MABB v6.6.6

[youtube]4kJVnA5KXJw[/youtube]



you can fast forward to 4:20. both of these idiots deserve to lose their jobs (one for performing the action and the other for not doing anything to stop him). they had it in the snatcher already and decide to shot it? sorry there is no excuse for this.

They should be fucking shot in return.

[quote name="Lumbergh"]both of these idiots deserve to lose their jobs[/quote]



You mean they haven't already? If they did this to a human being then losing their jobs would be the least of their worries. It may well have transpired that if they had taken the dog in it would only have been put down anyway. Or it may have been rehomed. Stupid bastards.

abortionists kill human babies all the time......they dont lose their jobs

They kill fetuses that have not yet been born. Your argument is a shit.

are abortions allowed after 22-24 week age?

There's no general answer to that. Go dig up various countries laws and, for the US, state laws and guidelines on abortion. Personally, I think the cap should be 18 weeks, but I'm not a prenatal development expert.

given the fact people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs (ie animals killed for food and sport etc), surely getting all emotionally oldryan at that video above is a little doublestandardish? at least is the disproportionate response people have to some animals being killed/mistreated versus others apparent?



and we dont know the history of that dog. isnt it generally accepted that if they attack a human or something they get put down? maybe that dog was a complete shit. deciding he wasnt based on that video is a bit like watching a video of sadam being walked out and executed and thinking "why the hell are they doing that? he seems perferctly agreeable"

[quote name="Verbal"]given the fact people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs (ie animals killed for food and sport etc), surely getting all emotionally oldryan at that video above is a little doublestandardish? at least is the disproportionate response people have to some animals being killed/mistreated versus others apparent?



and we dont know the history of that dog. isnt it generally accepted that if they attack a human or something they get put down? maybe that dog was a complete shit. deciding he wasnt based on that video is a bit like watching a video of sadam being walked out and executed and thinking "why the hell are they doing that? he seems perferctly agreeable"[/quote]

You're really displaying your own idiocy here, Gleeso. First, you generalize people's value toward non-human animals, something that varies greatly between groups of people. Personally, I see a sharp difference between hunting (for food -- sport hunting, like catch-and-release fishing, is a liquid shit) and this killing. There is no double standard in reactions between the two. The other big piece to the point is the method. If the animal has crossed the location's bite/attack threshold for execution of said animal, the proper way to do this is through tranquilized euthanasia by a qualified DVM; even then, the determination, when no immediate threat is at hand like in the above video, is not to be made by the officer. The dog was docile and laying down, a position of submission, before the snare was brought out. Even after, when the dog reacted to the snare, the other officer successfully snared the dog. Controlled in this fashion, the animal was no direct threat to anyone. The snare is designed specifically for that purpose.



I was exaggerating when I said the officers should be shot, however. In reality, the one who discharged his firearm should be fined and put on unpaid administrative leave with mandatory animal-handling training or something to the equivalent. I'm not so certain the one who snared the dog was in any wrong.

Fucking cowards.

It wags it's tail after it gets shot.

I usually try to support vice squad, but this is so fucking wrong. That tail wag after it gets shot is so sad.

I lol'd.

[quote name="TAM TAM"]It wags it's tail after it gets shot. [/quote]

[quote name="hbw"]
[quote name="TAM TAM"]It wags it's tail after it gets shot. [/quote]

[/quote]

[quote name="desolation"]
[quote name="Verbal"]given the fact people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs (ie animals killed for food and sport etc), surely getting all emotionally oldryan at that video above is a little doublestandardish? at least is the disproportionate response people have to some animals being killed/mistreated versus others apparent?



and we dont know the history of that dog. isnt it generally accepted that if they attack a human or something they get put down? maybe that dog was a complete shit. deciding he wasnt based on that video is a bit like watching a video of sadam being walked out and executed and thinking "why the hell are they doing that? he seems perferctly agreeable"[/quote]

You're really displaying your own idiocy here, Gleeso. First, you generalize people's value toward non-human animals, something that varies greatly between groups of people. Personally, I see a sharp difference between hunting (for food -- sport hunting, like catch-and-release fishing, is a liquid shit) and this killing. There is no double standard in reactions between the two. The other big piece to the point is the method. If the animal has crossed the location's bite/attack threshold for execution of said animal, the proper way to do this is through tranquilized euthanasia by a qualified DVM; even then, the determination, when no immediate threat is at hand like in the above video, is not to be made by the officer. The dog was docile and laying down, a position of submission, before the snare was brought out. Even after, when the dog reacted to the snare, the other officer successfully snared the dog. Controlled in this fashion, the animal was no direct threat to anyone. The snare is designed specifically for that purpose.



