Kill the dog lover's first

Friday, March 2, 2007
Kill the Doglovers first
Kill all the doglovers and then kill all the stray dogs mercifully. Those who dont value human life have no right to live.
11:49:25 AM
Posted By nothing tosay Comments (6) Personals
Comments

K.Venugopal Friday, March 2, 2007 12:12:26 PM
Dear nothing tosay, You appear to be criminal minded. Why call for killing of innocents, even of stray dogs?

Blog_Inspect Friday, March 2, 2007 12:20:02 PM
Each dog has its hour and each man his day, so says the adage!
perfektm Friday, March 2, 2007 12:31:02 PM
we dont promote killing of innocents... even of dogs ?anyone want a hotdog?
nothingtosay Friday, March 2, 2007 12:32:08 PM
stray dogs are killing children in mumbai and bangalore and other places. Have not you read the recent news about how a 4year old was mauled to death? slum children are the victims mostly. The rich who are invariably straydog lovers are the real criminals.

K.Venugopal Friday, March 2, 2007 4:47:37 PM
Whoever, rich or poor, who loves stray dogs, are noble souls. Dogs killing humans are rare. The poor things must have in some way been pushed over the brink and we humans are responsible. Thus we are responsible for the child's death.

K.Venugopal Friday, March 2, 2007 4:51:40 PM
Dear Perfektm, Hotdog is a non-vegetarian item, no doubt. But it is not made from dogs.

avinash Friday, March 2, 2007 6:51:51 PM
dog is a man's best friend.a vet gives the same medicine as his counterpart who treats humans.we are only blowing our heads within the ring so what differance does it make?stop this tu-tu,main-main stuff---------------n.ignore it if you don't like it.aren't we ignoring so many ills in day-to-day life?
avinash Friday, March 2, 2007 7:09:38 PM
phir tu-tu main-main,kisko bhol rahe ho?apna rai apna tumhara rai tumhara tik hain.bhagwan dattatreya ke paas char kuthe hain aur char kuthe char ved mane jathe hain?do you know this?first ascertain what breed those dogs are near the lord and then we can debate.
exact Friday, March 2, 2007 7:11:14 PM
dog maybe a man's best friend. but not stray dogs.
horrified Saturday, March 3, 2007 12:22:23 PM
Horrified by Venugopal's defence. you can love dogs but cant defend vandalism by dogs. dogs are as dangerous as tigers sometimes. even a 4year old death is treated so lightly. it speaks volumes of some bloggers.
Roger Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:09:34 PM
Dear Venu, Why did you not use this reasoning in the case of Godhra?
Roger Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:14:21 PM
Venu, one rabid dog bites someone, therefore wiping out all dogs is a just ifiable response. After all, the initial provocation was caused by the dog. Sounds familiar?
K.Venugopal Saturday, March 3, 2007 3:08:07 PM
Dear Roger, The 'initial provocation' logic cannot be used in the case of dogs or animals because they are unable to reason anything for themselves. They only go by instinct. It is we, mankind, who ought to be responsible for the welfare of all living beings, not just mankind. This should be our goal and let us not, whatever the circumstances, blame poor innocent dumb animals.

K.Venugopal Saturday, March 3, 2007 3:41:46 PM
Dear Horrified, You are treating lightly the killing of thousands of stray dogs . We, who have the genius even to go to the moon, should find some way out of the stray-dogs menace in a most humane manner.

Roger Saturday, March 3, 2007 4:11:46 PM
Dear Venu, but this is the very l o g i c you used to explain the genocide in Gujarat.
Roger Saturday, March 3, 2007 4:13:24 PM
And that was by men ( I refrain from calling them humans) who, as you point out, ARE able to reason for themselves.
K.Venugopal Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:52:22 PM
Dear Roger, The large scale violence in Gujarat took place only because of the Godhra incident. Can you deny that?
K.Venugopal Saturday, March 3, 2007 8:53:14 PM
Now what you are saying is the violence should not have occurred, regardless of Godhra. Ideally, Godhra should not have occurred and no reaction would have occurred. Again, ideally, the reaction should not have happened, regardless of Godhra. And probably many such non-reactions down the line, finally, who knows, violence itself would end, with there being no victims left. Or with the aggressor transforming, like Ashoka did.
Roger Saturday, March 3, 2007 11:06:52 PM
Dear Venu, a man (of principle) does not change his principles according to the situation. Your philosophical position with regard to Godhra, is in conflict with your position on stray dogs.
K.Venugopal Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:56:08 AM
Dear Roger, You have not answered my question. Would the large scale violence in Gujarat have taken place if the Godhra incident did not take place?

