NationStates Jolt Archive

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....

sure, are there sane people opposed to that?
I am sure there are.

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....

sure, are there sane people opposed to that?

sure, are there sane people opposed to that?

Well, if you were particularly connected to an animal say, and it became violent and hurt someone you wouldn't just suddenly hate that animal. So you would probably not want to see it go, I wouldn't say people like that are insane.

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....

Well, I for one, am for the death penalty for humans. But what's to say that putting dangerous animals to sleep is any better since you're against the human one.

I mean, doesn't circumstance apply? Or would you just go running around pointing at animals saying "that looks dangerous. Let's KILL it"

Well, if you were particularly connected to an animal say, and it became violent and hurt someone you wouldn't just suddenly hate that animal. So you would probably not want to see it go, I wouldn't say people like that are insane.
However, owners of viscious/dangerous animals should ensure the safety of the public?

However, owners of viscious/dangerous animals should ensure the safety of the public?

Yeah. I would call it naievity rather then insanity,

Well, I for one, am for the death penalty for humans. But what's to say that putting dangerous animals to sleep is any better since you're against the human one.

I mean, doesn't circumstance apply? Or would you just go running around pointing at animals saying "that looks dangerous. Let's KILL it"


Agreed. Dangeroud animals, also, are usually rare if they aren't poisonous insects like spiders... Better off finding themselves in a zoo like they normally do nowadays.

Well, if you were particularly connected to an animal say, and it became violent and hurt someone you wouldn't just suddenly hate that animal. So you would probably not want to see it go, I wouldn't say people like that are insane.

hmm, if my beloved puppy posed a threat to human beings (each month you read something about a rottweiler killing a child) I wouldn't even hesitate to put it down humanely. I wouldn't LIKE to do it, but what sane person cares more about an animal than a fellow human being?

PS: I am a vegetarian (amongst others for ethical reasons) and I support animal rights and stuff.

Well, I for one, am for the death penalty for humans. But what's to say that putting dangerous animals to sleep is any better since you're against the human one.
Your question is somewhat confusing.

I mean, doesn't circumstance apply? Or would you just go running around pointing at animals saying "that looks dangerous. Let's KILL it"
Ummmm no.

Are you for or against dangerous animals being put to sleep?

Edit: I noticed that you put down mixed feelings for your choice. Do you believe that animals have greater rights than humans, given your comment that you are for the human death penalty?

just to clarify, with dangerous animals, you do mean dogs that have attacked people or camels that have humped people to death for instance, don't you?
Of course I'm opposed to killing animals because they look dangerous or because they might pose a risk when managed uncarefully (like poisonous snakes etc)

just to clarify, with dangerous animals, you do mean dogs that have attacked people or camels that have humped people to death for instance, don't you?
Of course I'm opposed to killing animals because they look dangerous or because they might pose a risk when managed uncarefully (like poisonous snakes etc)
I generally meant viscious dogs, but it could be also any exotic pet/animal that has injured/killed a human being.

Absolutely. A dangerous animal is a threat to public safety, especially if it breaks out of wherever it's held.

(I also support death by hanging for serious crimes. Same logic.)

i think it should be purely circumstantial

if it's an exotic animal, then absolutely not, it belongs in a zoo anyways


but if it's a domesticated animal, again, it just depends on the circumstance


and example of this is a lot of dogs attack their owners/other people because people sneak up on them when they're sleeping

it's a natural reaction, inculcated into the animals by CENTURIES of animal instinct that if anything suddenly alarms you while you're sleeping, you had better kill it before it kills you


so really, why should the animal suffer when it was the human who was being stupid and ignorant in the first place?

I'm speciest. One rule for humans and another for animals. I have not qualms with that.

I'm speciest. One rule for humans and another for animals. I have not qualms with that.

Does there really to have to be an "-ist" for everything? :confused:

Does there really to have to be an "-ist" for everything? :confused:Why not? Most humans clearly show a prejudice when dealing with other species. Hence the use of the term. But there's nothing to say that the prejudice isn't well founded or not.

i think it should be purely circumstantial

if it's an exotic animal, then absolutely not, it belongs in a zoo anyways


but if it's a domesticated animal, again, it just depends on the circumstance


and example of this is a lot of dogs attack their owners/other people because people sneak up on them when they're sleeping

it's a natural reaction, inculcated into the animals by CENTURIES of animal instinct that if anything suddenly alarms you while you're sleeping, you had better kill it before it kills you


so really, why should the animal suffer when it was the human who was being stupid and ignorant in the first place?
What if it is a little child who doesn't know any better?

Also, what if it is an unprovoked attack?

All the question is is "should we put down dangerous animals". Since there are animals that pose a threat everywhere, such as mountain lions I think it would be near impossible and bad for the food chain.

What if it is a little child who doesn't know any better?

Also, what if it is an unprovoked attack?

well, if it's a child that didn't know any better, i don't think the dog should be punished

however, if it's unprovoked, then yes, for that individual animal, depending on the severity of the attack, it should be put down

like i said, i just don't think there can be a carte blanc answer for this question, i believe that each situation should be judged independently

What if it is a little child who doesn't know any better?

