http://kgov.com/bel/20100106
And, in more detail about the whole ordeal:
http://kgov.com/bob-enyart-spanking-conviction
The Left has become dangerously unhinged.
- Thread starter glorydaz
- Start date
And, in more detail about the whole ordeal:
http://kgov.com/bob-enyart-spanking-conviction
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You'd "execute" the animal as well? Would it get a fair trial beforehand?
:freak:
"Execute" means (second definition provided by Google) "carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person)." So yes, the animal would be executed. A pig is not a person, and even if it was, it could still be executed.
As for a fair trial...
I share with you the following (dredged up from my memory as best I can):
The judge looks at the defendant and asks him, "Sir, did you eat Mrs. Norris?"
The defendant grunts quietly and ignores the judge.
"I asked you a question, sir, did you or did you not eat Mrs. Norris?"
The defendant looks around, still grunting softly.
The judge sighs and then says, "Because the defendant is not willing to defend himself of the accusation of murder, I hereby sentence him to death." The judge then proceeds to pound his gavel once, and when the officer approaches to escort the defendant to the defendant starts screaming and squealing, trying to get away as the officer lays his hands on him.
The pig had been sentenced to death for attacking and eating Mrs. Norris.
(Unfortunately, this ridiculousness is actually based on historical events in Europe. See https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016...pig-sentenced-to-death-by-hanging-for-murder/)
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's fraud. The marriage by rights should be null, unless of course the couple agrees together to waive the implications of the fraud, once discovered.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What, exactly, is the animal guilty of? You wanna talk about ridiculousness then look to your own yard. An animal can't consent and if someone sexually abuses one then the only guilty party is the human.
:AMR:
It's to prevent the spreading of disease. Duh.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
There'd be no need to kill an animal victim to prevent that you dopey little nut. Your username is as ironic as it gets.
Crank.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Eh, that little sadact still wasting time hoping to get some attention? He betrays his troll motives each and every time he comes back here after flaming out as he's once again done here. Anyone who thinks animals can't be victims of abuse is thick beyond the point of return.
No real surprise but still...
You apparently don't know how sexually transmitted diseases work.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You apparently don't know much about anything apart from how to act like a zealous, religious nut. There'd be no need whatsoever to kill an animal that's been the victim of abuse. By your "logic" you should kill a human victim of assault if they've been infected with an STD...
Zealots, offending intelligence since time immemorial...
:freak:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
tard alert!
A human has the possibility of being aware of being infected, and can take steps to avoid infecting others.
Animals do not have that ability. Like I said, it's to prevent the spread of diseases, some of which are deadly.
Let me ask you something, Artie. Let's say a pervert infects a pig with an STD. That pig is now infected. Then that pig reproduces and now its offspring are carriers of that same disease. Then the first pig is killed and eaten by humans, potentially infecting them. Same with the offspring, and their offspring, and their offspring, etc. That man's crime could, without the killing of that pig, potentially KILL hundreds or even thousands of people, all because you think it's bad to kill a pig that was abused by a human?
No need? Right.
By the way, many STD and other diseases we have today are BECAUSE of bestiality. Had the people and animals involved been executed (after due conviction) instead of been allowed to live, we wouldn't have such high numbers of people who are infected with such diseases.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You think an STD can be transmitted by eating the meat of an animal that's been sexually abused?
Um...ok, you really are dumb even for an ultra religious zealot.
You better stick to a veggie diet, just in case a farmer has sexually abused some of the livestock...
:freak:
Yep. Likely a mutant of a fairly low-virulence virus in green monkeys, often hunted for meat. Butchering would have been a likely vector of transmission of the virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188664/
eider
Well-known member
I just do not understand your 'I keep no law' claim.
If you cling to the laws, rules and guides of the OT then you must certainly keep to laws?
eider
Well-known member
Yes......... the 507 laws either, secured, protected, made stronger, more cohesive, more successful, more healthy the whole people. There is not one exception.
But you 'keep no laws' whilst promoting various sentences for breaching some of these laws..... I don't get it.
And now many Christians ignore most of these while sticking steadfastly to others. Don't get it.