[Drizzt]

Dog owners howl over proposed law

Hundreds of dog owners, with their pets in hand, mounted a massive protest against a proposed Norwegian law that would allow authorities to destroy dogs that injure children. Justice Department officials say they've never experienced such organized opposition to an issue.

"We've handled many important cases that have major consequences for people, without seeing anything near the response we're seeing now that dogs are involved," Knut Storberget of the parliament's justice committee told newspaper Aftenposten.

With man's best friend under threat, it's clear the dog owners are up in arms. On Wednesday, they marched through downtown Oslo and massed outside the Parliament Building (Stortinget) to make their displeasure known.

At issue is a whether the authorities should be allowed to destroy dogs that have bitten children. "Killing a dog because it's bitten someone is like punishing a pistol instead of the person who fired it," claimed dog owner Torgrim Roiseland. He argued that it's the dog owners who should be held responsible, not the dog.

A dog training school, an animal protection agency and a magazine aimed at dog owners helped organize Wednesday's protest, held on the eve of public hearings on the proposed law.

Storberget, of the Labour Party, helped form the proposed law, and says he has received more than 400 protest letters just in the past few days. He nonetheless supports the proposal, saying many misunderstand its intent.

"We're not talking about destroying dogs automatically if they bite a child," he said. Rather, he claims, the wording of the law calls for an animal to be destroyed only if a child is seriously injured.

Tighter restrictions on dogs have been proposed in part because of a shocking case recently in which a small boy was mauled to death by dogs kept by a woman in Vest-Torpa.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=533314

[CZ-75]

"Killing a dog because it's bitten someone is like punishing a pistol instead of the person who fired it," claimed dog owner Torgrim Roiseland. He argued that it's the dog owners who should be held responsible, not the dog.


Logic is making inroads in socialist Europe.

[pax]

Logic is making inroads in socialist Europe.
Hardly.

A dog can and does have a will of its own.

A pistol does not.

If your beast harms me or mine, he's dead. It is that simple. Nice to see it codified in law.

pax

Ever notice how those who claim to believe in animal rights generally don't believe in human rights? -- Raymond Louis Drake-Tealy

[HerbG]

Many Europeans have some rather unusual (at least to me) ideas about pet ownership. Stroll down any Amsterdam street and you will find that dogs leave their calling cards in the middle of the sidewalk. There are no laws requiring owners to curb their pets or to clean up after them.

[CZ-75]

A dog can and does have a will of its own.

True, but the OWNER is still the responsible party.

If your beast harms me or mine, he's dead. It is that simple. Nice to see it codified in law.

:rolleyes:

Nice one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that may have been instigated by the "afflicted" party. If your brat pokes my dog with a stick and gets an untoward response, then he has gotten what he deserves.

[Don Gwinn]

Didn't our local Norwegian tell us that gun ownership is pretty common and well-accepted in Norway, and that they even have some common-sense liberties we don't, such as the right to use a suppressor to protect your hearing?

[P95Carry]

Personally .... I cannot equate the gun/dog analogy mentioned earlier.

The gun is inanimate and as such can only be used .. for good or bad.

The dog, as also mentioned .. does have a will of its own. Cupability? Well .. the owner yeah ... can't refute that but .... even a near ideal and responsible dog owner can be faced with his ''never hurt a fly'' pet turning nasty one day.

I have heard too many cases where ''sweet Fido'' turns on a kid .... and an owner is unable to prevent an attack, tho arguably in many cases, the animal should be on a leash.

Ultimately tho ... I think this type of law is fine, if implemented fairly .. it works in other countries. Here, I daresay in cases of this type ..... someone would just sue your a$$ off, as the owner.! And the animal would probably be euthenized.

Contentious subject tho .... amongst the dog loving fraternity.

[Preacherman]

I think the big problem with this law as it is presently worded is that it puts the blame automatically on the dog. What if a kid had been poking the dog with a stick, as a previous poster cited? What if the kid had been shooting the dog with an Airsoft gun "just to see what would happen"? Dog reacts, bites kid, dog is destroyed. Sorry - this really is an unjust law as it is worded at present. Needs more investigation/intelligent use of discretion, not a knee-jerk automatic "Kill the beast!" response codified in law.