Also, what if it is an unprovoked attack?

Kids should always be told to be wary of animals, especially snakes, scorpions and the like. It soon becomes second nature

Snakes are frightened of humans. More snakes see humans than we ever see of them. We're a lot larger and so snakes always look for a way out, but they will strike if threatened.

A snake attack is never unprovoked. Usually some tourist idiot has wandered into long grass on a walking trail and stepped on a snakes head, or a kid has tried to pick one up, or something like that.

If by "dangerous" you mean "attacks unprovoked" and there is no one who will take the animal in and try to rehabilitate it, then yes. I don't think we should be surprised when an animal that has been mistreated attacks someone. I don't think we should be surprised when a child is antagonizing an animal and then it attacks. And so on. And I don't think an animal should be put down if it was provoked into attacking.

I also think that some animals who have turned vicious from mistreatment can be rehabilitated. There are people who dedicate a great deal of time and effort into doing so. If someone is willing to take the animal and try - someone who has the expertise necessary to do so and to keep the animal restrained until they are done and who will have the animal put down if it doesn't work - then that can certainly be tried before euthanasia.

I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think humans are worth more than animals, as we animals ourselves, but in cases where an animal has acted aggressively with no provocation does warrant it putting it to sleep.

However, if a dog attacks someone after that person was tormenting the dog, then screw that person. They deserved it.

Question for people: Why do you think humans are worth more than a dog, a cat, a bear, or any other animal?

I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think humans are worth more than animals, as we animals ourselves, but in cases where an animal has acted aggressively with no provocation does warrant it putting it to sleep.

However, if a dog attacks someone after that person was tormenting the dog, then screw that person. They deserved it.

Question for people: Why do you think humans are worth more than a dog, a cat, a bear, or any other animal?

law of nature, we are the dominant species

To add to my last post: I don't think we should exterminate wild animals just because they might hurt a person, but I don't this thread was meant to include wild animals, only domesticated animals.

There are no such things as 'dangerous animals'. Only hungry ones. And stupid humans.

law of nature, we are the dominant species

True, but if people claim to respect life, how can they not value all life, even those outside their own species?

If it's your neighbors dog which has repeatedly gotten loose and attacked people, the neighbor has already been shown not to be able to contain or control the animal- then certainly euthanize it. And the neighbor. Though unfortunately I think you can only fine the human.

If a wild bear kills someone who approached her cubs, or the case where teens climbed into a tigers cage at the zoo- absolutely not. The animals are doing what is expected of a wild animal and the humans are stupid. The animal is merely helping natural selection along. We shouldn't punish a wild creature for acting like one.

As for the several recent cases of joggers and hikers in semi-wild areas being attacked by cougars I have mixed feelings. I think they should be required to take some sort of lessons in how to react to a wild animal that approaches. Cougars are actually easily frightened off by an adult human, with the correct behavior. But joggers tend to run.

I think to a certain extent people who wander into the animals habitat should just have to acknowledge there is a certain degree of risk. And either don't go or live with some risk.

If by "dangerous" you mean "attacks unprovoked" and there is no one who will take the animal in and try to rehabilitate it, then yes. I don't think we should be surprised when an animal that has been mistreated attacks someone. I don't think we should be surprised when a child is antagonizing an animal and then it attacks. And so on. And I don't think an animal should be put down if it was provoked into attacking.

I also think that some animals who have turned vicious from mistreatment can be rehabilitated. There are people who dedicate a great deal of time and effort into doing so. If someone is willing to take the animal and try - someone who has the expertise necessary to do so and to keep the animal restrained until they are done and who will have the animal put down if it doesn't work - then that can certainly be tried before euthanasia.
That is fairly close to my feelings on this subject. There are of course other situations whereby suspected viscious animals should be restrained if they are within reach of fences where unsuspecting victims may be attacked.

True, but if people claim to respect life, how can they not value all life, even those outside their own species?

because human beings are worth more than animals

not to say that animals don't have a value


i'm as much an animal lover as the next

but i don't agree that humans and animals should be held on the same value


for example, it simply infuriates me when i see human beings treating their animals better than their spouses, children, what have you

To add to my last post: I don't think we should exterminate wild animals just because they might hurt a person, but I don't this thread was meant to include wild animals, only domesticated animals.
Yes....only domesticated animals.

because human beings are worth more than animals

not to say that animals don't have a value


i'm as much an animal lover as the next

but i don't agree that humans and animals should be held on the same value


for example, it simply infuriates me when i see human beings treating their animals better than their spouses, children, what have you

Why?

What makes us so special?

Why are we better than other species?

In my book humans are lower than other species, as we are destroying our own world, and causing the extinction of countless other species because it makes a few people rich. All things have the right to live, not just humans.

sure, are there sane people opposed to that?
I wonder where PETA stands on this -- and how one judges their sanity?

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....

You, sir, a sickening mar on all humanity.

You, sir, a sickening mar on all humanity.
Why?

