NE: Hunt on for "cruel man" who shot and hurt family's pet dog that got out in the street

[EricTh]

3 hours ago, billsmart said:

Female dogs, if they are spayed, are not of interest to either male or other female dogs. They are not subject to either male sexual advances or other females seeking dominance. That's been my experience with the dogs I have, anyway.

I am curious, why is that so? How do male dogs know whether a female dog is spayed or not to lose sexual interest on them?

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by EricTh

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, EricTh said:

I am curious, why is that so? How do male dogs know whether a female dog is spayed or not to lose sexual interest on them?

Its not like going to Nana Plaza 

 

Female dogs which are spayed do not ‘go into heat’....  

Male dogs are not interested in female dogs which are 'not in heat’....  

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Soi dogs should not be there, like rats they are vermin. 

 

They are not like other animals and species needed for the benefit of the ecosystem and environment. 

 

What you say above is more accurate is you replace "soi dogs" with "humans." We are the real "vermin" and cancer that is destroying all life on this planet.

Thats because you believe a soi dog has more rights than you !!... 

 

I don’t think like that, I believe that in pretty much every aspect I have far more rights than a dog, particularly a soi dog, as do my loved ones and most other humans.

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Speak for yourself , I certainly don't value dogs above any other mammals, fish  or any other species for that matter. 

 

You have no issues eating dog or a fish ????

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Labradors feature quite a lot in dog on human attacks, more so than pit bulls 

Thanks for that. I'm a lover of Pitbulls and I've never come across a nasty one. 

The message portrayed by Bday Prang is not true...  

 

Proportionately there are more attacks by pitbulls, and when hey attack they do so with fare more devastating effect. 

 

A couple of friends have pitfalls and they’re lovely dogs because the owners know what they are doing. To many owners can’t look after dogs properly.

 

[billsmart]

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

I'll answer it for him , and I'll try to keep it simple for you   The reason a human life is worth more than a dogs is because there is  a lot more invested  in the life of human,   than in the worthless existence of a wild dog.  A father getting mauled to death for example deprives a family of financial support , A child getting ripped apart deprives parents of all they invested in that child's life and deprives the world of any potential that child had.  The death of a wild dog is no loss to anybody in fact its a double bonus as it guarantees no further attacks are possible and no further offspring will be born

All you're answers on only from a human perspective. I also take offense at your use of the term "invested." It sounds too capitalistic to me. In any event, all your answers already ASSUMES that a human's life is worth more than a dog's. That, as I've said in some of my former posts, is hubris, and is, IMO, the basis of all this "soi dogs kill them all" attitude, and in a broader sense, the same attitude that is destroying all of the Earth's entire biosphere. 

Humans are the problem here, and in most places for most problems.

[billsmart]

11 hours ago, EricTh said:

I am curious, why is that so? How do male dogs know whether a female dog is spayed or not to lose sexual interest on them?

 

 

Scent.

[billsmart]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats because you believe a soi dog has more rights than you !!... 

 

I don’t think like that, I believe that in pretty much every aspect I have far more rights than a dog, particularly a soi dog, as do my loved ones and most other humans.

 

 

 

No, I don't believe a soi dog has MORE rights than me. I do believe a soi dog has as much rights as me.

YOU're the one who believes YOU have more rights than a soi dog, a cat, a snake, a mosquito, a lizard, a fish, a tree, etc. That is called "hubris," and it is destroying our planet.

[Bday Prang]

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You have no issues eating dog or a fish ????

in principle no

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

All you're answers on only from a human perspective. I also take offense at your use of the term "invested." It sounds too capitalistic to me. In any event, all your answers already ASSUMES that a human's life is worth more than a dog's. That, as I've said in some of my former posts, is hubris, and is, IMO, the basis of all this "soi dogs kill them all" attitude, and in a broader sense, the same attitude that is destroying all of the Earth's entire biosphere. 

Humans are the problem here, and in most places for most problems.

so the word "invested" offends you ? And you appear to cherish the thought of  a human free planet!  Further discussion is obviously futile.

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

No, I don't believe a soi dog has MORE rights than me. I do believe a soi dog has as much rights as me.

YOU're the one who believes YOU have more rights than a soi dog, a cat, a snake, a mosquito, a lizard, a fish, a tree, etc. That is called "hubris," and it is destroying our planet.

I guess you are the kind who would swerve your car into a kid in order to miss a dog / lizard/tree

[Bday Prang]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

All you're answers on only from a human perspective. I also take offense at your use of the term "invested." It sounds too capitalistic to me. In any event, all your answers already ASSUMES that a human's life is worth more than a dog's. That, as I've said in some of my former posts, is hubris, and is, IMO, the basis of all this "soi dogs kill them all" attitude, and in a broader sense, the same attitude that is destroying all of the Earth's entire biosphere. 

