Girl Throws Puppies into River

No human life is worth more than any animal. I could never kill a puppy that didn't need it, I could easily toss a bunch of adults in a river. With plenty of justification at that.

I can agree with this, as long as there is justification.

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy.

Your both r'tard's.

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy. Your both r'tard's.

The point he was portraying was that of innocence vs an adult human (more than likely immoral/detrimental towards society). I say I could agree with that stance as long as there is justification, and that makes me a retard?

Riiiiiiiight.

That isn't what makes you a retard, no.

Innocense Vs Adult.

Knowing no one is born innocent, and everyone is born through sin. Animal's may as well be born with the same burden. We should cleanse the world and kill everybody. It makes perfect sense, because it is justified.

You're wrong.

I don't think animals can have sin, since they didn't eat the fruit of knowledge, and are all pre-programed with instincts. Just to clarify with my belief...

Anyways, I have to agree with D3V(and K_A's, lol)'s last post. At the same time, everyone should have the choice to make up for what they've done - as they might truely regret it. Remember that bald guy who was getting death penalty? I dunno, he just suddenly came to mind.

Innocense Vs Adult. Knowing no one is born innocent, and everyone is born through sin. Animal's may as well be born with the same burden. We should cleanse the world and kill everybody. It makes perfect sense, because it is justified.

You're joking, right? I would call you out for how stupid you are, but boviously it isn't needed.

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy. Your both r'tard's.

Justification for killing a puppy? What could there possibly be? Besides putting it out of it's own misery, because due to humans, it was born horribly disfigured.
Pit bull's are just like any other dog. The aggressiveness is due to the owners. Secondly why would you leave an unsupervised child around an aggressive pit bull. Sounds like the herd needs to be culled anyways.
Are you ready for the river Kazilla? It will only be cold for a minute.

Animals do not "sin". They are following the evolutionary path that got us as far as we have come, but have been straying from for so long.

why would you leave an unsupervised child around an aggressive pit bull. Sounds like the herd needs to be culled anyways.

"Oh no! My dog ate food!? Who would have guessed!?"
lol

Moron's leave their child with their pets unsurpervised all the time. "My dog would never hurt a fly". Until that one day you come home to a bloody fucking mess.

I don't think animals can have sin, since they didn't eat the fruit of knowledge, and are all pre-programed with instincts. Just to clarify with my belief... Animals do not "sin". They are following the evolutionary path that got us as far as we have come, but have been straying from for so long.

Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit. I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit. I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

Idk about you, but I don't ever remember being a monkey and suddenly evolving.
(Nice try, but same concept)

You kinda proved my point there sparky.

Not sure how. As far as I know
Evolution: evolving into humans happened a long time ago.
Fruit of eden: eating the fruit happened a long time ago.

No matter which is right, neither of us was there, but we still have the sid-- ohhhhhhh~

Moron's leave their child with their pets unsurpervised all the time. "My dog would never hurt a fly". Until that one day you come home to a bloody fucking mess.

Hence the reason they should left to their own devices. Let them and their children die. That much less bad gene's floating around our world.

Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit.

The tree of knowledge is a metaphor. The forbidden fruit was meant for the "gods" so that they may have the knowledge to decided what animals live and die on a day to day basis. When "Adam"(Man) ate from the tree he got the wrong idea and figured since he possessed the knowledge that the gods have he can and shall decided what is right/wrong good/evil life/death.

Animals follow the laws of nature. They do no deviate, therefore they cannot be good and evil. It's kind of like the laws of gravity and aeronautics. They are just that, laws.

I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

Does that make what you are doing right? Your culture and everyone around you is killing the very LAND BASE you live on. So just keep on following.

Right and wrong are ideas created and defined by humans. Nature has no sense of right and wrong.

"Whatever I can justify doing is good, and whatever I cannot justify doing is evil."

Right and wrong are ideas created and defined by humans. Nature has no sense of right and wrong.