What if it is a little child who doesn't know any better?
They'll learn pretty quick, won't they?

They'll learn pretty quick, won't they?
On the other hand, they might not have the chance to learning anything more?

On the other hand, they might not have the chance to learning anything more?

Parents should warn their kids that certain animals are deadly. Any parent who doesn't isn't a very good parent.

Your question is somewhat confusing.

Ummmm no.

Are you for or against dangerous animals being put to sleep?

Edit: I noticed that you put down mixed feelings for your choice. Do you believe that animals have greater rights than humans, given your comment that you are for the human death penalty?

I have mixed feelings, yes. Because you cannot just justify and say "Yes! Let's put them all to sleep!" or "No, let's not kill any of them!"

Because, as I have previously said, circumstance comes into play. Let's say my dog(which is non-existant) bites some teenager on the arm. Hey, that family might say my dog is dangerous. But this does not justify my ultimate "need" to kill him. You need to take into account "circumstance". Was this teenager provoking my dog? Was my dog afraid, offended, or downright pissed off? I am not just going to run around killing off animals that certain people label as "dangerous".

You may see a lion as a dangerous animal because it could overpower the human race's scrawny butt any day. But is that any reason to run around killing them? I think not.

And yes, I do hold animals higher in terms of death penalties than humans. Animals are not inferior. Humans know what they are doing when they earn their death penalty. Most of the time it is for killing another human for unjustifiable reasons. Aka: serial killers etc. Animals, on the other hand, can easily be overpowered in a judicial court, for A) they cannot talk to defend themselves and B) they do not understand our rules or what we find justifiable as "bad". They cannot be treated as equals in modes of killing because they do not have the ways of doing so. In the past there have been numerous serial killers let off the hook on Death Row because they have good lawyers. Who's to say a dog has to die if the dog can't even explain what the hell happened?

You have to take circumstance into play. Maybe, if the dog was rabid and running around biting people. Yes, kill it. Because it is rampaging and extremely dangerous to the point where there is no other way.

You cannot simply say "yes" or "no". It just doesn't work that way.

I think we should put the dangerous animals in the same cages as the dangerous people. Then televise it. :)

I think we should put the dangerous animals in the same cages as the dangerous people. Then televise it. :)

Ten bucks says the animals come out on top! ;)

Parents should warn their kids that certain animals are deadly. Any parent who doesn't isn't a very good parent.

Agreed.

Ten bucks says the animals come out on top! ;)


I think it'll make for educational and fun television no matter who gets the upper hand. :)

I think we should put the dangerous animals in the same cages as the dangerous people. Then televise it. :)
I guess Michael Vick would like to promote something like that? :eek:

Why?

How can you say that we should just kill things off because WE encroached on their habitat?

btw, the link in your sig is broken.

I guess Michael Vick would like to promote something like that? :eek:

He can be the star.

Along with a rogue elephant. :)

[SIZE="1"]Animals are not inferior.
Unless you are staring down a very hungry animal without a weapon in your hand, I would suggest that your statement is completely false. :D

This shouldn't be a matter that you comapre to the human side of it. Humans and animals should be treated with equal punishment guidelines. You don't see people killing off grade school kids if they get in a fight, the same thing applies to animals. EVERY creature, including humans, have off days, and that can make an animals angry, or even violent. It's not a matter of if the animal commits an act of violence, it's a matter of what the act was, and if the animal has shown prior or ongoing acts of the same kind, just like humans. You won't give someone the death penalty for accidentally killing someone in a car crash that was caused by road rage, right? They would be rehabilitated or go through anger management..you know, things like that. But if a person kills 2 or 3 or 10 people out of pur violence, then yes, that's a cause for the death penalty. We should put those same terms to use when dealing with supposed "violent" animals.

How can you say that we should just kill things off because WE encroached on their habitat?
I did later qualify that the dangerous animals were domesticated and that the attacks were unprovoked and/or innocent in nature.

I guess by your own standards, you must also be a "sickening mar on all humanity"?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12972532&postcount=61

btw, the link in your sig is broken.
Thanks. It should work now. ;)

Unless you are staring down a very hungry animal without a weapon in your hand, I would suggest that your statement is completely false. :D

I beg to differ. That animal still wouldn't be inferior. If I was crazy mad hungry I would look at a freakin' raccoon the same way.

You cannot say that they are an inferior species just because we seem to evolve faster. If I said to you, "Hey! Your Mom is inferior!" just because I can run faster and open jars faster and drive circles around her in my car, you would most likely put up a defensive because you'll argue that just because she isn't as good as me at certain things, doesn't make her inferior.

Animals of other species are exactly.the.same.way.

I beg to differ. That animal still wouldn't be inferior. If I was crazy mad hungry I would look at a freakin' raccoon the same way.

You cannot say that they are an inferior species just because we seem to evolve faster. If I said to you, "Hey! You're Mom is inferior!" just because I can run faster and open jars faster and drive circles around her in my car, you would most likely put up a defensive because you'll argue that just because she isn't as good as me at certain things, doesn't make her inferior.

