MrSmith Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I knew a woman few years back that said if she had to make a decision while driving either to avoid hitting a child or an animal she would hit the child, do you agree with that MrSmith ? Which definition of animal are you using because in most cases humans are included? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Which definition of animal are you using because in most cases humans are included? I take that as a yes that you would do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I take that as a yes that you would do the same. You haven't given me enough information to make the decision; you haven’t defined the animal which could include another human child. It could be an elephant and for my own safety I wouldn’t intentionally drive into an elephant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yes the life of many dogs is far more important than the life of many humans. The army was blessed by never having you as a member. Some soldier would have jammed his bayonet up your derriere sooner or later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Of course. The Syrian army are having a great time these days. It's open season on dissidents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The army was blessed by never having you as a member. Some soldier would have jammed his bayonet up your derriere sooner or later And yet they didn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 !?! Can you substantiate this please? <snip waffling> That's a 'no' then, fair enough, I didn't think you could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It’s amazing how many people are ready to condemn the soldiers for something that appears to show of them blowing up a dog-for fun, and it appears that soldiers can be heard- off camera- laughing as the animal approaches a trap that they apparently set up by themselves. Based on this fact less statement in the daily mail they must be guilty. They appear to have done it, the camera doesn’t show them laughing so it could be anyone and they apparently set it up, so they may not have. In other word because they happen to be there it must have been them that set it up and laughed. I hope I don’t find myself in front of a jury made up of people that require so little evidence to form an opinion of guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.