Marine Throws Puppy Off Cliff (Video)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:
This debate reminded me of a professor at Princeton and his stance on animal rights. He has a endowed chair (not sure if he’s still there)in the Human Values center. He was in favor of protecting the right of bestiality. He stated something to the affect that it would be better that a hen be used for sex rather than sent to the slaughter house.

OK…back to the regularly scheduled debate…

Bestiality’s best boys[/quote]

i keep wondering about the logistics involved to get the whole act to come to fruition. hens run fast, the claws, finding the…never mind…cannot handle another thought

82

[quote]
Who has written that they don’t give a shit? Allow me to put this into perspective for you. My dad is a Vietnam Vet. I have heard countless stories about rape and even more graphic shit involving wearing the ears of the combatants you’ve killed. We didn’t get any of that on youtube while it was happening. No one’s camera phone captured any babies getting stepped on or children used as bomb carriers.

War is graphic, painful, destructive and uncompromising. It is ridiculous to train people to kill, drop them in a war torn country and then act surprised when some of them keep those instincts in and out of battle.

If it is found out, fine, let the military deal with it. If some women and children are this oblivious to the realities of war, maybe this will be a wake up call for them. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to rush into war in the first place.

Let these men do their jobs without constant criticism from armchair quarterbacks back home who haven’t even been in a fist fight in their lives.

Is killing animals bad? Yes. Isn’t putting men who are too young to legally drink alcohol in a situation to kill others at least half as dark? I guess that depends on who you vote for, huh?[/quote]

Quite a few people wrote “it’s just an animal” or some variation thereof, which indicates a feeling of not giving a shit. Like I said, I don’t give a fuck what his job is. I don’t care if he’s in the service. This wasn’t a case of self defense in an unbelievably surreal/horrifying situation [war]. This was a nutcase throwing a defensless puppy off of a cliff. Whatever penalties befall this guy won’t be enough in my opinion. I do agree with you about the armchair quarterback thing, but that was never part of my arguement.

83

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Prof, I am missing something here, you are against us sending our young men over there to war, yet you are telling us to not be outraged by this one persons act?

Stop right there. Quote what I have written and debate that directly. Nowhere did I write that I was against sending men to war. I just got out of the damn military. how could I be against it?

I didn’t even read the rest. Come back when you are ready to NOT make up my argument for me.[/quote]

Fair enough,

“If it is found out, fine, let the military deal with it. If some women and children are this oblivious to the realities of war, maybe this will be a wake up call for them. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to rush into war in the first place.” - Prof X

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are in serious decline, but the last sentance in that paragraph indeed indicates that you believe we “rushed” into war in the first place. Generally, when someone says we “rushed” into something, they are saying a few things, we went in unprepared, we went in before political solutions had been exhausted, we went in before we knew all the facts. Either way it was pretty clear that your feelings on the war were less than positive. Now can we continue the conversation I posted before? Or are you going to change your tune and say, yes I like war and think we should be sending our young soldiers over there. Also the fact that you were just recently in the military doesn’t mean you have to like the idea of war. I have many familiy members who are active and none of them like war.

V

84

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Fair enough,

“If it is found out, fine, let the military deal with it. If some women and children are this oblivious to the realities of war, maybe this will be a wake up call for them. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to rush into war in the first place.” - Prof X

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are in serious decline, but the last sentance in that paragraph indeed indicates that you believe we “rushed” into war in the first place.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but what do you call it when you go into war with no exit strategy and no plan once the governing power was overthrown all based on loose/faulty intel?

I call that rushed. What the hell do you call it?

[quote]
Generally, when someone says we “rushed” into something, they are saying a few things, we went in unprepared, we went in before political solutions had been exhausted, we went in before we knew all the facts. Either way it was pretty clear that your feelings on the war were less than positive. Now can we continue the conversation I posted before? Or are you going to change your tune and say, yes I like war and think we should be sending our young soldiers over there. Also the fact that you were just recently in the military doesn’t mean you have to like the idea of war. I have many familiy members who are active and none of them like war.

V[/quote]

Gee, read above. Once you continue to debate what was actually written, then we can go further. That is NOT what you did to begin with. I have no reason to change my tune. I have been playing the same station for years.