Animals of other species are exactly.the.same.way.


I guess you don't eat bacon and eggs huh? :p

I guess you don't eat bacon and eggs huh? :p

Of course I do. But that's irrelevant.

Well, I'd like to see a pretty strict definition of "a dangerous animal" first. Not one that bites a couple kids cause they're messing with him, but an animal that viciously attacks without provocation.

You, sir, a sickening mar on all humanity.

I read this and had to laugh at it. What the hell are you smoking and can you pass it on because it must be good. Are you serious with this attack?

I did later qualify that the dangerous animals were domesticated and that the attacks were unprovoked and/or innocent in nature.

I guess by your own standards, you must also be a "sickening mar on all humanity"?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12972532&postcount=61


Thanks. It should work now. ;)

I am picturing a body check into the wall during a Ice Hockey game. Well done.

Well, I'd like to see a pretty strict definition of "a dangerous animal" first. Not one that bites a couple kids cause they're messing with him, but an animal that viciously attacks without provocation.
The latter is the defining situation that I was trying to capture and perhaps I should have been more explicit in my OP.

I am picturing a body check into the wall during a Ice Hockey game. Well done.
Thanks!!

I have always enjoyed dishing out a well placed and deserved body check into the boards. Makes them keep their heads up next time.;)

Does anyone else find the euphemism 'putting to sleep', distasteful and stupid?

Does anyone else find the euphemism 'putting to sleep', distasteful and stupid?
You calling me stupid and distasteful for my choice of words?

It is an easier softer expression? I guess you can only appreciate hardness?

Does anyone else find the euphemism 'putting to sleep', distasteful and stupid?

distasteful would be 'killing them with a lethal injection and then throwing them in the kiln at the animal shelter'. That sounds much worse then 'putting to sleep'. As far as it being dumb we all know what putting to sleep means without going into detail about how it was done.

You calling me stupid and distasteful for my choice of words? :rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. I am blaming you, personally, for a term that is extremely common, and judging your intelligence accordingly.

In case I am still unclear, let me once again roll my eyes.:rolleyes:

It is an easier softer expression? I guess you can only appreciate hardness?

How about putting to death? Because we're not talking about little Fluffy or sweet Rover here, we are talking about animals that you have characterised as being a danger to humans. We aren't putting them to sleep, we are putting them to death.

No one feels like softening up the execution of humans who society has deemed worthy of death...why would we soften it up for animals?

Back to Fluffy and Rover...even in those cases we don't need to talk about animals 'going to sleep' either. In most cases, we're saying these things because we don't want to traumatise children. Adults understand the process. Children can learn about death without being traumatised just fine...I simply wish more adults had the gonads to be honest with them.

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. I am blaming you, personally, for a term that is extremely common, and judging your intelligence accordingly.

In case I am still unclear, let me once again roll my eyes.:rolleyes:

How about putting to death? Because we're not talking about little Fluffy or sweet Rover here, we are talking about animals that you have characterised as being a danger to humans. We aren't putting them to sleep, we are putting them to death.

No one feels like softening up the execution of humans who society has deemed worthy of death...why would we soften it up for animals?

Back to Fluffy and Rover...even in those cases we don't need to talk about animals 'going to sleep' either. In most cases, we're saying these things because we don't want to traumatise children. Adults understand the process. Children can learn about death without being traumatised just fine...I simply wish more adults had the gonads to be honest with them.
Why don't you take this over to your own forum and make a federal case out of it there rather than cluttering up the NSG forum that you so often deride?

Why don't you take this over to your own forum and make a federal case out of it there rather than cluttering up the NSG forum that you so often deride?

Why don't you lighten the fuck up, princess?

distasteful would be 'killing them with a lethal injection and then throwing them in the kiln at the animal shelter'. That sounds much worse then 'putting to sleep'. As far as it being dumb we all know what putting to sleep means without going into detail about how it was done.

Besides...there are some dangerous animals that don't get 'put to sleep' in any sense of the word anyway. Inspired my my last camping trip, I'd point to bears and elk. Once they become a nuisance, they are sometimes relocated...but if that doesn't work, they have to be killed.

What bothers me most about this is that the thoughtlessness of some tourists is quite often the reason or triggering factor for a wild animal becoming a nuisance/danger. Feeding wildlife should seem like an obvious no-no, but many people STILL do it. Bears in particular like an easy meal, and once they lose their fear of humans and human places, they can be a very real danger. Elk and moose are often underrated as dangerous, but they too can pose a real threat to human safety.

I don't disagree with killing these animals. It's a sad fact that we are encroaching more and more into their territories, and leaving them less living room...but on the other hand, I would never want to see someone get hurt because one of these animals has become bold enough to start entering town.

Still. Being shot is hardly being 'put to sleep'.

Why don't you lighten the fuck up, princess?
I know your troubles in life are many....perhaps it is you that needs to chill.... little one?

Besides...there are some dangerous animals that don't get 'put to sleep' in any sense of the word anyway. Inspired my my last camping trip, I'd point to bears and elk. Once they become a nuisance, they are sometimes relocated...but if that doesn't work, they have to be killed.

