373
How do animal abusers fare in prison? Is it similar to other crimes against the most vulnerable? Because somehow that does carry some poetic justice.
People tend to underestimate the importance of laws against animal cruelty. These laws are not only about protecting animals; they also reflect human decency and respect for all forms of life. Furthermore, they often serve as a significant red flag. The number of criminals and sociopaths connected to animal cruelty is far too high to be ignored.
Two days later, Aldama Garcia went to the Hillsborough County Animal Shelter to attempt to retrieve the dog and showed pictures as proof of ownership, according to the affidavit.
This guy isn’t just an asshole he’s a stupid asshole too. Imagine thinking there was any chance in hell an animal shelter was going to give you back the dog you left to drown while tied to a fence post in a flooded ditch during a hurricane.
That dog is just property to this person.
Not anymore it's not, fuck that guy
Imagine how he's treat Pokémon
He probably doesn't even let them out of that little ball
He bangs those.
Fuck property
If you want to fuck property, buy a fleshlight not a dog?
Hey hey, it's almost Halloween.
Just buy a pumpkin.
I will never comprehend how evil or sociopathic someone has to be to do something like this.
Are you vegan?
Fucking lol
Non vegans can also have empathy.
Him hitting you out of nowhere with a passive aggressive "are you vegan?" was not the move, but you have to recognize a bigger picture here.
When animal abuse happens, and people see it, they are disgusted by it. It makes you feel awful inside, it makes you empathize with the animal.
But when animal abuse happens and you don't see it, people don't seem to care. I mean, what this fellow did to his dog is absolutely atrocious, but frankly it's mild compared to the 25 million chickens killed daily (USA alone), who are often hung upside down in assembly lines for hours, not to mention the atrocious living conditions they had beforehand. And that's just the surface.
Rather than passive-aggressively questioning your ethics like the other user here, I instead urge you to explore these feelings you have about animal cruelty, and think about what happens even when you don't see it.
Sure but a non-vegan can absolutely comprehend putting their own convenience over the well-being of an animal. Downvoting won't change that.
Ditto with vegans. Being a vegan doesn't magically make someone not an ass.
Being an ass was not in question, being able to comprehend cruelty was.
Pick a lane. Convenience does not equal cruelty.
On being able to comprehend, there are human conditions that are beyond my comprehension. I mean as an intellectual thought process I am aware why some people do certain things but it is so far outside of my experience that I could never truly comprehend why.
It doesn't have to, but in the case of eating animals it does equal cruelty. For what other pleasure than taste would there be this much bickering when the price is an animals life?
Let's stay with the dog in the picture, would it be cruel to stun it with a bolt gun, hang it upside down and slit it's throat? Not out of neccesity but because you like the taste?
Edit: Again, downvoting won't change this :)
IMO, not being able to comprehend cruelty makes someone an ass. The dude in this story could have been kind, polite... they could have helped mow the lawn of their elderly neighbor that's no longer able to do so themselves.
Regardless of how otherwise good you are treating a pet that you've accepted responsibility for and who, potentially, fully trusts you as family like this... that makes you an ass.
Anyways I think my only real objection to your original statement is that I don't think veganism is relevant to this story. I'd say that vegans are more likely to treat their pet well but it's not a guarantee - even among vegans that made that choice for an ethical reason there are still assholes.
Vegans might be nicer to animals but in my experience they're generally trash to other people. Also a vegan owning a pet is hypocrisy in the finest form.
Eh... they often are abrasive but it's because most of them genuinely believe that consumption of meat is unethical. I certainly don't appreciate being on the receiving end of their criticism but I can respect that it's at least logically consistent.
A vegan owning a pet isn't hypocritical to most of them - PETA was anti-pet for a while but it seems they came to a better comprehension https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
In general, though, vegans are against using animals for their matter and animal mistreatment. Ethical omnivores often refuse to eat animal products from factory farms due to the excessive cruelty involved in that process and vegans do take it further (I've always been a bit weirded out by their refusal to eat non-meat products like cheeses and the like but I do understand the logic).
Inviting a pet into your life, if you provide a loving home for them to be in, isn't against mainline veganism - though people keeping pets they can't properly care for usually is. It's all about making sure animals are treated well.
Some vegans just get hyper violent about it though.
"tHe peT cAnT coNsENT to owNeRsHIp"
Is the argument I get when I troll c/vegan
Please don't let your experience with vegans push you away from it. There's plenty of reasonable, kind, and understanding vegans.
Also btw, rescuing a shelter animal = vegan, buying a bred animal = not vegan.
I think they should tie this dude to a fence next hurricane that comes around, you know so he can wait out storm. I hope this dog goes to a loving home for the rest of their life.
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
373 points (100.0% liked)
News
23167 readers
2814 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS