Hacker News Reader

Comment by vidanay | Hacker News Reader

And what, exactly, is your plan for the animal after you forcible make the person give them up?

I'm surprised how a certain part of this site's audience have no problem in proposing the use of force in guiding people's lives, and then at the same time claim it is in the name of "liberty". In this particular case I'm sure they would see no problem in killing that dog (and call it euthanasia or some other fancy name) and please don't let me go on the obvious slippery slope from there.

(EDIT: 5 minutes after and the killing was advocated. I rest my case.)

Out of curiosity, are you vegetarian? Is it simply that meat animals don't matter while pet animals do?

I can only speak for myself, not "certain parts of this site", but I did not use the words liberty or freedom anywhere, or even invoke those principles in broad terms, I don't think.

You may have to euthanize that animal if no one wants to adopt it.

Sorry, but there are worse things in the world than putting down animals.

And don’t even try to come at me if you eat meat! Every one of us who eats factory farmed meat (y.t. included) is participating in far worse atrocities than a shelter humanely euthanizing a relative handful of dogs.

That is fucked up.

It is fucked up. Pigs are just as intelligent as dogs, yet they still end up as a McRib.

There are worse thing, but when you are arguing for authoritarian use of force against people because you think you know what is better for them, and at the same time want to steal their animals and murder them, trying to present it as unfortunately making the best possible choice rather than admitting you're arguing for doing harm is rather distasteful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com