What bothers me most about this is that the thoughtlessness of some tourists is quite often the reason or triggering factor for a wild animal becoming a nuisance/danger. Feeding wildlife should seem like an obvious no-no, but many people STILL do it. Bears in particular like an easy meal, and once they lose their fear of humans and human places, they can be a very real danger. Elk and moose are often underrated as dangerous, but they too can pose a real threat to human safety.

I don't disagree with killing these animals. It's a sad fact that we are encroaching more and more into their territories, and leaving them less living room...but on the other hand, I would never want to see someone get hurt because one of these animals has become bold enough to start entering town.

Still. Being shot is hardly being 'put to sleep'.
If you read the thread, this is more about domesticated animals that become a danger and need to be put down.

However, I do hear you about wild animals and I do concur with you there.

I know your troubles in life are many....perhaps it is you that needs to chill.... little one?

I'm not the one getting all bent out of shape from perceived insults, and freaking out about discussion points brought up by a poster that apparently offends you simply by speaking. If you can't handle reading my posts, perhaps it's time you reach for the ignore button? It's a handy crutch when self-control is lacking.

Being shot is hardly being 'put to sleep'.

Well I was speaking of domesticated animals as would be put down at a shelter.

What you are talking about is something really entirely different. You do not say I was out in the woods and had to put a bear to sleep. That does sound stupid. I would be more impressed with someone that said I had a run in with a bear out in the woods. I killed it with my bare hands. Now that would be an appropriate descriptive term.

If you read the thread, this is more about domesticated animals that become a danger and need to be put down.However, I do hear you about wild animals and I do concur with you there. Yeah, I've been reading. The thread wasn't clarified right away, and the discussion on wild animals sort of has become interwoven. When you're out in THEIR territory, it's a different story...but you really do have to draw a line when they start wandering into town.

On the domestic end, I remember a case about...oh, probably three years back. A woman with a rottweiler. Anyway, the dog attacked a three year old and left him in critical condition. The dog had already killed two other dogs and she'd been ticketed for that. The woman was ordered to have the animal destroyed (which, come to think of it, is actually the term I hear most often when talking about killing domesticated animals that have harmed humans or other animals). Instead, she picked up and moved out of province. Just to save her poor pooch.

Makes you wonder about some people's priorities.

Well I was speaking of domesticated animals as would be put down at a shelter.

What you are talking about is something really entirely different. You do not say I was out in the woods and had to put a bear to sleep. That does sound stupid. I would be more impressed with someone that said I had a run in with a bear out in the woods. I killed it with my bare hands. Now that would be an appropriate descriptive term.

It made me chortle :D

No, but I'm not talking about running into a bear shitting in the woods. Or, I mean, a bear. In the woods. I'm talking about a bear who has gotten a taste for garbage, and likes to wander into town to rummage...and in doing so, perhaps snaps up Fido, or little Tommy.

A lot of mountain towns have gotten smarter...there are high elk fences around the highways leading into town and such, and bear bins are in use on the streets for refuse. That kind of thinking cuts down on having dangerous wildlife interactions.

I'm not the one getting all bent out of shape from perceived insults, and freaking out about discussion points brought up by a poster that apparently offends you simply by speaking. If you can't handle reading my posts, perhaps it's time you reach for the ignore button? It's a handy crutch when self-control is lacking.
I have never used the ignore button, nor have I had to resort to reporting anyone to moderation. I am not afraid of anyones comments.

Now you on the other hand, have totally lost it on many occaisions. I don't think you need to lecture me on "self control".

Now please stick to the topic at hand....thanks!!

I have never used the ignore button, nor have I had to resort to reporting anyone to moderation. I am not afraid of anyones comments.

Now you on the other hand, have totally lost it on many occaisions. I don't think you need to lecture me on "self control".

Now please stick to the topic at hand....thanks!!

Whatever you say, princess. Nice to see you've calmed down, and managed to actually read my posts.

I'm for the elimination of worthless criminals and dangerous animals.

They're both a menace.

I'm for the elimination of worthless criminals and dangerous animals.

They're both a menace.

Yes, we should put them all "to sleep". ;)

Yes, we should put them all "to sleep". ;)

Hahahahaha..."At midnight tonight, dangerous ax-murderer, Larry Butcher, will be put to sleep. May God have mercy on his soul".

I'm not sure, but that's sort of more creepy.

Hahahahaha..."At midnight tonight, dangerous ax-murderer, Larry Butcher, will be put to sleep. May God have mercy on his soul".

I'm not sure, but that's sort of more creepy.

We could say he was fed to a marauding bear. May our garbage be safe tonight.

Hahahahaha..."At midnight tonight, dangerous ax-murderer, Larry Butcher, will be put to sleep. May God have mercy on his soul".

I'm not sure, but that's sort of more creepy. Hahahaha.