[pax]

What if a kid had been poking the dog with a stick, as a previous poster cited? What if the kid had been shooting the dog with an Airsoft gun "just to see what would happen"?
So what?

The dog is a dog. It is not a human being and does not deserve the same consideration that a human being would.

Further, a dog that would maul a human being in one circumstance is a dog that is capable of mauling human beings under certain circumstances. Such a dog does not deserve the opportunity to maul another human being.

Needs more investigation/intelligent use of discretion, not a knee-jerk automatic "Kill the beast!" response codified in law.
From the article:
Hundreds of dog owners, with their pets in hand, mounted a massive protest against a proposed Norwegian law that would allow authorities to destroy dogs that injure children.
To allow is not to demand.

pax

When a man's best friend is his dog, that dog has a problem. -- Edward Abbey

[Mike Irwin]

There is, however, the issue of self-defense.

Few dogs are willfully malicious.

Most will bite only to defend themselves against a perceived threat, or a threat against their "pack."

If one of my dogs bites someone, it's most likely because that someone did something to provoke my dog.

In that instance, the person being bitten has a LOT to worry about from the leader of the pack.

As for someone poking my dog with a stick?

The laws of many states allow the use of deadly force to protect tangible property.

The laws of almost all states also view dogs as tangible property.

Ergo, if someone is assaulting one of my dogs, they again have a LOT to worry about from the very pissed off property owner.

In my 38 years on this planet, I've met probably fewer than 3 dozen humans who measure up to the standards set by most dogs.

Humans are decidedly an inferior life form.

[Pilgrim]

There is a difference between a dog bite and a mauling. My two whippets have the sweetest dispositions of any dog I have ever had, but even they will bite if frightened and pushed into a corner from where they see no escape.

I don't see dogs as having a will of their own. They have conditioned responses to certain situations. Having a will means they are capable of suffering discomfort for a future and better good. I have yet to see one of my dogs turn down food because he or she has looked in the mirror and decided he or she is getting a little fat around the middle.

[Mike Irwin]

Given how obese Americans are these days, Pilgrim (yours truly, included), it would appear that we're really not much better than our dogs.

In dogs the instinct to eat hearty is there for the same reason it is in humans -- because at one time the food supply wasn't a sure or steady thing.

You ate when you could, stored up if you could, and hopefully you could eat again before you secumbed to starvation.

Given that both dogs and humans are now eating out of cans, boxes, and bags, and steadily, and the relative exercise rate has dropped dramatically, you'd think that our instincts would change, too.

Only it's kind of hard to alter millions of years of hardwiring in 100 years.

[NonServiam]

Hey, there's my cue ...

CZ-75:
Logic is making inroads in socialist Europe.

:cuss: "We're not socialists, we're social-democrats!" No? Damn, gotta find a better arguement :rolleyes: . Seriously, we have a conservative government in Norway this period, though they might seem a bit leftist to you Americans. CIA factbook: "The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention." Which pretty much sums it up. Oh, and we're not sure about how we feel about Europe, either. We have voted to stay out of the EU twice ...

As to logic: No, our politicians are no more endowed with this trait than yours, and our citizens no less, either.

Don Gwinn:
Didn't our local Norwegian tell us that gun ownership is pretty common and well-accepted in Norway, and that they even have some common-sense liberties we don't, such as the right to use a suppressor to protect your hearing?

Indeed. Thank your for remembering, Don. Guns in Norway are registered, but gun ownership numbers are high. Percentage wise, they might be as high as th US. Ownership of semi-auto rifles (ARs etc) and pistols/revolvers are more tightly controlled that hunting guns, you need to be an avtive member of a shooting club to buy one. The number of guns of "the same type" (mostly meaning caliber) is restricted according to activity. No magazine capacity restrictions, suppressors sold freely to anyone with a gun licence. Full-auto for collectors only. The largest rifle shooting union, a local mix of NRA and CMP, has about 180.000 members (out of a total population of 4.5 million). No carry.

