On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:34:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You made a blanket statement. Do you kill silverfish if you find them in
your cellar? How about a mosquito biting your arm?



Doug, you're grasping at straws (Soon you'll have enough to build
another strawman) here. Is the amplification and the taking of
statements to the extreme and out of context your only means of
avoiding the core issue?

A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?


Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.


Want to know how I'd
justify it? I'd use YOUR rules: You kill mosquitoes without giving it a
second thought because they annoy you. I can kill a dog if it annoys me.
Unless you can tell me that you kill mosquitoes because you eat them, like
beef, you can't wiggle out of this one.

Society assigns a greater value to pets than it does to bugs. Your
feeble justification is just that. Nobody has ever been taken to court
for killing bugs, but the same in not true for those who wantonly kill
another's pet.

I don't EVER want you to accuse me of binary thinking ever again.
After this example of you hiding behind absolutes, if anyone thinks in
black and white, it's you.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:34:20 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You made a blanket statement. Do you kill silverfish if you find them
in
your cellar? How about a mosquito biting your arm?



Doug, you're grasping at straws (Soon you'll have enough to build
another strawman) here. Is the amplification and the taking of
statements to the extreme and out of context your only means of
avoiding the core issue?

A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs
because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.


Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a
specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.


Want to know how I'd
justify it? I'd use YOUR rules: You kill mosquitoes without giving it a
second thought because they annoy you. I can kill a dog if it annoys me.
Unless you can tell me that you kill mosquitoes because you eat them,
like
beef, you can't wiggle out of this one.

Society assigns a greater value to pets than it does to bugs. Your
feeble justification is just that. Nobody has ever been taken to court
for killing bugs, but the same in not true for those who wantonly kill
another's pet.

I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and a
bunch of other happy scavengers.

You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with TV.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs
because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.

But you choose to kill selected animals. Even after your attempt at an
"all or nothing" logical approach to killing living things.

Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a
specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite




You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:36:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


A life is a life, regardless of whether it's useful to you or not. If
you
believe it's cruel to kill a dog, then you believe it's cruel to kill
ANY
animal unless it threatens your life. You should not be killing bugs
because
they annoy you or cows because you love steak.

Then the obvious corollary to that logic then is if you can justify
killing bugs, then you should be ok with killing people, since they
are, after all just "Another life".

So how many people have you killed?

I choose not to kill people because for the most part, they can be dealt
with in other ways, usually via reasoning, intimidation, fear, or a
judiciously timed offer of a cold beer.

But you choose to kill selected animals. Even after your attempt at an
"all or nothing" logical approach to killing living things.

Do you believe that you have the right to kill a dog that strays on
your property, despite what the law may say to the contrary?

Honestly, Dave, even if the law didn't explicitly allow it, and a
specific
set of conditions*** were met, I'd do it anyway.

In other words, the law doesn't allow it. You're just a vigilante.

We are not going to settle the "is it legal" question. Drop it. Suffice
it
to say that that with rare exceptions, the church committee approach to
getting things done is a lame way of doing things. Of course, for someone
who delegates so much responsibility to a deity, a committee is a natural
thing.



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same
way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when
the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with
those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and
a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite

No, Dave. I don't live by a rigid set of rules. I'm flexible. Just like DEC
game wardens.


You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with
TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:48:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



I'm part of society. I do NOT place value on a pet that violates private
property. I think you'd be surprised at how many people feel the same
way.
In NY, it's illegal for a hunter to use dogs to "run" deer. Some still do
it, though. Once those dogs are trained to do that, they do it even when
the
owner's not with them. Guess what DEC game wardens sometimes do with
those
dogs. BLAM....and walk away. Now those dogs are a feast for raccoons and
a
bunch of other happy scavengers.


So, taking these last two comments of yours in perspective, you claim,
on one hand, to be a member of society. Part of the responsibility of
being a member of society is consensus building, and harmony in
action. But you've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to
certain matters, you are more than willing to fly in the face of
society and play by your own rules, when it suits you.

In other words, you're a hypocrite

No, Dave. I don't live by a rigid set of rules. I'm flexible. Just like DEC
game wardens.

I doubt if the law allows you such broad "flexibility"......




You really need to live a wider life, Dave. You spend too much time with
TV.

I rarely watch TV. Why would you think that I do? I find reality (REAL
reality) much more interesting......

You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

On Mon, 03 May 2004 15:55:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


You watch courtroom dramas on television. That's already too much.

I watch televised ACTUAL court cases. A far different thing than a
"drama".

Dave

Do you suppose there might be certain types of cases that such programs
would NEVER show on TV?

I suppose so. But how does that effect the ones that they do show?

Are you attempting more negative logic?

Dave