My viewpoint is animals are less important than people. You obviously disagree. What I don't get about you and the other dog lovers is why you feel you have to personally attack everyone who disagrees with your point of view. Is it because you realise that you don't have a logical argument so go right to the frothing at the mouth stage? Or is it just that you're inherently rude and the anonymity of a keyboard gives you license to behave in a way you'd never do face to face.
If I say tracking down murderers is more important than tracking down dog fighting rings, then you fabricate a lie and say I approve of dog fighting. I don't. It's just that crimes against animals are less important to me than crimes against people like murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc.
So you "give it a rest" until you've learned to disagree politely.
Disagree politely? Do you mean like you do by making up things the other person said? What's so polite about that?!?
Re-read my comment to you. I challenge you to find where I wrote that you approve of dog fighting. Go, look. You made that up! Now re-read your comment to me. You accused me of frothing at the mouth and personally attacking "everyone" who disagrees with me. Who's being RUDE?
Now buzz off. I don't want to writing back to me. Go away.