When you sic a dog on someone 04 27 2020
When you sic a dog on someone you are already judging that that person is less than human. I will assert that is true.
So somehow the legal precedent for that has been set hasn't it?
So the legal precedent being set perhaps we need some truth to weigh in on the topic in terms of legislation?
Meaning? Who are we judging to be less than human and why? Do you have a valid reason to judge a person as less than human? Are they alleged to have acted less than human not under the influence of any drugs? Have they or can they be proved to respond with less than human emotions to visual stimulus and situations?
For example. Have you ever seen someone work so hard in the United States that their feet where out? Ever see a homeless black person? Their feet are worn out. What does a wealthy silver spoon republican think in response to that imagery?
So barring the idea of less than human classification perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows you to immediately kill any Animal that attacks you.
Can you hear the person that identifies more will animals than people? What are they crying?
"My dog is wearing a badge!"
Can you see the impish Republicans of the future? Instead of buying a license for their dog they are going to want to purchase a "Badge" for it. So that they can legally chase anyone they want with it and maul them.
© 2020 Thomas Murphy
Do you notice where they are going with Covid-19? They have employees wearing watches that beep when they get 6 feet from one another! Allegedly to prevent the spread of Covid-19. But what is this an evil think tank precursor to? Satan putting tracking devices implants into human beings so that satan can feel empowered and in control of natural and normal humanity.
Off topic. So the other day I watched the Clint Eastwood movie "Grand Torino." In it four boys who were in a gang were jealous of a boy who was learning how to use tools and earn a living with them. They beat him up, took his new tools, and burnt his cheek with a lit cigarette. And my initial response to seeing that was those four gang members and all org crime / gang members should be euthanized. Our Democracy doesn't need any instance of that and does indeed fail because of it.
*****'
Having a dog maul someone is actually a form of torture and hence illegal per the Constitution. But we need Supreme Court members who know the intent and purpose of that law rather than what I would call "popularity." For example. Why didn't we bar transpo to and from the U.S. when we first learned of Covid-19? Because we have leadership that cannot believe in an idea unless it is popular or already popularized. Is it popular for a father to tell his child not to use drugs? What am I getting at? How many fathers can't tell their children anything because it wouldn't be popular with them? And here is the worst of it. How many fathers can't get through to their children that just because an idea isn't "popular" with them doesn't mean it isn't something they can do. And better yet you have political leadership that caves to this weakness. "If I do such and such it can be popularized?" Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, just whether it can be popularized. In other words the public be made to feel that the reason they are not going along with it is because they are "behind the times." Or rather, "There is something wrong with you if you don't go along with this." Our nation and the entire world has had enough of that!
When you sic a dog on someone you are already judging that that person is less than human. I will assert that is true.
So somehow the legal precedent for that has been set hasn't it?
So the legal precedent being set perhaps we need some truth to weigh in on the topic in terms of legislation?
Meaning? Who are we judging to be less than human and why? Do you have a valid reason to judge a person as less than human? Are they alleged to have acted less than human not under the influence of any drugs? Have they or can they be proved to respond with less than human emotions to visual stimulus and situations?
For example. Have you ever seen someone work so hard in the United States that their feet where out? Ever see a homeless black person? Their feet are worn out. What does a wealthy silver spoon republican think in response to that imagery?
So barring the idea of less than human classification perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that allows you to immediately kill any Animal that attacks you.
Can you hear the person that identifies more will animals than people? What are they crying?
"My dog is wearing a badge!"
Can you see the impish Republicans of the future? Instead of buying a license for their dog they are going to want to purchase a "Badge" for it. So that they can legally chase anyone they want with it and maul them.
© 2020 Thomas Murphy
Do you notice where they are going with Covid-19? They have employees wearing watches that beep when they get 6 feet from one another! Allegedly to prevent the spread of Covid-19. But what is this an evil think tank precursor to? Satan putting tracking devices implants into human beings so that satan can feel empowered and in control of natural and normal humanity.
Off topic. So the other day I watched the Clint Eastwood movie "Grand Torino." In it four boys who were in a gang were jealous of a boy who was learning how to use tools and earn a living with them. They beat him up, took his new tools, and burnt his cheek with a lit cigarette. And my initial response to seeing that was those four gang members and all org crime / gang members should be euthanized. Our Democracy doesn't need any instance of that and does indeed fail because of it.
*****'
Having a dog maul someone is actually a form of torture and hence illegal per the Constitution. But we need Supreme Court members who know the intent and purpose of that law rather than what I would call "popularity." For example. Why didn't we bar transpo to and from the U.S. when we first learned of Covid-19? Because we have leadership that cannot believe in an idea unless it is popular or already popularized. Is it popular for a father to tell his child not to use drugs? What am I getting at? How many fathers can't tell their children anything because it wouldn't be popular with them? And here is the worst of it. How many fathers can't get through to their children that just because an idea isn't "popular" with them doesn't mean it isn't something they can do. And better yet you have political leadership that caves to this weakness. "If I do such and such it can be popularized?" Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, just whether it can be popularized. In other words the public be made to feel that the reason they are not going along with it is because they are "behind the times." Or rather, "There is something wrong with you if you don't go along with this." Our nation and the entire world has had enough of that!
No comments:
Post a Comment