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Fair enough,

“If it is found out, fine, let the military deal with it. If some women and children are this oblivious to the realities of war, maybe this will be a wake up call for them. Maybe then people wouldn’t be so quick to rush into war in the first place.” - Prof X

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are in serious decline, but the last sentance in that paragraph indeed indicates that you believe we “rushed” into war in the first place.

I’m sorry, but what do you call it when you go into war with no exit strategy and no plan once the governing power was overthrown all based on loose/faulty intel?

I call that rushed. What the hell do you call it?

Generally, when someone says we “rushed” into something, they are saying a few things, we went in unprepared, we went in before political solutions had been exhausted, we went in before we knew all the facts. Either way it was pretty clear that your feelings on the war were less than positive. Now can we continue the conversation I posted before? Or are you going to change your tune and say, yes I like war and think we should be sending our young soldiers over there. Also the fact that you were just recently in the military doesn’t mean you have to like the idea of war. I have many familiy members who are active and none of them like war.

V

Gee, read above. Once you continue to debate what was actually written, then we can go further. That is NOT what you did to begin with. I have no reason to change my tune. I have been playing the same station for years.[/quote]

Your radio must not be getting a very good signal then. I also call that rushed, so what is your point? If you think we rushed in then that means you don’t think we should be there, at least not in the way we are or have been correct? I do not think we should be there, you do not think we should be there, at least in the current capacity, so we agree on that. We botched it up, regardless of whether we were right in going in in the first place.

Now that we got that out of our system, back to the origional issue, you calling for people not to be outraged does not advance your own position. If you think we “rushed” in, then surley being outraged at the results of rushing in, overly stressed military = overly stressed soldiers who do stupid things, would shed light on the overall picture. Stay with me here, Hey we screwed this up and look at this crazy shit that is going on because our dumb ass president went into war with no damn gameplan once he won the initial fight. This crazy shiot is a result of our poor planning, nobody threw puppies off cliff in desert shield/storm and I don’t remember and outcry over human rights violations or rapes and murders of civilians. Back then, we did the job and then got the hell out of there. Our guys have been in a warzone with no clear objectives for far too long. Kill the enemy, that is thier objective, except the enemy could be a child with a bomb strapped to his chest, or a woman wearing a burka. We arent fighting soldiers we are fighting a culture. Our guys are obviously having a hard time with this and acts like the puppy thrower should be talked about and brought to the front of peoples minds as well as any other act that is horrible so we can get pressure to get them out of there. I have friends over there and I want them home. I don’t want to watch a youtube video a year from now and see my friend cap a iraqi kid in the head for fun because he is no longer a human.

V

86

[quote]Vegita wrote:

you calling for people not to be outraged does not advance your own position. If you think we “rushed” in, then surley being outraged at the results of rushing in, overly stressed military = overly stressed soldiers who do stupid things, would shed light on the overall picture. Stay with me here, Hey we screwed this up and look at this crazy shit that is going on because our dumb ass president went into war with no damn gameplan once he won the initial fight. This crazy shiot is a result of our poor planning, nobody threw puppies off cliff in desert shield/storm and I don’t remember and outcry over human rights violations or rapes and murders of civilians. Back then, we did the job and then got the hell out of there. Our guys have been in a warzone with no clear objectives for far too long. Kill the enemy, that is thier objective, except the enemy could be a child with a bomb strapped to his chest, or a woman wearing a burka. We arent fighting soldiers we are fighting a culture. Our guys are obviously having a hard time with this and acts like the puppy thrower should be talked about and brought to the front of peoples minds as well as any other act that is horrible so we can get pressure to get them out of there. I have friends over there and I want them home. I don’t want to watch a youtube video a year from now and see my friend cap a iraqi kid in the head for fun because he is no longer a human.

V[/quote]

If you believe nothing similar in any way occurred during Desert Storm, you don’t have it all. You are talking about an event that had significantly LESS coverage than our efforts in Iraq. Why do you think I mentioned what was going on in Vietnam? It is because it has ALWAYS gone on in every war man has ever fought on this planet.

Every single fucking one of them.

