Conquer Club

hecter wrote:I wonder how many murders, or Iraqi civilians killed, or little girls raped have taken place while you guys argue about a dog whose fighting chance at surviving wasn't very good to begin with...

Good point.

Now I must don my cape and venture into the seedy filth of the big city and fight these evil forces. Crime does not sleep - so there is no rest for super heroes like me!

WTF do you want me to do about it?

TheProwler wrote:

hecter wrote:I wonder how many murders, or Iraqi civilians killed, or little girls raped have taken place while you guys argue about a dog whose fighting chance at surviving wasn't very good to begin with...

Good point.

Now I must don my cape and venture into the seedy filth of the big city and fight these evil forces. Crime does not sleep - so there is no rest for super heroes like me!

WTF do you want me to do about it?

I don't know, I was just pointing out the fact that there a lot more pressing issues than the life of a dog.

Yeah.. Pedobear could be after some loli's!

TheProwler wrote:Everyone has stated his/her opinion.

That cop is a disgusting pig.


And the Thought Police are doing a fine job on this planet of ours. From USA to Britain, the clones are out in full force.

Must....obey....the law.

I'd put a bullet in any one of your brains to save one of my dogs. Nothing personal. They're my friends.

now there is a fine statement. you mean to say in defense of your dogs? because if you are simply saying that you would kill me, to say your dog form say, getting hit by a bus, then i would have to say that you should be locked up in a mental facility.

black elk speaks wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Everyone has stated his/her opinion.

That cop is a disgusting pig.


And the Thought Police are doing a fine job on this planet of ours. From USA to Britain, the clones are out in full force.

Must....obey....the law.

I'd put a bullet in any one of your brains to save one of my dogs. Nothing personal. They're my friends.

now there is a fine statement. you mean to say in defense of your dogs? because if you are simply saying that you would kill me, to say your dog form say, getting hit by a bus, then i would have to say that you should be locked up in a mental facility.

Yep, I'd rather have a stranger die than have one of my pets die...

Worlds overpopulated with people anyway... The dog and cat population were doing fine until we f'ed it up.

I'd rather stab a stranger in the face then have him eat my goldfish.

darvlay wrote:I'd rather stab a stranger in the face then have him eat my goldfish.

Flavor packed goldfish!!!

Bite their little heads off!!!

Anarkistsdream wrote:Yep, I'd rather have a stranger die than have one of my pets die...

Worlds overpopulated with people anyway... The dog and cat population were doing fine until we f'ed it up.

You are correct. It is always people that are fucking up this planet. People are the scum on the Earth.

And if someone's gotta go, it might as well be a stranger.

darvlay wrote:I'd rather stab a stranger in the face then have him eat my goldfish.

That's the spirit!

Once you understand that the average person is scum, and the laws or probability and other statistical research, you realize that you are probably doing the world a huge favour by ridding it of any random person.

And what's the worst thing your goldfish will ever do? Jump out of the water and splash a little onto your coffee table and leave a water mark?

But that random stranger is probably doing his best to destroy the planet.

I'm glad to see some people are starting to come around.

TheProwler wrote:Cops have to deal with excuses and arguments from losers and assholes all the time. Fine, that is what they signed-up for. They are supposed to deal with each situation separately and go in with a neutral attitude. That's what they get paid for. They should take the bad with the good. That asshole did not do that.

They get paid to uphold the law. Going 95 at any time is reckless driving, and against the law.

TheProwler wrote:You guys that think driving 95 mph without traffic is dangerous must not be very good drivers or must have crappy cars.

And you must have never seen a 95mph vehicle accident to dismiss it so frivolously.

TheProwler wrote:Backglass, you call yourself a dog lover.

Yes. I love dogs.

TheProwler wrote:How about you substitute "Pet Dog" for "Dying Child" and tell me if you would speed. If they answer is "Yes" then you are not really a dog lover.

Huh? That is "Jay logic" talking. I'm sorry, but a dog life and a human life are not equal in my book. What if this was a house fire? Should firemen save the kids? Or the dogs?

