Knick Knack Paddy Whack.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:08 pm

I hope I'm not supposed to find anything funny about this because I don't.

That sick SOB should have it nailed to a tree, have the tree set on fire and then be handed a rusty spoon. And then he should be shot! Eliminated from this planet.

That poor dog. She may have survived but there are cases on file where men have raped small dogs and even cats and killed them in the process.

I don't want to hear any sheep jokes either. This kind of crap is mentally deranged and deserves to be a first class felony in ALL states!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:48 am

Hey Scrat!

Sorry, I wasn't lashing out at you over this. I didn't mean to come across that way.

As you probably know, I am an avid friend of animals and this particular issue is something that makes me so angry I could spit blood. I hate the cretin who did that to that poor dog. I am not at all upset with you.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:30 am

Thanks Scrat.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:38 am

Pinky wrote: I must admit, I laughed at the title, that was until I read the content.

Ugh. What a sicko! Who in their right mind would want to give their dog one?

I know some people will sleep with anything, but that really takes the juice.

That poor dog!

If it saves just one child from being sodomized, then I can handle it. It's called perspective.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:55 am

Weber, let me be sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that it'd be ok for men to sodomize animals in order to "protect" human children from a similar fate?

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:16 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Weber, let me be sure I understand your meaning. Are you saying that it'd be ok for men to sodomize animals in order to "protect" human children from a similar fate?

No Lulu, I am not saying that. I should have been more explicit. I see cruelty to a dog, animal, and I hate that. I see a human being doing it and it is not natural to do that. It is an abnormal thing to do. And it is not a well mind doing it. So I am just looking at a different angle than just the dog. I wonder what was done to that person that they would do such an inhumane thing. I am a believer that people don't get up in the morning and say "hmmm I must go be cruel to that dog today". I don't think people do that. I think something is twisted in their mind and my concern is more for the twisted person than the dog.

I see the cruelty to the dog.....I also see the sick human being and I simply am concerned for the human being too. If we could cure the sickness that brings on such cruelty, life would be a lot better for both animals and humans.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:13 pm

WEBER "If it saves just one child from being sodomized, then I can handle it. It's called perspective."

++++++++++++ This is what I don't understand.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:37 pm

RedGlitter wrote: I hope I'm not supposed to find anything funny about this because I don't.

That sick SOB should have it nailed to a tree, have the tree set on fire and then be handed a rusty spoon. And then he should be shot! Eliminated from this planet.

That poor dog. She may have survived but there are cases on file where men have raped small dogs and even cats and killed them in the process.

I don't want to hear any sheep jokes either. This kind of crap is mentally deranged and deserves to be a first class felony in ALL states!

That really ties my hands here glitter

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:18 pm

(Whisper 'em into my ear, Nomad, and I'll tell you if they'd be acceptable.) :sneaky:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:10 pm

Nomad wrote: That really ties my hands here glitter

:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:14 pm

Lulu2 wrote: WEBER "If it saves just one child from being sodomized, then I can handle it. It's called perspective."

++++++++++++ This is what I don't understand.

I don't understand it either. I read Weber's explanation three times and I am still unsure.

I don't think dog rape is more acceptable than child rape. That's my perspective.

Pinky's on the mark with what she said about the role animals play in our lives.

Was it Mahatma Ghandi who said "The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its animals?"

I think that speaks volumes.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:32 pm

RedGlitter wrote: I don't understand it either. I read Weber's explanation three times and I am still unsure.

I don't think dog rape is more acceptable than child rape. That's my perspective.

Pinky's on the mark with what she said about the role animals play in our lives.

Was it Mahatma Ghandi who said "The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its animals?"

I think that speaks volumes.

Sorry guys but I don't understand a dog's life being valued the same as a human being's life. I do not condone cruelty to animals but if there is.....