Humans are the problem here, and in most places for most problems.

All you answers seem to be from a dogs perspective, Do you identify as a dog ? I believe that sort of madness is now accepted in certain circles

[IvorBiggun2]

1 hour ago, billsmart said:

all your answers already ASSUMES that a human's life is worth more than a dog's.

All things being equal and you have a situation where a mans life is in danger along with a dog's. You can only save one life. Who's it to be, based on

worth?      

Edited September 7, 2022 by IvorBiggun2

[IvorBiggun2]

Kinda gone quiet from the troll?

[billsmart]

7 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

so the word "invested" offends you ? And you appear to cherish the thought of  a human free planet!  Further discussion is obviously futile.

Yes, I agree... 

[billsmart]

7 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

I guess you are the kind who would swerve your car into a kid in order to miss a dog / lizard/tree

Well, it looks like you think more discussion is NOT futile.

No, I would not swerve by car into a kid to miss something else. I might consider that if it was a large group of something elses, like a pack of dogs or a dozen lizards on the road. I would, of course, try to swerve the car to hit nothing, but that's no always possible.

Edited September 7, 2022 by billsmart

[billsmart]

6 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

All you answers seem to be from a dogs perspective, Do you identify as a dog ? I believe that sort of madness is now accepted in certain circles

Ooppps, even more "futile" dialog... In this thread, I try to construct my answers from a neutral perspective, or at least not a human-only perspective. About your "madness" comment, I don't know what you're talking about. Try barking. ???? 

[billsmart]

6 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

All things being equal and you have a situation where a mans life is in danger along with a dog's. You can only save one life. Who's it to be, based on

worth?      

My actions would not be based on a valuation of "worth." My actions would first of all be spontaneous, and not necessarily based on any thinking. If I had the time to think, I would probably first rescue the one who I thought I was most confident in my ability to save.

[Golden Triangle]

On 9/5/2022 at 6:17 PM, billsmart said:

It's their turf. They're Thai dogs. You're just an annoying Farang. ????

As are you.

[Bday Prang]

44 minutes ago, billsmart said:

Well, it looks like you think more discussion is NOT futile.

No, I would not swerve by car into a kid to miss something else. I might consider that if it was a large group of something elses, like a pack of dogs or a dozen lizards on the road. I would, of course, try to swerve the car to hit nothing, but that's no always possible.

So there we have it , you would hit a kid rather than a group of dogs or lizards, you should surrender your licence, if you have one.  I guess you are proud of yourself, however I actually doubt in reality you would have the courage of your "convictions"   Discussion is indeed futile,  my comments should not be viewed by you  as up for discussion 

[billsmart]

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

So there we have it , you would hit a kid rather than a group of dogs or lizards, you should surrender your licence, if you have one.  I guess you are proud of yourself, however I actually doubt in reality you would have the courage of your "convictions"   Discussion is indeed futile,  my comments should not be viewed by you  as up for discussion 

I didn't say I would "rather" do anything, like swerve. I said I would rather NOT do that. I'd rather NOT ever have to be in a situation like that. I did say that depending on the circumstances, and if I had time enough to make a decision, I would consider the number of lives involved and the place I could swerve to injure or kill the fewest beings. What I did say is that, if i had the time, I would NOT make the decision based on the any "value" I might put on the lives in question. All the lives are the same value to me.

 

What you asked me is like me asking you, "If you were driving and there was a 4-year-old child, a 10-year-old child, a teenager, an adult woman, and an adult man on standing in a line on the road and you had to hit one, which one would you hit?"

 

Yes, I agree with your last point, though. In fact, I think "futile" is a good description of you in general. 

[Bday Prang]

14 minutes ago, billsmart said:

I didn't say I would "rather" do anything, like swerve. I said I would rather NOT do that. I'd rather NOT ever have to be in a situation like that. I did say that depending on the circumstances, and if I had time enough to make a decision, I would consider the number of lives involved and the place I could swerve to injure or kill the fewest beings. What I did say is that, if i had the time, I would NOT make the decision based on the any "value" I might put on the lives in question. All the lives are the same value to me.

 

What you asked me is like me asking you, "If you were driving and there was a 4-year-old child, a 10-year-old child, a teenager, an adult woman, and an adult man on standing in a line on the road and you had to hit one, which one would you hit?"

 

Yes, I agree with your last point, though. In fact, I think "futile" is a good description of you in general. 

Not similar at all i gave you the option of killing a kid or a dog and you replied that it depended on how many dogs were in the group, you cannot deny that it is there in black and white,

Now you think asking me to choose between between killing a kid or an adult is a similar choice !  you are a wrong'un there is no other explanation, 

[billsmart]

18 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Not similar at all i gave you the option of killing a kid or a dog and you replied that it depended on how many dogs were in the group, you cannot deny that it is there in black and white,

Now you think asking me to choose between between killing a kid or an adult is a similar choice !  you are a wrong'un there is no other explanation, 

You first gave me a choice of killing one living being or list of others. My response was that I could not make that decision based on what you described as "value," but, if I had time to even make a decision, I would consider the number of lives and the possibility of success. 

