Would You Save Your Dog?

[PoliticalChic]

I don't have a dog, they're way too stupid and bark way too much. So no, dogs are not worth saving. Ever.

There's something wrong with people who don't like dogs.

Do extremist have the inane inability to write coherent well thought out articles, or are they always juxtaposed and sketchy on facts and never the correct fashion of article writing using names and quote features like reputable media does?

"innate"....not "inane."

BTW.....your not being able to understand a post does not reflect on what a normal, educated, person would be able to glean.

Inanity is a state of existence and therefore closer to the true meaning of my intentions....

Yourrrr fibbbbbbiinnng!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you ever have a dog that was happy each and every time you came home, no matter how long you were gone? Did your dog ever come to you for comfort during a storm or when there were strangers in the house? He looks to you because he's a member of your pack.

Now imagine your dog is in peril danger. He's looking to you, but you won't come because you're picking to save another human over him. His last moments will be filled with panic and fear and a sense of confusion because you abandoned him....

"You" didn't abandon him, "you" acted like a human being.

I have no obligation towards another human being that isn't part of my family. I do have an obligation towards my dog, who is part of my family.

Despicable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Liberal elites are perfect examples of the warped view of equating animals with human beings.



3. Cass Sunstein. Until recently, Sunstein was Administrator of theOffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs under another secularist, Barack Obama. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4]and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law atHarvard Law School.
Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. " That Sunstein is an animal rights activist is undisputed. For a CNN interview in the late 1990s, he once insisted on being joined on-air by his dog, a Rhodesian Ridgeback named Perry. And LaPierre is correct when he says that Sunstein has talked about allowing animals to sue — albeit through a human representative."
Sunstein has said people ought to be able to sue on behalf of abused animals PolitiFact




b. " If rats are able to suffer—and no one really doubts that they are—then their interests are relevant to the question how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses," Sunstein writes. "At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes suffering. And if possible, people should try to expel rats in a way that does not harm them at all." Glenn Beck says Cass Sunstein wants to give animals the right to sue humans. Really




“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

 

[Moonglow]

Yeah right, the dogs enjoy the tasty morsels of mice and or rat...

 

[guno]

Go study some geography, you racist ******* moron, Batshit Boy.

Vietnam isn't SE Asia? go have another drink or two or twelve dripping poo san

 

[guno]

Go study some geography, you racist ******* moron, Batshit Boy.

You were the one who claimed I said Korea was in SE asia, Dripping Poo san of very Low IQ

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would say a child before my dog.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, dog is served in South Korea: tasty.

 

[guno]

It’s a dog eat dog world in Southeast Asia
Media has been abuzz lately about the infamous dealings of dog trafficking. It’s not the purebred puppy mill business they’re describing, but the smuggling of dogs for dinner in Southeast Asia’s Mekong Delta. Street dogs, purebreds and even stolen pets with collars on are making their way via small wire cages to restaurants and dinner tables around the region. The business is thriving, and people are beginning to notice.

It s a dog eat dog world in Southeast Asia Vagablogging Rolf Potts Vagabonding Blog

 

[MaryL]

For real? My best friend is a dog, I can't stand meat, but what is next, equal rights for vegetables? Were do we draw the line here?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't have a dog, they're way too stupid and bark way too much. So no, dogs are not worth saving. Ever.

There's something wrong with people who don't like dogs.

Wait-a-minute!!!

Are you 'Mrs.Clean'?

And do you work at Chapel Hill????

Gotcha!!

4. "At UNC Chapel Hill, there is a feminist professor who believes that women can lead happy lives without men...she thinks women can form lifelong domestic partnerships with dogs and that those relationships will actually be fulfilling enough to replace marital relationships with men.... "
An Embarrassment to Higher Education Doug Giles ClashDaily




Or....can I call you Tommy???

