+561 It's not fair that a person who commits a murder is considered different than someone who commits "animal cruelty". A horrible, twisted girl who throws young defenseless puppies into a river and says "whee" is just as fucked up in the head as a murderer, amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, and there are biological reasons why your reasoning is wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Have you seen the video I'm referring to? And what biological reasons?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think so... I'm pretty sure it's been proven that people who kill humans start off by killing or torturing small animals. So technically it would even be the same thing, and same disorder/problem/evilness.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Like i said earlyer, give me a credible source

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Serial_killer http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=847 http://www.ehow.com/how_2283785_recognize-warning-signs-serial-killer.html http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/5b.html http://thebosun.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/serial-killers-and-animal-abuse/ I'm not sure if you would call those "credible", I wouldn't really know. I'll find more links for you if you want. :P

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If a source disagrees with you it automatically becomes uncredible to you. I'm sorry, but you're not always right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're not one to talk! Oh my goodness! How much of a hypocrite can you be? Remember our little talk about radiometric dating? I gave you nearly ten (both creationist and evolutionist sites) and you said they all were biased and inaccurate. Pathetic. Seriously, you're just a hypocrite.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If I'm not mistaken (which I might be) I told you I was on mobile and my phone doesn't let me click links so I couldn't even use your sources. Your point is invalid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually no. I copied the necessary information from the sites, so you could see what i was trying to show you. And your response was "I don't agree with everything on that site." So I gave you another. And you said it wasn't credible. So I gave you another. And you called it biased. So gave you another, and you said your logic was better than science.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said my logic was better than science. I said I used logic to come to my conclusions. You went on to say my logic is wrong because all rocks are igneous rocks, but for that to be true all rocks would have to be dried magma, which they're not.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Actually, you used a logical approach, which I completely obliterated with science, yet you still held to it. Why? Because, apparently, you trust your own uninformed logic over science. Did you go to third grade? http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/geo/basics/diagrams.htm Here, you're gonna have to use logic, but at least you have that!!! Rock cycle. All rocks start as igneous. Or tell me where they form?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can't click your link. You'd know that if you paid attention to anything I say.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then read what I wrote, imbecile.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's the insult I've been waiting for. Just so you know, when you start throwing around insults you forfeit an argument. It was nice talking to you. Good day, sir.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, so you needed an excuse to slip out? I applaud your fail. And your inability to use common sense. If the link doesn't work, read what I wrote. It's not that hard.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What you failed to acknowledge in what you said is that potassium would still deteriorate in the magma form so when you date rocks you're not dating the age of the rock, you're dating what the rock is made of.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And I'm telling you that radiometric dating is the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'd link, but you can't go to links (good excuse.) Basically radiometric dating resides on the assumption that the radiometric clock resets when the rock is in liquid form. That's what it is. And any website or scientist will tell you that. We've been through this. But once again, all you do is discredit links, and condemn others for it, making you a hypocrite.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not an excuse. I can only be linked to my notifications and to other posts. I can't be linked to anything outside of this site. So what you're saying is that the potassium just comes back when something is in it's liquid form? I'm not going to claim to know exactly how rocks work, but I will claim that there's more research needed to be done because scientist are missing something.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You may be right. But that's what radiometric dating is. So...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If that's what radiometric dating is, scientists need to learn more about it before they rely on it so much. There are plenty of other indicators for how old the earth is anyway.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There we go. And no, there really aren't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are. If you look at the earth you can see that all the continents look like puzzle pieces so it's safe to assume they used to be connected. Scientist are able to predict how fast islands move. If you think about it, it's impossible for all the continents to move so far is in less than 10,000 years without there being earth quakes so strong they would shatter the center of the world.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Orly? No they don't. Only Africa and South America do. Speaking of Africa, did you know that, in order to create Pangaea, they deliberately shrink Africa by 35%? Also, that doesn't indicate old earth. A flood could easily explain breaking up the continents. I don't the the center of the earth can be shattered, namely because it's a liquid... And like 3,000 miles down. .