Roger Sunday, March 4, 2007 1:04:11 PM
Dear Venu, No, it would not have occurred. But we are not discussing causality, we are discussing whether it was right. And if it was, how can "initial provocation" logic not apply to stray dogs?
K.Venugopal Sunday, March 4, 2007 6:25:25 PM
Dear Roger, The question is, how do we ensure that stray dogs (or any animal, for that matter) do not attack humans? Some think stray dogs should be killed. I do not think so. Some have pointed out that a solution could be in a vaccination-sterilisation programme like that carried out by the Tamil Nadu government. I think this is more like it.About principles, I would say the same principle applies everywhere - live and let live. Or, in the specific case of dogs, stray or otherwise - let sleeping dogs lie.

Roger Sunday, March 4, 2007 9:11:11 PM
Dear Venu, Actually, the question is, whether stray dogs should be killed, because some of them attack humans. You say they should not. Fair enough. But then, how can you legitimise genocide becuse of what happened in Godhra? Clearly a case of changing your principles to suit the occasion.
Roger Sunday, March 4, 2007 9:18:42 PM
And you say dogs should not be killed because (a) they are incapable of reasoning and (b) they are probably goaded into attacking. Humans cannot claim diminished reponsibility based on incapacity of reason. And what if point (b)were true of Godhra? And true responsibility lies with the tormentors, if that be the case?
K.Venugopal Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:50:23 PM
Dear Roger, The violence occurred because of Godhra, which you also have conceded. This point is missed by those who speak only of the violence and not what caused it. And when you say 'true responsibility lies with the tormentors', are you also not conceding the principle of 'initial provocation', which was Godhra? Or do you mean something else when you say 'tormentors'?

Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 1:05:39 AM
No, I am merely paraphrasing your argument.. "The poor things must have in some way been pushed over the brink and we humans are responsible. Thus we are responsible for the child's death." Why not apply this argument to the cause behind Godhra?
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 5:49:53 AM
Dear Roger, Animals, being instinctive beings, can't be charged with being irresponsible. Only man, conscious of his consciousness, can be held to be responsible or irresponsible. You seem to be suggesting that Muslims were pushed over the brink in some way, forcing them to burn a bogey full of Hindu pilgrims. Please elaborate.

K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 6:32:34 AM
Also, please note that no statute book anywhere says that animals must be punished for any ‘crime’. Whereas in the case of man, crime and punishment is a given.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 6:33:16 AM
If a civilized society is to prevail, man should not take law into his own hands. But for such an ideal civil society, man has first to be cultured to abjure his sense of vengeance.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 6:39:32 AM
Jesus went even further and taught that we should offer the other cheek. And I am sure some rare individuals must have responded in such manner to violence.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 6:45:59 AM
But, so long as we do not drop our ego and move from group identity to freedom from identity, violence seems inevitable in society.