5. " ALBANY, N.Y. — A New York appeals court will consider whether chimpanzees are entitled to "legal personhood" in what experts say is the first case of its kind. On Wednesday, a mid-level state appeals court will hear the case of 26-year-old Tommy, who is owned by a human and lives alone in what attorney Steven Wise describes as a "dark, dank shed" in upstate New York.

Wise is seeking a ruling that Tommy has been unlawfully imprisoned and should be released to a chimp sanctuary in Florida. A victory in the case could lead to a further expansion of rights for chimps and other higher-order animals, including elephants, dolphins, orcas and other non-human primates, Wise said." Tommy the Chimp the Center of a Legal Personhood Court Case - NBC News



And, in an offensive dilution of a religious observation.....

6. " A Bark Mitzvah is an observance and celebration of a dog's coming of age,[1][2]as in the Jewish traditional Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah. The term has been in use since at least as early as 1977,[3]and Bark Mitzvahs are sometimes held as an adjunct to the festival of Purim.[4] The Bark Mitzvah is a celebration not necessarily held in conjunction with a specific age but can occur when the dog turns 13 months or 13 years of age. During some Bark Mitzvahs, dogs wear a tallit, a ritual prayer shawl worn during Jewish religious services and ceremonies. A male dog wears a specific yarmulke, a thin skullcap."
Bark Mitzvah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Then, there's the one that goes "my family had a petting zoo for people who like animals....and a heavy petting zoo for people who really like animals....."

 

[Gracie]

My dog comes first.

 

[Taz]

For real? My best friend is a dog, I can't stand meat, but what is next, equal rights for vegetables? Were do we draw the line here?

So your best friend is a being that licks the shit from its own asshole? Nice.

 

[DriftingSand]

I realize the point you're trying to make and there is merit in it but Christ, our example, healed the sick and the blind; removed demons from the possessed; and brought the dead to life. His historical actions always included humans yet I can't think of a single instance when He did the same for animals. Ultimately, He sacrificed Himself for the benefit of humans and one of His two great Commandments was to "love our neighbors." So, with that in mind, I would still have to consider the human soul to be at a higher level than an animal.

You are certainly entitled. I do not consider humans as a higher level than animals. Humans are defective animals. Jesus came for the benefit of humans because animals, already moral and sinless didn't need Him.

My earlier statement was based on my mistaken belief that you were a Christian. I was trying to appeal to your Christian nature but if you're not a Christian then I can clearly see why you would reject my statement. My bad.

I can be a Christian who loves animals. I can be a Christian who loves animals more than people since all are God's creatures, except for liberals who are the spawn of hell. Now suppose you let your beloved dog die, the dog that was faithful to you and would lay down his life for yours without thinking about it, and the person you saved was a liberal. Wouldn't you feel terrible about that? I would save my dog because my dog and I have an absolute unshakable bond. We trust one another. Either one of us would die for the other. That's an obligation that I have to my dog and my dog has to me.

I would save a strange dog rather than a strange person. It has a greater worth in the world than a person. God loves animals, Jesus blessed them. St. Francis of Assisi blessed them, the same as others bless people. I pick my loyalties carefully and human beings have none.

Saving a human over my beloved pet would be an extremely difficult thing to do but I would have to ask myself what Jesus would do in the same situation. Since His entire ministry was centered around saving humans I have no choice but to believe that it's within His will to save humans.

Here's a commandment direct from the mouth of Christ:

Matthew 22:39, "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And Matthew 19:19, "Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And Galatians 5:14, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

And John 15:12, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

And 1 John 3:23, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

And John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

There are many more verses that say the same thing. It's why I have to disagree with you. I would grieve deeply at the loss of my pet but I have to put my personal will in second place to God's will (especially in situations of life and death).

There is nothing in any of those verses that mentions human beings at all. Even the citation from John doesn't define friends as only human friends. It seems that biblically I'm on pretty solid ground.

Okay. If you don't believe the Bible is a history and record of God's relationship with mankind and mankind's interactions between peoples then I suppose we will never see eye to eye. Man has something that animals lack (many things as a matter of fact). We have the ability to believe in Christ; we have the power of choice; we're body, soul, and spirit; we can reason; etc.

