You must log in or register to comment.
“Dafne Moran Toha, defending the 11-year-old boy, said his behaviour was due to his “lack of maturity” and “very young age”.”
Fuck that bullshit. There are hundreds of millions of young people with little maturity across the entire globe, and hardly any of them decide it will be a good idea to murder small animals. These boys are mentally ill in some form or another and need therapy or meds of some sort.
When I was that age I cried inconsolably over a bluegill I caught that swallowed the hook. Imagining the pain I caused it when they cut the line and threw it back was a lot for me and the adults around me thought it was hilarious that I cared. People trying to defend this by saying kids don’t have empathy or understand what they’re doing are full of shit. If that kid doesn’t have empathy it’s not because he’s 11 it’s because there’s something very wrong with him.
Sounds like a good use of chemical castration. Give em the ol Turing treatment.
It usually starts with animal cruelty when they’re young. Then they move to people when they grow older.
Sociopathic killers in the making.
Or younger. The killers of James Bulger were 10.
and although the boys were “of good character”
HAHAHAHA is this fucking satire???
I think they meant that the boys were of good character, besides the breaking and entering, vandalism, property damage, theft, cruelty to animals, and massacre.
They entered the areas they should not be in and can be seen throwing animals around, slamming them on the floor, stamping on them
Ms Toha said the boys “did not have any intention to hurt” the animals
What were they trying to do?
Maybe they missunderstood. And though all animals go to heaven. Looked around earth. And decided they were helping.
Nah its the sort of bulshit statement only a lawyer can make… without throwing up in the judges lap.
The first paragraph - PETA would approve 🤣
As an atheist. I’m pretty sure tge flying spaghetti monster boils and strains all deceased equally.
If you follow Richard Dawkins you will evolve into darwinclaus after the next nothingness
Good character my arse. Lock them in with some tigers.
“What happened?”
“Oh he drop kicked a hedgehog”
“And he’s 11?”
“Yes”
“Right well morally I believe he should be eaten alive by a tiger or a lion”
“You might be a psychopath”
“So might he”
“Great”
“Great”
“Both go home and devour the flesh of a animal, killed for them by a anonymous worker in a factory.”
Which is normal and good for you lol
A innocent animal suffers and dies for you taste pleasure. According to the WHO and pretty much any health organization it is carcinogenic, causes heart diseases, diabetes, pneumonia and according to the IPCC going vegan is the biggest step a single person can do to fight climate change, a step which, if do not take it, even with 0 fossile fuels climate change will destroy agriculture as we know it. But I am old, lol, so whatever.
I do not want to fight climate change unless we have an egalitarian society worth fighting for. I’ve had older folk ask me why they don’t see zoomers recycling as much as they do - this is why.
Also you’re wrong. The most positive climate impact you can have is not having a kid, not having a car and not flying, in that order. But none of these will do anything meaningful when Musk emits more on his private jet alone than I could in a lifetime.
Also the meat you don’t eat mostly just gets tossed because vegans are such a tiny minority it’s not even worth downscaling production in any meaningful sense.
https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choices-most-reduce-your-carbon-footprint
The most positive climate impact you can have is not having a kid, not having a car and not flying, in that order.
I do not have any kids, that’s why I don’t have to worry about your attitudes. But it is not a single thing we have to change, it all has to change.
Food is responsible for approximately 26% of global GHG emissions.
Where I live meat production goes down already, but you not having a kid will not change anything because you not getting laid was so predictable that every climate model considered it already.
E: Nice touch that you did not refute that meat is bad for your health and now focus on “but there are other things too”
I like how you ignored everything I said about societal inequities lol.
You people are nutters, drinking from mushy straws isn’t gonna save us, nothing short from a global revolution will.
And even if it might soften the impact slightly let me state once more: I do not give a shit. Unless we burn the rich first, the earth can burn.
Ur not getting laid haha
Bruh 💀
You can tackle inequality while being vegan 💀
ITT: Vegan trolls using this thread as an excuse to attack people for caring about this incident but eat meat, rather than discussing how horrible this was. FFS people, not everything has to be about your agenda.
This reminds me of the time someone broke into Belfast Zoo and started throwing the animals to the lions
On Monday a training centre in Londonderry for people with special needs was attacked by vandals.
They decapitated a chipmunk and stole three others from the Ashbrook vocational centre.
Mad.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Two boys aged 11 and 12 have pleaded guilty to cruelty charges after more than 20 animals were killed during a burglary at an environmental college.
The court heard the boys also stole various animals from the environmental college including ferrets, guinea pigs and three snakes.
Prosecutor Vijay Khuttan said CCTV footage, which was not shown in court, displayed “extreme animal cruelty”, and although the boys were “of good character” the offences represented a “significant jump into criminality”.
He added he disputed the basis of the boys’ guilty pleas, saying: “They are absolving themselves of practically any responsibility for the injuries and deaths of the animals.”
Ms Toha said the boys “did not have any intention to hurt” the animals and her client was “very remorseful”, adding that his actions were “completely out of character”.
However, Dr Basra added that the court felt a hearing to discuss the basis of plea was not necessary because of the age of the boys, and the fact they were first-time offenders who “pleaded guilty on the first possible occasion”.
The original article contains 409 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Oh fuck off, “good character” and “no intention to hurt the animals”.
Little shits should be locked in a lion enclosure.