Therefore, it makes it ridiculous to hear more outrage for a freaking puppy than the THOUSANDS of men and women who have died already.

Inhumane acts occur in war. If this is news to someone, then yes, they need to wake the fuck up and consider that BEFORE we head into war in the first place.

I am not condoning the killing of a damn puppy. I am saying let the military handle their own like they should and maybe, just maybe, all of these self righteous individuals back home will consider that there is much more at stake here than the lives of puppies.

Look how long this thread is…for a dog.

87

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Vegita wrote:

you calling for people not to be outraged does not advance your own position. If you think we “rushed” in, then surley being outraged at the results of rushing in, overly stressed military = overly stressed soldiers who do stupid things, would shed light on the overall picture. Stay with me here, Hey we screwed this up and look at this crazy shit that is going on because our dumb ass president went into war with no damn gameplan once he won the initial fight. This crazy shiot is a result of our poor planning, nobody threw puppies off cliff in desert shield/storm and I don’t remember and outcry over human rights violations or rapes and murders of civilians. Back then, we did the job and then got the hell out of there. Our guys have been in a warzone with no clear objectives for far too long. Kill the enemy, that is thier objective, except the enemy could be a child with a bomb strapped to his chest, or a woman wearing a burka. We arent fighting soldiers we are fighting a culture. Our guys are obviously having a hard time with this and acts like the puppy thrower should be talked about and brought to the front of peoples minds as well as any other act that is horrible so we can get pressure to get them out of there. I have friends over there and I want them home. I don’t want to watch a youtube video a year from now and see my friend cap a iraqi kid in the head for fun because he is no longer a human.

V

If you believe nothing similar in any way occurred during Desert Storm, you don’t have it all. You are talking about an event that had significantly LESS coverage than our efforts in Iraq. Why do you think I mentioned what was going on in Vietnam? It is because it has ALWAYS gone on in every war man has ever fought on this planet.

Every single fucking one of them.

Therefore, it makes it ridiculous to hear more outrage for a freaking puppy than the THOUSANDS of men and women who have died already.

Inhumane acts occur in war. If this is news to someone, then yes, they need to wake the fuck up and consider that BEFORE we head into war in the first place.

I am not condoning the killing of a damn puppy. I am saying let the military handle their own like they should and maybe, just maybe, all of these self righteous individuals back home will consider that there is much more at stake here than the lives of puppies.

Look how long this thread is…for a dog.[/quote]

I think we are getting closer on our main points with every post. I agree 100% with everything you just said, the only point i’d like to bring up, is that because of video cell phones and all our new technology, things like this are going to be more in the public eye. What used to only be known to a small group of servicemen can now be shared with the world, for better or worse. BUT I agree people need to wake the fuck up. That has been my point all along. Perhaps with your military backround, it seems like common sense to you that these things are a fact of war and in fact a fact of life. But the majority of people have such a sensationalized view of war because of hollywood, that they don’t think there is any bad stuff that happens. We shoot the bad guys and then we go home all happy. Thats is really what most people who have not had any military experience think about war. With this bad stuff getting out to not jus the american people, but hopefully to the other side as well when thier people do bad stuff. Hopefully we can achieve a lasting enlightenment that the nature of the beast is very very ugly and it should be avoided at all costs, not used as a tool to shape the political landsacpe of the planet. I think this thread and the news stories and other discussions are just the medicine the people of this planet need to do exactly as you want and wake the fuck up.

I only want everyone to get to a level of understanding that you already have, unfortunately, with the way the world works, the only way people will pay attention is to have a sensational story about it.

V

88

One other thing you didn’t address was the fact that a puppy being killed is far more dramatic than another human being killed. Man has been killing other man for the entire existance of the species. Man has only one natural enemy, and that is other men. Puppies are not a natural enemy, nor a food source for man, in fact, they are a companion, mans best friend. Its the difference between you killing a burglar who is breaking into your house, and you watching football with your best friend and standing up and shooting him in the face with absolutely no motive. There is a HUGE difference.