perfektm Monday, March 5, 2007 7:57:42 AM
K.Venugopal..not in china or korea... :)start your own Dog recipies...wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/e5.htm
Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 7:38:03 PM
Dear Venu, I am suggesting nothing, merely pointing out that you are applying your reasoning selectively. You suggested dogs were perhaps pushed over the brink, why deny the same possibility to Godhra?
Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 7:44:35 PM
Dear Venu, You can continue defending the indefensible.. all I will say is that anyone who condones the killing of innocent women and children is lacking in humanity.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:32:10 PM
Dear Roger, You have conceded that the violence would not have happened if Godhra, where innocent women and children were burnt to death by people who were certainly lacking in humanity, had not happened. You have thereby also pointed out where the responsibility lies.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:33:32 PM
When the conclusion is clear, you prod me to extend my logic and wonder whether, like the stray dogs of Bangalore, they burnt the coach only because they were pushed over the brink by their tormentors.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:35:02 PM
No saving grace here, for I don't see the Muslims as ever having been pushed over the brink in India, except where they have pushed themselves over.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:41:17 PM
Or any tormentors, except their self-defeating ideology.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:42:16 PM
In the aftermath of any violence which we could not prevent, the most important thing to be done is to fix responsibility. Only then can we hope that such tragic events do not recur.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:43:16 PM
In the aftermath of Godhra and subsequent violence, I fix the responsibility for the same upon those who burnt the Godhra train, whoever they may be. And in the aftermath of little Manjunath's death, I put the blame on the civic authorities and not on the poor stray dogs.
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:43:54 PM
However, you say I am inconsistent unless I either say those who burnt the Godhra train were innocent or I join the chorus of calls for killing the stray dogs of Bangalore. I think I’ve pinpointed responsibilities correctly. Where have I changed my principles to suit the occasion?
K.Venugopal Monday, March 5, 2007 9:47:58 PM
I reiterate, Dear Roger, I do not condone violence. But I shall not seek to be politically correct and fail to pinpoint who I think is responsible for violence in a situation which I am sufficiently well-versed in.

Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 10:37:32 PM
The killing of innocents at Godhra was inhuman and barbaric. It has been universally condemned. Retaliating in kind as a response to Godhra cannot ever be right, two wrongs don't make a right. Why are you unable to condemn the second act of inhumanity, and simply harp on the first, citing cause and effect?
Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 10:38:37 PM
Your inconsistency is in your argument which is essentially:-Dogs are not responsible for reacting to provocation, because they are incapable of reason. -The killers in Gujarat, although capable of reason, are not responsible for their actions, because they were provoked.
Roger Monday, March 5, 2007 10:48:41 PM
If dogs are NOT responsible because they CANNOT reason, why are the killers NOT responsible, when they CAN reason?
K.Venugopal Tuesday, March 6, 2007 12:45:46 AM
Dear Roger, Those who burnt the train were responsible for all the violence. Punish all who indulged in violence by all means but do not evade the question of who was responsible for it all. Merely condemning violence is not enough.

Roger Tuesday, March 6, 2007 2:49:39 AM
Dear Venu, The people who burnt the train were responsible for their actions, and should be punished. I have not for a moment evaded or denied this. Equally, the people who killed in retaliation, are also responsible, and should be punished. Why do you evade this?
K.Venugopal Tuesday, March 6, 2007 7:54:07 AM
Did I not say "Punish all who indulged in violence by all means"? No one can avoid or evade the consequences of his or her actions. But who was responsible, that is the cardinal question. The civic authorities in Bangalore and those who burnt the train in Godhra, I say. You may disagree on who was responsible in either case. But in what way do you fault my conclusions? How do you say I am inconsistent? Why do you evade the question of pinpointing responsibility?

Roger Wednesday, March 7, 2007 1:31:08 AM
Responsibility lies with the persons who committed the act. Responsibility cannot be shifted by citing "provocation" or causality, because, as you pointed out, humans have the capacity to reason.

K.Venugopal Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:36:14 AM
Dear Roger, Responsibility for the infamous ‘Gujarat violence’ lies with the persons who committed the violence of burning the train in Godhra. All subsequent violence is a result of this single act of violence. While I am not condoning any violence, including retaliatory violence, the responsibility for the retaliatory violence should rest with those who started it all. However, I concede we cannot determine 'who started it all' because Godhra itself maybe a retaliation of, say, Ayodhya. Nevertheless when we speak of the unspeakable violence that happened in Gujarat in the aftermath of Godhra, then surely the blame or responsibility can only be on those who burnt the train. At this point I must also add that I am not comfortable with the concept of 'retaliatory violence' but since there is much community-identity going on in society, retaliatory violence is, sadly, inevitable. Thus it is all the more important that we pinpoint those responsible for triggering off any large scale violence. Why do you evade this point?

