Dog tied to railway line and set on fire.

For ****s sake get a grip - how on Earth can you come to such conclusions based on a few offhand remarks on a casual, student forum on a Saturday night, about someone's future?

If this was in a proper debate, I am sure that she and everyone else here would appreciate the principle of 'guilty until proven innocent', and why it is vital for any liberal society.

However, whilst we do not know that *these* boys did it, we do know that someone did it - and the hatred is ultimately pointed at them.

This happened where i live

It is twitching because it is not 'programmed' to know what to do in this situation - it is probably attempting to fly, move or something else but cannot. It is not 'pain' as we feel it - if a fly could experience the world just as we do, then why would be need such a vastly more complex nervous system?

By your reasoning, what is the difference in killing a fly and a dog? What is the difference between killing a fly and a human - if they both suffer equally?

Please give me an example of such an ability in humans which cannot be accounted for by evolution

It is twitching because it is not 'programmed' to know what to do in this situation - it is probably attempting to fly, move or something else but cannot. It is not 'pain' as we feel it - if a fly could experience the world just as we do, then why would be need such a vastly more complex nervous system?

By your reasoning, what is the difference in killing a fly and a dog? What is the difference between killing a fly and a human - if they both suffer equally?

Please give me an example of such an ability in humans which cannot be accounted for by evolution

read the ****ing thread. She specifically says she knows they are guilty and would not defend them in court. This is NOT an acceptable attitude from someone who wants to be a lawyer. She also said earlier that "innocent until proven guilty" was not appropriate in this case.

I am a lawyer, I love the law. I dont want someone like this corrupting it with their petty knee-jerk lynch mob mentality.

You do realise youve stumbled across the greatest argument both for and against animal rights, right?

for; how can we separate humans from animals
against; how can we draw a line between dogs etc and worms/flies/ants.

This is a little beyond the scope of this thread, but if you start a new one i'll get involved.

Consider the context...it is 'general discussion' on a casual, internet forum.
Yes, saying 'innocent until proven guilty' was a bad choice of things to say...but I highly doubt that she means it literally i.e. if she were a in charge, she would deny them a fair trial.

You cannot come to conclusions about someone's future based on offhand remarks on a casual forum.

You do realise youve stumbled across the greatest argument both for and against animal rights, right?

for; how can we separate humans from animals
against; how can we draw a line between dogs etc and worms/flies/ants.

This is a little beyond the scope of this thread, but if you start a new one i'll get involved.

What train of thought took these people to this? How can you conciously do this? It doesnt seem possible that a person could be capable of making the choices and actions leading to this

Thankyou Jgupta. Exactly. I'm hardly wearing the barrister's wig atm!

Ok firstly an example of an ability humans have that can't be accounted by evolution is hicupping
And yes their is a big difference between killing a fly and killing a human, obviously a human would suffer more as they have more complex feelings and the feelings of pain would be more intense, plus there is a huge moral problem in killing a human as you are taking something away from the world. As they would achieve something in their lifetime. Unlike a fly.

I assume you're not being serious about hiccuping? Just in case, the answer is that it is a by-product, rather than an actual evolutionary trait (I assume, although I am not a doctor).

But the worrying thing about your reasoning, is that it would be okay to kill say...a homeless person or a starving child in Africa because they are unlikely to bring anything to the world?

But moving closer to the topic of the thread...you accept that there is a difference between the suffering a human would experience compared to a dog...but how do you reconcile this belief with the idea that a fly would suffer the same amount as a dog?

Hmm, have you read The Brothers Karamazov? It just occurred to me how relevant one of the sub-plots is to this thread!

I think the fact that we can hiccup although not the best example, I'm sure there are many others is one that we have which brings us no benefits in terms of evolution.
So the point I was trying to make, was why can't a fly have an ability such as feeling pain that would apprently according to you bring it no benefits in terms of evolution
But to be honest I would think that being able to feel pain would be a great evolutionary benefit, as you would know when you are getting attacked and would help with survival.
So that point you made seems illogical.

And I can see how logically there isn't any difference in the amount of pain that a dog might suffer and a human might suffer, but the problem isn't a logical one, it's a moral one and an ethical one.