If that firefighter were your husband, son, brother, or father, would you want him to risk his life for a dog if it was established beforehand no people were in the burning building?

If that firefighter were your husband, son, brother, or father, would you want him to risk his life for a dog if it was established beforehand no people were in the burning building?

ummm. it’s a DOG. In other countries, we eat them. Like other animals. In nutty western countries, we fetishize and dress them. And worship people who die to save them. Perhaps someone ought to open upa doggie restaurant and serve fake dog meat, just to be an edgy type of cuisine. not sure if it’s legal to serve actual dog where yoou live. Definitely legal to dress your dog up tho.

Drink Heavily.

ummm. it’s a DOG. In other countries, we eat them. Like other animals. In nutty western countries, we fetishize and dress them. And worship people who die to save them. Perhaps someone ought to open upa doggie restaurant and serve fake dog meat, just to be an edgy type of cuisine. not sure if it’s legal to serve actual dog where yoou live. Definitely legal to dress your dog up tho.

Drink Heavily.

ummm. it’s a DOG. In other countries, we eat them. Like other animals. In nutty western countries, we fetishize and dress them. And worship people who die to save them. Perhaps someone ought to open upa doggie restaurant and serve fake dog meat, just to be an edgy type of cuisine. not sure if it’s legal to serve actual dog where yoou live. Definitely legal to dress your dog up tho.

Drink Heavily.

The article states that “the fire was contained” and that nobody died in the fire. Where did all this “risk to life” and “die to save them” nonsense come from? Filling in the blanks (or in this case ignoring the facts) so you can state your opinion? If those firefighters saw no risk in saving the animals, what’s the problem?

I didn’t see any of the dogs they rescued “dressed up” in any way.

What those firefighters did is a great thing. If you have no soul, have never owned a dog, or do not do rescue or police work, you might be ignorant about just how useful dogs are. I’ll bet these firefighters have experience working with dogs in life-saving situations and thus felt compelled to return the favor.

Unnecessarily eating dogs falls into the no-soul category.

The article states that “the fire was contained” and that nobody died in the fire. Where did all this “risk to life” and “die to save them” nonsense come from? Filling in the blanks (or in this case ignoring the facts) so you can state your opinion? If those firefighters saw no risk in saving the animals, what’s the problem?

I didn’t see any of the dogs they rescued “dressed up” in any way.

What those firefighters did is a great thing. If you have no soul, have never owned a dog, or do not do rescue or police work, you might be ignorant about just how useful dogs are. I’ll bet these firefighters have experience working with dogs in life-saving situations and thus felt compelled to return the favor.

Unnecessarily eating dogs falls into the no-soul category.