Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It speaks to the degree of emotional commitment. I like my dog a lot. But, in the end, it's just an animal, not a person. Quite frankly, if you prefer the company of dogs to that of people, then you're almost as bad as the woman who did the humpalumpadingdong with Frisky.
"Quite Frankly",.... That type of opinion just goes to show why pets are better company than some people.
Now, here's the next question. How is it abuse of the animal? There was no pain for the dogs in question...only sex. Dogs initiate sex with people all the time through the humping of legs, so it is obvious that they not only want sex, but they think that sex with humans is not a bad thing at all. Only when disciplined by us do they not do it. So there's obviously no higher moral awareness on the part of the dog, only the pursuit of pleasure. With that in mind, I would think that the dogs in question probably thought they were living the good life.
However, humans enjoy a much higher moral and ethical construct. Sex with animals is immoral and rightfully so. That is the only standard to be applied here.
It speaks to the degree of emotional commitment. I like my dog a lot. But, in the end, it's just an animal, not a person. Quite frankly, if you prefer the company of dogs to that of people, then you're almost as bad as the woman who did the humpalumpadingdong with Frisky.
I didn't say that I prefer the company of dogs to that of people. Although I would rather be around my dog than quite a few people. I have to ask you why would that mean that I am almost as bad as someone that is as sick, sick, sick as this woman.
"Quite Frankly",.... That type of opinion just goes to show why pets are better company than some people.
Why? Because I value people more than I value dogs? I like my dog. But if I had to choose between saving the life of my dog or saving the life of the most contemptible wretch on the planet, the person wins out every time.
Why? Because I value people more than I value dogs? I like my dog. But if I had to choose between saving the life of my dog or saving the life of the most contemptible wretch on the planet, the person wins out every time.
Sorry but the most contemptible wretch is on his/her own. My dog would definitely come first.
Aberrant behavior can lead to an animal being destroyed. If that same animal were to exhibit the same task which it was taught on a differant human, it, in most cases would be destroyed. In the event the animal were removed from the owner it could be considered as "unplacable" in a new environment.
To answer your question, "why?" reread your statement. Just because I prefer the company of my pet to SOME people, that does not indicate I or anyone else is "almost as bad as the woman" in the article.
Now choose between your dog and somebody with a month to live. Whom do you save?
Is this person a good witch or a bad witch?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