God's "chosen" were human. Christ sent His Apostles to spread the Gospel to humans. The tenets of Christ and His message are designed for humans to follow. I don't recall Christ ever sending His Apostles unto the stray dogs running around the countryside but I still read from the King James. I suppose it's possible that some of the newer versions say something completely different.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And for our denouement.....


7. .... when individuals assume the view that animals and humans are the same, it is no great leap to picture them the way PETA does, comparing chickens to the Jewish people who were slaughtered in the Holocaust:








And the elites apply the same rules to humans as to animals....

8. Taken a step further, we find that the President who favored infanticide, Barack Obama, actually appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience
Peter Singer Joins Obama s Health Care Administrators I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story Experience


a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals."He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed....Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.


b. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singerwrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay“Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”
Fordham University after barring Ann Coulter from campus welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer The Daily Caller


Again....Singer was selected by Barack Obama........

 

[skye]

Dogs are better than people.

I would literally kill anyone who harmed one of my dogs.

So would I.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would vote not guilty for any person who shot a person who abused a dog.

 

[pbel]

Perhaps I would just stand there and watch both of them drown.

​

I'd save the dog and let a deviant ***** like you drown, for sure!

 

[Katzndogz]

You are certainly entitled. I do not consider humans as a higher level than animals. Humans are defective animals. Jesus came for the benefit of humans because animals, already moral and sinless didn't need Him.

My earlier statement was based on my mistaken belief that you were a Christian. I was trying to appeal to your Christian nature but if you're not a Christian then I can clearly see why you would reject my statement. My bad.

I can be a Christian who loves animals. I can be a Christian who loves animals more than people since all are God's creatures, except for liberals who are the spawn of hell. Now suppose you let your beloved dog die, the dog that was faithful to you and would lay down his life for yours without thinking about it, and the person you saved was a liberal. Wouldn't you feel terrible about that? I would save my dog because my dog and I have an absolute unshakable bond. We trust one another. Either one of us would die for the other. That's an obligation that I have to my dog and my dog has to me.

I would save a strange dog rather than a strange person. It has a greater worth in the world than a person. God loves animals, Jesus blessed them. St. Francis of Assisi blessed them, the same as others bless people. I pick my loyalties carefully and human beings have none.

Saving a human over my beloved pet would be an extremely difficult thing to do but I would have to ask myself what Jesus would do in the same situation. Since His entire ministry was centered around saving humans I have no choice but to believe that it's within His will to save humans.

Here's a commandment direct from the mouth of Christ:

Matthew 22:39, "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And Matthew 19:19, "Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And Galatians 5:14, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And John 13:34, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

And John 15:12, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

And 1 John 3:23, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."

And John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

There are many more verses that say the same thing. It's why I have to disagree with you. I would grieve deeply at the loss of my pet but I have to put my personal will in second place to God's will (especially in situations of life and death).

There is nothing in any of those verses that mentions human beings at all. Even the citation from John doesn't define friends as only human friends. It seems that biblically I'm on pretty solid ground.

Okay. If you don't believe the Bible is a history and record of God's relationship with mankind and mankind's interactions between peoples then I suppose we will never see eye to eye. Man has something that animals lack (many things as a matter of fact). We have the ability to believe in Christ; we have the power of choice; we're body, soul, and spirit; we can reason; etc.

God's "chosen" were human. Christ sent His Apostles to spread the Gospel to humans. The tenets of Christ and His message are designed for humans to follow. I don't recall Christ ever sending His Apostles unto the stray dogs running around the countryside but I still read from the King James. I suppose it's possible that some of the newer versions say something completely different.

There is a blessing of the animals every year. Why? Why do animals have a patron saint of their own?

I can't say with any degree of certainty that animals don't believe in God and neither can you. What I do know is that many animals have a goodness of spirit that people do not have.

 

[Gracie]

Animals are pure spirits. People suck.