If an animnal is dangerous because it's dangerous and not because people are complete and utter idiots who have the common sense of a mentally challenged rock, then kill it. It doesn't matter if it's Poochy or Larry the chainsaw-wielding serial killer. I'd kill Larry first. After all, chaining poochy to a tree would stop him. Not Larry. Larry has a chainsaw.

I say we have WAY too many people. Pollution and extinction are WAY up. We are killing the very planet we pretty much NEED to survive. Don't bring up moon bases because there aren't any. There just aren't any and we can't use what doesn't exist. 1 billion is a bit much. 6 billion is bad. 10 billion will be a nightmare. You can only create a crop that's so efficient. Pretty soon, you'll reach the peak of food efficiency when the ground's minerals and whatnot are used up completely. We need another ice age or world war. It's easier to feed fewer people than more people and we're having enough problems feeding the people we already have.

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....
Your hypocrisy makes me cream my pants :rolleyes:

I'm part of the club who doesn't think humans are demi-gods from the planet Zeon and are in fact animals too.

best solutions are not always available when something needs to be done.

i really see only one signifigant diferentiation between humans and many if not most of the other species they shaire their planet with, and that is only the extreme diffence in degree of inhierent drive to express themselves creatively.

the other great source of gratification, and yes, even sex partakes of it, to explore and familiarize oneself with one's surroundings, is common to virually all.

all species are dangerous. especially human. at the same time though, the very possibility of even human existence, depends upon their diversity to maintain stable self renewing and self perpetuating environments.

humans are becoming so many in number, that their ways of life are begining to crowd out that diversity and leave no place for other creatures then where they have always been, but which human 'development' is being plastered over, willy nilly, driven by 'economic' incentives.

this has created a situation where humans and other life forms have become a danger to each other. killing off non-human life forms is a backward headed total non-solution, for the reason already cited.

of course this thread was about specific individual, non-human beings, whome for reasons unspecified, have become seen to pose an immediate threat to human safety.

where the specific individual creature is a domestic pet, it is often the 'owner' who is directly responsible for creating it's 'dangerous' behaivior, and in the intrests of justice, and of REAL protection to fellow humans, it is that creature's 'owner' who must be held ultimately responsible for its behavior.

incarcerating that human in the animal cages at the animal shelter, would not seem entirely inappropriate as a punishment.

when it comes to wild creatures, there a certain basic principals that are up to all humans to practice, and or, know and understand fully the risks they are voluntarily taking on to themselves by not doing so.

among these is the need to recognize that all individual organisms have their own personal individual personalities, reguardless of species. they don't HAVE to like, or not like, you. their paranoia is their survival. it fallows from that, that it is damd ignorant to attempt to approach another living creature of a species other then one's own. wild creatures themselves learn this in their growing up, and thus attempt to avoid humans as well as other speicies not potentially thier prey. and of course one other basic thing. strenght to weight ratio. most non-human earth creatures don't get flabby from holding desk jobs. even humans who 'work out' are inferiour in strength to weight ratio. so as a ruel of thumb, anything more then 1/3 your own physical size, is not generally something to mess with.

should we kill? no not anything we don't plan on having for lunch.
but is 'should' always an option? not in the world our own collective coerciveness has made of it.

=^^=
.../\...

if it's an exotic animal, then absolutely not, it belongs in a zoo anyways
I'm not entirely sure what your definition of an 'exotic' animal is but, in my opinion, the only place that any non-domesticated animal belongs is in its own natural habitat.


You cannot say that they are an inferior species just because we seem to evolve faster<snip>
Slightly off topic here, but this piques my interest... on what basis do you conclude that we 'evolve faster'?

Although the most simplistic variants of the molecular clock hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock) (which posited that rates of genetic mutation and therefore evolution were constant across all species) have been disproved I'm not sure that homo sapiens are evolving any faster than average.

In fact, given the still-increasing use of modern medical techniques that allow genetic variations to survive in the gene pool that would have 'failed' the test of purely natural selection, I think a good argument could be made that we as a species are actually evolving slower.**

As for the topic proper... I just don't think that people should be keeping dangerous animals as pets in the first place and if they are, and those animals become a danger to those around them, they should be destroyed. A bit of a blanket statement, I know, and hard to reconcile with my belief that animal husbandry is overall a reasonably good thing, but then there's a little bit of hypocrisy in all of us, I'm sure.


**a note for clarification - I realise that similar arguments have been used to promote philosophies that I, like most people, find wholly abhorrent. I am not, in any way, advocating any kind of eugenics. I am simply pointing out that allowing some genes that would normally be evolutionary dead ends to propagate down the generations runs contrary to natural selection and therefore slows and reshapes our evolution

*glances at thread* The OP should probably have defined by what he meant by dangerous animal.

When I responded I was specifically thinking of a domesticated dog that might have attacked someone.

However, I think I'd still support killing of wild animals in certain situations. eg. a lion in Africa approaches a village and attacks a human. I'd fully support the killing of that lion and maybe one or two more. Since what has been demonstrated is that the lion was hungry enough to overcome any inhibitions that prevented it from approaching the village. This means there are more lions in the local ecosystem than it can support. Ergo the lion population should be culled to a point at which the ecosystem would be in balance again.

