Staffie dog hogtied and cooked alive over a fire at The Curragh

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:39pm

Ah I see the thread has descended into the usual "baby and dog burning in a housefire- which one would you save" ridiculous hypothetical questions again. FFS people.

Frog Song · 29-01-2015 3:40pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm so glad he survived.

If it were my dog, I'd consider it worth doing time for.

I won't be looking at the link but from what I gather here he didn't survive?

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 3:41pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well if you put the life of a dog before that of an innocent human while sitting there enjoying the fruits of 40,000 years of human civilization you're a bad person.

And the dog's guilty, I presume? They're both innocent, they're both in danger, for some reason I'm the only one who can save them but I see them as equal (not superior, equal). I will make my decision on who to save based on if it were two humans in the same situation.

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:42pm

Frog Song wrote: »

I won't be looking at the link but from what I gather here he didn't survive?

You're right. Scum. I hate people.

The other fella · 29-01-2015 3:42pm

Frog Song wrote: »

I won't be looking at the link but from what I gather here he didn't survive?

Unfortunately not.He had actually been internally cooked and he was beyond saving.The most grotueque way for him to go :mad:

Omackeral · 29-01-2015 3:43pm

Lau2976 wrote: »

I accept that that's your belief but I don't see why. I don't distingush between animals and people.

Lau2976 wrote: »

Yes I would save my dog every single time. That's a completely different situation because I disagree with eating living things all together.

Well that figures, although the first one is a little worrying. I'd hate to be competing with a rabbit for survival if you were in control!

Magico Gonzalez · 29-01-2015 3:43pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Fair enough. I think you've pretty much checked out of any right you have to participate in human society but ok.

This is a ridiculous theoretical point which will never occur. When is someone going to be in the position to chose a dog over a person, how does that even occur?

Human society as a construct simply does not exist. I'll be OK with not participating. What do you consider human society? Are rapists and murderers part of it? Is war an acceptable part of it? If I am a soldier and a kill hundreds of other people as it's my job am I in or out of this imaginary human society? If I can drunk and kill someone in my car how is my standing? Do I get a letter explaining I am no longer a part of this made up construct?

Human society is something you made up. Doesn't exist.

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:45pm

Why would anyone do such a thing?

The other fella · 29-01-2015 3:45pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well if you put the life of a dog before that of an innocent human while sitting there enjoying the fruits of 40,000 years of human civilization you're a bad person.

Why does everyone think humans are the end all and be all? We wouldnt have got to 40 of those 40,000 years without animals to balance our ecosystem and the practical uses they had along the way.

suicide_circus · 29-01-2015 3:46pm

Ooookkkaaaayy....

I see I've stumbled upon some kind of PETA drum circle here

*slowly backs away*

Lau2976 · 29-01-2015 3:47pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Well that figures, although the first one is a little worrying. I'd hate to be competing with a rabbit for survival if you were in control!

If I were in control I would base my decision on a number of factors, including who I actually had a chance of saving and who had a chance of saving themselves.

I don't agree with eating other sentient beings so I must be a crazy hemp wearing preaching vegan right?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 3:47pm

The other fella wrote: »

Why does everyone think humans are the end all and be all? We wouldnt have got to 40 of those 40,000 years without animals to balance our ecosystem and the practical uses they had along the way.

100%

the very breed that was killed here was once the 2nd bread winner for families. these dogs were put up in the same place as children, it was their bravery that often fed the families.

SparkySpitfire · 29-01-2015 3:47pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Fair enough. I think you've pretty much checked out of any right you have to participate in human society but ok.

You're worrying.

It works both ways.

If it came between you and my cat - though a lot of these "hypothetical" scenarios are completely insane... My cat's coming first, I don't know you from Adam, what have you ever done for me except for mildly annoying me on a message board?

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 3:47pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ooookkkaaaayy....

I see I've stumbled upon some kind of PETA drum circle here

*slowly backs away*

Nobody here is that extreme. Can you really not see why anyone would value an animals life and don't think humans are the greatest thing ever?

Blatter · 29-01-2015 3:47pm

I'm trying to figure out whether K4t is trolling or has got himself tangled in a ridiculous web of discussion to try and win an argument on the internet.

Comparing cooking meat for human consumption and squashing flies to torturing a dog by slowly burning it alive over a fire.

Hmmm.

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:48pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ooookkkaaaayy....

I see I've stumbled upon some kind of PETA drum circle here

*slowly backs away*

A dog has been cooked alive by people... It's not PETA that's the issue here!

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 3:48pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ooookkkaaaayy....

I see I've stumbled upon some kind of PETA drum circle here

*slowly backs away*

actually , if you had, given PETA's ideas on the pit bull breeds, this would be a very different thread.

SparkySpitfire · 29-01-2015 3:48pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ooookkkaaaayy....

People disagree with me and I don't know what else to say

*slowly backs away*

FYP

EazyD · 29-01-2015 3:49pm

I can only hope the worst for the utterly repulsive filthbag that did this. Hope they die roaring.

K4t · 29-01-2015 3:49pm

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

I'm terribly pleased you think it's fine.

If someone values the life of their hamster above me AND it comes down to incredibly complicated situation where they have to chose between me and a hamster, I'll accept it.

Of course, it's a completely redundant point. Unless of course you expect me to believe that hammy the hamster might one day be granted the spot in a lifeboat as the ferry we were both travelling on sinks into the blue yonder.

"Sorry Magico, it's you or the hamster, and this lifeboat ain't big enough for both of you!"

Or maybe me and this other families goldfish will need urgent medical treatment, as i lie their uttering my last on the operating table I'll understand it completely if the fish gets priority.

Meanwhile, in the real world, these choices never occur. It's the same as the absurd nonsense that insists that some daft dogmatic (no pun intended) belief stops some people behaving pragmatically. Do I care about cockroaches? Nope, it's hot were I live and the come up through the drainage pipes. I don't shed any tears as I poison them.
.

But don't you see that if your view became prevalent and the accepted view, those situations would arise. The dog and the hamster being worth saving over the human would now be accepted as the correct behaviour by the majority. Your dog and that person's hamster would be given preference over human life. You talk about the real world, well how about being honest and admitting that your view has no place in it.

Lau2976 · 29-01-2015 3:49pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well if you put the life of a dog before that of an innocent human while sitting there enjoying the fruits of 40,000 years of human civilization you're a bad person.

Oh no someone on the internet thinks I'm a bad person based on a single strand of my comprehensive belief systems! :eek: I may as well lock myself away now so me being a bad person doesn't hurt anyone!

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:51pm

EazyD wrote: »

I can only hope the worst for the utterly repulsive filthbag that did this. Hope they die roaring.

Me too. If it was my dog I'd see to it that they did.

At least the poor dog is at peace now.

Humans are shíts.

SparkySpitfire · 29-01-2015 3:51pm

K4t wrote: »

But don't you see that if your view became prevalent and the accepted view, those situations would arise. The dog and the hamster being worth saving over the human would now be accepted as the correct behaviour by the majority. Your dog and that person's hamster would be given preference over human life. You talk about the real world, well how about being honest and admitting that your view has no place in it.

Your scenarios are completely redundant as well as ridiculous. There's never gonna be a decision of stranger v the hamster.

Arise from where? These situations don't exist.

There's no way to argue your "point" without placing us in an alternate fantasy universe.

suicide_circus · 29-01-2015 3:52pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Nobody here is that extreme. Can you really not see why anyone would value an animals life and don't think humans are the greatest thing ever?

I do value the lives of animals, I've had pets and was a quivering wreck when they died. And I don't think humans are the best thing ever, far from it, exceptionally flawed. But I put the life of a human ahead of that of a dog.

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 3:52pm

I need to unfollow. I'm not normally one for burying my head in the sand but it's too much. The thoughts of the suffering make me feel physiclly sick

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 3:53pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I do value the lives of animals, I've had pets and was a quivering wreck when they died. And I don't think humans are the best thing ever, far from it, exceptionally flawed. But I put the life of a human ahead of that of a dog.

And you would insult and dismiss people who think them equal?

SparkySpitfire · 29-01-2015 3:53pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I do value the lives of animals, I've had pets and was a quivering wreck when they died. And I don't think humans are the best thing ever, far from it, exceptionally flawed. But I put the life of a human ahead of that of a dog.

Well you know what?

That's absolutely grand.

Just don't ask me to.

Omackeral · 29-01-2015 3:55pm

Lau2976 wrote: »

If I were in control I would base my decision on a number of factors, including who I actually had a chance of saving and who had a chance of saving themselves.

I don't agree with eating other sentient beings so I must be a crazy hemp wearing preaching vegan right?

No I'm saying it figures, in that you obviously care a great deal about animals. It wasn't a slight at all. It was a compliment, if anything, in that you have your morals and stick by them. I just found it a little weird you see no difference between animals and people is all.

Sofiztikated · 29-01-2015 3:56pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i'd love you to explain a situation where i might die in exchange for the survival of someone's pet hamster.

True story time.

When I was younger, a mate brought his hamster down to my house, a new pet and wanted to show it off. It was a lovely day, we were out the of my house, on our street.

Being a lovely day, most of the family was outside. My nephew, 3 or 4 at the time, came waddling over, and of course we said, "Here, Danny, look at what Georgie has," pointing to the hamster, running around on the street.

Danny waddled passed up, and in a beat said, "Don't worry, I'll get it!" and stamped down on the hamster.

In this instance, being that the hamster was Georgies pet which he was going to love and cherish, and what Danny did was, in effect, animal abuse, is the mandatory life sentence people are calling for, the right course of action? Or should Georgie have punched Danny square in the (as then undropped) balls?

Baggy Trousers · 29-01-2015 3:56pm

Bastards.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 3:58pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I do value the lives of animals, I've had pets and was a quivering wreck when they died. And I don't think humans are the best thing ever, far from it, exceptionally flawed. But I put the life of a human ahead of that of a dog.

in every situation? do you put the life of a paedo over a dog? a serial killer?

i have my line that i draw, it ends at family and friends.

the ONLY situation i can think of where human life would be more valuable would be someone in a very vunerable situation (for instance a child). i'd have to let my dog take her chances if a child was endangered.

Lau2976 · 29-01-2015 3:59pm

Omackeral wrote: »

No I'm saying it figures, in that you obviously care a great deal about animals. It wasn't a slight at all. It was a compliment, if anything, in that you have your morals and stick by them. I just found it a little weird you see no difference between animals and people is all.

Sorry if I took your comment the wrong way. I understand that people don't share my views and that's up to them. I didn't come here to preach my beliefs to people that don't agree with me but when someone accuses me of being a bad person because of it i'm going to fight my corner.As I would expect anyone with any set of beliefs to do if you really believe that.

Magico Gonzalez · 29-01-2015 4:00pm

K4t wrote: »

But don't you see that if your view became prevalent and the accepted view, those situations would arise. The dog and the hamster being worth saving over the human would now be accepted as the correct behaviour by the majority. Your dog and that person's hamster would be given preference over human life. You talk about the real world, well how about being honest and admitting that your view has no place in it.

"Those situations would arise"

Err, what? Someone might reject from a lifeboat instead of a hamster?

Seriously. That's your argument? Go on, I'll humour you. Give me a scenario, for a laugh.

You're making a very convoluted point without any concept of context. You've picked up on an idea and are trying to ram it home with dogmatic nonsense. You are make fairly comical sweeping generalisations without considering the relationships which exist. I say again, for clarity. My dog is more important to me than you because we have an emotional bond. Don't worry, I'd give you a seat in the lifeboat over a dog I didn't have an emotional bond with.

My views and every other type of view have every place in the world. I don't need you to validate them or accept them. Your living in a dogmatic fantasy land without any practical application for your beliefs, which I note you have not really expained or answered any questions about the last time you had dog or cat for dinner.

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 4:01pm

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

My dog is more important to me than you because we have an emotional bond. Don't worry, I'd give you a seat in the lifeboat over a dog I didn't have an emotional bond with.

this says everything ^

The Cool · 29-01-2015 4:02pm

Saw this alright, heart breaking. Just glad that the dog was found in time to be put out of its misery and die being cuddled and comforted.

Hope karma comes back big time on whatever sick freak even dreamt this up.

smash · 29-01-2015 4:03pm

If the dog was hanged over a fire wouldn't his hair have burned off?

DamagedTrax · 29-01-2015 4:05pm

smash wrote: »

If the dog was hanged over a fire wouldn't his hair have burned off?

only in the areas that got burned. they dont go up like a shell suit.

(and no, ive not burned a dog to test this theory).

smash · 29-01-2015 4:07pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

only in the areas that got burned. they dont go up like a shell suit.

(and no, ive not burned a dog to test this theory).

The photos show the dog from all angles and there's no signs of any scorched hair. If he was hogtied then his back wouldn't have hair on it.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 4:11pm

smash wrote: »

The photos show the dog from all angles and there's no signs of any scorched hair. If he was hogtied then his back wouldn't have hair on it.

Scorching point of hair is 233 degrees C, boiling point of blood is 100 degrees C. I'm assuming the dog wasn't close enough to the fire for the hair to burn.

jimgoose · 29-01-2015 4:15pm

This is weird. If true or near-enough as reported, whoever did it should be sectioned.

smash · 29-01-2015 4:18pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Scorching point of hair is 233 degrees C, boiling point of blood is 100 degrees C. I'm assuming the dog wasn't close enough to the fire for the hair to burn.

I don't know. I hate animal cruelty but the story just stinks of sensationalist journalism. If his organs had cooked, slowly or not, he wouldn't have been found alive at all.

The original story from KWWSPCA says:

Tony, the vet who little Tony was named for, told us that they had cleaned his body in a special fluid and what was originally though to be dirt on him was in fact soot from a fire. The marks on his paws which also looked like dirt were actually the charred remains of whatever was used to hog tie him and hang him over a low burning fire. Laura and Aisling who picked him up remembered there had been the scorch marks of a fire near where he was found.

There's a lot of connecting the dots there!

Then there's the previous story from when he was first found:

He was totally emaciated, icy cold with his mouth and nose full of muck and he also had bad injuries; it is possible he had been used in badger bating, dog fighting or it could be a case of extreme neglect.

K4t · 29-01-2015 4:21pm

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

"Those situations would arise"

Err, what? Someone might reject from a lifeboat instead of a hamster?

Seriously. That's your argument? Go on, I'll humour you. Give me a scenario, for a laugh.

You're making a very convoluted point without any concept of context. You've picked up on an idea and are trying to ram it home with dogmatic nonsense. You are make fairly comical sweeping generalisations without considering the relationships which exist. I say again, for clarity. My dog is more important to me than you because we have an emotional bond. Don't worry, I'd give you a seat in the lifeboat over a dog I didn't have an emotional bond with.

My views and every other type of view have every place in the world. I don't need you to validate them or accept them. Your living in a dogmatic fantasy land without any practical application for your beliefs, which I note you have not really expained or answered any questions about the last time you had dog or cat for dinner.

You have admitted that you value the life of your dog over the life of a stranger. And you have also said that you would save your dog rather than a stranger in a life and death situation, however improbable the chances of such a situation arising.

My point is, If you can hold that belief and act out that belief in a situation such as the lifeboat scenario, then what is stopping everybody else in the world from having the same belief? What if I valued my cat who I love over the life of a stranger, and everyone else got pets and did the same? You now have a situation where pets are now the accepted equivalent of human life, your view has become widespread. Everybody in the world cares for their dog's life more than the life of a stranger. And that stranger cares for his dog's life more than your life. It's not only you now who values your dog's life more than a stranger's. Everybody holds the same view in relation to their pets. What is stopping whoever is in charge or authority from deciding that your dog's life is more valuable than yours, ordering you off the lifeboat and allowing your dog to remain on it? What's the big deal? Pets and Humans hold the same value to everyone, and somebody had to make a choice. Pets, women and children get priority over men..

Un Croissant · 29-01-2015 4:21pm

smash wrote: »

The photos show the dog from all angles and there's no signs of any scorched hair. If he was hogtied then his back wouldn't have hair on it.

Illuminati confirmed.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 4:23pm

smash wrote: »

I don't know. I hate animal cruelty but the story just stinks of sensationalist journalism. If his organs had cooked, slowly or not, he wouldn't have been found alive at all.

The original story from KWWSPCA says:

There's a lot of connecting the dots there!

Then there's the previous story from when he was first found:

I've no idea either. That's the only explanation I could think of for you question

K4t wrote: »

You have admitted that you value the life of your dog over the life of a stranger. And you have also said that you would save your dog rather than a stranger in a life and death situation, however improbable the chances of such a situation arising.

My point is, If you can hold that belief and act out that belief in a situation such as the lifeboat scenario, then what is stopping everybody else in the world from having the same belief? What if I valued my cat who I love over the life of a stranger, that's less space in the lifeboat. You now have a situation where pets are now the accepted equivalent of human life, your view has become widespread. Everybody in the world cares for their dog's life more than the life of a stranger. And that stranger cares for his dog's life more than your life. It's not only you now who values your dog's life more than a stranger's. Everybody holds the same view in relation to their pets. What is stopping whoever is in charge or authority from deciding that your dog's life is more valuable than yours, ordering you off the lifeboat and allowing your dog to remain on it? What's the big deal? Pets and Humans hold the same value to everyone, and somebody had to make a choice.

Yeah you're right. Valuing an animal as a human is only one step away from going on a murderous rampage and destroying all humans.

I'd put my dog on the lifeboat over me

The other fella · 29-01-2015 4:26pm

K4t wrote: »

You have admitted that you value the life of your dog over the life of a stranger. And you have also said that you would save your dog rather than a stranger in a life and death situation, however improbable the chances of such a situation arising.

My point is, If you can hold that belief and act out that belief in a situation such as the lifeboat scenario, then what is stopping everybody else in the world from having the same belief? What if I valued my cat who I love over the life of a stranger, and everyone else got pets and did the same? You now have a situation where pets are now the accepted equivalent of human life, your view has become widespread. Everybody in the world cares for their dog's life more than the life of a stranger. And that stranger cares for his dog's life more than your life. It's not only you now who values your dog's life more than a stranger's. Everybody holds the same view in relation to their pets. What is stopping whoever is in charge or authority from deciding that your dog's life is more valuable than yours, ordering you off the lifeboat and allowing your dog to remain on it? What's the big deal? Pets and Humans hold the same value to everyone, and somebody had to make a choice. Pets, women and children get priority over men..

You have admitted to being a meat eater and you argue that no animal is above another.So is it safe to assume you regularly eat cats and dogs?

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2015 4:27pm

Omackeral wrote: »

There's emotions getting the better of people here There is a difference between killing people and killing animals. And while I get that animals are special to a lot of people, especially dogs, you can't honestly say it's the same as taking the life of a human being. You can't.

Perpetrators deserve jail time or a trip to a Mental Hospital. Lifed
off though? Not a chance. Knee jerk stuff.

While I disagree to begin with, there's another element to this.
It's just not about whether it was an animal or a human in my view, it's about the type of person the perpetrator is.
Sadistic f*ckers who get off on slowly torturing anything to death for the craic should not be sharing the streets with decent people. I don't want to be going about my business knowing the person sitting next to me on the bus has these tendencies. They don't belong in civilised society.

NachoBusiness · 29-01-2015 4:34pm

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Who tortures lambs, chickens and pigs everyday?

We do. Collectively as humans,and very few people give a s***.

Frog Song wrote: »

Why does this stupid argument have to come up every time an animal abuse story is posted?! A scumbag tortured a dog for kicks, people eating cows and pigs has nothing to do with this story and doesn't have to come in to it every bloody time! :rolleyes:

It comes up each and every time because of the glaring, sanctimonious, self indulgent hypocrisy and the selective empathy which fuels it sticks in some people's throats, not least mine.

Blatter wrote: »

I think you need to learn to understand the difference between cooking an already dead animal and torturing one by burning it alive.

Do you know that billions and billions of newborn chicks are minced ALIVE annually in this world, just because we as humans want to consume them and their eggs.

What happened this dog was disgusting, of course it was and I hope they find whoever is responsible for it and punish them accordingly, however: I can't help but find all this talk of how people would like to stone and beat the perpetrators to death and how they don't deserve to breathe the same air as us, somewhat hollow and insincere.

Internet tears are no use to any animal, especially from those who are no doubt at the same time are still digesting this morning's breakfast of bacon and eggs that has come from pigs and chickens which, while perhaps not been roasted alive, undoubtedly have led a torturous existence. If you really are genuinely sickened by the thought of animal torture, and it is of course commendable that you are, then at the very very least (if going vegan is beyond you) buy meat and dairy products which you know has been sourced from farms where you are 100% certain the animals involved have not suffered needlessly for so much as a single day.. before the day of their demise that is.

Otherwise though, if you continue to buy intensively raised meat products and eggs which come from non-organic and *truly* free range sources etc etc, then your tears here are really nothing but crocodile tears in fairness and the empathy which you show regarding animal torture nothing but self indulgent insincerity. As, for example, you will be responsible for the following sickening animal torture which occurs daily as a direct result of how you choose to spend your money when at the supermarket..

**Graphic Video. NSFW**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgTLkE3uqk

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 4:36pm

The thread isn't talking about chickens, or pigs or anything else. The thread is about a dog who was tortured. Why do you insist on taking away from that? Start another thread about chicks.

K4t · 29-01-2015 4:40pm

The other fella wrote: »

You have admitted to being a meat eater and you argue that no animal is above another under the eyes of the law.So is it safe to assume you regularly eat cats and dogs?

Words in bold added.

Obviously people are free to value one animal over another. I prefer cats to dogs myself. I don't know why I need to answer that, or why you are desperate to know the answer? I do not judge people for eating animals, whatever animals they may be, pigs or dogs or cats or horses etc, I do judge those who eat animals who are tortured in factories and then express moral outrage and look for prison sentences when a dog is tortured. That person may need help but they are no different to those whose behaviour we condone in the interest of survival of humanity.

end of the road · 29-01-2015 4:50pm

hopefully the vermin responsible will be caught and locked up in a secure facility

Staffie dog hogtied and cooked alive over a fire at The Curragh

Comments