But I suppose that's different too, isn't it.

TheProwler wrote: If the answer is "No" then you are just kinda strange....paranoid about speeding or way too worried about your own safety. I suspect that you really aren't a dog lover.

And I suspect you drive at high speeds daily with no regard to those around you. I also suspect you have no children to say such asinine things.

TheProwler wrote:I work part time and volunteer at my local Humane Society. There, I see a lot of disturbing situations where people treat animals differently than I do. There are a lot of people who say "I am a dog lover" but they are not. They do selfish things that you would not do to someone or something that you love.

Oh I see. One must work in the humane society to be a dog lover? Get off your high horse. These peoples actions, while noble, were dangerous. Should the cop have escorted them or acted with some compassion? He certainly could have.

Was he an asshole for pulling them over doing 95? No. He did the right thing.

TheProwler wrote:A true dog lover would treat the situation of their dog in distress the same way most people would treat the situation of their child in distress. For most people, you need to imagine it was not a dog, but a child, if you want to empathize with the people in the car.

But it wasn't a child. HAD it been a child the policeman's response would certainly have been different. Your bizarre comparison of dogs to kids doesn't fly.

Again...I ask you to answer,,,What if it was a Hamster? Would you have the same zeal? I think not.

TheProwler wrote:Most of you are probably thinking "But it's just a dog!?!" Well, I honestly would say back to you "But it's just a kid!?!"

And you obviously have no children. Dogs, although wonderful pets and "part of the family"...are not equal to human children.

TheProwler wrote:We are such a self-centered, egotistical species.

We are not Dogs...correct. It is sad the dog died. It sucks. But it in no way excuses someone from breaking the law and putting every other citizen on the road in danger.

I've addressed every one of your points previously. You are only repeating yourself now.

You do not like my opinions. Get over it.

Oh, and just a quick "BTW"...I don't believe anyone said the cops should not have pulled the speeding couple over. His actions after that are being criticized.

TheProwler wrote:I've addressed every one of your points previously. You are only repeating yourself now.

You do not like my opinions. Get over it.

I accept your defeat.

Backglass wrote:

TheProwler wrote:I've addressed every one of your points previously. You are only repeating yourself now.

You do not like my opinions. Get over it.

I accept your defeat.

Well, just don't look at his dogs cross-eyed, cause he might shoot you.

I think in this case, it might be a good idea to let the Wookie win. Especially since he told everyone he wants to kills us all, on the off chance it might help his dogs live longer.

pimpdave wrote:

Backglass wrote:

TheProwler wrote:I've addressed every one of your points previously. You are only repeating yourself now.

You do not like my opinions. Get over it.

I accept your defeat.

Well, just don't look at his dogs cross-eyed, cause he might shoot you.

I think in this case, it might be a good idea to let the Wookie win. Especially since he told everyone he wants to kills us all, on the off chance it might help his dogs live longer.

Did I say that I actually wanted to kill you all?

I really gotta stop being so honest...

Backglass wrote:And you must have never seen a 95mph vehicle accident to dismiss it so frivolously

This I suspect is exactly why the cop killed the dog. He has seen these accidents, and is tired of A**holes causing them. So he punishes the family himself,... probably feels good at first too....

However....

Backglass wrote:They get paid to uphold the law. Going 95 at any time is reckless driving, and against the law.

So is killing a f*cking dog. Which is my whole point. Which is why they dismissed the ticket, ill-gotten gains.


No one is saying that the cop was wrong for pulling them over. No one is saying that they weren't guilty. I am saying that the cop is guilty too; For a worse crime than speeding.

TheProwler wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Backglass wrote:

TheProwler wrote:I've addressed every one of your points previously. You are only repeating yourself now.

You do not like my opinions. Get over it.

I accept your defeat.

Well, just don't look at his dogs cross-eyed, cause he might shoot you.