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Then why is it accepted as fact that there used to be only one continent?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why is evolution accepted as fact?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's not. It's accepted as a theory. A theory is just a fancy way to say it can't be disproven yet. I only believe it because it makes more sense to me than anything else. I answered your question, now be so kind as to answer mine.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well I never heard it accepted as fact. It's definitely not proven though. Was it observed? Documented? Experimented? Not scientific, let alone proven. Creation is also a theory, wait wait, one that has remained nearly unchanged for thousands of years. And evolution is based off lies, AND it has to be revamped every few Years.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The theory of creation changes with every new religion. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of creation theories.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, one sec. The original, Biblical creation, has remained unchanged for thousands of years. And, isn't it strange that it's as scientifically viable as evolution (as any debate with me will show...)?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But the bible wasn't the first book with a creation story. Plenty of things are scientifically viable (which I'm gonna take to mean they could be right. I'm from Alabama, so big words are not my friend) but that doesn't make them true. Scientifically, you can't disprove almost any religion, so they're all on the same level as Christianity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well, scientifically viable basically means it works. Of course, today, (sadly) there are two completely different ways of viewing science. There's the creationist point of view, and the evolutionist point of view. The same data can be interpreted completely differently, based on their perspectives. Especially radiometric dating. And one is not "more scientific" than the other, it's simply both ways work. And actually, any evidence to support your first point? Edit: You're from Alabama? No wonder you keep your homosexuality secret.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Where there not other religions before Christianity? If you look at it logically, Native American's had creation stories before they knew about Christianity, that means before the Bible was written people came up with their own gods and/or goddesses. It can't be proven since no one who is alive today, but it's safe to assume.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*were not where. Stupid fingers.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Not before Judaism, as I constantly remind you, which was the real religion before Christ. Lolwut? No. That obviously indicates that there was a creation. Also, how about all those flood legends, eh? Pretty strange that there are thousands of them describing one all during the same period of time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There were other religions before Judaism. What about all the pagan religions? The only thing that says jews were here first is your bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And there is no evidence contrary, funnily enough!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There is no evidence to say my dog doesn't understand French, but that doesn't mean he does. Prove to me that Judaism was the first religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay. The Bible says it is. Is there anything to suggest that isn't correct?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Long ago people didn't know about your god. They worshipped the sun, moon, rivers, etc. Judaism might have been the first organized religion, but it wasn't the first plain ol' religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, evidence???

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My evidence is lack of evidence for Judaism being the first religion. Chance dictates the first religion was something that no one believes anymore.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Chance doesn't dictate that. Actually, if you'll broaden your mind, and assume (just for a second) that the creation account is true, then the real religion more than likely survived. Oh, the Bible is evidence, did you not see that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The bible is only evidence if it can be proven to be true. My mind is open. I know that there are more than one counts of creation. I just don't know which one, if any, is correct. Assuming the bible is true, the first people knew about god, but once they sinned, they forgot about how perfect life once was. And that's when pagans showed up. Of course, that's on the off chance that the bible is correct.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

God is capitalized even if you defy Him. No, actually. The Bible has been shown to be accurate (even when historians thought it was inaccurate) plenty of times. Show me where that is incorrect. So basically you're telling me that you believe other religions existed before Judaism, simply because YOU think that? Pathetic.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So the bible says Judaism was first? Wasn't the bible written about 2,000 years ago? Using your beliefs the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old. That leaves at least 4,000 prebible years. In those years there were other pagan religions that came before Judaism.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

ono No, the New Testament was written about 1800 years ago. The Old predates that by... I dunno. The Old Testament is about 3-4,000 years old. Moses and Abraham (both in contact with God, funnily enough!) wrote most of Genesis. That's considerably a long time ago for how accurate it is today.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you're just guessing when the Old Testament was written? Does the bible even have dates in it?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

