This is 100 times worst than anything Michael Vick has done

Anyone who hurts a dog should be killed.

You are a dumb fvck. Killing is killing any which way you look at it. It is never o.k.

JKL wrote:

You are a dumb fvck. Killing is killing any which way you look at it. It is never o.k.

Whoa buddy no need to fake curse. I didn't say it was okay but rather this is mainly a response to posts like the one above yours saying "Anyone who hurts a dog should be killed." No he/she shouldn't, because it is not like killing a human. It is not the same "kill" any way you look at it.

I Know Better wrote:

Anyone who hurts a dog should be killed.

That would make the position of Dog Warden pretty hard to fill.

There are a lot of mentally handicapped people who have lower intelligence and self-awareness than dogs or farm animals. They cannot be held morally accountable for their actions either. I guess, by your logic, it shouldn't matter if we shoot them all either. Same thing for newborn babies.

Mike Vick wrote:

Dat ain't s**t. Dey got nuttin' on me.

Wanna know how I know you're white?

What a weird and silly philosophy. Did you make that up as you were typing it?

wilfredo wrote:

oh please wrote:

Not much different than the killing of billions of chickens or fish or cows each year.

except for all the differences

Which is none because you are killing them.

The reason doesn't matter.

In the end, they are still dead.

Also, who cares. They are animals.

Killing them is fine.

Unnecessary pain and torture is not ok, but simply killing them is.

The WorkSafeBC report states the employee, who had known a lot of the dogs and even named many of them, lived with them and cared for them seven days a week, Part of his duties including occasionally euthanizing animals, who were old, ill, injured or where there were unwanted puppies.

They were killing puppies too....why weren't any of the dogs fixed in the first place???

“A veterinarian was contacted, but refused to euthanize healthy animals. Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs with only limited success.”

The report did not state by what means the company or the worker tried to find alternative homes for the sled dogs.

“the dogs were experiencing anxiety and stress from observing the euthanasia of other members of the pack and were panicking.”

Yeah, my guess is they didn't try too hard to get the dogs adopted. Do herds of cattle experience panic from mass slaughter? I hope Canada gets its act together to enforce living standards for these business-owned dogs and HEFTY fines for appalling incidents like this.

I see at the end of the article they do have stiffer regulations and fines. I hope they put this place out of business permanently.

scrooge you wrote:

There are a lot of mentally handicapped people who have lower intelligence and self-awareness than dogs or farm animals. They cannot be held morally accountable for their actions either. I guess, by your logic, it shouldn't matter if we shoot them all either. Same thing for newborn babies.

Um you can teach mentally handicapped people and newborn babies will eventually become adults you can teach and they all WILL be held accountable. Animals will never learn morals no matter what, so that is the difference between a newborn animal and a newborn human. Humans will learn, animals won't.

Mrs. M wrote:

Do herds of cattle experience panic from mass slaughter?

Yup

God, I wished I hadn't watched that.

You will NEVER teach somebody with SEVERE mental retardation or SEVERE dementia how to look after themselves. They will also not be held accountable if they commit a crime in the same way that your average person would. They might be put in an institution in order to protect society, but they would not be put in a normal prison (if justice is properly served). Any domesticated animal, if left alone in the wild, would have a far better chance of survival than a person with severe mental impairment.You might be able to teach them a few things, but you can teach animals as well and they can even provide services to us, like seeing eye dogs, bomb-sniffers, search and rescue, sled dogs... etc. Chimpanzees can learn sign language, African parrots can learn language, crows have been shown to be extremely intelligent........ Any of these animals are more intelligent than somebody who is severely mentally handicapped. If intelligence is the only measure of worth, as you seem to believe, then severely mentally handicapped people should have less worth than animals. Agreed? If not, why? Humans are animals. Why should different standards apply to us, or are you one of those people who thinks that God made humans in his image and gave us the World to plunder as we please? If I believed in God, and that he created this work of art we live in, I would think that he would not be very pleased with how we're treating it, but that's just me.

The Waterboy wrote:

scrooge you wrote:

There are a lot of mentally handicapped people who have lower intelligence and self-awareness than dogs or farm animals. They cannot be held morally accountable for their actions either. I guess, by your logic, it shouldn't matter if we shoot them all either. Same thing for newborn babies.

Um you can teach mentally handicapped people and newborn babies will eventually become adults you can teach and they all WILL be held accountable. Animals will never learn morals no matter what, so that is the difference between a newborn animal and a newborn human. Humans will learn, animals won't.

Also, I might argue that most humans never learn any kind of concrete morality either (if it even exists). You can look back through our history at all of the instances where immoral practices were common and encouraged by society such as genocide, human sacrifice, torturing and raping prisoners, burning people at the stake.... When society breaks down or is accepting of these types of practices, many people do join in IF they feel that society is not going to hold them accountable in a way that will negatively affect them. Morality is largely learned and animals can learn our code of conduct if they are taught properly. Dogs, for instance, can be taught to never bite a human or to not take something that doesn't belong to them (not eating somebody's food when they leave the room). If a dog does break society's rules, they are held accountable, contrary to what you've said. If a dog simply assaults somebody, they are often put to death.

The Waterboy wrote:

]

Um you can teach mentally handicapped people and newborn babies will eventually become adults you can teach and they all WILL be held accountable. Animals will never learn morals no matter what, so that is the difference between a newborn animal and a newborn human. Humans will learn, animals won't.

You don't seem like you've thought this through (or you have, and you're just not a good thinker), a fact which you broadcast with every post you write.

You seem to be implying that there is no difference between killing a fruit fly by pulling its legs off and killing a dog by pulling its legs off. (If killing an a member of one nonhuman species is no different than killing a member of a different nonhuman species, it seems to follow that if the method of killing is constant, there is still no difference.) Are you sure you want to be saying that?

Furthermore, your criteria for distinguishing whether or not you are "killing" something or rather just "ending it's life" (a fair paraphrase?) seem to be completely arbitrary. The ability to learn morals? Why not the ability to see the color green? Or to be less silly, why not the degree to which the creature can experience suffering?

I found it interesting that if you Google "Howling Dog Tours" you can find a company's web site at

http://howlingdogtours.com/

and there is a red box on the right that they added in response to all the media attention. It basically says "Oh, it was a different company that did that."

Change your company's name and sue the newspaper who libeled you if you really had nothing to do with what happened! SHADY

Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLcgxIGTFRs&feature=related

If a dog is taught not to bite- that's exactly it: the dog is taught but doesn't understand that it's wrong. People are able just to manipulate animals to their will and that's it. Do you ever notice that, lets say with Dolphins, if a Dolphin kills a human, animal lovers claim "it didn't know what it was doing, part of nature etc," but if a Dolphin saves a human, it's because "it was perfectly conscious of what it was doing and wanted to do a good deed." Hold on now, make up your mind! Do Dolphins either know what they are doing all the time or do they not know what they are doing? They are either responsible for everything they do or not, but pick one!

My opinion is that animals aren't morally responsible for what they do wrong (it's just instinct), but also aren't morally responsible for what they do right. It's either chance or being manipulated by the owner. A dog can be taught not to bite, it can ALSO be taught to bite and fight (like with Michael Vick). But in both cases, the dog is just manipulated/trained/brainwashed and doesn't know what it's doing/if it is right or wrong.

As for the fruit fly comparison to a dog with legs being pulled off- why is there a difference? Because the dog is cuter? It's an animal- never has a sense of morals so even if one is "smarter" than the other it still doesn't matter.