prior to the arrival of horses in North America, I believe the plains Indians used dogs to carry the load in their nomadic lifestyle. When the dog grew older and could no longer drag a teepee, they killed and ate it.
yes, dogs have some usefulness. Until technology replaces them.
You may be correct, sounds reasonable, but I'll note they killed it, doubtful they hooked it and drug it around needlessly alive torturing it. The Indians were pretty respectful of nature and creatures as I recall.
Nobody that I know of ever wants to see animals abused. In my book its absolutely horrendous and inhuman.
What I really dont get is why WhiteDove goes out of his way to defend animals even in highly questionable stories but will dive through every conceivable loophole to pardon those who abuse humans.
Are you telling us that raped women are lower than dogs to you?
If someone were using a naked mole rat as shark bait, nobody would give a rats foot. Sticking a dog in a cage and poking it with sticks and laughing is abuse. Using one animal to catch another is a hunting technique. People are only disturbed because it is a dog or cat.
Dogs and cats are two animals that some humans put on pedestal above other animals. Which is why this story probably was fabricated in order to get attention.
Nobody that I know of ever wants to see animals abused. In my book its absolutely horrendous and inhuman.
What I really dont get is why WhiteDove goes out of his way to defend animals even in highly questionable stories but will dive through every conceivable loophole to pardon those who abuse humans.
Are you telling us that raped women are lower than dogs to you?
It sure looks at that way
First you assume the story is highly questionable that of course is your right ,however the facts of the case clearly show otherwise. There are none ,zero that show the case to be questionable. All of the officials and others as well are in agreement that it happened. Only George and a few others here have decided without any factual evidence presented, only speculation and theories just because they think thats not the way it happened are in disagreement. The official record agrees it happened and the party was sentanced.
Let me refresh your memory.........
QUOTE
Quote Snopes ....Based on a Reunion newspaper article which acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, We'd have to say that there is some truth to the shark fishing claim........
QUOTE
The French Embassy in Washington D.C. has also maintained that although the practice is not unknown its occurrence is not as prevalent as recent news reports have made it seem
In your letter that you referenced
QUOTE
Quote "We would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is exceptional and isolated It was never widespread nor traditional but intruduced by ruthless individuals."
Introduced meaning that it did in fact go on...case closed
QUOTE
" The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated individual parties that are being sought after by police and will be brought to justice."
Now that that is out of the way part two of your assumption.
What I really don't get is why WhiteDove goes out of his way to defend animals even in highly questionable stories but will dive through every conceivable loophole to pardon those who abuse humans.
As in the case of the dog, factual evidence is paramount to the truth. I have neither pardoned or condemned anyone in the case of abuse of humans. I have found lacking any evidence. Not verbal testimony undocumented by facts. As such it neither validates the claim or invalidates the claim .It is insufficient evidence to make a determination either way .It comes down to he said she said. As such I am not willing to make a judgment on a person for such a serious crime based on non documentable words. Some may choose to based on feeling or emotion, anger or other motives that's their right I suppose. but hopefully they will never serve on a jury with that premise. Again your accusation is unfounded I have made no such determination of pardon.
If someone were using a naked mole rat as shark bait, nobody would give a rats foot.
I would...
Sticking a dog in a cage and poking it with sticks and laughing is abuse.
Yes it is ! Your point?? So is sticking a hook in its mouth and paws when alive, and dragging it through the water.
Using one animal to catch another is a hunting technique. People are only disturbed because it is a dog or cat.
It may be a huunting technique to some ,but it is illegal none the less among normal humans. That might be why the man was convicted despite his hunting technique DUH.....
Dogs and cats are two animals that some humans put on pedestal above other animals. Which is why this story probably was fabricated in order to get attention.
Dogs and cats being put on a pedistal do not change factual record.
Do you have have some evidence for your claim of fabrication? I thought not....
Otherwise we'll just stick with the factual record of the court case.
Again your accusation is unfounded I have made no such determination of pardon.