Your hypocrisy makes me cream my pants :rolleyes:

I'm part of the club who doesn't think humans are demi-gods from the planet Zeon and are in fact animals too.

Humans are animals alright. Just on the top of the animal hierarchy.

If humans being at the top of the hierarchy of animals means that we get to do as we please with them, wouldn't the same logic dictate that those of us richer, physically stronger or in some way more powerful than others should be able to do as we please with the weaker?

While I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for humans, I fully support the putting to sleep of dangerous animals in a humane manner.

Your thoughts?

Poll coming.....

I want to change my vote to "mixed feelings."

Some dangerous animals are dangerous because humans made them that way. Some are dangerous because we stupidly invade their territory and they must defend themselves. Some are dangerous because of disease.

As to the death penalty. I don't view serial killers, serial rapists and child abusers and molesters as being human - more along the lines of rabid animals. Since you can't cure rabid animals, you kill them.

I want to change my vote to "mixed feelings."

Some dangerous animals are dangerous because humans made them that way. Some are dangerous because we stupidly invade their territory and they must defend themselves. Some are dangerous because of disease.



Yup just like humans

I beg to differ. That animal still wouldn't be inferior. If I was crazy mad hungry I would look at a freakin' raccoon the same way.

He's not talking about that animal. He's talking about the other animal.

Your hypocrisy makes me cream my pants :rolleyes:

I'm part of the club who doesn't think humans are demi-gods from the planet Zeon and are in fact animals too.

I don't see the hypocrisy. If you make the murderer suffer, he will understand why. If you make the dog suffer, it won't. Ergo, there's no reason to make the dog suffer.

Your hypocrisy makes me cream my pants :rolleyes:

I'm part of the club who doesn't think humans are demi-gods from the planet Zeon and are in fact animals too.

You need to read up on your definition of hypocrisy.

What if it is a little child who doesn't know any better?

This is the fault of the responsible adult (child's parent or guardian or the owner of the animal) for not teaching the child better or not supervising the child better around the animal if the child is literally to young (or mentally impared) to know better. In short that's a situation when you should put the adult responsible for the attack to sleep.

I've made my opinion on this clear before, but what the hell. My grandma is lucky she still has her lower leg after a pit bull attack. The only reason she can still walk is because a brilliant orthopedic surgeon managed to piece her open, spiral, tib-fib fracture back together. After all of that, she got a skin infection that made me literaly sick to look at. The dog who attacked her is dead, and if I knew where it was buried, I go dance a jog on it's grave.

I support euthanasia for animals who attack humans. If you can't be bothered to socialize your animal properly or control it, you don't deserve their companionship.

Well, if you were particularly connected to an animal say, and it became violent and hurt someone you wouldn't just suddenly hate that animal. So you would probably not want to see it go, I wouldn't say people like that are insane.Interesting..

scenario: The laws -in your Country/State- do apply the Death penalty.

If your Brother murdered a small child in front of you (just because the small child came inside your backyard looking for his soccer ball),

would you hide your brother from the Law?
Public Notice: Yes I am..
I am the ##..
I am the one asking the tough questions.

This is the fault of the responsible adult (child's parent or guardian or the owner of the animal) for not teaching the child better or not supervising the child better around the animal if the child is literally to young (or mentally impared) to know better. In short that's a situation when you should put the adult responsible for the attack to sleep.
I think that is a tad over reacting? :p

People who let their dangerous animals attack people should be put to sleep. As for dangerous animals, they should be out in the wild, not being kept as pets.

I've made my opinion on this clear before, but what the hell. My grandma is lucky she still has her lower leg after a pit bull attack. The only reason she can still walk is because a brilliant orthopedic surgeon managed to piece her open, spiral, tib-fib fracture back together. After all of that, she got a skin infection that made me literaly sick to look at. The dog who attacked her is dead, and if I knew where it was buried, I go dance a jog on it's grave.

I support euthanasia for animals who attack humans. If you can't be bothered to socialize your animal properly or control it, you don't deserve their companionship.
Fairly close to my thoughts on the subject, although Dempublicents fairly well nailed it.

People who let their dangerous animals attack people should be put to sleep. As for dangerous animals, they should be out in the wild, not being kept as pets.
At least you and Redwulf seem to be in agreement. :p

At least you and Redwulf seem to be in agreement. :p

I didn't read the thread, so I don't know what you mean...

This is the fault of the responsible adult (child's parent or guardian or the owner of the animal) for not teaching the child better or not supervising the child better around the animal if the child is literally to young (or mentally impared) to know better. In short that's a situation when you should put the adult responsible for the attack to sleep.

People who let their dangerous animals attack people should be put to sleep. As for dangerous animals, they should be out in the wild, not being kept as pets.

I didn't read the thread, so I don't know what you mean...
I really don't think that putting the owner to sleep is gonna fly in the very near future?

*glances at thread* The OP should probably have defined by what he meant by dangerous animal.

When I responded I was specifically thinking of a domesticated dog that might have attacked someone.

