NEWS: Dog Killer Doesn't Want to be Safety Pup

No, it isn't...and I don't think you know what a double standard is. The two acts you describe are not identical acts. A double standard is a situation in which two subjects are treated differently for performing an identical action.

For example..."Dick" is seen as a manly-man because he has had 10 sexual partners...whereas "Jane" is seen as a dirty slut because she has had 10 sexual partners.

That...is a double standard.

Eating meat, while it may not appeal to you, is part of nature. It is a completely natural act to consume the flesh of another animal. The examples of one animal consuming another in nature are so numerous...it would be silly to even attempt to describe them here.

You really need to pay more attention to what you actually mean instead of spewing uninformed rhetoric. What exactly is "mindless" about eating meat? To be mindless is to lack intelligence. The consumption of meat has nothing to do with a person's intelligence. There is no correlation.

Based on your post, I would assume that instead of "mindless"...you feel that eating meat is "needless".

Furthermore...I fail to see what is "heartless" about eating meat. As I stated before...the act of one animal consuming another is one of the most basic instincs.

I am not making the argument that eating meat is good and being vegetarian is bad. There is no moral value assigned to the matter. It is a choice. The problem occurs when people who have made the choice to not eat meat get a ridiculously delusional sense of moral superiorty based on their diet. The problem is only compounded when said people lack the social graces to communicate their feelings in an articulate, open-minded way.

You talk like your opinions are facts.

Fascinating; a few points. In order to feed many more people with only vegetables, we would need more farmland (unless there's something I'm missing). We would, in fact, need a lot more. You're aware that farming isn't very friendly to animals, right? Possibly not as many animals would die, but generations of wild animals would be wiped out, as opposed to generations of domesticated animals being wiped out (though their genes prosper). I feel that one is certainly a much more clear wrong than the other, especially given that many of our domesticated animals wouldn't have much of a place in the natural world (they exist in the numbers they do because of our interest in devouring them).

Another really intersting point is--how many animals do you suppose died to bring us this conversation we're having? I mean you understand that to create the factory or warehouse that birthed the various computers involved in this palaver occupies space which, at one point in time, was occupied by animals. That to mine the materials or harvest the resources needed to build computers many animals died; often in horrible ways. Hell, even shipping the computers to wherever we are required roads (that's a hell of a lot of land area that animals used to enjoy).

The simple fact is that our species' survival is built on the blood of other animals which died so that we could have our place; and the same is true of every animal on the planet. Their continued existence requires the death of some other animal, even herbivores' existence requires some starved carnivores.

I have no problem with people eschew meat rather than chew it, but it's time to get off of your moral high horse. Killing an animal out of sadistic rage is vastly different than killing it to sustain and improve life.

You do need to keep in mind that a large portion of the farmland we use now is used to grow food for the animals that we eat. Of course, if we stopped breeding cattle and pigs and chickens and the like for food, most of them would probably die out. Where would they live? What would they feed on? We would have to set up animal preserves so cows wouldn't go extinct. And I personally don't like the idea of feral pigs running around the woods behind my house. The deer are a big enough pain in the ass.

Gah, you've destroyed my point in one fell swoop. Curses! Foiled again

so i get to add another person to my list of people i hate for hurting animals and must again tell people that animal cruelty laws are not tough enogh. That 180 days wasn't enough the 30 is worse and the 10 just pisses me off, i deserves life in prison while wearing that costume.

ok...
#1- this SHOULD NOT be a debate about eating meat or not.... it's a sad story about some crazy fuck killing a poor dog for fucks sake!! why do some people want to turn every topic into this fucking debate?
It's really sad to read that some people here can't discuss anything else. We all have our opinions- we need not force meat eating ( or the lack of) on people- no more than we should come on here and preach about religon.

#2-It's greatly disturbing to me that such a little sentence is served for murder of a companion animal. Murder of a dog by a bullet to the head could only be pulled of by a person with some sort of mental issue. Clearly this person needs to be put away for a long time before he upgrades to people. Can't anyone see that?!

#3-People who mistreat animals are the scum of the earth in my eyes, You know that saying of how you can tell alot about a man by how he treats his dog? It's true. I'm cautious of people who do not have a love and respect for animal life.

#4-Animal cruelty isn't taken as seriously as it should be. As most things go- people need to take action and contact the appropriate people who can change these laws.

The purpose of my post was to redirect the conversation. I figured that if I was big enough of an ass, you would shut up and go away. Looks like I thought wrong. So how about this: Shut up, stop using this thread to get attention for yourself, and let us get back on subject.

P.S. I apologize for taking the time to fully read a thread before making a comment. It was so rude of me to try and get the full meaning of what everyone had to say.

Ok, this guy is a fucker, especially cause it was a Great Dane, but for some shmo 30 days in jail really should be enough to convince you its not worth shooting Marmaduke.

They should've assigned him community service with those guys who pick up roadkill, I think that would be both more fitting and more productive.

people sure do hate being told that they're wrong -- not even objective facts can sway someone who emotionally objects to something. ah well, can't herd cats either.

for the record, i think the "natural" argument for eating meat is, at this point in time, a ways off the mark. industrial farming is the way it's supposed to be? well then, we're fucked.

and before anyone mentions it: no, a small farm based system of local producers can't support enough people to make it a feasible replacement.

not picking on you specifically, but that quote is one of the best illustrations of it so far in this thread:

IT'S NOT RELIGION IT'S FUCKING SCIENCE.

ahem. sorry for the caps there.