As to the proposed dog law:

We already have self-defence laws in this country, which states that if I kill an attacking dog (or man btw) in fear of my life or others', I cannot be punished. Reasonable force applies. Many feel that this new law is superfluous, and that it will mean open season on dogs who misbehave in any way. We also have laws that are used to make sure dangerous dogs are destroyed, and they are for the most part used wisely.

As a Norwegian gunowner, I am particularily interested in this case. Even though the similarities between dogs and guns are highly debatable, as this thread shows, the arguments used by both proponents and opposers could be similar to the ones used in a future national gun-debate:

- The media have been very active on cases of dangerous dogs. They all ask: Who's to blame? What can we do to stop this?

- Some argue that the _dogs_ themselves are inherently evil (certain breeds), and some claim that human error is the reason for a biting dog (owner not controlling their dog, bad upbringing)

- There are "legal" and "illegal" owners and users of both guns and dogs. Many of the murdering dogs in Norway have been owned by criminals and trained to attack. These people will most certainly not care about any law banning certain breeds, and neither will they care if their dogs are destroyed.

- There are a lot of strong emotions on the subject. You can't win with logic when your opponent on a TV debate is the father of a small girl killed by a dangerous dog. Similarly, it's hard to argue that banning all guns are not worth it, when you sit across from a bereaved family.

So, we're following the debate closely, trying to learn something to protect our rights as gunowners in the future ...

[cordex]

Further, a dog that would maul a human being in one circumstance is a dog that is capable of mauling human beings under certain circumstances. Such a dog does not deserve the opportunity to maul another human being.
Pax,
This is a specious argument. All dogs (or people, for that matter) can be pushed to do some seriously violent things. The "it would hurt someone in this specific situation, thus and therefore it does not deserve to exist" concept just doesn't fly for me. Maybe I've just heard it too much applied to me as a gunowner.
Humans are decidedly an inferior life form.
Mike, it's all a matter of expectations. If in your mind superior life forms are defined by dog-like characteristics (loyalty, packthink, willingness to eat one's own feces and bathe by use of one's own tongue, etc) then sure. If they're defined by overall success and accomplishments, dogs don't even make the top 10.

I like some dogs. I like some humans.
I could do without some individuals in both groups. I have no problem terminating the life of a feral dog. At the same time, my dog bit me once - my fault, shouldn't have interfered with a dog on dog territory fight - and I would not have liked a governmental agency telling me that they had to destroy my dog because it was willing to harm people under some circumstances (i.e. when some dumb human tries to drag him off an 'invading' dog).

[Mike Irwin]

Cordex,

Dogs don't war. They fight, but they don't war.

Dogs don't create weapons of mass destruction.

Dogs don't kill thousands, or millions, of their own kind of specious political reasons.

Dogs aren't racist.

Dogs largely aren't driven by intangible goals -- lust for power, wealth, religion, etc.



In your list of downsides, you include dogs being copraphagic. Yep, many lower animals are. Even higher primates can be. Some theorize that early humans may also have been copraphagic, out of instinct.

Bathing with the tongue? Given that quite a few of the humans I interact with on a regular basis would do well to bathe at all, I'm not so certain that's a drawback.

Pack mentality? That's not always such a bad thing, either.

I've no problem killing a feral dog that is a threat, either. I've done it before, and I've never liked it. Something tells me, though, that I'd have fewer problems with my conscience with the disposal of feral humans.

[buzz_knox]

Further, a dog that would maul a human being in one circumstance is a dog that is capable of mauling human beings under certain circumstances. Such a dog does not deserve the opportunity to maul another human being.

In that case, we should ban all police dogs. After all, they are trained to actually attack humans!

[cordex]

Cordex,

Dogs don't war. They fight, but they don't war.

Dogs don't create weapons of mass destruction.

Dogs don't kill thousands, or millions, of their own kind of specious political reasons.

Dogs aren't racist.

Dogs largely aren't driven by intangible goals -- lust for power, wealth, religion, etc.
Mike,
Dogs don't do these things because they simply do not have the ability to do them. They don't conciously make the decision not to war, they just are incapable of organizing one. Using these examples as proof that dogs are superior than humans is like telling a man born without arms what a great person he is for never punching anyone. Dogs simply lack the coordination, communication and intelligence to commit serious atrocities.

