Pretty much.
Advertisement
by Katganistan » Fri Jun 26, 2020 8:33 pm
by Ideal Britain » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:01 am
Vetalia wrote:Ideal Britain wrote:Humans are capable of understanding animals have feelings in their teenage years. Empathy starts at 18 months.
Teenagers are more easily provoked but how could they have been provoked by an innocent swan.
I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.
by The Blaatschapen » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:27 am
Ideal Britain wrote:Vetalia wrote:
I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.
Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.
by Purple Rats » Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:21 am
Salus Maior wrote:I mean, sure, they should get in some deep trouble and maybe a pretty significant fine/community service to straighten them out but it is just a bird.
Birds die all the time, it's nature. In this case it wasn't, but I don't know how much of a difference that really makes.
by Purple Rats » Sat Jun 27, 2020 8:32 am
Salus Maior wrote:Purple Rats wrote:And for the ones who ask "Why should I care about animals", I could ask the same "why should we care about humans then?"
Because "not caring about humans" means you're a sociopath and it doesn't work very well in human society.
Which, mind, is what enables you to live as you do.
by Page » Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:29 am
Ideal Britain wrote:Vetalia wrote:
I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.
Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.
by Ifreann » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:39 am
Page wrote:Ideal Britain wrote:Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.
Have prisons ever made someone less sadistic?
by Salus Maior » Sun Jun 28, 2020 9:44 am
Purple Rats wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Because "not caring about humans" means you're a sociopath and it doesn't work very well in human society.
Which, mind, is what enables you to live as you do.
Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.
(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)
by The Blaatschapen » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:05 am
Salus Maior wrote:Purple Rats wrote:
Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.
(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)
Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.
To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?
Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.
However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?
Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.
by Salus Maior » Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:21 am
The Blaatschapen wrote:
The community removing a swan is different than a bunch of kids from said community removing a swan.
by The Free Joy State » Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:29 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.
To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?
Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.
However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?
Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.
The community removing a swan is different than a bunch of kids from said community removing a swan.
by James_xenoland » Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:18 pm
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
Rikese wrote:From a 14 year old saying that children should vote, to a wankfest about whether or not God exists. Good job, you have all achieved new benchmarks in stupidity.
by Ifreann » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:06 pm
James_xenoland wrote:No, and in fact they should never ever rise above the level of fines.
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:28 pm
Ideal Britain wrote:Vetalia wrote:
I could see some immature behavior like harassing animals or other minor behavior but throwing bricks at them is a whole other level of behavior...that is outright attempting to seriously injure or kill for no reason.
Yes it's sadism.
They should be given 5 years, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty in the UK (which in my opinion is neither too lenient nor too harsh)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48766531# ... x%20months.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:41 am
by Thepeopl » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:00 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Ifreann wrote:When the punishment for a crime is just a fine that essentially means that it's legal for the sufficiently rich.
With the naive "same fine for the same crime" model, yes.
But let's abandon that. You're opposed to imprisonment as punishment right? You're opposed to punishment at all, but I can't work with that.
The jury decide if the person is guilty. Sometimes the jury is allowed to say how guilty; I approve of that. Then the judge applies a punishment "to fit the crime" and hopefully is guided by the jury's idea of how egregious the crime is.
Now the point of punishment is to hurt the convicted person. To hurt them a lot for a serious crime, or just hurt them a bit for a marginal crime. Hurting them "a lot" is taking all their money, plus putting them in debt to the state. Hurting them just a bit is taking maybe 20% of their money.
So it's pretty simple. Equal punishment is the punishment that hurts the same amount for the same crime. Just assess the convict for wealth and income, and confiscate a share of their current wealth and a percentage of their future income. A bigger share for a worse crime, a smaller share for a lesser crime.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:09 am
Thepeopl wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
With the naive "same fine for the same crime" model, yes.
But let's abandon that. You're opposed to imprisonment as punishment right? You're opposed to punishment at all, but I can't work with that.
