> wrote

[restore context:]
Stop butchering the context of the discussion meathead. What are you hiding
from?

Bonehead wrote:
> I dont believe a person who beats up on HIS dog should be threatened
> with the same punishment (The Rule of Law) as the person who rapes your
> daughter.
>
> Other guy wrote:
>> When did I say that child rape and animal abuse deserved the same
>> penalty?
>
> So you dont understand The Rule of Law. Its NOT the penality dopey, its
> the *enforcement of it*

The same "punishment" the same "penalty", synomyms. Now you're equivocating.
What's the matter, run out of strawmen?

> How do you intend to ultiminately enforce your so called and bogus
> animal rights if you are not going to treat and or threaten a dog
> beater in the identical manner as a rapist? With a gun??

With police and/or animal welfare authorities, the same way it's enforced
NOW.

> What you are saying is, that IF both a dog beater and a rapist, BOTH
> tried to defend their freedom, BOTH would deserve to die.

If a person draws a weapon on a the police then they have created a whole
other scenario. At that point it no longer matters if the original offence
was speeding, animal abuse, disturbing the peace, or murder.

> That sunshine makes you worse than the ****en dog beater. How dare you
> value an animal's life over that of a human, you pig.

I already told you I value human life above all others. Weren't you
listening?

> I would gladdly shoot to kill a rapist who tried to defend his freedom,
> could you *honestly* say that you would be glad to shoot to kill a dog
> beater who was trying to defend his freedom?

If I were an officer enforcing ANY LAW and that person drew a weapon on me
then I would respond the way I was trained.

>> > Based on WHAT as the standard or morality?
>>
>> The standard of morality that values human decency over sadistic
>> pleasure,
>
> Struggling to understand the question I see. ****head YOUR morals have
> no standard, they are based on whimsical ****en nonsense.

I answered the question, you're the one struggling to support your position
with strawmen, equivocations and implausible scenarios like people drawing
weapons on the police.

>> Wrong, I have a moral obligation to support laws to protect all innocent
>> animals,
>
> scoff scoff so animals can be innocent and guilty now?

Another strawman, I never claimed that animals were guilty.

You beeen
> watching too much tele mate, Mr Ed cant really talk.
>
> Yeah Lassie is clever, but not that ****en clever she wouldn't bite
> your ****en hand off, for playing with her during her meal times.

She'd warn you first, you should back off. Are you a fool?

>> just as I support the laws that protect your children.
>
> Until they start work and then you want to threaten them with death if
> they dont abide by your equally as idiotic ****en tax laws, you're a
> ****en liar and a dozey dopey socialist hypocrite.

Bozo, give up and stop embarrassing yourself.