By your criteria, it would be hard to find an animal that wasn't superior to humans.
In your list of downsides ...
I didn't list downsides. Merely aspects of doggieness that were - by implication - traits that belonged to a superior race. In fact, I rather like loyalty and can deal with people who have a pack mentality.
I've no problem killing a feral dog that is a threat, either. I've done it before, and I've never liked it. Something tells me, though, that I'd have fewer problems with my conscience with the disposal of feral humans.
No argument here.

[buzz_knox]

By your criteria, it would be hard to find an animal that wasn't superior to humans.

Sometimes I think that's the case. Not always, but sometimes.

[Mike Irwin]

"Dogs don't do these things because they simply do not have the ability to do them. They don't conciously make the decision not to war, they just are incapable of organizing one."

And that's such a bad thing, how?

Your basing your estimation of the worth of humans as a species on its worst aspects?

Certainly not a ringing defense of the human character.

In other words, "Hey, I'm a human who can, by virtue of my free will, slaughter 50 pregnant mothers and eat lunch amid the corpses. Ain't humans great?"

Hum... As I said, dogs have it all over humans.

[cordex]

Your basing your estimation of the worth of humans as a species on its worst aspects?
<Diety>, no!
Although, that seems to be the entire basis of your argument.

I was simply addressing the points that you brought up, not trying to convince you of the good aspects of humanity.
In other words, "Hey, I'm a human who can, by virtue of my free will, slaughter 50 pregnant mothers and eat lunch amid the corpses. Ain't humans great?"
By virtue of free will, humans are capable of such atrocities, but few would be willing to commit them (which is more than I could say for any given pack of feral dogs who might well salivate at the thought).

Allow me to rephrase.

A person who could get away with murder but doesn't commit it is more worthy of praise than a dog who doesn't build a nuke because it lacks education, funding and opposable thumbs.
Hum... As I said, dogs have it all over humans.
And as I said, if you consider characteristics common to dogs to be elements of a superior race, than you will find dogs to be superior.
I don't.
To be sure, dogs have many good aspects but claiming that they "have it all over humans" because the concept of racism never occured to them or was disguised as pack-ism or because they haven't slaughtered millions of each other in organized extermination efforts doesn't ring true with me.

[Jeeper]

Dogs aren't racist.

One of my dogs is a total "racist" against australian shepards. She hates them withan incredible passion. She got her butt whooped by one when she was a puppy and has hated them ever since. She loves all other dogs but will go after and aussie she sees. I know this isnt your point Mike but thought is was kind of funny. :D

[Intune]

Paxisms:
"If your beast harms me or mine, he's dead. It is that simple."

Intune: Wow, do the Hatfields live anywhere near here Mrs. McCoy? I heared tell that your two-legged critter young'un went afer his prize coon hound with a pointy stick and ol' Blue clean ripped her leg off. How is Peg? Good thing he got the drop on ya with that hogleg befores you coulda hurt Blue any worse than yer young'un. They dig that hunka lead outta yew yet?






And:

"So what?

The dog is a dog. It is not a human being and does not deserve the same
consideration that a human being would."

Intune: How about SOME consideration? A bit? Tad? Skosh? Look into the extenuating circumstances perhaps? NONE??? Zip? Zilch?



More:
"Further, a dog that would maul a human being in one circumstance is a dog that is
capable of mauling human beings under certain circumstances."


Intune: This is a shame. Ergo, per your logic, a human that would shoot another in self-defense in one circumstance is a human that is capable of mowing down children in the schoolyard tomorrow. Sheesh. Cat owner? Yes, I do have a cat and a dog. But...



Finally:
"allow authorities to destroy dogs that injure children.

To allow is not to demand."


Intune: Yeah, ok, then are you for a National Gun Registery just in case the authorities need to find a particular weapon. Ballistic fingerprinting?


:what:

[Sergeant Bob]

Funny how some people vehemently oppose more laws and regulations limiting their rights, yet have no problem with more laws and regulations limiting your rights?

It's for the children!
If it saves just one life!
Common sense dog laws!

