Am I wrong to think that crimes against humanity are more severe than crimes against decency?

Question

This is a rhetorical question of course because an opinion, even mine, is neither right nor wrong. It's simply an opinion.

I am interested in knowing what others think.

I am a dog lover. I have owned several. However, I believe that a crime against humanity {rape, murder, child molesting etc ...} is far more egregious than dog fighting and the brutality to animals that is involved in that sport.

I’m just wondering what you think.

Answer 1

I agree that crimes against a human should take preference, but you cannot overlook crimes of this nature, especially when they are so egregious in nature, are funded by a group with potential access to millions of dollars, and actually involve violation of laws applied to interstate travel to commit crimes, racketeering and organized crime.

We have a moral duty to protect animals from other animals (on 2 legs) who have the power and desire to inflict such cruelty. It is just the right thing to do. There is no excuse.

Answer 2

I would agree but it is still a serious crime in Georgia. It is not like he just went to the thing and bet on it. From what I heard he sponsored it and killed dogs that didn't fight. In most states that will get the average citizen some jail time. It is not like he hurt a person but the penalty sure is severe, possibly excessive.

Answer 3

I quit trying to weigh negatives against each other a long time ago. I don't care which is worse. They're both wrong and they are so because they cause harm to society. As far as I'm concerned, any crime involving violence speaks for a person's destructive character. They're all in the same boat. It's ALL bad and it should ALL be stopped.

Answer 4

Humans are more important to me than animals are. If I had the choice between saving a human or an animal, the human would win hands down. Whether humans are of greater value in the grand cosmic scheme of things, I'm not so sure.

Answer 5

Nope- a report from a particular raconteur isn't a appropriate statement, and is even much less capacity than a Gerneral assembly ruling. so as many biased comments via fact the UN lapdogs produce, they'll all finally end up being meaningless via fact the only place something significant occurs is interior the seucrity council the place the Arab bloc isn't able to impact the balloting througgh weight of numbers. The UN customary assembly has ebcome a shaggy dog tale with the only factor counting being who you prefer to be friends with and comfortable as much as.

Answer 6

Of course. But there is something intrinsically creepy about electrocuting a dog - it's often an indicator of serial killers. Name a movie or a book where the hero doesn't fall . . . guy has nothing but talent, guy makes good life on that talent, guy has character flaw which leads to downfall, guy finds God and asks for public forgiveness and all is well. Standard stuff.

Answer 7

Of course, there are degrees of evil. There is also inhumanity. While I would certainly prefer every dog on earth be sacrificed before one child is that does not mean that torturing or brutalizing any animal is acceptable.

.

Answer 8

fine given humans must come first

that does not get "you know who" the low down son of a skunk off the hook

with all that money he couldn't think of anything better to do than to hurt animals?????????????
what kind of pig does a thing like that?

That is not a sport. Sports involve sportsmanship.

Answer 9

well thats because many people believe animals have less rights then us those who have mistreated and killed many animals through animal testing and such for their product are only charge cash, and may or maynot change their way.(but most often dont) if done to human.. that guy is most likely in prison..the answer is plainly obvious

its mainly because animals dont have a voice

Answer 10

i would agree but torturing of animals is a good precursor too cruelty to humans