However, I think I'd still support killing of wild animals in certain situations. eg. a lion in Africa approaches a village and attacks a human. I'd fully support the killing of that lion and maybe one or two more. Since what has been demonstrated is that the lion was hungry enough to overcome any inhibitions that prevented it from approaching the village. This means there are more lions in the local ecosystem than it can support. Ergo the lion population should be culled to a point at which the ecosystem would be in balance again.

It is human encroachment into the savannas which would force lions to attack humans out of desperation.

Perhaps the human population, as well as human consumption, should be culled back into balance with the ecosystem.

In my hometown, a rural farm town, I've seen attacks by coyotes and attacks by dogs that had been abused by their owners. In both cases, I support putting down the dangerous animal and in the case of abused pets, jail time for the owners.

It is human encroachment into the savannas which would force lions to attack humans out of desperation.

Perhaps the human population, as well as human consumption, should be culled back into balance with the ecosystem.How easy for you to say that when you're probably living in an area where all the dangerous wildlife was wiped out ages ago, and it is possible to live a life of decadence without fearing for your life.

That being said I don't care for the lives of animals in any way, shape, or form, except where preserving their lives would be beneficial to humans. So with that view of mine in hand I don't care for your conclusion at all.

I really don't think that putting the owner to sleep is gonna fly in the very near future?

I don't know about UVR but I was being at least somewhat factitious, the point is that if a kid pokes a dog in the eye and gets bit you don't have a dangerous dog you have a stupid kid/parent/dog owner.

... and attacks by dogs with abusive owners.If some owner uses his Dog as a weapon.. I say he should be charged accordingly.

If some owner uses his Dog as a weapon.. I say he should be charged accordingly.

Eh, I didn't mean to make that sentence so awkward. What I meant was that dogs that had been abused by their owners and attacked people in my hometown before, and I support jail time for owners that abuse domesticated dogs to the point that they attack people.

How easy for you to say that when you're probably living in an area where all the dangerous wildlife was wiped out ages ago, and it is possible to live a life of decadence without fearing for your life.

That being said I don't care for the lives of animals in any way, shape, or form, except where preserving their lives would be beneficial to humans. So with that view of mine in hand I don't care for your conclusion at all.

Well I don't care for yours, and your way is leading to the death of the planet. It is supreme arrogance to believe that life should only be preserved if it benefits humans. Life should be respected, oh and fyi: The needs of the natural world matter more than the needs of civilization and the economy. If the natural world dies, where do you that would leave you? Dead.

It is human encroachment into the savannas which would force lions to attack humans out of desperation.

Perhaps the human population, as well as human consumption, should be culled back into balance with the ecosystem.
Are you volunteering to be among the humans that "should be culled"?

Well I don't care for yours, and your way is leading to the death of the planet. It is supreme arrogance to believe that life should only be preserved if it benefits humans. Life should be respected, oh and fyi: The needs of the natural world matter more than the needs of civilization and the economy. If the natural world dies, where do you that would leave you? Dead.Your arrogance astounds me also. You have your blinkers on, which leads you to make a number of assumptions about me and my beliefs.

How about you switch off your computer and go live the life you yearn for instead of preaching it's virtues to others.

Your arrogance astounds me also. You have your blinkers on, which leads you to make a number of assumptions about me and my beliefs.

How about you switch off your computer and go live the life you yearn for instead of preaching it's virtues to others.

Like I've stated, I'm working on it. I wasn't born with the knowledge of how to survive outside civilization, that has to be acquired with practice, as I am doing, and have been doing for the past few months.

Like I've stated, I'm working on it. I wasn't born with the knowledge of how to survive outside civilization, that has to be acquired with practice, as I am doing, and have been doing for the past few months.Why are you here on this forum though? It very obviously isn't helping you towards that goal.

People should be put down, but not animals. People have agentivity, but animals do not.

People should be put down, but not animals. People have agentivity, but animals do not.
Agentivity?

Perhaps the human population, as well as human consumption, should be culled back into balance with the ecosystem.

Life should be respected,
I think you are a tad confused?

Your arrogance astounds me also. You have your blinkers on, which leads you to make a number of assumptions about me and my beliefs.

How about you switch off your computer and go live the life you yearn for instead of preaching it's virtues to others.

He or she is right. We need to not fuck with nature. Not only because we eat food that either grows in the ground or eats what grows in the ground, but also because we don't want to mess up nature. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, drouts, and tornados are bad enough. We really shouldn't risk making them a LOT worse. Believe me, we can and probably will.

We humans are taxing the planet we need to live. It might not be a space rock or ice age that wipes out mankind, but mankind's own stupidity. We might not have hover cars or teleportation devices, but we have plenty of stupid. I suggest we cull the human population somehow. If lowering the birth rate doesn't work, then I suggest something called "natural selection". "Natural selection" is where people who whiz on electric fences or stab themselves while juggling knives die from electrocution or being stabbed by a knife he or she was juggling. I'd suggest nuclear war, but the idea was to keep mankind from making himself extinct, not to get mankind to get himself extinct.