We don't need more dog laws. There are already 20,000 dog laws on the books, we just need to enforce existing law.
;)

[TallPine]

When dogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have dogs.




( well, SOMEBODY had to post that sooner or later .... :D )

[Ol' Badger]

I read some where that in the EU-rope, they let dogs in resturants, but not children! Maybe they'er more civialized than I thought. Kids are nasty. Dogs are cool.

[Ol' Badger]

Or... You can have my dog, when you pry it from my cold dead hands :D

[Kobun]

This proposed law comes as a result of a young boy being tore apart by a pack of dogs last year as he was walking home from school.
The police destroyed all the dogs the owner had by shooting them.
Following the current law, they shouldn't have reacted in that way.
A farmer that sees dogs chasing his sheep can shoot the dog, but the same does not apply when dealing with humans.

I am not sure what I mean about all this, as in some cases dogs that bite many many times, that reek havoc in comunities, are still alive.
On the other hand, they propose to ban leaving a dog tied to a post as you go grocery shopping.
If you can't tie up your dog, what are you supposed to do then?

People should also learn their children to stay away from dogs that are by themselves.
But I doubt that carries through to a population that, instead of chasing a wolf away by throwing stones and yelling at it, lets it get accustomed to humans.
Then they start complaining about a wolf that walks arount the neighbourhood, and in the end, the gov hunts the wolf down with a shotgun from a helicopter.

[pax]

"Further, a dog that would maul a human being in one circumstance is a dog that is capable of mauling human beings under certain circumstances."
I recant this statement. As both Intune and Cordex have pointed out, it doesn't hold up logically. Thanks, guys.

I stand by the rest of it.

pax

Human beings are my favorite animal.

[Intune]

The article read:
"’We're not talking about destroying dogs automatically if they bite a child,’ he said. Rather, he claims, the wording of the law calls for an animal to be destroyed only if a child is seriously injured.”

Intune:
This seems like a bogus proposal. As a couple of our Norwegian friends have pointed out there are laws on the books for dealing with “vicious” canines. Where did the bites take place? A trespasser in a fenced in yard with the dog on a chain? What constitutes “seriously injured?” 10 stitches? The loss of an eye? Or 100 sutures and a limb? Where did it happen, how did the scenario play out and why did it occur have relevance in these cases. A kid being run down like a prey animal by a pack of dogs is a bit different than a teenager hopping your fence to steal a bike. Employing euthanasia in both of these cases based solely on the seriousness of the injuries seems, like I said, bogus. In an attempt to keep it tied with guns wouldn’t that be like saying you could defend yourself with a firearm but only if you wounded your assailant. If they die you become a candidate for the death penalty. Where, how and why? I know it’s a heck of a stretch for an analogy but…

[Pilgrim]

A naval officer I served with who did a tour in Germany said it was common to see a family in a restaurant with their dog occupying a seat at the table.

[Kobun]

The case I told about was a 9 (?)year old boy that lived next to a woman whom 10-20 dogs, of husky and similar breed.
He was frightend of the dogs, as they sometimes got loose, and ran around without supervision.

One day he was walking home from school, and 4-5 dogs were roaming around.
They saw him and chased him down and tore him apart.

[Mike Irwin]

"Although, that seems to be the entire basis of your argument."

What, my argument that the human race is an abomination?

There's no doubt about that, because I see little, if ANYTHING, redemptive about the human race.

"but few would be willing to commit them..."

You're joking, right?

Bosnia.

Israel.

Turkey/Armenia.

The Soviet Union.

Cambodia.

Vietnam.

Malayasia.

Nazi Germany.

Imperial Japan in China, Burma, the Philippines, Korea, etc.

The British in Africa.

Rwanda.

Sierra Leon.

Angola.

Central African Republic.

Romania.



Just the tippy tippy tippy tippy tip of an atrocity iceberg, organized, programmatic atrocities by the human race against the human race, and just the 20th century alone.

Drop on top of that two extra special treats, World Wars I and II, you've hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of willing, gleeful executioners who thought nothing of meting out the worst that the human spirit had to offer to untold millions of other members of their own race.

At least with dogs, it's an instinctual pack mentality at work. Not a "logical" progressive thought process.

