WTF? (**NSFW**)

[Danger41]

His operation was called “Geehad Kennels”. Omfg that’s amazing. Even better than the other world famous dog fighter Ron Mexico.

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, nunya said:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frederick-d-moorefield-jr-3b311612a/

"Deputy Chief Information Officer for C3 at DoD"

ETA: You'd think a CIO would know better than to leave an incriminating electronic paper trail leading directly to a guilty verdict.

So... there's a job opening? 

[FourFans]

11 hours ago, Sim said:

I wonder what was his function in the Pentagon. 

Before reading the rest of this thread, I was going to guess he was in charge of the pilot retention team...

[Biff_T]

14 hours ago, Sim said:

 

 

I wonder what was his function in the Pentagon. 

 

Is he a lib or repub, Im not sure if I'm supposed to like him or make up an excuse as to why he strangled dogs with jumper cables?  He is black man, so it's probably my fault somehow.  Why strangle the dogs when you can shoot them in the head with a 45?  Fucking idiot.  

Edit:  "Macho Man" Ran Savage.   The guy has the name to be involved in wrestling whether its humans or dogs lol. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, FourFans said:

Before reading the rest of this thread, I was going to guess he was in charge of the pilot retention team...

Damn man.  Thats 2 for 2, making me piss my pants again 😆 

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Is he a lib or repub, Im not sure if I'm supposed to like him or make up an excuse as to why he strangled dogs with jumper cables?  He is black man, so it's probably my fault somehow.  Why strangle the dogs when you can shoot them in the head with a 45?  Fucking idiot.  

Edit:  "Macho Man" Ran Savage.   The guy has the name to be involved in wrestling whether its humans or dogs lol. 

Because he's a bad and evil person. If he thought he could get away with it, he'd be doing it to people. That's how psychopaths operate.

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Because he's a bad and evil person. If he thought he could get away with it, he'd be doing it to people. That's how psychopaths operate.

Ummm, I’m all about hunting animals and then eating them.  And I don’t know how many people who like to hunt are trying to kill people and eat them.  A little devils advocate here, but I think you need a better argument.

[Day Man]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Ummm, I’m all about hunting animals and then eating them.  And I don’t know how many people who like to hunt are trying to kill people and eat them.  A little devils advocate here, but I think you need a better argument.

don't wanna speak for @ViperMan, but I highly doubt he's equating responsible/ethical hunting to dog fighting 

[HeloDude]

17 minutes ago, Day Man said:

don't wanna speak for @ViperMan, but I highly doubt he's equating responsible/ethical hunting to dog fighting 

Words matter though.  And there are millions of people in this country that do make that argument…PETA members for example.  There are even those that are telling us that the Kentucky Derby is cruel to animals.  I don’t support what this guy did whatsoever, but if you can kill animals for sport alone, it only goes to show that there is no such thing as “animal rights”.

[VMFA187]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:20 PM, HeloDude said:

Ummm, I’m all about hunting animals and then eating them.  And I don’t know how many people who like to hunt are trying to kill people and eat them.  A little devils advocate here, but I think you need a better argument.

The f*ck?

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

The f*ck?

I’ll try and help you out…

Either we own animals and can do what we want with them, or we can’t.  If you eat meat then an “animals rights” person would tell you that you’re immoral.  So the line has artificially been drawn to satisfy X but not Y…just don’t pretend that animals have any rights.  And as I previously said, I don’t support what this DoD official did, but yet I have friends who hunt purely for sport…are they also immoral?  Why is one legal and not the other?

[Lord Ratner]

On 10/6/2023 at 2:14 PM, HeloDude said:

I’ll try and help you out…

Either we own animals and can do what we want with them, or we can’t.  If you eat meat then an “animals rights” person would tell you that you’re immoral.  So the line has artificially been drawn to satisfy X but not Y…just don’t pretend that animals have any rights.  And as I previously said, I don’t support what this DoD official did, but yet I have friends who hunt purely for sport…are they also immoral?  Why is one legal and not the other?

But that is literally what rules and laws are, drawing lines between two black and white positions.

 

Why are people in the military allowed to murder, yet I cannot murder my neighbor for playing loud music? 

You are allowed to own property in a neighborhood, yet you are not allowed to cover it in toxic waste. But you are allowed to decide what type of grass you grow on it. But you aren't allowed to let the weeds grow too tall and become a breeding ground for mice.

 

Your children are yours, and yet, like animals, you are not allowed to beat them. But you are allowed to punish them.

 

 

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Your children are yours, and yet, like animals, you are not allowed to beat them. But you are allowed to punish them.

You had some decent counter arguments until the last one…my children are most definitely not my personal property.  However my animals are. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

You had some decent counter arguments until the last one…my children are most definitely not my personal property.  However my animals are. 

Who's are they? The state? They do not have agency over their lives.

 

I didn't call them property, but they just certainly are yours, while they are considered minors.

 

In either case that's irrelevant to the point. Children further prove it. You can decide what they eat, but you can't decide to feed them too little. You can home school then, but you *must* educate them.

 

Owning something has never given you absolute control over it in this country.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[jice]

@HeloDude I don’t understand your position in this debate. Could you state it for somebody who’s obviously missing something?

[JeremiahWeed]

On 10/6/2023 at 3:14 PM, HeloDude said:

And as I previously said, I don’t support what this DoD official did, but yet I have friends who hunt purely for sport…are they also immoral?  Why is one legal and not the other?

What does "hunt purely for sport" mean?

[HeloDude]

7 hours ago, jice said:

@HeloDude I don’t understand your position in this debate. Could you state it for somebody who’s obviously missing something?

It’s pretty easy—there’s no such thing as “animal rights”, so if you can kill an animal for fun, then why should it be illegal to allow them to fight each other if they’re your animals?  I’m not discussing morals whatsoever…if that were the case, whose morals, and what is ok morally and no ok?  I think it’s much worse to abort an unborn child 2 months before birth than to take two dogs you own and have them fight (even though I think that’s also immoral and sick).  It’s called hypocrisy if you support the ability to do one and not the other.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

What does "hunt purely for sport" mean?

Ever go hunt coyotes?  They’re not “protected” and I know people who shoot them for the fun of it.  Sure one can argue that they’re destructive, but I can make that same argument for a lot of wild animals that are “protected”.

I love pets…I just don’t love hypocrisy when it comes to the law. 

[HeloDude]

7 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Who's are they? The state? They do not have agency over their lives.

 

I didn't call them property, but they just certainly are yours, while they are considered minors.

 

In either case that's irrelevant to the point. Children further prove it. You can decide what they eat, but you can't decide to feed them too little. You can home school then, but you *must* educate them.

 

Owning something has never given you absolute control over it in this country.

Children are people, and people have rights.  Animals do not.  And if I can eat something because I want to eat it just because I think it’s delicious, that’s pretty darn close to absolute control lol.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Children are people, and people have rights.  Animals do not.  And if I can eat something because I want to eat it just because I think it’s delicious, that’s pretty darn close to absolute control lol.

I just we're just arguing semantics at this point. You are not allowed to beat your dog. Depending on how you do it, or the jury at the time, you will go to jail for doing it. If that doesn't mean that your dog has a "Right" then that's fine, but the effect is the same. Both your child and your dog have a right not to be beaten, or at the very least, there is a law preventing you from doing so.

 

They certainly have different rights, but that is because in both instances the line is drawn somewhere between the two absolutes of total and no control, just at different points.

 

It is also illegal in certain states to eat cats and dogs, so those particular animals, both of which you are capable of owning, seem to have "rights" of some sort as well.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[jice]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

It’s pretty easy—there’s no such thing as “animal rights”, so if you can kill an animal for fun, then why should it be illegal to allow them to fight each other if they’re your animals?  I’m not discussing morals whatsoever…if that were the case, whose morals, and what is ok morally and no ok?  I think it’s much worse to abort an unborn child 2 months before birth than to take two dogs you own and have them fight (even though I think that’s also immoral and sick).  It’s called hypocrisy if you support the ability to do one and not the other.

So I think I understand you to mean: You strongly believe that animals do not have rights. Therefore, laws that treat animals differently are hypocrisy.  For example, if a person supports shooting a coyote (and leaving it to rot, I guess?) but not fighting dogs, that they’re a hypocrite. Therefore your preference is that dog fighting be legal to avoid hypocrisy?

Does this attachment to the idea that animals don’t have rights make your life so much easier to live that you’d prefer a world in which dog fighting is legal? 
 

It’s a strange hill, bro. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, jice said:

So I think I understand you to mean: You strongly believe that animals do not have rights. Therefore, laws that treat animals differently are hypocrisy.  For example, if a person supports shooting a coyote (and leaving it to rot, I guess?) but not fighting dogs, that they’re a hypocrite. Therefore your preference is that dog fighting be legal to avoid hypocrisy?

Does this attachment to the idea that animals don’t have rights make your life so much easier to live that you’d prefer a world in which dog fighting is legal? 
 

It’s a strange hill, bro. 

If animals don’t have a right to not be killed by humans for our pleasure, then no, they don’t have rights.  And this isn’t a hill…it’s a fact.  Unless you’re one of those who thinks people who eat animals should go to jail?

Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.  Or “well this is how our laws are so they must be right”…I guess all of our laws have always been perfect.  Again, killing a 7 month unborn baby is ok in many states…but getting two chickens to fight is not ok.  But breeding horses to aggressively race for our viewing pleasure…and if they get hurt because of it and need to be killed, well that’s ok, but eating a cat is not ok.  But eating a pig is ok. 
 

I want to live in a world where you can have your morals and I can have mine…but that we don’t cater to certain people and not others when they’re literally the same thing.  And yes, if you hunt coyote on BLM land then you leave them to rot…they go back to nature.  Or should the coyotes be protected?  If not, maybe a proper burial required after you shoot them for fun?…we could regulate how deep the hole needs to be, a required head stone, whatever makes people feel better.  Maybe if we hit a raccoon on the road we should have to stop and bury it…maybe report it since that might be a crime because the animal had a “right” to not be hit by a car?

If you truly believe in individual liberty then you have to ask yourself uncomfortable questions at times.  Oh and enjoy that steak dinner or chicken sandwich next time!…you heartless person you lol.

[Lord Ratner]

46 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

If animals don’t have a right to not be killed by humans for our pleasure, then no, they don’t have rights.  And this isn’t a hill…it’s a fact.  Unless you’re one of those who thinks people who eat animals should go to jail?

Some of you don’t seem capable of having an actual philosophical discussion outside of what is legal vs illegal.  Or “well this is how our laws are so they must be right”…I guess all of our laws have always been perfect.  Again, killing a 7 month unborn baby is ok in many states…but getting two chickens to fight is not ok.  But breeding horses to aggressively race for our viewing pleasure…and if they get hurt because of it and need to be killed, well that’s ok, but eating a cat is not ok.  But eating a pig is ok. 
 

I want to live in a world where you can have your morals and I can have mine…but that we don’t cater to certain people and not others when they’re literally the same thing.  And yes, if you hunt coyote on BLM land then you leave them to rot…they go back to nature.  Or should the coyotes be protected?  If not, maybe a proper burial required after you shoot them for fun?…we could regulate how deep the hole needs to be, a required head stone, whatever makes people feel better.  Maybe if we hit a raccoon on the road we should have to stop and bury it…maybe report it since that might be a crime because the animal had a “right” to not be hit by a car?

If you truly believe in individual liberty then you have to ask yourself uncomfortable questions at times.  Oh and enjoy that steak dinner or chicken sandwich next time!…you heartless person you lol.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.

 

So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why

 

Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

[hindsight2020]

apropos of nothing, this "legal vs moral" debate reminded of a skit with ol' billy Burr, about people remarking it's legal for stay-at-home prospectors to financially scalp high earning spouses in divorce:  a woman in the audience smugly throws the rationalization: "well, that's what the law says!"  and Billy goes : "yeah? 100 years ago I could beat you with a broomstick for backtalking! ....tHat's wHat tHe lAw sAiD".  May not "win" an argument in nerd debate club, but he's a winner in my book 😄 

 

 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, just say so. You aren't coming off as obvious as you think you are.

 

So... is there a difference between killing a human in a war and killing them to steal their car? Why

 

Is there a moral difference between killing a deer for food, and drowning a cat in a pond because you like the sounds they make as they die? Why?

Depends on how bad you need that car I suppose.  A lot of people get killed in war that I’m sure didn’t necessarily need to die for objectives to be achieved.

And though I’m morally against bringing drawn out suffering to an animal, for some people it’s what they want to do.  Like I said a while back, I don’t support what this DoD guy did…but it does beg the question of why things are legal and why things aren’t.

As for this being a philosophical discussion, I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn’t…next time I’ll say so.