I've never personally witnessed people siccing a dog onto an innocent animal, so I haven't shot any yet.
And I don't really care to expend any more energy trying to convince you, because I don't care that much what you think about me.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
And I don't really care to expend any more energy trying to convince you, because I don't care that much what you think about me.
The cat is in the care of the Pennsylvania SPCA so they'll probably be posting updates.
I agree with everything you said. I don't own pets myself but I could see myself morally compromising my values if I was the owner and stepped out and saw two animals laughing as their pet animals mauled a hypothetical pet of mine. No way of knowing what I'd do or want to do in the moment, especially if I'm carrying at the time. I don't think I'd blow them away... But I might... 🤷♀️
And I'm firmly in the camp of Humans Strangers > Family Pets.
mrttao
Well-known member
Something to consider is that this is not just a "what life is valued more", but a case of those two psychopaths being a clear and present danger to society.
Your instincts are screaming at you to just shoot them? that is not because you are secretly a simp for animals.
But because of your highly evolved sense of danger warning you that these are dangerous psychopaths who must not be allowed to live near your family.
People who torture someone else's pets for fun are future serial killers.
And the "for fun" is a key aspect here. If someone is hungry so he kills someone else's pet to eat. Well the "crime" looks similar on paper (dead cat/dog), but the motive is completely different and it makes all the difference in the world.
Also the 12 year old you can maybe call a child (still very fucked up and I don't see him ever rehabilitated) but the 17 year old? yea, that guy is not a "juvenile" he is an adult psychopath.
Your instincts are screaming at you to just shoot them? that is not because you are secretly a simp for animals.
But because of your highly evolved sense of danger warning you that these are dangerous psychopaths who must not be allowed to live near your family.
People who torture someone else's pets for fun are future serial killers.
And the "for fun" is a key aspect here. If someone is hungry so he kills someone else's pet to eat. Well the "crime" looks similar on paper (dead cat/dog), but the motive is completely different and it makes all the difference in the world.
Also the 12 year old you can maybe call a child (still very fucked up and I don't see him ever rehabilitated) but the 17 year old? yea, that guy is not a "juvenile" he is an adult psychopath.
Last edited:
Exactly. If you're abusing an animal for fun and are deriving joy from it, you have no place in society, you're dangerous. I'd have no second thoughts shooting someone if I caught them in the act doing this.
I carry a knife.
1st thing I'd do is string up the dogs and chop off their balls.
Then I'd threaten to do the same to the kids.
1st thing I'd do is string up the dogs and chop off their balls.
Then I'd threaten to do the same to the kids.
hyperspacewizard
Well-known member
Maybe chill out a little these kinds of reactions are exactly why rule of law is so important. Also those dogs where trained to do that hurting them is just excessive. Look these people did some sick crap but all this talk is crazy
mrttao
Well-known member
no
Literally the opposite. These reactions are healthy response towards dangerous psychopaths to protect the community from mass murderers.
Also the so called "rule of law" is just a trick the ruling class use to get away with murder. As well as bury rebels under a mass thugs and systemic violence.
They can send their goons to steal all your property and imprison you without due cause, all the while any attempt to resist unlawful occupation government is drowned out be sheep changing "rule of law"
mrttao
Well-known member
Also I find it hilariously ironic that you are literally arguing that "rule of law" exists to protect violent criminals from their victims. While believing that this is somehow a good thing and that "rule of law" is working as intended when it protects violent criminals from their victims
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You're showing an incomplete understanding of the purpose of 'rule of law' here. That's somewhat understandable, as the institutions which maintain it have become increasingly twisted over time, but it's still important to understand why rule of law is, at base, a necessary thing for a stable society.
Are you familiar with the near-constant violence in Chicago? How there are chronic, chronic problems with endless retaliatory killings between different gangs and their affiliated social groups?
Are you familiar with the Hatfields and McCoys in Huckleberry Finn? The Capulets and Montagues in Romeo and Juliet?
If there is no 'neutral arbiter' in the form of law enforcement, even if it's only a partial neutral arbiter with some seriously concerning corruption issues, then everything devolves to 'street justice.'
Lenny rapes Cassandra. Cassandra's father and brothers beat Lenny to death. Lenny's family come after the father and brothers, then the cousins come after Lenny's family, and on, and on, and on.
Because Lenny's family doesn't believe he actually raped Cassandra. They think either nothing happened at all, or that daddy didn't approve of the relationship, so she lied to daddy so he wouldn't disown her or kick her out.
And maybe that actually is what happened. Who knows?
The purpose of a public justice system, in which evidence is publicly presented, witnesses testify and are cross-examined, the laws, procedures, and punishments are laid out, and guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of peers, is not just to try to pursue a nigh-unattainable ideal of actual justice, but also to prevent anarchy from reigning.
And if you think that the rich and social elite are able to manipulate the system to their advantage now? What do you think would happen if you no longer have elected sheriffs, elected or appointed-by-elected official chiefs of police, judges, and district attorneys? If there was not even a semblance of public accountability, and all that mattered was power and money?
Where the only justice is what you can get with a gun in your hand, and the wealthy can hire dozens of men to carry guns for them?
What we have now is messed up. It needs a lot of reform and corruption removal. It's still better than getting rid of the 'rule of law.'
There can come a time and place where the entire system is so rotten that it is literally worse than anarchy, but while it can be said we've been taking terrifying steps in that direction, we are nowhere close to being there yet.
True.even if i do not cared about cats/and i like them/ ,people who derived joy from hurting animals would hurt people when they think they could go away with it.Better remove them before that happen.
mrttao
Well-known member
"No true communism was ever tried before"
Community based societies were in fact more stable than rule of law societies. And there is not such thing as an "uncorrupted" rule of law society. never was and probably never will be...
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
...Yes, because the representative republics of the Anglosphere have been the same kind of horror show that communism was and is.
What, exactly, are you proposing we try in their place?
Community based societies were more stable because they murdered anyone who stepped out of line.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
M.A.D seemed to have worked as a pretty good deterint to stop conflicts. But people didn't want to live in fear. Thing is fear is a healthy dose of fear is a decent self preservation mechanism. It keeps your mouth from writing checks your fist can't cash, and it prevents you from doing really stupid stuff. You're more likely to mind your own business if there is dire immediate consiquces for sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.
The reactions are natural, acting on that is where you should debate the immortality or morality thereof.
you do realize your talking about millions of towns and villages through out a period of civilization that goes back to ancient sumeria right?
Thousands, and yes.
Though to be fair I was exaggerating a tiny bit, it wasn't just murder, but murder or exile, the second of which usually resulted in the person dying anyways.
You were exagerating by a lot, corperal punishment, shunning, and being forced to pay back damages were all much more common punishments then being exicuted or exiled. You traditionally had to fuck up pretty bad to get those kinds of punishments.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
The new WHO guidelines are here Abortion care guideline: executive summary
and yes, their goal is access to abortion without any limitations, regardless of gender.
Can we dismantle WHO already?