The jury decide if the person is guilty. Sometimes the jury is allowed to say how guilty; I approve of that. Then the judge applies a punishment "to fit the crime" and hopefully is guided by the jury's idea of how egregious the crime is.
Now the point of punishment is to hurt the convicted person. To hurt them a lot for a serious crime, or just hurt them a bit for a marginal crime. Hurting them "a lot" is taking all their money, plus putting them in debt to the state. Hurting them just a bit is taking maybe 20% of their money.
So it's pretty simple. Equal punishment is the punishment that hurts the same amount for the same crime. Just assess the convict for wealth and income, and confiscate a share of their current wealth and a percentage of their future income. A bigger share for a worse crime, a smaller share for a lesser crime.
Like they do in Finland.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/ ... ur-income/
by The Emerald Legion » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:36 am
Salus Maior wrote:Purple Rats wrote:
Not caring about humans is viewed as sociopath, because society has agreed on rules that killing humans are wrong, and we should care about others. Society is changing all the time. So in future it might be viewed as being sociopath as well, if someone does not care about other animals.
(or in bad scenario, not seen as being sociopath if you are not caring about humans also)
Torturing animals is already seen as a stepping stone to psychopathy, and is a sign of a concerning lack of empathy. To that extend it should be punished and corrected in order to prevent this behavior extending to humans.
To what extent should we care about animals, though? Should we be just as enraged if a stray dog killed the swan? Or some other predator? How do we respond to that, or should we really respond to that at all? Or, if a swan kills another animals, like a dog or other birds, should we respond to that?
Really, it's only reasonable to respond to animals in relation to our own human society. Obviously, people are upset about this swan because the community in question wanted them there and enjoyed their presence for one reason or another, and for the wanton destruction of this thing that the community enjoyed, there should be punishment.
However, let's say the shoe was on the other foot. Let's say the Swan was a menace to the community in question; let's say that it had killed peoples' pets, terrorized people, and had killed other birds or animals that the community enjoyed having around. Shouldn't the community be in its rights to remove the swan in order to restore peace, and create the kind of environment that they want to live in?
Ultimately, that's the difference between a respected animal and a pest, whether or not the animal in question is wanted around.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:09 am
Katganistan wrote:Animals are not people, it is true. But animals can feel pain and fear and suffer.
People who abuse animals should honestly be fined and be placed in some sort of rehabilitation program. If they are repeat offenders, then perhaps being placed in mental health care until they are rehabilitated is necessary.
One of the "triad" of serial killer indicators is torturing/killing animals, so it's really not the 'no big deal' some seem to think it is.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Ideal Britain » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:00 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Katganistan wrote:Animals are not people, it is true. But animals can feel pain and fear and suffer.
People who abuse animals should honestly be fined and be placed in some sort of rehabilitation program. If they are repeat offenders, then perhaps being placed in mental health care until they are rehabilitated is necessary.
One of the "triad" of serial killer indicators is torturing/killing animals, so it's really not the 'no big deal' some seem to think it is.
This, really. Jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone, but mental health care might.
Either rehabilitate them or lock them up for life; preferably the former. The last thing we need is a potential future serial killer to be let out of jail because we couldn't give them a life sentence for animal cruelty.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:32 am
Ideal Britain wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:This, really. Jail doesn't rehabilitate anyone, but mental health care might.
Either rehabilitate them or lock them up for life; preferably the former. The last thing we need is a potential future serial killer to be let out of jail because we couldn't give them a life sentence for animal cruelty.
Some prisons do rehabilitate.
Look at Norway or Sweden.
I would put them in jail and give them mental healthcare
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Ancientania, Chicken Ander, El Lazaro, Eusan Federation, Floofybit, Hekp, Hidrandia, Hypron, Neanderthaland, New haven america, Novos Zazprogidamos, Port Carverton, Statesburg, Stellar Colonies, Tungstan
Advertisement