We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

Man bites dog

· Humour

The old saying is that “dog bites man” is not news, but “man bites dog” is.

Well, how does “dog shoots man” fit in?

September 9th, 2004 |

11 comments to Man bites dog

  • Euan Gray
    September 9, 2004 at 4:37 pm

    Isn’t it nice to see the equality of freedom, in that the right to bear arms is applied heedless of colour, religion, gender or species….

    …er…

    EG

  • R C Dean
    September 9, 2004 at 5:15 pm

    The punchline is, the dog shot in self-defense! Good thing he lived in the US and not the UK, eh?

    Wotta country.

  • Dave J
    September 9, 2004 at 5:32 pm

    (insert preemptive horrible pun about “the right to arm bears”) 😉

  • Verity
    September 9, 2004 at 6:03 pm

    Remove the right to own guns, and only puppies will have guns.

  • zmollusc
    September 9, 2004 at 6:13 pm

    The anti-gun lobby are clearly not Darwinists; they preach that you are more likely to kill yourself or your family if the state lets you have a gun. Why not just keep quiet and let the problem disappear?

  • Michael Jennings
    September 9, 2004 at 6:23 pm

    Well, how does “dog shoots man” fit in?

    I don’t know, but I am sure that the Guardian will draw some patronising, collectivist lesson from it.

  • Harvey
    September 9, 2004 at 11:02 pm

    Why the hell is it ‘felony animal cruelty’ to shoot a dog in the head?

    I can’t personally think of a cleaner and more painless way for a person without access to vetinary drugs and skills to execute the animal.

    Any ideas?

  • Alan K. Henderson
    September 10, 2004 at 5:36 am

    Will this bring the NRA and PETA into the same camp?

  • Guy Herbert
    September 10, 2004 at 6:41 am

    Harvey, “Why the hell is it ‘felony animal cruelty’ to shoot a dog in the head?”

    As with so many criminal reports, we don’t know the full details. Even if there’s nothing more, I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act, even though my criteria for good reasons would usually be much slighter than in the case of humans.

  • Monica
    September 10, 2004 at 12:42 pm

    “I can’t see killing an animal without good reason as a laudable act”

    Guy – how about not wishing to pay for it’s upkeep? An animal should just be a chattel in the legal sense, it’s absurd to give them rights or to demand that a human look after it against his will.

    I can see what you’re implying, though, that any human who kills animals for the sheer pleasure of it isn’t particularly honourable.

  • Guy Herbert
    September 10, 2004 at 6:08 pm

    “[…]it’s absurd to give them rights[…]” Yes it is, just as human rights are absurd for the most part.

    “[…] or to demand that a human look after it against his will.” Rather depends. I’d say we have a moral duty not cause avoidable suffering without better reason than mere convenience. I’d look after a lost and helpless animal just as I’d look after a lost and helpless child–in either case not out of choice but sympathy. It is possible being unwilling to look after an animal for any length of time, I would decide to have the animal humanely destroyed, but only if I was unable to find it an alternative home after some effort.

    I don’t think sentient beings have rights, but I do think they are more than mere chattels.

«  
  »