A. a dog

B. a human being

and one of them must die, I would choose for the dog to die. They are not equal

Can't prove me wrong cuz it is just my opinion. And Red you are entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:54 pm

Weber, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just don't comprehend how you could think so little of animals. This is not an issue of "would you rather the dog or the child." That would be ridiculous and gross. Both are equally sick and wrong. I don't understand the idea that animals are here to take the bullet for us.

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:59 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Weber, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just don't comprehend how you could think so little of animals. This is not an issue of "would you rather the dog or the child." That would be ridiculous and gross. Both are equally sick and wrong. I don't understand the idea that animals are here to take the bullet for us.

I never said that Red.

And I think animals, dogs, cats, budgies, whatever are wonderful.

All I said was that I would not let a human die and keep the animal alive. For me, a human life has greater value than animal life. I ask you, if there was a human being to be killed or an animal, maybe dog, to be killed, which would you choose to live? Can you answer me that? Now remember that I have said nothing ever about a dog sent in place of a man. Someone else said that. Just answer my question as it is by itself.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:08 pm

weber wrote: I never said that Red.

And I think animals, dogs, cats, budgies, whatever are wonderful.

All I said was that I would not let a human die and keep the animal alive. For me, a human life has greater value than animal life. I ask you, if there was a human being to be killed or an animal, maybe dog, to be killed, which would you choose to live? Can you answer me that? Now remember that I have said nothing ever about a dog sent in place of a man. Someone else said that. Just answer my question as it is by itself.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Weber. When you said "if it keeps a child from being sodomized.." I took that to mean better the dog than the child.

As to your question, I guess that depends on who the person is. There are definitely some people I'd leave for dead. But just as you would save the life of the person, I would most probably opt to save the life of the animal. The human can save himself. The dog cannot.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:11 pm

Pinky wrote: Animals give us an awful lot...humans can't be bothered half the time because they are so wrapped up in their own heads. Animals help the eco-system, humans constantly screw it up. We are all creatures who have to co-exist together peacefully. Ok, humans are more intelligent, but still often have the base instints shared by animals. We're really not that far removed. Who's to say we use our intelligence wisely? Most of us have little respect for the planet we live on, we take more than we need leaving others with insufficient. We kill, maim and destruct on a regular basis. Animals do this to survive...we don't because most of us close our eyes and bury our heads in the sand, or simply don't care.

I think it's time we start having a bit of respect for the other beings we share the earth with.

:yh_clap

weber · Post by **weber** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:41 pm

RedGlitter wrote: Sorry if I misunderstood you, Weber. When you said "if it keeps a child from being sodomized.." I took that to mean better the dog than the child.

As to your question, I guess that depends on who the person is. There are definitely some people I'd leave for dead. But just as you would save the life of the person, I would most probably opt to save the life of the animal. The human can save himself. The dog cannot.

So sorry Red

I find value in all human life. I detest what some people do but I love the people.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:22 am

"We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.

Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves.

And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man.

In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.

They are not brethren; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

Henry Beston

"The Outermost House"

weber · Post by **weber** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:19 pm

Lulu2 wrote: "We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.

Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves.

And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man.

In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.

They are not brethren; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth."

Henry Beston

"The Outermost House"

When people consider the life of an animal of more importance than the life of a human being, we are in deep trouble. And many people think just that and I suspect strongly that those people would save the animal first and then go back to see if they could save the human being. Or worse yet, would not even go back for the human being.

It is not how a nation treats it animals that is so wonderful, for the people would die off and the animals would survive. It is how we might behave as an animal does with trust, loyalty and love, that is how we might better ourselves......not by making the animals more important than we are and letting men die and animals live..

Henry Beston

"The Outermost House"[/QUOTE]

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:42 pm

I don't know that many people worth saving. I don't know any animal NOT worth saving. I think we should just agree to strongly disagree on this one.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:12 pm

My conclusion, exactly. Domestic animals might behave with "trust, loyalty and love," but that's very different from the rest of them. We ARE all tied together and animals deserve exactly the same respect as humans. I'm talking about the entire WORLD of animals, which is a huge concept.

We will agree to disagree.