I think in this case, it might be a good idea to let the Wookie win. Especially since he told everyone he wants to kills us all, on the off chance it might help his dogs live longer.

Did I say that I actually wanted to kill you all?

I really gotta stop being so honest...

I think it's just the internet equivalent of thinking out loud...

TheProwler wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Yep, I'd rather have a stranger die than have one of my pets die...

Worlds overpopulated with people anyway... The dog and cat population were doing fine until we f'ed it up.

You are correct. It is always people that are fucking up this planet. People are the scum on the Earth.

And if someone's gotta go, it might as well be a stranger.

darvlay wrote:I'd rather stab a stranger in the face then have him eat my goldfish.

That's the spirit!

Once you understand that the average person is scum, and the laws or probability and other statistical research, you realize that you are probably doing the world a huge favour by ridding it of any random person.

And what's the worst thing your goldfish will ever do? Jump out of the water and splash a little onto your coffee table and leave a water mark?

But that random stranger is probably doing his best to destroy the planet.

I'm glad to see some people are starting to come around.

OK Prowler, I'll put a bullet in your brain and start a trend, everyday you have to kill a random person untill there is only one guy left, then he kills himself. We would be doing the goldfish a huge favor by cleansing the world of the human disease. My God you are a fucking dumbass. A person is more important than a dog, goldfish, flying squirrel, spotted leopard fish, friutfly, and any other living organism on the planet. Know why, Prowler, because we are sentient, we are the Alpha Male of this planet. We own this earth because we have the power to manipulate it, for better or for worse. Can you guess what would happen to all of our lap dogs and house cats if we were to vanish? Well, I'll save you the trouble by giving you the answer. They would die because they can't survive on their own, they need us. So before you go on a killing spree followed by suicide in the name of Fifi, just remember that Fifi can't hunt.

I like this.

Grooveman2007 wrote:Know why, Prowler, because we are sentient, we are the Alpha Male of this planet. We own this earth because we have the power to manipulate it, for better or for worse.

So then, as an alpha male, TheProwler/darlay/Anarkistsdream has the ability to manipulate your face with a knife, if it'll save his fishy?
I think you all had the same train of thought, only THEPROWLER, DARVEY, and ANARKISTSDREAM have the idea of using their alpha maleness.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I like this.

Grooveman2007 wrote:Know why, Prowler, because we are sentient, we are the Alpha Male of this planet. We own this earth because we have the power to manipulate it, for better or for worse.

So then, as an alpha male, TheProwler/darlay/Anarkistsdream has the ability to manipulate your face with a knife, if it'll save his fishy?
I think you all had the same train of thought, only THEPROWLER, DARVEY, and ANARKISTSDREAM have the idea of using their alpha maleness.

Except I'm counting the human race as one being, like one wolf in a pack, as I'm counting every other species as one wolf as well.

Awww, isn't that nice? Kinda like The Borg.

And your "We are more important because WE SAY SO!!! " theory is laughable.

Thank goodness there are still freethinkers out here.

The day I stop speeding is the day I can't drive anymore.

Fight the Power.

darvlay wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Exactly what I mean by self-centered and egotistical. We humans are the ones destroying the Earth. We humans are the devious psychopaths and sociopaths that commit unspeakable crimes. I do not like every human. I do not like every dog. But I like a higher percentage of dogs than I do humans. My dogs would risk their lives to save me if I were in trouble. I would do the same for them.

Wow, good for you and your dog.

Question: What other animals should we allow this certain leniency/goodwill towards with respect to highway traffic laws? A dying cat? How about a ferret? A hamster?

all. Every human and animan deserves a right to live. Human's aren't necessarily better than animals. We're animals too, like it or not. I still wouldn't want to kill a stranger. We all have feelings. We all deserve to live.

Come to think of it. It would probably be better to put someone unstable enough to eat a gold fish out of their misery.

Steve-o too?

ok first whaaa?

now that that is over, let me ask both sides a few questions before i continue.