Exactly. Killing animals shows you don’t have good character, it’s literal proof of the opposite.
jfc
Non-vegans really gonna be mad at this? Lol
Edit: Yep, hypocrits be malding lol
Honestly mate, comments like this don’t help.
Quantising the whole world as good/bad with no in-between just puts people off considering another viewpoint.You might have meant to say “People who still eat animals should think about why they hate this, but still eat meat”, but it comes across as “People who eat any meat at all shouldn’t be mad at this”.
What you end up doing is lumping people who are genuinely trying to reduce their consumption over time, with people who eat steak for every meal and kick puppies.
It is always just a black and white thing without seeing the good things. Just like this kid, he could have maybe killed more and has restrained himself really hard. If we blame him for what he did he will just kill more the next time.
What you end up doing is lumping people who are genuinely trying to reduce their consumption over time, with people who eat steak for every meal and kick puppies.
I mean yeah? They are genuinely trying not to shove something in their mouth? How does that work?
The problem I have with some vegans are that they tend to be sanctimonious, holier than thou, cunts.
Right, thats a great reason to kill animals for your taste pleasure. You may now feel like you are better than the kid in the article.
I am better than the kid in the article. I don’t go around killing animals with no meaning.
Killing for fun or killing for taste pleasure are about the same amount of “meaning”. Especially to the corpses.
That’s nonsensical and you know it. Big difference between sustenance and random violence.
I wasn’t talking about sustenance. Read again.
The person you replied to was talking about sustenance. Read again.
deleted by creator
I give you 6 months tops
I have been vegan for 6 years now lol. But sure, whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better.
Sure
Case in point.
“Ha! You defended yourself against my ad hominem which only proves my point! I am very smart hurghurghurgh”
You don’t have a point, you’re just here to stir up shit for fun. I don’t know why you enjoy that, maybe you should consider why you feel that way.
Refer to above.
I don’t need a reason, neither animals nor fetuses are sapient and Idgaf about them.
I do think we should reduce our meat consumption, but that is only so that we don’t overexploit the environment and cause catastrophe, and so that we can eventually establish council communism and redistribute resources more evenly between the proletariat, so we may all benefit from nature’s spoils rather than the inherent inequity of the owner-worker system we have now.
I don’t need a reason, neither animals nor fetuses are sapient and Idgaf about them.
Babies and small children aren’t sapient either. So up to what age of a child would you say it is morally ok to cut their throat?
Nah they’re pretty sapient and killing babies, unless it’s like baby Hitler doesn’t really serve any purpose (human pleasure is happiness, and maximisation of happiness is purpose).
I take it you’re anti-abortion too then? Bloody Americanisms m8
Nah they’re pretty sapient
Sapience is about applying wisdom, knowledge, intelligence. Babies are not sapient. Did you mean sentient?
killing babies, unless it’s like baby Hitler doesn’t really serve any purpose (human pleasure is happiness, and maximisation of happiness is purpose)
And yet if someone’s only source of happiness in life was killing babies, I am sure you would be against that.
I take it you’re anti-abortion too then?
Abortion rights only relate tangentially to sapience and sentience. Even if the lump of cells inside a womb was sentient and sapient I would still be pro-choice, since abortion is about bodily autonomy. But think about why you would assume I am against abortion rights. Did that maybe make it easier to dismiss my entire point?
Abortion rights only relate tangentially to sapience and sentience. Even if the lump of cells inside a womb was sentient and sapient I would still be pro-choice, since abortion is about bodily autonomy.
But do you not see the hypocrisy? Because then I could say it’s my bodily autonomy to digest animals en masse.
I’m pro-abortion obviously and bodily autonomy but your reasoning for it is flawed because in the end you are just arbitrarily choosing the body of one living being over another, your entire logic is easily shattered by countering with “well what about the bodily autonomy of the baby?”
I on the other hand thought about this and what I concluded with is that I don’t really give a shit if some babies are “killed”, it is unavoidable, the reproductive process wasn’t designed to be ethical - it was designed to be efficient and best we can do is just try to patch over the injustices of it until we can outsource reproduction to the machines.
The reason I bring all this up is because following your logic on animal rights - treating all life as sacred in a sort of idealistic black and white (dare I say religious) way that has little to do with tbe world we live in is exactly the same logic that anti-abortionists use (or pretend to use) to attack abortion rights.
It wasn’t to discredit you, it’s just to demonstrate how your logic is flawed.
My reasoning then is that: If killing some babies is okay to maximize happiness/minimize suffering on the whole for women, it is also okay to kill and eat animals to maximize happiness/minimize suffering for humanity in general.
Hence I genuinely believe both abortion and meat consumption are okay from my perspective - because I just think that ultimately we’re justified in both practices in the trade off of happiness and suffering on the societal scale despite the fact they involve the negative act of killing things that may or may not be lumps of cells or sentient/sapient.
Likewise I also believe killing in (legitimate) self-defense is justified as well and sometimes war is a good thing (e.g. Ukraine defending itself as opposed to surrender, even if it gets more people killed)
And yet if someone’s only source of happiness in life was killing babies, I am sure you would be against that.
You’re attempting to view this through an individualist happiness lens, I am talking about the societal whole, what you described would cause way more people suffering than happiness.
EDIT: I should add that there’s plenty of reasons to still consume less meat and even more to invest in lab made meat but these aren’t emotional arguments about the sanctity of life but material ones and they concern distribution of natural resources not only to not only the proletariat of today but of the future also (sustainability)