Hail hail, to the human race, God's (or evolution's) most disasterous mistake.

[cordex]

"but few would be willing to commit them..."

You're joking, right?
Hardly.
I don't claim that they don't happen, but those who orchestrate or take part in committing such attrocities are an insignificant fraction of a percent of the human population. The continued existence of humanity is evidence of this.
Hail hail, to the human race, God's (or evolution's) most disasterous mistake.
Allow me a question. If humans are such scum, why does it bother you that they slaughter each other?

I'm not going to try to convince you of the worthiness of humanity because, frankly, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. I'm comfortable with myself and my species, and I think that's enough.

[Kcustom45]

Mr. Irwin
In the Twentieth Century there were approximately 203.2 Million deaths. And an interesting note: most of the deaths were caused by Establishment violence from Communist governments (101.9Mill). Anyway back to what I was getting at. At the end of the Twentieth Century there were approximately 6 BILLION people in the world. I tried to do the math, but my calculator wouldn't show that small of a number. You cannot blame the whole on the crimes of a few.

BTW dogs kill other dogs for stupid reasons too.

[cordex]

Kcustom45,
*laugh*
I think there were more than 202.2 million deaths (life has a 100% fatality rate, after all, and quite a few people lived in the twentieth century). But I get what you're driving at. Deaths through organized mass-murder and the like?

Using your numbers, though, if each were killed by a different person (i.e. 202.2 million atrocity-mongers) and all those atrocity-mongers were alive when the 6 billion people were counted, then approximately .0295% of those 6 billion were scum worthy of Mike's loving attention (perhaps being fed to his dogs?). Granted, this probably does not include your common street murderer (Goblinus Thuggus), but it also assumes that each individual killed in the Nazi death camps were killed by a different fellow. Maybe it evens out somewhere. But come to think of it, most feral dogs would probably fall somewhere in a similar category as common street murderers ... Seems that it's only the humanized dogs that are worthy of Ubermensch-dom.

[CaesarI]

Hmm... I love my dog, and I love my cats. Good animals, but the day I declare animals superior to humans... already happened. I used to believe in the extermination of the human race in fact. But then me and a lady by the name of Rand got together, and I've been singing the praises of the human race ever since.

There's one, very important thing a human CAN do: use reason. We don't all choose to exercise all the time, but we have the choice.

-Morgan

[Zander]

Humans are decidedly an inferior life form. -- Mike I. You're doing quite well with your curmudgeon classes, Mike. I predict early success. ;) [that's not a condemnation, btw]

I do, however, find an inherent contradiction in your argument. Your views are well-known [and I'm in complete agreement] that we, as humans, cannot accept the sort of feral activity that lower species exhibit. I know that you don't sanction a return to sheer animal, soul-less behavior wherein the strongest of a species dominates the remainder of that species through brute force.

In fact, from what I know of you, that sort of stance is diametrically-opposed to your published thoughts.

The canine is a wonderful species as domesticated by us humans. With few exceptions, they are as loyal, loving and inherently protective of their masters as one could expect. They are not, however, immune to genetic defects, and the trend to "perfection" of a particular breed sometimes results in animals which exhibit distinctly anti-human behavior. How else to explain that the cocker spaniel has consistently remained in the 'top ten' of dogs most likely to bite?

Twenty years ago, I had a friend who bred Dobermans to be the meanest and most threatening he could possibly make them because they were an integral part of his security system. Those who didn't meet his criteria were summarily destroyed. Was he wrong in his approach?

There's not a year that goes by that another breed is ID'd as unacceptable to own; if you doubt it, ask your home insurance carrier why they refuse coverage if you own certain breeds.

In point of fact, all of our canines who depend on us for regular meals and shelter would revert to pack-behavior if they were deprived of our largesse. Would they miss us? Would they be confused? Would they revert to "animal" behavior?

Of course they would. But they would do their best to survive...and the huge numbers of abandoned animals, especially canines and felines, are irrefutable proof.

There's a conclusion to all this:

In spite of history [correct, not PC], Homo sapiens sapiens is in control of the planet and, absolutely, should be.

If anyone has any argument to the contrary, let's hear it.

