What this person did was categorically wrong. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree on what his punishment should have been.
The dog is his property and he should do whatever he wants with his property.
If this dog owner was hungry and needed a meal, could he have humanely slaughtered his dog and eaten it?
Because that wouldn't be cruelty, right? And the dog was his property, right?
The distinction between the two scenarios is relevant, IMHO. When we ascribe "rights" to animals, it can be a slippery slope.
Myself, I'm a dog-lover, so I'd never commit either of those acts against my property.
But I can accept the fact that other property owners might have different opinions...
But I can accept the fact that other property owners might have different opinions...
And that is why "Conservatives" fail.
Willing to watch America burn as long as they don't personally contribute.
Willing to witness the most twisted cruelty and barbarism imaginable and do nothing, because the perpetrator has the freedom to do as he chooses.
More Ayn Randian objectivism. Morality is simply a social construct. Each man has his own morality. Who are we to judge?
The Conservative Anarchists certainly come out of the woodwork on these animal torture threads.
They never disappoint.
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...