ono yes it's a guess and I cannot substantiate it. </sarcasm> No actually it doesn't. What would they be dated to, anyways? The beginning of the world?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It would be dated to when your God created the world. If your bible was truly infallible it wouldn't leave you to guess at when it was written, it would tell you so you don't have to make things up that you can't prove.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wait, are you saying ADAM wrote the Bible? No. It wasn't Adam. It's dated to the approximate lives of the authors of each book. It's written over a long period of time. And you're just being illogical.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said Adam wrote it, you're putting words in my mouth. If it was infallibe you wouldn't have to make guesses about when it was written, the authors would have included that. How am I being illogical?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, actually, I'm taking the only logical assumption. If it were written at the very beginning, who would've written it? Adam. Who else? Uh... That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Once again, what will they base it off? The unknown date of Christ? "And, according to our GUESSES, which we suppose the Messiah will come 3,000 years from now, we are at 3,000 BC." How would they include a date? And why does that matter? That doesn't change infallibility... That's utterly stupid.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said it was written when the world was created, I said it would have had the date. A perfect bible would keep people from having to guess at when it was written. It would be able to know when Jesus would come. It was infallible, remember?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What'd'ya mean have the date? It would be dated to the beginning, even if it were written later? Lolwut? It's impossible to argue with an idiot. I don't even understand what you're saying, but if you had any knowledge at all of the Bible, you'd see how ridiculous you're being. I don't even understand what you're arguing. You're just being dumb.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

People write books about Abe Licoln. They have his birthday in it. Was it written when he was born? No. But it still had the date of his beginning. The bible could have the date of the Earth's beginning instead of making everyone play guessing games. Understand?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes. I understand. Only that's impossible, as the system of dating we use today is different. Do you know that? Do you know that they wouldn't be using BC and AD? Do you? Do you understand that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I know that, but I also know that if God knows all he would have added things like the date that no one would understand yet in the bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why, exactly? You have nothing to support yourself; you're just ranting.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So no one would have to guess at how old the Earth is. If the bible was infallible there would be no guessing. You preach that something must be right if it's in the bible, but how can that be if the bible isn't truly infallible?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is it not infallible? There is no guessing. There's a direct lineage from Jesus to Adam. Calculate the ages and VOILA instant age of the earth. That's more effective anyways, hun, than numerical dating off an unknown base.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So the bible says how long every single person from Adam to Jesus lived?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Do you have common sense?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I have enough common sense to know that person a, b, c, and d didn't all live the same amount of time so you'd have to know the ages of a, b, and c to figure out how much time passed between a and d.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You apparently think children are born when the father dies...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You appearantly assume you can know the exact age of the earth by counting generations. You have to at least know what age the person was when they gave birth to the next, but since the bible doesn't include that information you can't know how old the world was when Jesus was born.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're right. That's why we say "6-10,000 years," not "6,134 years and 5 days and 4 hours."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So you're having to make a guess? Wouldn't a god (not capitalized because I'm using it as a common noun, not a name) include things in his/her word to eliminate guessing games?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No. Actually. Once again, how would it be dated? And what about scientists? That's a guess, too, in case you didn't notice. You're just so incredibly stupid, that apparently you think a book older than our dating system should utilize our dating system.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It should utilize our dating system if the deity that had a hand in writing it knew everything. I guess He didn't know everything, which means the bible is not infallible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lolno. You don't have an argument. Basically you're saying it should have a system that didn't come about until 1,000 Years later. And you're suggesting that it's wrong because it doesn't? How stupid are you?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm suggesting your bible is wrong because it's meant to be infallible but still leaves you to guess. If God knows everything, that includes the future.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but do YOU know the future? How do you know if He included that, the dating system would be changed? No. Genealogy is much better. But apparently YOU seem to know the exact date of creation. Oh, you don't? Why you criticizing, then? So it isn't exactly correct to the minute? Why does it matter, again? Oh, right, because you don't have a decent argument. And we're done unless you miraculously find a semi-decent argument.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I've never claimed to know how old the earth. You have claimed that the bible is infallible. The bible says God knows all. If a God who knows all writes a book, wouldn't you think He'd let you know how old the book was? Or at least how old the Earth was at the time of it being written considering it tells how the world was made? I am criticizing because you claim the bible is infallible when it really isn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is that not infallible? Infallible would mean it is not wrong. Now, how would not including a date (when they didn't have a dating system) prove fallibility? Oh! It doesn't. ono

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@927749 (Scrantoncity): @927749 (Scrantoncity): @927749 (Scrantoncity): (Reply button had a spazz attack. Sorry.) It doesn't directly prove infalliblity. It proves that God does not know all since the fact that there wasn't a dating system doesn't matter. If God knows all, he knows the future too. The bible says God knows everything, but he really doesn't. That is what makes the bible infallible. Are you too stupid to see that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol, you're so illogical. Because, even though there wasn't a dating system, there isn't a date in the Bible, it shows God is not all-knowing? I'll let you into a little secret: that's called an illogical conclusion. And a pathetic one. You're saying everything should've been dated according to the relation to Christ's birth? Lolno. It says in the Bible that ONLY ONLY GOD knows the date of Christ's arrival, so by sharing that, He would've revealed it, no? By sharing that, there wouldn't need to be any Faith at all. By sharing that, He would probably ruin mankind forever. No, no. You don't know the consequences of that action. It's actually comical how utterly terrible that argument is. It's... Incomprehensibly stupid. It's quite possibly the worst argument I've ever heard, and that clearly dictates the winner, as I've never seen someone grasping on such a tenuous argument!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Verses that say only God knows the birthdate of Jesus?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lolwut? You misinterpreted that...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You said the bible said only God knew when Christ's arrival would be. I take that to mean when he would be born. I want a verse as proof. Though of course, this entire conversation is pointless unless it's proven that the Bible is correct.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh I thought you meant even today. “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" Matthew 24:36

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@927905 (scrantoncity): Can you both please shut up?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Humans have soul, and are more important that animals (thats not to say they are "disposable"). By your logic, anyone who has ever eaten meat should be thrown in jail till the cell rots

by Anonymous 13 years ago

there is no proof that humans have souls, and we should totally eat meat. kill or be killed right? i am more of a fan of wild game though. and most serial killers start out killing animals so it is very possible that this woman will become a serial killer one day.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most serial killers start out as animal abusers? Do you have a statistic about how many serial killers were animal abusers, from a credible source? Oh wait, you just made that up... And yes, there is proof, its called the Bible. And 3rd, animal rights activist don't care about most animals, just the cute ones, like puppies, kittens, and dolphins. Where are the bug rights activist? Fish rights activists? No cause they just care about cute one.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"there is proof, its called the bible" if that isnt circular logic, then i dont know what is. http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm400690.html there is your source. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/to...icle644707.ece fish rights activists, they might be stupid but they're out there, and really, who cares about bugs? wait, what is this? http://www.throughwire.net/IRA/

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Cause you can tell by looking at that site it seems VERy credible. /sarcasm

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No reply... thats what I thought.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

And you say that after 5 minutes? They could have gone to the bathroom or something... Or, better yet, maybe they have A LIFE!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Pick up any criminal psychology text book. People who torture small animals for the fun of it often progress to other abuse in humans (five times more likely) and even turn into serial killers (I can list a bunch of them if you want?) there have been countless case studies on this. Animal abuse is a recognized sign of a mental disorder.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most serial killers start out wetting the bed too. Fun fact o' the day.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Woah. That's a bold statement. Is there any evidence to supplement that?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, more than 60% wet the bed beyond the age of 12.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is completely irrelevant, and, even if it were relevant, there is nothing to show that most serial killers don't wet the bed. In fact, becoming a serial killer, and wetting the bed, may even be mutually exclusive. You just don't know. But, I was kidding, because most kids wet the bed when they're like 5.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh ok. Just letting you know the percent of people who are serial killers that did wet the bed beyond the age of 12, which is an abnormal behaviour. You did ask. I've just read several books on this subject because my boyfriend's dad was a criminal psychiatrist and psychologist and we have lots of his books. Serial killers often present three behaviours in their childhood known as the "Mac Donald triad" also known as the "triad of sociopathy" which are bed-wetting, animal cruelty and arson. They are also more likely to come from broken homes, be abused and neglected. This doesn't mean that every serial killer does exhibit these behaviours, but the percent is higher.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh I see what you're saying. Though of course, it's an observational study, and you can't attribute causation, but that's a high correlation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No you can't, but it does help in criminal profiling, which is integral to catching and convicting serial killers. I do think that if it's noticed that children do exhibit these abnormal behaviours then they should get treatment because it may be found that they are being abused and neglected by their family, and hopefully prevent them from progressing in the sociopathic condition.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Starting from what you said about by my logic anyone who eats meat deserves to riot - of course I don't believe that. I love meat, meat is good, good is meat. But what I'm referring to is this video that was posted on Youtube (it's been taken down but if you want "proof" I'll direct you to a link) of a girl - around 16 throwing puppies into a river. I think one of your defenses might be "Chinese people eat dogs, do you think Chinese people deserve to riot?" Again of course not - I see a very distinct line from killing an animal because you need it to survive, or due to overpopulation issues, from doing so out of some sick fetish

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What the heck are you talking about "deserving to riot" you are not making sence. And you still haven't posted a credible source.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I try and run all my post through Word for spell check (the grammer nazis on this site...) I meant rot - not riot... anyway is this what you meant by a credible source? http://blubbaproductions.com/girl-throws-puppies-in-river.html that's the video I was referring to

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I watched like two seconds of that video and I had to exit out because it was way too hard to watch. That's soooooooooo cruel!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

FUCK YOU! Nobody has souls, anyway! If they do, prove it! Humans are NOT more important than animals, I bet the person who threw the puppies in the river thinks exactly the same way you do!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I went to those sites, and none of them seem like credible sources, I'm talking fox, abc, or a newspaper of something.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/victims_1.html trutv actually is pretty credible, and how was the second one not credible? and the third one i couldnt really tell if it was a joke or not so whatever. anyway im going to sleep but i would love to read your replies in the morning.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol its your opinion that people have souls and that people are more important than animals. I do not believe either. And it's true that if you start out hurting/killing animals when you're young that means you have some sort of disorder and you very likely could become a murderer one day...I've seen tons of murder shows. And there is obviously a difference between killing animals for food, and throwing innocent puppies into a fucking river so they drown.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I was just wondering, do you think that I think its ok to throw puppies into a river?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, I do not. But you are saying that someone who kills a human deserves harsher punishment than someone who throws a box of puppies into a river.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Thats exactly what i'm saying! At least you can disagree with me without twisting my words around like most people on the internet.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't think fox counts as a credible source

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wait....did you just call FOX a credible source?!? Haha wow.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Just regarding the question about there being no proof that we're totally meant to eat meat....we clearly are. A 4th grade biology student could tell you that from looking at how many and what kind of teeth we have, and from the composition of our digestive system, that we where either created or have evolved ( won't get into that argument) into meat eaters. And the point that 'she probably will become a serial killer anyway' is ridiculous. If you want to use that as basis for punishment, then the entire world could be imprisoned on the basis they are potentially a criminal. I have beer in my fridge and a car on my drive; wanna give me a DUI?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I agree with you, but at the same time, we do it the wrong way with factory farming. I mean, really - I would totally eat meat if there was proof that the animal was treated fairly before being sent to the slaughterhouse.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah I agree. I make sure all my food is purchased either organically or through RSPCA approved providers. It's more humane, and on a selfish note - the animals are less stressed so the meat is more tender. Either way though, I just can't stand this argument that 'there's no proof' we're meant to eat meat. Of course there is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Depending on where you are it can be pretty easy to find meat that was raised naturally, the way it was supposed to.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

human life > animal life so no

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why is everyone being so stupid?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In a study done in 2003, it was proven that many animals were smarter than humans, therefore making the four-legged race equal or more equal to the human race. It was also proven that many teens that abuse animals will go on later in life to commit a few murders. A serial killer is born of someone who was abused, or had a traumatic experience that gave them the urge to kill specific types of people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Dear god... EVERYONE who agreed with this post is a giant fucking idiot or just downright a horrible person. So would you want us to kill all hunters of in a concentration camp or what? THAT'S WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE FUCKING SAYING!!!

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No sure how you twisted out concentration camps from but all I said was that someone who murders animals in grotesque ways e.g. burning, strangling, abusing isn't any better in the head than someone who would kill another person in cold blood. When the maliciousness nature to hurt is there, it should be considered a crime. Hunters, however, usually hunt deer, rabbits and other critters that normally would overrun a population.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

In a study done in 2003, it was proven that many animals were smarter than humans, therefore making the four-legged race equal or more equal to the human race. It was also proven that many teens that abuse animals will go on later in life to commit a few murders. A serial killer is born of someone who was abused, or had a traumatic experience that gave them the urge to kill specific types of people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

for the record - animals have souls. They have feelings. They have families, lives, etc. Maybe not to the same extent as humans, but they do. Hurting an animal deserves a punishment... I mean how would you feel if something bigger, more powerful, smarter just comes up behind you shoots you, or puts you in a box and throws you in a river, or forces you to fight. And then they say "oh those guys didn't do TOO much wrong. I mean it's just a human. It's not like they're one of us." I mean really. And as for citing the bible up there. Guess what. When everything was perfect, in the Garden of Eden, Before the first sin, NO ONE KILLED EACH OTHER. everyone was a VEGAN. So don't go saying "no, it wasn't in the bible," when in the perfect world, no one killed anything. Or even ATE MEAT. For another thing, hurting any animal, and killing them is cruel. It's not like a lot of them stand a chance against our weapons. They can't even see it coming. At least humans know those weapons EXIST.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok, for anyone arguing that eating meat is the same as the animal-torture behaviors noted in budding socio/psychopaths- puh-lease. Do you really think that torturing a little animal to death and eating a burger is the same? Even slaughterhouses try to be as "humane" as possible. Anyone trying to make that argument is way off-base. The argument for people who torture animals being a similar thought process to people who kill other people definitely holds water; unfortunately at this point, we can't single out potential for criminal behavior. To Amish_Asshat- you're never gonna be scrant, so you should really give it up. For one thing, at least he has proper spelling/grammar. As far as "proof" goes: try taking any college-level psychology classes, particularly Abnormal Psych(of course) and you will learn there is a definite correlation between childhood animal abuse and more "serious" anti-social behavior later in life. It's not the only warning sign, and I'm sure it's n...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"To Amish_Asshat- you're never gonna be scrant, so you should really give it up. For one thing, at least he has proper spelling/grammar. " Hahaha oh my goodness that was funny. No need to be so condescending, though.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

... not 100% every single killer ever abused animals, but as SpearmintMilk(in her usual wisdom) pointed out, there is enough evidence for it to be taught that way. Thing is, I think you know that and you're just trolling.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's the insult I've been waiting for. Just so you know, when you start throwing around insults you forfeit an argument. It was nice talking to you. Good day, sir.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm eating chips.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well then carry on solider

by Anonymous 13 years ago

They're doritos.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What happened with that anyway? I never saw the report of that or anything.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I hate thinking about it...4Chan managed to finally hunt her down but in her country there weren't any animal abuse laws and she got off scott free. She said that she didn't think anyone would get offended (yeah, right), that her grandmother basically gave her the puppies and told her to depose of them. It's injustice at it's best.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ugh. I hate when people don't get punished for stuff like that. That's just messed up.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I like puppies.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

To add a relevant comment, I barrowed a book from a friend one time that was basically the minibiographies of several serial killers. The only thing most of them had in common: They tortured or killed small animals in their spare time. It's safe to assume people who harm something defenseless are more likely to kill.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A human life is more valuable than an animal life. sorry.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Think about it. Animals, like pets, depend on humans for food, shelter, and warmth. In return they give undying love. However, they wouldn't necessarily need us, dogs were interbred from wolfs and kitties from wherever. And in a sense it's illogical, paying money for food and medical bills. But pets give us something that as humans we hardly give each other. They love us unconditionally. A dog doesn't care if your fat, a kitty doesn't mind if you slipped in a pool of fugly. In a way, pets are like babies (super ninja babies that can see in the dark and smell fear) and are precious like that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I never said Adam wrote it, you're putting words in my mouth. If it was infallibe you wouldn't have to make guesses about when it was written, the authors would have included that. How am I being illogical?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So the bible says how long every single person from Adam to Jesus lived?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Why mix religion into this? Animal abuse should not be tolerated and I think there should be bigger consequences for it then there already is.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That seems like a clever way to cover up for what we don't know. I might be "illogical and stupid", but I do know that if something has to cover up for what it leaves out, that usually means it's not true.

by Anonymous 13 years ago