I have to disagree. Let's take a look at (Phoenix W)right and wrong. Using the above post by Hayduke as an easier was to define the words we mean. Right being "Good" and Wrong being "Evil". (I will not be going by any religious ideals, unless I come by them and they become a need. Considering the concept of "Good" and "Evil" must come from a far more original source, religion has nothing to do with this, in nature.)

1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.

Let's go with these first two.
and...

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

Looking through definitions, we could see that virtuous is the same thing as righteousness, which obviously takes it root in the word "right" - thus "good" and "right" can be taken as the same word, making any arguement with "good" parts of the post invalid. Righteous mentions "morality" in its definition, so lets look at "morality".

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

"comformity"? Let's see this word, real fast...

1. action in accord with prevailing social standards, attitudes, practices, etc. 2. correspondence in form, nature, or character; agreement, congruity, or accordance. 3. compliance or acquiescence; obedience.

*social standards
*Nature
*compliances? acquiescence? I'm going to check these definitions, though I won't post them for tl;dr purposes. (...) They seem to be submissive obedience. Interesting. Let's see the next word in "good"... pious.

1. having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for god or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations. 2. characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion; sanctimonious.

So, "good" appears to be "willingly serving god(s)". But how would the concept of "good" and "evil" gods appear, if it was not here since the beginning? Such defines would be impossible. More likely, if we made them up, they would be "success" and "failure" not "good" and "evil". But I digress. I don't want religion involved in this any more than the definitions. Good also seems to mention "success" in short. So, I guess it's possible "virtue" and "success" are one and the same?

Evil time.
Morally wrong/immoral. Easy enough, that's simply "opposite of virtue" to put it short. But also, wicked. Malicious and Malevolent seem to be fancy words use to define wicked. Malevolent seems to be defined with "harmful" and malicious seems the same, but "spiteful" comes up. Malicious, malevolent, and malice come up. Malice is

1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.

which seems to be an "emotional" but also a bit of "overly defensive" idea. By "overly defensive", there must be emotion involved, so "malice" is clearly some form of emotion. A cruel and hateful one...
"Harmful", "Injurous", and "Evil Laws" come up, next. "Evil laws" implying that they must be obeyed, even if they hard people. Thus, laws the people dislike, or are harmful can be called evil by definition. "Characterized by misfortune or suffering" - in otherwords, "failure". I totally fucking called that. (scroll up, if you don't believe me)

So, right and wrong translated into "Good and Evil", retranslates into "Success and Failure", which are parts of progress. We fail, and our failures help us progress... our past evils help our new goods... our wrongs allow us to make rights. Now, let's take a look at "progress"...

1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.

...Evolution...

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Both progress (which might as well be a giant Yin-Yang symbol) and evolution are basically saying "getting better".
Animals moving in packs, eating other animals, surviving and evolving. They both harm other animals intentively, along with each other for the sake of being "top dog", which can easily be defined as malevolent or malicious. But they also protect each other (usually) and retreat, when they know others will die, if they do not - and undoubtly get food. This is slight virtue(protection and retreating for such protection) and satisfaction(successfully getting a meal). They also usually follow the pact leader - one could say they even conform and if one doesn't like the way a leader rolls, they either dislike the laws or dislike the leader themself or think they could do better. Dislike for the laws shows that there is something "unwanted" by at least one of them. Or... "Evil Laws". Getting rid of "Evil Laws" would be disposing over "evil" and, the only way to get rid of darkness in a room, is to turn on lights. To put it simply, destroying the wolf who runs things with "Evil Laws" is a "Good" thing to do. At the same time, simply killing him because you dislike him would easily be considered "Malice", and thinking you could do better is "Pride", which is commonly know as one of the "Seven sins". "Evil" things.

This kind of thing happens all the time in wolf packs, and likely have been happening since as long as they exist - and yet - here they are. So, "evolution" has made its way.


tl;dr version
Evolution and nature do not conflict with "Good and Evil" in any way, shape, or form by definition. Pop culture (and people who are trying to make it appear as if they conflict) has only made it seem that way. The girl was being malicious to the puppy, clearly wishing to do harm, and made no progress. Thus, the act was "wrong" by all standards.