Roger Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:46:58 PM
Whatever the cause, reponsibility lies with the perpetrator. It is ironical, that the logic you use, is the same one used in certain societies, that a woman who is raped is responsible, not the rapist, because she "tempted" him. So the inability of the man to resist provocation is her fault!
Roger Wednesday, March 7, 2007 10:22:17 PM
Why stop at Ayodhya, it can be extended to Aurangzeb, or Babur or to the dawn of recorded history. The act has to be separated from the cause. I do not accept that an act can be j_st_fied by the provocation, no matter how grievous. It may explain why the act occurred, but it does not excuse it.
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 12:27:39 AM
Dear Roger, All who indulge in violence are culpable. It has to be that way - otherwise the rule of law will break down. Violence is not a reflexive action (a defensive action may be a reflexive action, though). Violence has to be plotted and upon execution, those at the receiving end either take to non-violence or retaliate. The tragedy is when violence turns communal - then no innocents are segregated. Therefore are not those who begin violence actually more (ir)responsible than those who retaliate? They are doubly responsible, both for their own violence and the violence they thereby instigate.

K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 3:40:50 PM
Dear Roger, As I said earlier, I am uncomfortable about giving any legitimacy to retaliation. But when fear of the other dominates, then retaliation might be seen as a means of self-defense. Therefore it is important to trace all bouts of violence to initial provocation if we are to get to the root of the problem.

Roger Friday, March 9, 2007 9:45:47 PM
As you yourself pointed out, how far can back you go? Any historical act has to been seen in the context of it's times, we cannot apply today's standard of morality to a historical act. Therefore the initial provocation logic cannot be sustained while determining responsibility.
Roger Friday, March 9, 2007 10:17:16 PM
The law does consider mitigating circumstances through the plea of diminished responsibility. But responsibility is diminished not absolved. Acting in self defence is permitted, but it stretches the realms of credulity to argue any of the acts in Gujarat were in self defence.
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 11:24:53 PM
Dear Roger, Not determining the initiator of violence in the midst of peace and just settling on punishing all who indulge in violence would be tantamount to treating the symptoms and not the cause. A retracing from the effect to cause is necessary for proper treatment.
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 11:34:49 PM
Dear Roger, I agree with you that an historical act has to be seen in the context of its times. But should we adopt the principle of 'different times, different morals'?
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 11:39:30 PM
Do cardinal qualities like truth, justice, morality, sensitivity etc. change in value with times?
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 11:40:17 PM
Dear Roger, The post Godhra violence was an act of self-defense by the Hindus because the Godhra violence was sponsored by international agents of terrorism. All terrorist acts perpetrated in India are anti national and the purpose is to cow down the state and intimidate the Hindus and are sponsored by Pakistan or Pakistani elements in India. Therefore to determine and expose the initiators of terrorist violence would help in discovering patterns and undoing terrorist networks.
K.Venugopal Friday, March 9, 2007 11:42:14 PM
Dear Roger, Thank you for pointing out the concept of mitigating circumstances and diminished responsibility. This is quite what I wished to put across.

Roger Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:13:20 AM
Venu, morality, justice etc are evolving concepts. What is our position on Sati today? Has it not changed over time? Euthanasia and genetic engineering are the big moral dilemnas of today. You see truth and values as absolute, but nothing is.
K.Venugopal Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:12:29 PM
Dear Roger, Freedom is a must if man is to grow to his full potential. The only curb on an individual’s or a collective’s freedom should be when it transgresses others’ freedom. However, we are often at odds as to what constitutes freedom without transgression. Physical transgressions are clear enough because physical boundaries are clear. Also, the onus of violence ensuing upon such transgressions are plain. But the boundary of freedom vis-à-vis the psychological sphere is often intolerantly set. For example, if a writer express a certain opinion publicly and it psychological hurts someone and violence ensues, who is responsible? The person who exercised his freedom of speech or the person with a low tolerance level? Sati, suicide, euthanasia, santhara etc. does not cause physical violence to others. We should hence respect the individual’s choice in these matters. Morality and justice are the bedrock of our freedom. We cannot afford to dilute its application and thereby corrupt freedom. Truth and values are absolute, only its expressions change with time.