[Kcustom45]

I think there were more than 203.2 million deaths (life has a 100% fatality rate, after all, and quite a few people lived in the twentieth century). But I get what you're driving at. Deaths through organized mass-murder and the like?
You are correct Sir. That is yet another case of my finger moving faster than I can think. I should also mention that the number is only people killed by some form of government, and not regular crime. I thought that was what the majority of Mr. Irwin's examples were, but I have been wrong before.
Also the 6 Billion figure was at the end of the 20th century. I don't have the exact #'s but it was closer to 4 Billion in the early 70's.

[Mike Irwin]

"those who orchestrate or take part in committing such attrocities are an insignificant fraction of a percent of the human population."

And yet their impact on the supposed human race is far out of proportion the supposed insignificant fraction of a percent...

Tell the Jews that their nearly 6 million dead at the hands of Nazism are just an insignificant fraction of a percent.

The fact remains that while statistically it's a small number of individuals who are willing to perpetuate atrocities, we supposedly caring, feeling, human beings are the only race that apparently makes not only an avocation out of it, but a vocation, as well.

"Dogs kill other dogs for stupid reasons."

Are you sure about that? Have you ever asked one dog why it killed another dog?


"I know that you don't sanction a return to sheer animal, soul-less behavior wherein the strongest of a species dominates the remainder of that species through brute force."

You're right, Zander. I don't. How can we actually return to something when we in reality have never really left it?

"They are not, however, immune to genetic defects, and the trend to "perfection" of a particular breed sometimes results in animals which exhibit distinctly anti-human behavior."

You REALLY want me to go into a lengthy discussion of how humans, in an attempt to breed the "perfect" looking dogs for the show circuits and the consumption of morons like my former mother-in-law, are responsible for most of the genetic maladies that currently afflict pure breeds in this nation?

Collies with skulls too narrow for their brains, Golden Retrievers that become psychotic, Labrador Retrievers prone to a genetic form of eye disease that was unknown until they became popular as pets about 30 years ago, German Shepherd Dogs that have hip dysplasia at rates nearly 2000 percent higher than what they were in the 1950s...

"Homo sapiens absolutely belongs in control of the planet..."

I truly believe that Homo sapiens should be eradicated from the planet.

[pax]

I truly believe that Homo sapiens should be eradicated from the planet.
Heard a tree-hugger say that once. My response? "All right. You first."

pax

Not only is life a bitch, but it is always having puppies. --Adrienne Gusoff

[cordex]

Tell the Jews that their nearly 6 million dead at the hands of Nazism are just an insignificant fraction of a percent.
Mike,
I said the perpetrators were an insignificant fraction of a percent of the world population.
I never said that the victims didn't matter or that their loss wasn't felt.
I truly believe that Homo sapiens should be eradicated from the planet.
Love the logic.
"A few humans kill other humans. This makes the whole human race so evil, that I wish to slaughter everyone!"

The Nazi's killed millions of Jews, so that makes them evil. Mike Irwin wants to off the rest of 'em, but since he's going to be killing everyone along with them he's just a good puppy.

Ever hear of projection, Mike? Just because you have strong sociopathic and mass genocidal urges doesn't mean everyone else does, and is therefore worthy only of death.
There are a few kinds of people who really bug me. Believe it or not, one of those kinds of people happens to be those who wish to kill me, my friends, my family, my brothers and sisters on THR and ... well ... everyone else.

I'm going to hold my tongue now. I like this place too much to want to risk getting banned.

[CZ-75]

I truly believe that Homo sapiens should be eradicated from the planet.

As much as I think most people suck, I'd have to concur that this extreme misanthropism is kinda kooky.

[Zander]

You're right, Zander. I don't. How can we actually return to something when we in reality have never really left it?Then your advocacy of the Right to self-defense is just a sham?

I'll agree with you that humans are flawed, each and every one of us. But I cannot agree that our species should be eradicated.

I just picked up a new Model 19...does that give me a pass?

[one-shot-one]

i agree that if someones dog on my property or public property, bites me or mine (unprovoked) its dead, however if someone comes on my property and does something to my dog getting bitten by that dog will be the least of their injurys.:fire: