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

DamagedTrax

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

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

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

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

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

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

DamagedTrax

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

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

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

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

smash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stinicker

A disgraceful thing to happen, clearly the person who did this is a dangerous type of individual, a very unfortunate way for the dog to meet its end. However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means. They are a dangerous type of dog and my own father had an incident once by a Staffordshire belonging to tenants of my late Grandmother back in the mid 1990's, he knew the dog was dangerous and went to talk to the tenants about it but he took a stick and when the dog came charging to attack he literally cracked the stick off the dog before scrambling to safety inside the car, before he could even reach the house as the dog was roaming free.

The next door neighbors of the rented house had previously complained that they were afraid for their children's safety with that dog so that evening after the attempted attack the Staffordshire dog was dispatched cleanly by rifle. Naturally my grandmothers tenants went stone mad but they were told to like it or lump it, the went to the Gardai but the local Garda sided with our neighbours and us that it was better to kill the dog before it had a chance to maul a child or worse. My grandmother evicted them shortly after the dog incident.

NachoBusiness

sup_dude wrote: »

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.

That's fine and I'll to leave it there but users where not just talking about this incident in a vacuum, they were condemning what happened in the broader context of animal abuse and my post was in direct response to the uses that did that. Considering the amount of animal abuse which the general public funds each and every day it is inevitable that the hypocrisy of selective empathy will be pointed out.

Ave Sodalis

Stinicker wrote: »

However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means.

Oh dear

DamagedTrax

Stinicker wrote: »

A disgraceful thing to happen, clearly the person who did this is a dangerous type of individual, a very unfortunate way for the dog to meet its end. However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means. They are a dangerous type of dog and my own father had an incident once by a Staffordshire belonging to tenants of my late Grandmother back in the mid 1990's, he knew the dog was dangerous and went to talk to the tenants about it but he took a stick and when the dog came charging to attack he literally cracked the stick off the dog before scrambling to safety inside the car, before he could even reach the house as the dog was roaming free.

The next door neighbors of the rented house had previously complained that they were afraid for their children's safety with that dog so that evening after the attempted attack the Staffordshire dog was dispatched cleanly by rifle. Naturally my grandmothers tenants went stone mad but they were told to like it or lump it, the went to the Gardai but the local Garda sided with our neighbours and us that it was better to kill the dog before it had a chance to maul a child or worse. My grandmother evicted them shortly after the dog incident.

seriously and with all respect, just do the world a favour and stick your ignorance of the breed up your hole.

Sofiztikated

Stinicker wrote: »

A disgraceful thing to happen, clearly the person who did this is a dangerous type of individual, a very unfortunate way for the dog to meet its end. However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means. They are a dangerous type of dog and my own father had an incident once by a Staffordshire belonging to tenants of my late Grandmother back in the mid 1990's, he knew the dog was dangerous and went to talk to the tenants about it but he took a stick and when the dog came charging to attack he literally cracked the stick off the dog before scrambling to safety inside the car, before he could even reach the house as the dog was roaming free.

The next door neighbors of the rented house had previously complained that they were afraid for their children's safety with that dog so that evening after the attempted attack the Staffordshire dog was dispatched cleanly by rifle. Naturally my grandmothers tenants went stone mad but they were told to like it or lump it, the went to the Gardai but the local Garda sided with our neighbours and us that it was better to kill the dog before it had a chance to maul a child or worse. My grandmother evicted them shortly after the dog incident.

So, stranger brings a weapon to someones house, and a dog attacks said stranger? What if he hadn't been the landlords son, but an intruder with an axe?

Blatter

Stinicker wrote: »

A disgraceful thing to happen, clearly the person who did this is a dangerous type of individual, a very unfortunate way for the dog to meet its end. However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means. They are a dangerous type of dog and my own father had an incident once by a Staffordshire belonging to tenants of my late Grandmother back in the mid 1990's, he knew the dog was dangerous and went to talk to the tenants about it but he took a stick and when the dog came charging to attack he literally cracked the stick off the dog before scrambling to safety inside the car, before he could even reach the house as the dog was roaming free.

The next door neighbors of the rented house had previously complained that they were afraid for their children's safety with that dog so that evening after the attempted attack the Staffordshire dog was dispatched cleanly by rifle. Naturally my grandmothers tenants went stone mad but they were told to like it or lump it, the went to the Gardai but the local Garda sided with our neighbours and us that it was better to kill the dog before it had a chance to maul a child or worse. My grandmother evicted them shortly after the dog incident.

Most staffys are perfectly normal, safe dogs.

You will obviously get exceptions to that, mainly due to a poor upbringing. You could say the same about any dog though. Letting an isolated experience cloud your judgement on the entire staffy breed is very shortsighted.

BUBBLES1978

I still cant get my head around it..The poor little doggy what goes through these peoples minds to do something like this, its just sadistic and pure evil..

BUBBLES1978

end of the road wrote: »

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

But they wont be!!. They will get a slap on the wrist and probably a ban from owning animals but that will be all...

Lau2976

However I think all Staffordshire's and PitBull's should be destroyed, but by humane means.

Already not off to a good start by showing you clearly don't quite understand the nature vs nurture argument. And have no empathy towards some animal

he knew the dog was dangerous and went to talk to the tenants about it but he took a stick and when the dog came charging to attack he literally cracked the stick off the dog before scrambling to safety inside the car

Ok, let me just see if I understand your point here, your grandfather entered a property which was guarded by this dog with a weapon. For the sole purpose of doing harm to the dog if anything happened. The dog sees the weapon, presumes that it, or it's owner, are in danger and lashes out. Your grandfather then, instead of fleeing as the dog clearly had not actually touched him yet, hits the dog with a stick and them flees?

TBH if it was my dog that your grandfather did that to I would have turned the stick on him. Coming to my he with a weapon? Which you clearly state was the sole purpose of the stick.

that evening after the attempted attack the Staffordshire dog was dispatched cleanly by rifle. Naturally my grandmothers tenants went stone mad but they were told to like it or lump it

By your grandfather? He shot someone's dog without informing them in any way or going through legal channels? Which is illegal by the way. And then your grandmother abused her power as a land lord to get them to stop complaining.

DamagedTrax

Lau2976 wrote: »

Already not off to a good start by showing you clearly don't quite understand the nature vs nurture argument. And have no empathy towards some animal



Ok, let me just see if I understand your point here, your grandfather entered a property which was guarded by this dog with a weapon. For the sole purpose of doing harm to the dog if anything happened. The dog sees the weapon, presumes that it, or it's owner, are in danger and lashes out. Your grandfather then, instead of fleeing as the dog clearly had not actually touched him yet, hits the dog with a stick and them flees?

TBH if it was my dog that your grandfather did that to I would have turned the stick on him. Coming to my he with a weapon? Which you clearly state was the sole purpose of the stick.



By your grandfather? He shot someone's dog without informing them in any way or going through legal channels? Which is illegal by the way. And then your grandmother abused her power as a land lord to get them to stop complaining.

they sound like exactly the kind of family you dont want owning a bull breed! violence begets violence.