I was exaggerating when I said the officers should be shot, however. In reality, the one who discharged his firearm should be fined and put on unpaid administrative leave with mandatory animal-handling training or something to the equivalent. I'm not so certain the one who snared the dog was in any wrong.[/quote]



i was going to sard this, but meh. i will concede i am an idiot, but i can't see what was so stupid about what i said in that post. (maybe because of the aforementioned idiocy.) "people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs". obviously i dont mean all people without exception. and obviously different people care different amounts about different things. i dont see what was so outrageous about that.

[quote name="Verbal"]
[quote name="desolation"]
[quote name="Verbal"]given the fact people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs (ie animals killed for food and sport etc), surely getting all emotionally oldryan at that video above is a little doublestandardish? at least is the disproportionate response people have to some animals being killed/mistreated versus others apparent?



and we dont know the history of that dog. isnt it generally accepted that if they attack a human or something they get put down? maybe that dog was a complete shit. deciding he wasnt based on that video is a bit like watching a video of sadam being walked out and executed and thinking "why the hell are they doing that? he seems perferctly agreeable"[/quote]

You're really displaying your own idiocy here, Gleeso. First, you generalize people's value toward non-human animals, something that varies greatly between groups of people. Personally, I see a sharp difference between hunting (for food -- sport hunting, like catch-and-release fishing, is a liquid shit) and this killing. There is no double standard in reactions between the two. The other big piece to the point is the method. If the animal has crossed the location's bite/attack threshold for execution of said animal, the proper way to do this is through tranquilized euthanasia by a qualified DVM; even then, the determination, when no immediate threat is at hand like in the above video, is not to be made by the officer. The dog was docile and laying down, a position of submission, before the snare was brought out. Even after, when the dog reacted to the snare, the other officer successfully snared the dog. Controlled in this fashion, the animal was no direct threat to anyone. The snare is designed specifically for that purpose.



I was exaggerating when I said the officers should be shot, however. In reality, the one who discharged his firearm should be fined and put on unpaid administrative leave with mandatory animal-handling training or something to the equivalent. I'm not so certain the one who snared the dog was in any wrong.[/quote]



i was going to sard this, but meh. i will concede i am an idiot, but i can't see what was so stupid about what i said in that post. (maybe because of the aforementioned idiocy.) "people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs". obviously i dont mean all people without exception. and obviously different people care different amounts about different things. i dont see what was so outrageous about that.[/quote]

It was a generalization of something that is quite varied.

[quote name="desolation"]
[quote name="Verbal"]
[quote name="desolation"]
[quote name="Verbal"]given the fact people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs (ie animals killed for food and sport etc), surely getting all emotionally oldryan at that video above is a little doublestandardish? at least is the disproportionate response people have to some animals being killed/mistreated versus others apparent?



and we dont know the history of that dog. isnt it generally accepted that if they attack a human or something they get put down? maybe that dog was a complete shit. deciding he wasnt based on that video is a bit like watching a video of sadam being walked out and executed and thinking "why the hell are they doing that? he seems perferctly agreeable"[/quote]

You're really displaying your own idiocy here, Gleeso. First, you generalize people's value toward non-human animals, something that varies greatly between groups of people. Personally, I see a sharp difference between hunting (for food -- sport hunting, like catch-and-release fishing, is a liquid shit) and this killing. There is no double standard in reactions between the two. The other big piece to the point is the method. If the animal has crossed the location's bite/attack threshold for execution of said animal, the proper way to do this is through tranquilized euthanasia by a qualified DVM; even then, the determination, when no immediate threat is at hand like in the above video, is not to be made by the officer. The dog was docile and laying down, a position of submission, before the snare was brought out. Even after, when the dog reacted to the snare, the other officer successfully snared the dog. Controlled in this fashion, the animal was no direct threat to anyone. The snare is designed specifically for that purpose.



I was exaggerating when I said the officers should be shot, however. In reality, the one who discharged his firearm should be fined and put on unpaid administrative leave with mandatory animal-handling training or something to the equivalent. I'm not so certain the one who snared the dog was in any wrong.[/quote]



i was going to sard this, but meh. i will concede i am an idiot, but i can't see what was so stupid about what i said in that post. (maybe because of the aforementioned idiocy.) "people dont seem to value the lives other animals much, some of which are surely in the same league of intelligence as dogs". obviously i dont mean all people without exception. and obviously different people care different amounts about different things. i dont see what was so outrageous about that.[/quote]

It was a generalization of something that is quite varied.[/quote]



you really thought i meant all people without exception feel the exact same way about this?

No no no, you misunderstand. It was that you attempted to extrapolate a general consensus in such a scattered subject.

i think you may have read too much into what i said