V

89

[quote]Vegita wrote:
One other thing you didn’t address was the fact that a puppy being killed is far more dramatic than another human being killed. Man has been killing other man for the entire existance of the species. Man has only one natural enemy, and that is other men. Puppies are not a natural enemy, nor a food source for man, in fact, they are a companion, mans best friend. Its the difference between you killing a burglar who is breaking into your house, and you watching football with your best friend and standing up and shooting him in the face with absolutely no motive. There is a HUGE difference.

V[/quote]

Wild dogs were a natural enemy, and some people do see dogs as a food source.

90

Hasn’t anyone ever killed a rat?

A rat is about the same size and shape as a puppy, is also a mammal that lives in close proximity with humans, and shares many traits in common with a puppy:

It’s intelligent; it bites; it carries diseases; it has been used as a pet; it has been considered a pest; it has been considered food.

Would people respond with outrage, however, if the Marine had tossed a wharf rat off the cliff? I seriously fucking doubt it.

Puppies are cute. Rats are less cute. Cute is worth a lot in our culture. Which is why people get a lot more worked up over fur coats than they do over alligator skin briefcases.

If it was a baby that went over the cliff, then maybe I’d care. Then again, look at my avatar. Maybe not. :stuck_out_tongue:

91

[quote]dirtbag wrote:
But they are board killers.
[/quote]

I was a board killer in my Tae-Kwon-Do days.

– ElbowStrike

92

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
I don’t care if it’s just a dog, it’s not cool to kill it on purpose. He’s a dick.[/quote]

And a voice of reason prevails.

Thank you.

93

[quote]CC wrote:
etaco wrote:
It’s the gratuity of the act that pisses people off. Generally when people kill each other or animals for that matter, the act was either intentional and directed at achieving some end or accidental. In this case they were killing for the sake of killing. This wasn’t a case of rival clans battling, an act of passion, self-defense, or killing for dinner and a new pair of shoes. This was killing a trusting and non threatening creature for nothing more than a laugh.

Moreover, while people expect soldiers to kill, they expect them to only do what’s necessary for their cause, whatever it is. That’s why societies make a distinction between professional soldiers (and people fighting for a societal cause in general) and serial killers.

Best post in this thread, particularly the parts I highlighted.

Some of you seem to want to make this a black and white issue: either you are not offended by this or you are offended by it and, in effect, that makes you a PETA lover. This is just ridiculously ignorant.

I have never been a PETA supporter. They are just as guilty of bullshit misinformation and hypocrisy as anybody out there. But I stand by the belief that this was an atrocious act, if indeed the video is real.

Yes, I’m aware that horrible things happen to other animals and humans every day. I’m still waiting, however, for someone to give me a good explanation as to how that makes this situation any less offensive.

At least the large-scale meat slaughtering market provides some sort of purpose in the end. It is providing food for hundreds of millions of people. Do I think it’s all rosy red and that all of those cows, chickens, etc. are treated well? Hell no. There is at least some good that comes out of it in the end, however.

An act such as the one being discussed here serves absolutely no valid purpose whatsoever.[/quote]

Great post.

94

[quote]will to power wrote:
Vegita wrote:
One other thing you didn’t address was the fact that a puppy being killed is far more dramatic than another human being killed. Man has been killing other man for the entire existance of the species. Man has only one natural enemy, and that is other men. Puppies are not a natural enemy, nor a food source for man, in fact, they are a companion, mans best friend. Its the difference between you killing a burglar who is breaking into your house, and you watching football with your best friend and standing up and shooting him in the face with absolutely no motive. There is a HUGE difference.

V

Wild dogs were a natural enemy, and some people do see dogs as a food source. [/quote]

OMG you just destroyed my whole theory with a single line. You do know that just because you type a sentance doesn’t make it true or relavant. Some people eat babies too, that doesn’t make them a natural food source. Dog for the very very vast majority of our post nomadic life as human beings have been domestocated companions of man. They will fight to protect thier masters, they are loyal, they will track downed game, they will retrieve downed fowl and other birds. People leave thier infants under the watch of their dogs (not in todays world but not that long ago) because they know the dogs will protect and keep the infant safe for short periods of time. You may be talking about wolves, wolves are not just wild dogs, they are a distinct species. It’s kinda like saying house cats are predators of man because lions are. Look, you don’t get the tag Mans Best Friend for nothing. My point still stands that if this were another animal, sure it would be stupid but no one would care, dogs have a special place by our side and thusly many people will be outraged by this act.

