By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
FloatingWaffles said:
DonFerrari said:

Or a spring to keep the door shut even if someone forget to lock it.

Yes, that would be fair and considerated. If you like your pet you can assume the other guy liked his as well and think what would you appreciate being done if it was your pet being killed.

1- Yes he could. And one day the cat would die and he would probably get a new one either way. The new cat can't be used as reparation, but also can't be said as if nothing would ammend.

2- Any animal (human included) can potentially kill others, so they may kill bear because a bear that drinked human blood is said to be more propense to kill again, but just basing that something can attack X because attacked Y is flawed. You are assuming he doesn't even know his dog and saw how it get along with humans, kids, dogs, etc... he even said his dog doesn't like cats.

3 - he does give a fuck if you read his replies.

and 4 - it was his father's dog and he seems to terminate the dog, so he isn't totally sincere in the thread.

5 - So if someone kill a person pet should he be killed as well? Or if he kills another human being?

If your father kill someone do you suggest he is killed since he killed someone that another one loved?

If someone of your family kills a pet or another human and is killed in vengeance would you also accept it?

Nope... he said it's natural that dogs hunt cats (which are smaller) as much as is natural that cats hunt birds and mices. He said he is biased because it's his dog, not because dogs are better than cats... improve your interpretation skills.

Yes you are right... I want to know what would these people do in the same situation... and if they will accept any punishment if their child did something wrong since they would be responsible for the child.

5 - This is a flawed logic you're trying to propose because animals don't have the same logic and thinking that humans do. Animals don't know right from wrong like most humans do. They don't have the same understanding as humans. If a human kills another human or a pet it's not the same thing as a pet doing it because humans are capable of cooperation, they made that choice (and it was a horrible choice and they should face the charges of theri crimes obviously) to do what they did, where as if a pet does it, like has been said multiple times, it is because it more of an instinct of theirs and they couldn't control themselves and did it because they didn't think anything was wrong with it. If a pet does it they don't know or learn that it's wrong, which is why they may think it's fine to do it again in the future after seeing how easy it was the first time and nothing happened to them for it. So at that point once they attack or even kill someone they are a risk that need to be put down imo because they don't know not to do it again. One time is all it takes. 

And he literally said "I don't think a dog killing a cat is worth putting a dog down. It would be different if the dog attacked another dog or person. He would be put down immediately". That implies that he thinks because it was a cat that his dog shouldn't be put down, but if it was a dog or a human then it should. That says that he thinks cat are lesser beings and aren't as big of a deal if they get killed as opposed to another dog or such. Improve your response skills. 

Your logic is flawed... if animals doesn't have a logical thinking how would they assume that because they attacked a cat once without being killed it can kill humans?

Also, if human beings are logical and inteligent they also already know that killing someone or someone pet is wrong. So why more lenience to the one that should already know than to the one that wouldn't ever know?

He explained why. It isn't because dogs are better than dogs is because of animal chain of power that a dog hunting a cat seems as normal as a cat hunting a bird. But a dog attacking another dog or a human would be either attacking an equal or something more valuable and that would be more wrong.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."