Sure you have, you've done it several times. We have had first hand accounts right here which you've fought tooth and nail (and danced like a whirling dervish) to negate
You even started a thread a while back attempting to make a hero out of a man who was convicted TWICE of a triple homicide - including shooting a grandmother 5 times at close range, who has never been exonerated of his crimes, that you claimed was innocent based on a song <_< :blink:
I ve read your (very selective) moral outrage concerning the abuse of dogs and animals, but little concern when it comes to the well being of humans --especially those that are victims of violent crimes.
Its extremely weird and more than a little bit creepy to me---I dont want to see a dog with a hook through his mouth either, but I cant understand why that would seemingly perturb you but rape and murder dont---
Sure you have, you've done it several times. We have had first hand accounts right here which you've fought tooth and nail (and danced like a whirling dervish) to negate
First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts. Each party will have their own first hand story. rarely does one coincide with another. Evidence helps in determining which is truthful. we have no factual evidence to compare with the testimony as such it is simply flip a coin , I believe so and so. Testimony is always challenged in a court of law when convicting one of crime and tempered with hard evidence, none has been provided in the internet court here.
You even started a thread a while back attempting to make a hero out of a man who was convicted TWICE of a triple homicide - including shooting a grandmother 5 times at close range, who has never been exonerated of his crimes, that you claimed was innocent based on a song <_< :blink:
Well he is out of jail Yes? based on non factual records I guess someone agrees.
I 've read your (very selective) moral outrage concerning the abuse of dogs and animals, but little concern when it comes to the well being of humans --especially those that are victims of violent crimes.
When there is factual record such as in this case to make proper judgment with then I can have concern until then it is speculation.
I have neither pardoned or condemned anyone in the case of abuse of humans. I have found lacking any evidence. Not verbal testimony undocumented by facts. As such it neither validates the claim or invalidates the claim .It is insufficient evidence to make a determination either way .It comes down to he said she said. As such I am not willing to make a judgment on a person for such a serious crime based on non documentable words. Some may choose to based on feeling or emotion, anger or other motives that's their right I suppose. but hopefully they will never serve on a jury with that premise. Again your accusation is unfounded I have made no such determination of pardon.
And speaking of juries and persons in related areas (ie., lawyers, judges, and the like), in many (if not all) of the cases/situations of the alleged rapes/sexual abuses in TWI (since you and I know that is what we all here are alluding to), verbal/visual witnesses (mainly the victims themselves) _have been_ regarded as valid and 'documentable' sources that have been validated claims, enough to make a conviction stand. You show any lawyer/prosecuting attorney all the verbal/eye witnesses illustrated here on Greasespot, and ask them if they have a solid enough case to present to a jury, and I'd be willing to bet even $$$money$$$ that _all_ of them would respond with a resounding "Yes!"
You, on the other hand, have failed _miserably_ to prove to any of us here why all the claims of rape/sexual abuse are without merit (and not meeting the legal standard of proof), your claims of them "not being backed up by facts" notwithstanding. ... Totally. Hell, and I'm not even an attorney. (Are you?) But I do know, that if I were sitting on a jury of my peers, and I was presented the testimony presented here on GS, I would convict. ... in a heartbeat.
And speaking of juries and persons in related areas (ie., lawyers, judges, and the like), in many (if not all) of the cases/situations of the alleged rapes/sexual abuses in TWI (since you and I know that is what we all here are alluding to), verbal/visual witnesses (mainly the victims themselves) _have been_ regarded as valid and 'documentable' sources that have been validated claims, enough to make a conviction stand. You show any lawyer/prosecuting attorney all the verbal/eye witnesses illustrated here on Greasespot, and ask them if they have a solid enough case to present to a jury, and I'd be willing to bet even $$$money$$$ that _all_ of them would respond with a resounding "Yes!"
I never said that they would not have a case to present, in fact I'm all in favour of one .But presentation and guilty is a far far space apart. Do I hear OJ....... Personal testimony without facts would last about.... yep that long.....