V

95

All this outrage over a puppy is strange to me.

My thoughts are:

It seems like a good way to get out of the military.

Toss a few puppies off a cliff, get it on youtube and you could get dishonorably discharged.

In any organization whose main goal/purpose is death and destruction, shouldn’t it be expected that at least some of its labor force would be enthusiastic about the job?

Beyond that…eh.

96

[quote]Vegita wrote:
will to power wrote:
Vegita wrote:
One other thing you didn’t address was the fact that a puppy being killed is far more dramatic than another human being killed. Man has been killing other man for the entire existance of the species. Man has only one natural enemy, and that is other men. Puppies are not a natural enemy, nor a food source for man, in fact, they are a companion, mans best friend. Its the difference between you killing a burglar who is breaking into your house, and you watching football with your best friend and standing up and shooting him in the face with absolutely no motive. There is a HUGE difference.

V

Wild dogs were a natural enemy, and some people do see dogs as a food source.

OMG you just destroyed my whole theory with a single line. You do know that just because you type a sentance doesn’t make it true or relavant. Some people eat babies too, that doesn’t make them a natural food source. Dog for the very very vast majority of our post nomadic life as human beings have been domestocated companions of man. They will fight to protect thier masters, they are loyal, they will track downed game, they will retrieve downed fowl and other birds. People leave thier infants under the watch of their dogs (not in todays world but not that long ago) because they know the dogs will protect and keep the infant safe for short periods of time. You may be talking about wolves, wolves are not just wild dogs, they are a distinct species. It’s kinda like saying house cats are predators of man because lions are. Look, you don’t get the tag Mans Best Friend for nothing. My point still stands that if this were another animal, sure it would be stupid but no one would care, dogs have a special place by our side and thusly many people will be outraged by this act.

V[/quote]

Your ‘theory’ is that man’s only natural enemy is man, and it’s nonsense. Man has had plenty of predators, including wild dogs. The fact that there are long standing domesticated dog species is far less natural than dogs as a food source or as predators.

Also, I can’t believe you compared people eating an animal to eating babies.

97

[quote]will to power wrote:
…
Your ‘theory’ is that man’s only natural enemy is man, and it’s nonsense. Man has had plenty of predators, including wild dogs. The fact that there are long standing domesticated dog species is far less natural than dogs as a food source or as predators.

…[/quote]

Dogs have been a much bigger help to mankind than they have been a threat.

98

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
…
Your ‘theory’ is that man’s only natural enemy is man, and it’s nonsense. Man has had plenty of predators, including wild dogs. The fact that there are long standing domesticated dog species is far less natural than dogs as a food source or as predators.

…

Dogs have been a much bigger help to mankind than they have been a threat.[/quote]

I agree completely. I just think the idea put forward, that there has never been a natural reason to kill a dog, is absurd.

99

[quote]will to power wrote:
that there has never been a natural reason to kill a dog, is absurd. [/quote]

Asusena.

100

[quote]will to power wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
will to power wrote:
…
Your ‘theory’ is that man’s only natural enemy is man, and it’s nonsense. Man has had plenty of predators, including wild dogs. The fact that there are long standing domesticated dog species is far less natural than dogs as a food source or as predators.

…

Dogs have been a much bigger help to mankind than they have been a threat.

I agree completely. I just think the idea put forward, that there has never been a natural reason to kill a dog, is absurd. [/quote]

You speak in too many absolutes friend, “Never” is not what I was getting at, I am sure over the course of history, dogs have killed humans. In fact it routinely makes the news and we just had a thread about it not too long ago. What do you do if a pittbull is charging you. In any event, Man is the #1 killer of Man and it’s not even close, it’s not even remotely close. I would wager that all the other animals that killed man ever, put together would still not even be close. Man has no natural predators that are more dangerous than other men. If you did a list of things men could be killed by, another man would be first, a dog would be WAY down the list, and a puppy would be close to dead last. Any single guy who has lived with only his dog can tell you what true friendship is. Anyone here who does not get the terribleness of this act, must not have ever had a dog themselves.

V