(dont want to read this - simpler version in the conclusion)

Complaint party. You say that the officer was not justified in detaining the car considering the condition of the dog?
First, a question asked earlier is valid in the officers position, could he substainciate that the animal was in a life threatening situation?
I ask this seeing that the dog is said to have become limp before they left their house and considering that even a organism as large as a human only can survive for a few minutes before the oxygen debt kills the brain, upwards of 5-10 minutes. Please understand i am not saying that he could not i am asking.
Further while not necessarily appilicable in this case many officers have reported rather creative ways for people to avoid being ticketed. to say simply this is a small part of the substainciation question but in light of todays society must be at least mentioned.

Second, in light of the problems with asphyxia and hypoxia and the fact that such a small animal would have only mere minutes to live once becoming limp, it must be asked if the dog was even alive even a minute or two before the couple was pulled over. Poodles are not a hardy breed and few dogs are bred to withstand asphixia. Notice the only mentioning that the dog died while the couple was pulled over is by that of a person (the boyfriend) with no mentioned medical background. I am not saying that the dog was dead already, i am merely mentioning an important fact. Without further evidence and substainciation i must default to basic medical science. In most cars it takes at least a minute to reach 95 and as such i feel confident in stating that the dog had been in the condition it was in for at least five minutes and unless the clinic was right around the corner (i.e. less than 3 miles) the dog had virtually no chance to live. My question is did the dog have a chance either way?

Third, it was asked or at least implied that either the couple should be allowed to either singly (the girlfriend) or together continue on their trip. My statement here is simple, I do not believe that the officer acting in the scope of his duty could justify such a request.
First, the motorist had all ready shown that they could subjectively justify speeding to suit their own agenda.
Second, both individuals were emotionally charged, a state which has been shown to effect the judgement centers of the brain.
Third, if the boyfriend had stayed the officer would have had a person on a highway after midnight, not a viable option.
Fourth, the officer probably did not have the authority to leave his post for a escort.

Simple Thought - While the officers behavior was less than stellar interms of the comment about it being "just a dog" it must be stated that due to the low survival rate after five minutes for asphixia and the fact that an interstate rarely is empty around a population center the couple had no justification for driving recklessly. This is a simple case of both sides screwing up.

Anti- Complaint side

You say that either that the officer did nothing wrong or that being that it was a dog rather than a human there is less justification for excessive behavior in order to protect them.

This would apply to both sides simply, a compairision between children and animals has been raised. In logic a point that cannot be proved is cannot be said to be true. I like strawberry ice cream better than chocolate, i cannot prove its superiority so i cannot say it is fact but i can still advocate the position. For those who say there is a difference between humans and other animals i ask you to logically prove it. I ask the same of those who say there is not a difference.

As for the officer i would say that the infraction so far has been that he did not maintain professionalism with the situation. while i am loath to assert that he could justify the risk of letting them back on the road, regaurdless he did not provide them with the respect due to the situation. Regaurdless of what one person thinks of anothers beliefs there are ways to address our differences and lack of empathy is not one of them.

Current conclusion:

While I can understand the points on each side i must state that the complaint side has done little to justify their claims independently of subjective emotion. While the anit-complaint side has done little better, the limited chance that such a small animal would survive long enough for a clinic ride and the reliability that the policeman could justify in terms of the motorists (or rather the lack there of) lends little room for justifying the concerns of the complaint side. Inspite of this i must note that the policeman's behavior is the part that needs to be addressed and he should recieve the punishment due for disrespecting the motorists in occordance with the stations policies.

Xayath wrote:While I can understand the points on each side i must state that the complaint side has done little to justify their claims independently of subjective emotion.

You're full of crap.
Have you read any of my, or TheProwlers posts?


And did you come to the conclusion that the dog would probably die anyway, so the officer did nothing wrong? Is that what I'm reading?

Up here, we have the sanctity of human life and the dangers of erratic driving affecting that human life . . .




































and down here is a dog's life value.

And here is the worth of some posters on CC







and down here are religious freaks