 

Just above, I asked you a very simple question. I gave you a list of humans with different characteristics, and asked you to tell me which one you'd hit with a car if you had to hit one. In other words, which one of these humans do you "value" the least?

 

And, as usual, you don't have an answer. You can ask a lot of questions, but never respond to any yourself. I'd call that a classic case of "futile." 

[Bday Prang]

38 minutes ago, billsmart said:

You first gave me a choice of killing one living being or list of others. My response was that I could not make that decision based on what you described as "value," but, if I had time to even make a decision, I would consider the number of lives and the possibility of success. 

 

Just above, I asked you a very simple question. I gave you a list of humans with different characteristics, and asked you to tell me which one you'd hit with a car if you had to hit one. In other words, which one of these humans do you "value" the least?

 

And, as usual, you don't have an answer. You can ask a lot of questions, but never respond to any yourself. I'd call that a classic case of "futile." 

Well as i value all human life equally, it would be a difficult decision to make but If I had to hit one I would hit the smallest, why ?  less damage to the car, less mess to clean up  I would probably never drive again

 

 However I would not hesitate to run down  100 dogs if it saved 1 human life,   

 

 Why?      I value human life above that of dogs (as would any normal person)  secondly there would be less legal fallout from killing dogs, Ie no manslaughter charge or death by dangerous driving and finally I would not suffer any regrets

 

Yet you claim you  would kill a human child if it saved the life of a pack of dogs. If that is true you should be ashamed of yourself

[proton]

On 9/5/2022 at 5:52 PM, billsmart said:

"Bad guys" injure and kill many more animals than animals injure or kill humans. I say, lock him up! ????

Nobody who eats animals can have much to complain about. When it comes to dogs, far more damage is done to us by them than the other way round.

[billsmart]

7 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Well as i value all human life equally, it would be a difficult decision to make but If I had to hit one I would hit the smallest, why ?  less damage to the car, less mess to clean up  I would probably never drive again

 

 However I would not hesitate to run down  100 dogs if it saved 1 human life,   

 

 Why?      I value human life above that of dogs (as would any normal person)  secondly there would be less legal fallout from killing dogs, Ie no manslaughter charge or death by dangerous driving and finally I would not suffer any regrets

 

Yet you claim you  would kill a human child if it saved the life of a pack of dogs. If that is true you should be ashamed of yourself

Thanks for your honest answers. I disagree with both of them, but I'm sure that's not a surprise to you. 

[billsmart]

3 minutes ago, proton said:

Nobody who eats animals can have much to complain about. When it comes to dogs, far more damage is done to us by them than the other way round.

Killing and eating animals or plants is not the same as killing them for your convenience or just for fun. All life is sustained by the taking of other life. That's just a rule of nature.

When is comes to damage, humans cause more damage to the Earth than any other animal, including dogs. We are like a cancer on this planet.

[proton]

1 minute ago, billsmart said:

Killing and eating animals or plants is not the same as killing them for your convenience or just for fun. All life is sustained by the taking of other life. That's just a rule of nature.

When is comes to damage, humans cause more damage to the Earth than any other animal, including dogs. We are like a cancer on this planet.

Not this all life is sustained by other life nonsense again, vegetables are NOT the equivalent of mammals which I am pretty sure you admitted eating.  

[riclag]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:37 AM, webfact said:

While shooting an animal like this is deplorable and could attract a two year prison sentence, many people are fed up with irresponsible owners who let their dogs out to defecate in the street or bite people, suggests

Same thing is happening at my house, unfortunately I dont have a gun , but I carry a large stick with a knife attached when I go out in front of my yard to throw away trash or perform maintenance of the hedges!

Need more of these occurrences to make others who have no clue or could careless of their neighbors irresponsibilities, heed caution.

My wife said neighbors often kill each other over stupid dog issues.

I certainly can understand why .

[billsmart]

8 minutes ago, proton said:

Not this all life is sustained by other life nonsense again, vegetables are NOT the equivalent of mammals which I am pretty sure you admitted eating.  

All plants are living beings, just like mammals and other animals like birds, lizards, insects, fish, etc. Most plants are killed in the process of eating them. There are some that aren't and those are the fruits of plants. There are people called "fruitarians" that only eat fruits. But, if they think that by doing that, they are avoiding killing other beings in order to live, they are wrong. 

An example of that is that even your skin kills bacteria.

 

If you are living, you do so at the expense of other lifeforms. That's just a fact.