the Vick/Young wildcat - 'dinger style

Wait, what point are you trying to make then?

Killing an animal = Killing an animal.

Ok, sure... on the most basic of levels and statements. Thanks for contributing nothing to this thread if that is all you are trying to say.


On a similar note then...

Killing a human = Killing a human.


But shouldn't we differentiate when discussing the killing of a human? I mean, I don't think any of us would sit here and discuss, is death... death?

But no one would say OJ murders = 911 hijackers = US Soldier performing duty in Iraq = Charles Manson murders, etc.

Which is my point here... Dog Fighting does not compare to hunting. At all. In only the most simplest of terms in the fact that both result in death of an animal.


So what exactly are you arguing?

 

...I'm not the one that started arguing against it. It was a simple statement that many here (including yourself) couldn't grasp.

 

This IS the point. Why? Murder is murder. Killing is killing. However, people justify soldiers that are trained to kill. Oh! Murder is the ultimate sin...until it's convenient for YOU.

And some are rightfully justified. I'm not arguing against that. But whether they're right or wrong, they're still the SAME PRACTICE.

 

I did, check out post #92. It's the one that you keep ignoring because it actually addresses your earlier statements.

Yes, killing one animal and killing another animal are actually the same action, they are both killing. That doesn't mean that they are the same thing. No one is saying (hopefully) that ALL killing either is or isn't ok. That kind of absolutism is silly. We're all very impressed that you can reduce and change your arguments when you've overstepped, but it would be much more impressive if you would answer people or admit when you're wrong.

No, I'm not saying that you have to answer all of Gunny's tantrums, but you shouldn't ignore discussion directed at/answering your arguments. If you have to keep shouting and emphasizing about how you've "proved" something, then obviously, you didn't.

 

Wow, thanks for a great contribution to this thread.

Killing an animal is killing an animal. Why differentiate? A vet euthanizing a dog = Dog fighting = Hunters.

Killing a human is killing a human. Murder. Why differentiate? A US solider fighting in Iraq = a cop facing an armed robber = a serial killer against his next victim.


I am confused though, why did you argue that Ice and Snow were different? Both are forms of water, right? Why differentiate? Ice = Snow = Bottled Water = Toilet Water.

 

Tantrums? All I am doing is asking him to prove what he is saying since he calls them facts when we both know they aren't.

 

Dude, you know I'm generally on your side, and I'd say that I'm on your side in most of your arguments with Gloat. However, your feelings about him definitely get the better of you sometimes, leading to personal attacks and generally poorer posting coming from you. In my opinion, you'd be a lot better off putting him on ignore and never responding to him at all again. Yes, he makes some terrible points and almost never admits to his failures, and sometimes he needs to be called out, but I think generally he causes you to have a bad reaction, which reflects poorly on you. Take the higher ground, remove him from your forum reading. Other people will see him for what he is, don't worry about making it your job just because he's so frustrating. He digs at you on purpose, don't let him.

 

Those claims are understood as facts. Only you would sport the blindfold proudly to pretend you have a point.

 

Um. Are you also going to say Ice and Snow are the same?

Consisting of the same does not make 2 objects the same. Different states call for different labels. CHANGE = Not the same. If ice and snow were the same...we'd call them water. But we don't. Do we? If they're the same there'd be no reason to inform people about driving conditions. Ah...ice, snow, rain...It's THE SAME, right?

Jesus Christ...i feel like I'm teaching 3rd graders calculus.