You, on the other hand, have failed _miserably_ to prove to any of us here why all the claims of rape/sexual abuse are without merit (and not meeting the legal standard of proof), your claims of them "not being backed up by facts" notwithstanding. ... Totally. Hell, and I'm not even an attorney. (Are you?) But I do know, that if I were sitting on a jury of my peers, and I was presented the testimony presented here on GS, I would convict. ... in a heartbeat.
Now see There you go again ,why do you asume I think they are without merit? I don't recall that I stated that .What I said is they are not doccumentable. not the same.
(see above posts)
First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts. Each party will have their own first hand story. rarely does one coincide with another. Evidence helps in determining which is truthful. we have no factual evidence to compare with the testimony as such it is simply he said /she said.
Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony.
Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony?
Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts?
See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation.
BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would.
"First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts."
Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses.
Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm? <_<
And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.
Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony.
Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony?
Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts?
It's simple show me a guilty charge in a court of law and you can pronounce a man as so until then they are innocent, thats the law.
See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation.
BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would.
hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies Please .........
"First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts."
Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses.
Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm? <_<
I think we had that discussion here Some people are of the opinion that families of dead people can't file lawsuits.
And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.
By the way this has nothing to do with torturing dogs which is the subject so now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
10
23
7
8
Popular Days
Jan 16
32
Jan 18
15
Jan 17
13
Jan 14
2
Top Posters In This Topic
George Aar 10 posts
WhiteDove 23 posts
waysider 7 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Jan 16 2009
32 posts
Jan 18 2009
15 posts
Jan 17 2009
13 posts
Jan 14 2009
2 posts
WhiteDove
You may be correct, sounds reasonable, but I'll note they killed it, doubtful they hooked it and drug it around needlessly alive torturing it. The Indians were pretty respectful of nature and creatures as I recall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
What am I missing here?
Nobody that I know of ever wants to see animals abused. In my book its absolutely horrendous and inhuman.
What I really dont get is why WhiteDove goes out of his way to defend animals even in highly questionable stories but will dive through every conceivable loophole to pardon those who abuse humans.
Are you telling us that raped women are lower than dogs to you?
It sure looks at that way
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If someone were using a naked mole rat as shark bait, nobody would give a rats foot. Sticking a dog in a cage and poking it with sticks and laughing is abuse. Using one animal to catch another is a hunting technique. People are only disturbed because it is a dog or cat.
Dogs and cats are two animals that some humans put on pedestal above other animals. Which is why this story probably was fabricated in order to get attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
First you assume the story is highly questionable that of course is your right ,however the facts of the case clearly show otherwise. There are none ,zero that show the case to be questionable. All of the officials and others as well are in agreement that it happened. Only George and a few others here have decided without any factual evidence presented, only speculation and theories just because they think thats not the way it happened are in disagreement. The official record agrees it happened and the party was sentanced.
Let me refresh your memory.........
QUOTE
Quote Snopes ....Based on a Reunion newspaper article which acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, We'd have to say that there is some truth to the shark fishing claim........
QUOTE
The French Embassy in Washington D.C. has also maintained that although the practice is not unknown its occurrence is not as prevalent as recent news reports have made it seem
In your letter that you referenced
QUOTE
Quote "We would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is exceptional and isolated It was never widespread nor traditional but intruduced by ruthless individuals."
Introduced meaning that it did in fact go on...case closed
QUOTE
" The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated individual parties that are being sought after by police and will be brought to justice."
Now that that is out of the way part two of your assumption.
