless you are right there with them. Anything could happen one of them could have some food the other wants or maybe the kid pulls the dogs ear, or lip.

I don't think pit bulls are any worse in these situations than other dogs. Because i have a foxy and he acts the same way towards the kids.

Put the dog down because it has to happen. And charge the adults who was looking after the kid with a crime.
 
At least the dog doesn't seem to be forced to wear pink clothing as part of his humiliation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kyriakos
An interesting story (religious, but I post it due to the unexpected motif)
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Birdjaguar
Trump Indicted!
199 200 201
Replies
4K
Views
173K
aelf
aelf
Joij21
Canada Euthanizing Poor People
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
12K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
TyrannusRex
What if there were more Tech/Civic quotes?
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
Solver
Millennia: Age of Verbosity [long-form review]
Replies
16
Views
7K
Sephi
Sephi
Back
Top Bottom