Posted on 03/26/2017 11:25:07 AM PDT by Boomer
CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- A South Carolina man who wrapped electrical tape around a dog's muzzle to stop her from barking has been sentenced to five years in prison.
Media outlets report William Dodson's sentence Friday represented the state's maximum for animal cruelty. However, Dodson's sentence for mistreating Caitlyn won't extend his prison time.
The 43-year-old North Charleston man was sentenced a day earlier in federal court to 15 years on a gun charge stemming from a traffic stop months before Caitlyn was found in spring 2015. Under a plea agreement, the two sentences will run simultaneously.
"I wish I could give you more," Judge Markley Dennis told Dodson in court Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Oh really? Care to back that up? Because you're dead wrong. You clearly are making some kind of ridiculously invalid presumption based on a hypothetical question I posed.
So, please, once again, show me where I clearly stated my "tolerance, even outright celebratory support, for animal torture", because I did no such thing...
It also happens to be my viewpoint.
There's lies, and there's damn lies, and your slander is a damn lie...
Not to worry, I bet there are animal lovers in prison and miss their pets and will be welcoming him to his new abode.
You clearly stated that you wouldn't personally condone animal torture, but a man can choose to do as he wishes with his property.
Hence, the Anarchist Ayn Randian sliver of "Conservatism" that is fine with watching Western Civilization burn as long as everybody is free to do as they choose.
You are perfectly willing to live in a neighborhood of savages, surrounded by the screams and wails of dogs and cats.
You're not personally participating in the torture, and you disagree with how those people choose to use their property, but those people are doing nothing wrong.
You're certainly not taking a moral stance against animal torture, simply a use of property stance. You disagree with how an animal torturer chooses to use his property, but you're certainly not willing to do anything about it.
That's American freedom! It should be celebrated!
I've watched you people for years. It's a very bleak and dystopian viewpoint.
Take a dump in the street? Fine, a person is free to do as he chooses.
Marry and breed with your daughter? Fine, a person is free to do as he chooses.
Torture the family dog? Fine, a person is free to do as he chooses.
Sure, that's all "freedom" and "liberty" but you weirdos ALWAYS ignore culture and morality. Right and wrong. Good and evil.
And that's why nobody takes you people seriously any more.
I had a dog named Bert, many years ago. He was a Harrier, a breed that fits between a Beagle and a Fox Hound. He was wandering my neighborhood, didn’t seem to have a home. Bert turned out one of the best dogs I ever had, gentle, protective, smart. A lot of tears were shed at my house when he passed.
“I absolutely looooove dogs -”
Forgive me if I have my doubts.
First sentence:
"What this person did was categorically wrong."
No evidence in support your slanderous accusation.
"That doesn't mean everyone has to agree on what his punishment should have been."
No evidence in support your slanderous accusation.
"If this dog owner was hungry and needed a meal, could he have humanely slaughtered his dog and eaten it?"
A hypothetical question. No evidence in support your slanderous accusation.
"Because that wouldn't be cruelty, right? And the dog was his property, right?"
Two more questions. No evidence to support your slanderous accusation.
"The distinction between the two scenarios is relevant, IMHO. When we ascribe 'rights' to animals, it can be a slippery slope."
Two more sentences, still containing no evidence in support of your slanderous accusation.
"Myself, I'm a dog-lover, so I'd never commit either of those acts against my property."
Again, no evidence in support of your slanderous accusation.
"But I can accept the fact that other property owners might have different opinions..."
OK, there's the problem. You must have assumed that my statement meant that I'd tolerate cruelty. This is false. I was actually referring to the eating question I posed, in context of the fact that in some cultures, for instance cows are held in high esteem, but that doesn't mean that someone else eating a cow is doing something wrong.
So basically, from that one imprecise statement I made, you inferred that I'd tolerate the animal cruelty mentioned in this article, even though I clearly stated that it was wrong—not subjectively wrong based on someone's malleable moral code, but absolutely wrong, period.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it takes a massive leap of presumption to take that statement and turn it into the overt slander which you perpetrated on my character.
I've been a dog owner for decades, and I'd quite possibly do violence to anyone I caught treating an animal the way this person did.
I hope that clears up this misunderstanding. In the future, I'll try to be more careful about making statements that could by misconstrued by someone who clearly doesn't know me.
I, myself, try to get clarifications in such circumstances, as opposed to making hysterical assumptions in cases where there might be ambiguous context...
Anyone who claims dogs aren’t sentient has never been around a dog!
While that may suit your need to disparage people who hold such Godless philosophies, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with my own.
So in the future, please direct your anti-anarchist and anti-objectivist diatribes towards anarchists and objectivists, and not a New Testament Christian.
We'll set aside for the moment the fact that animal sacrifice has been practiced for thousands of years, including by those who believe in the one true God...
“And that is why “Conservatives” fail.”
I never thought of it that way but you are precisely right! It’s compromise, like “What would Mitch McConnell do?” As for me, I don’t accept that (others) might have different opinions. I accept it as my challenge to do all I can to make them see it MY way.
No animals are not equivalent to humans but anyone who would harm an animal would more than likely do the same to a person.
NO! Tape his mouth shut and run it up to his nose, leave him in a cell and save money on intravenous supplies.....there!
Or feed him every once in awhile. Or not.
But animals depend on us to keep them safe. They’re at our mercy. Anyone who abuses an animal needs close watching. They have no soul, ergo, have no feeling toward hurting or maiming animals AND humans.
They certainly are not. In many ways they are far better.
I hope you’re being sarcastic
Worth a repeat.
No they're not, they're totally helpless and at the mercy of their human owners.
Show me one instance where any abused animal had the ability to successfully fight back against the cruelty it was being subjected to by its owners then maybe we might have a conversation..........
Until that happens, you're just another asshole jumping into a pro animal thread, spouting crap..........Get lost!
You can tell a lot about a person's character by the way they treat and think about those who are weaker than themselves.
Did you really have to look in the upper right corner to see which category this thread was in or are you just being a kidder?
I suspect your thread filter is just like mine, open to everything being posted.........LOL!
With that being said, it's news whether it's breaking or not so what is your problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.