As in the case of the dog, factual evidence is paramount to the truth. I have neither pardoned or condemned anyone in the case of abuse of humans. I have found lacking any evidence. Not verbal testimony undocumented by facts. As such it neither validates the claim or invalidates the claim .It is insufficient evidence to make a determination either way .It comes down to he said she said. As such I am not willing to make a judgment on a person for such a serious crime based on non documentable words. Some may choose to based on feeling or emotion, anger or other motives that's their right I suppose. but hopefully they will never serve on a jury with that premise. Again your accusation is unfounded I have made no such determination of pardon.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Sure you have, you've done it several times. We have had first hand accounts right here which you've fought tooth and nail (and danced like a whirling dervish) to negate
You even started a thread a while back attempting to make a hero out of a man who was convicted TWICE of a triple homicide - including shooting a grandmother 5 times at close range, who has never been exonerated of his crimes, that you claimed was innocent based on a song <_< :blink:
I ve read your (very selective) moral outrage concerning the abuse of dogs and animals, but little concern when it comes to the well being of humans --especially those that are victims of violent crimes.
Its extremely weird and more than a little bit creepy to me---I dont want to see a dog with a hook through his mouth either, but I cant understand why that would seemingly perturb you but rape and murder dont---
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
or
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And speaking of juries and persons in related areas (ie., lawyers, judges, and the like), in many (if not all) of the cases/situations of the alleged rapes/sexual abuses in TWI (since you and I know that is what we all here are alluding to), verbal/visual witnesses (mainly the victims themselves) _have been_ regarded as valid and 'documentable' sources that have been validated claims, enough to make a conviction stand. You show any lawyer/prosecuting attorney all the verbal/eye witnesses illustrated here on Greasespot, and ask them if they have a solid enough case to present to a jury, and I'd be willing to bet even $$$money$$$ that _all_ of them would respond with a resounding "Yes!"
You, on the other hand, have failed _miserably_ to prove to any of us here why all the claims of rape/sexual abuse are without merit (and not meeting the legal standard of proof), your claims of them "not being backed up by facts" notwithstanding. ... Totally. Hell, and I'm not even an attorney. (Are you?) But I do know, that if I were sitting on a jury of my peers, and I was presented the testimony presented here on GS, I would convict. ... in a heartbeat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Now see There you go again ,why do you asume I think they are without merit? I don't recall that I stated that .What I said is they are not doccumentable. not the same.
(see above posts)
First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts. Each party will have their own first hand story. rarely does one coincide with another. Evidence helps in determining which is truthful. we have no factual evidence to compare with the testimony as such it is simply he said /she said.
No doubt you would convict based on an agenda.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Let me ask you this then. You keep mentioning the lack of facts to back up the testimony.
Well, what (in your opinion) would constitute the needed facts to back the testimony?
Would corroborating testimony of like abuse suffice? Of Wierwille's attitudes regarding those who openly complained about said treatment? Of his "all the women in the kingdom belonging to the king" and like teachings that related to this kind of abuse? And other related facts?
See, I can see your need for facts to back up the accusation (Really, I do), _particularly_ if said accusations came from isolated sources or sources who not only knew each other, but had a high likelihood of cooperating with each other in order to trash Wierwille's reputation.
BUT, it's a different story altogether when there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar testimonies, _most_ (if not all) of which are given independently and from a 1st hand experience, much like any rape/sexual abuse victim would.
"First hand accounts are disputable ask any law enforcement officer , they must be tempered with facts."
Again, see above regarding the sheer number of independent witnesses.
Again, check with any prosecuting attorney, particularly ones dealing with sex crimes, as regards the number of witnesses against Weirwille as mentioned in Greasespot. I also find it damning that _none_ of the Weirwille family, nor TWI has _ever_ came forward with any defamation of character/libel/slander lawsuits against VPW's accusers. And suits like that are easier to win, since they are not determined in criminal court. ... Now why do you suppose that is, hmmm? <_<
And frankly, I would trust a jury consisting of Weirwille's accusers _far_ more than a jury filled with his apologists (hint hint), ... whether I was a defendant or accuser.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
yeah, you are all guilty of cult building and weirdo following.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
The only weirdo I follow is myself, thank you very much.
That way, I know how weird I can be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
By the way this has nothing to do with torturing dogs which is the subject so now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.