E
@Mentally lost cel @DrainGangEnthusiast @Lycan
The first guy tagged always freaks out about animals being killed and videos of them being killed posted on here (which i never see on this forum FYI) but humans being killed or attacked in videos on this forum is somehow ok. People will literally freak the fuck out if you attack an animal but attack a human (unless it's women and children) and everyone shrugs. The humans on this forum, for example, might, from time to time, condone beating someone up or in some cases even killing someone if they're mad, but bring up shit like animal abuse and these same humans go all normie mode and start freaking out.
If you attack humans but refuse to attack animals, unless it's because you only hate humans rather than viewing animal abuse as more immoral, you're a hypocrite. YOU DO NOT HAVE MORALS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Killing animals is NOT worse than killing humans.
FIRST ARGUMENT THESE HUMANS USE: But animals are innocent and they don't do anything
This is FALSE. People solely believe this because animals cannot talk and look adorable. ANIMALS ARE NOT INNOCENT IN THE SLIGHTEST.
In fact, animals DO know right from wrong and DO have morals. Although the vast majority of their behavior was prosocial or positive and aggression or violence was rare, this still wasn't universal. In fact, animals CAN do immoral things. Rape is found in many species, and animals have raped each other. Even child abuse happens in other species. Animals often start rival wars and kill each other, and even chimps have as much of a homicide rate as humans. Many species do it even more than humans by killing their own species.
Animals DO have morals and know right from wrong and you can't assume otherwise because they don't talk. Many will maul you on sight even if you do nothing wrong.
Argument 2: animals are vulnerable or you're a coward if you hurt them
This is bullshit. Unless you have a weapon many animals aren't vulnerable and maul you on sight. And you can't argue it's wrong because they're vulnerable. Many humans are vulnerable too. Even grown men. If you're a man attacking another man he could be smaller than you yet nobody will care if you attack a guy smaller than you yet they freak out if you mildly hit a woman's face. In fact, nobody cares if I use guns on a muscular man or ambush him. In that case, he IS vulnerable. If you are a small scrawny nerd and you use a gun on a big muscular guy HE IS THE VULNERABLE ONE. He's 100% vulnerable. He moves any muscle, he dies. In fact, smaller people can easily overpower bigger people by using weapons and objects to compensate for size differences. You can also ambush them which also makes them completely vulnerable. A person doesn't have to be physically vulnerable to be easy to attack. Circumstantial vulnerability is just as common if not more. How is using a gun on a big muscular guy worse than using it on a fuckin bear who is way more physically powerful than a big muscular guy.
And many animal abusers aren't afraid to attack humans. Many do. In fact, its quite common. Many of them often commit a lot of violence or serious crime, including against other humans. There's a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. They aren't cowards. They're just generally vicious criminals.
Argument 3: animal abusers are sadists
no. they aren't doing it for sadism. In a study of undergrad students, they found 55% committed animal abuse at least once. They usually did it out of anger/prejudice, amusement/fun, or fear or disliking the animal. Usually it was out of anger/prejudice. These aren't sadists. In a sample of inmates, ones who admitted to animal abuse did it for fun, imitation or out of anger. Sadism is defined as "the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others." This isn't sadism. Sadists don't do it out of anger or for fun/amusement. They simply want to watch one suffer for pleasure, especially sexual pleasure.
FINAL ARGUMENT: Animals don't do anything wrong. They have nothing to do with our problems and don't do anything.
While animals don't do anything to you personally they do shit to each other. They kill each other off and they have mating competition. Some might have more mating success than others. We'd be incels or nearcels at least in the animal kingdom. In fact, many animals DO have foreplay and oral sex and have non-reproductive sex for pleasure. Many animals masturbate too. Don't believe me? Look it up. Inceldom could exist to an extent among animals for all one knows.
TLDR:
If you kill humans, you cannot stop at animals due to morals unless you have another more understandable reason that doesn't pertain to morals. If you have violent hatred towards animal abusers, you shouldn't react any differently towards human abusers. For example, I remember some child who deliberately closed the door on a cat's tail and everyone online, despite him being a prepubescent kid, threatened to murder him and doxxed him and praised his sister when she tied up, duct-taped mouth shut him and beat him. They probably WERE serious when they wished death on him. I know for sure everyone would've celebrated if the kid was murdered. Killing someone is way worse than what he did, but apparently this is somehow much worse because animals are adorable and thus it's even worse.
Humans don't think animal abuse is worse because animals are defenseless innocent creatures, they aren't. I could use the same incorrect logic for bugs yet nobody cares about us killing bugs because we think animals are adorable but think bugs look scary and yucky. that's why people hate animal abusers so much: they think animals are adorable but bugs look gross/ugly.
The first guy tagged always freaks out about animals being killed and videos of them being killed posted on here (which i never see on this forum FYI) but humans being killed or attacked in videos on this forum is somehow ok. People will literally freak the fuck out if you attack an animal but attack a human (unless it's women and children) and everyone shrugs. The humans on this forum, for example, might, from time to time, condone beating someone up or in some cases even killing someone if they're mad, but bring up shit like animal abuse and these same humans go all normie mode and start freaking out.
If you attack humans but refuse to attack animals, unless it's because you only hate humans rather than viewing animal abuse as more immoral, you're a hypocrite. YOU DO NOT HAVE MORALS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. Killing animals is NOT worse than killing humans.
FIRST ARGUMENT THESE HUMANS USE: But animals are innocent and they don't do anything
This is FALSE. People solely believe this because animals cannot talk and look adorable. ANIMALS ARE NOT INNOCENT IN THE SLIGHTEST.
In fact, animals DO know right from wrong and DO have morals. Although the vast majority of their behavior was prosocial or positive and aggression or violence was rare, this still wasn't universal. In fact, animals CAN do immoral things. Rape is found in many species, and animals have raped each other. Even child abuse happens in other species. Animals often start rival wars and kill each other, and even chimps have as much of a homicide rate as humans. Many species do it even more than humans by killing their own species.
Animals DO have morals and know right from wrong and you can't assume otherwise because they don't talk. Many will maul you on sight even if you do nothing wrong.
Argument 2: animals are vulnerable or you're a coward if you hurt them
This is bullshit. Unless you have a weapon many animals aren't vulnerable and maul you on sight. And you can't argue it's wrong because they're vulnerable. Many humans are vulnerable too. Even grown men. If you're a man attacking another man he could be smaller than you yet nobody will care if you attack a guy smaller than you yet they freak out if you mildly hit a woman's face. In fact, nobody cares if I use guns on a muscular man or ambush him. In that case, he IS vulnerable. If you are a small scrawny nerd and you use a gun on a big muscular guy HE IS THE VULNERABLE ONE. He's 100% vulnerable. He moves any muscle, he dies. In fact, smaller people can easily overpower bigger people by using weapons and objects to compensate for size differences. You can also ambush them which also makes them completely vulnerable. A person doesn't have to be physically vulnerable to be easy to attack. Circumstantial vulnerability is just as common if not more. How is using a gun on a big muscular guy worse than using it on a fuckin bear who is way more physically powerful than a big muscular guy.
And many animal abusers aren't afraid to attack humans. Many do. In fact, its quite common. Many of them often commit a lot of violence or serious crime, including against other humans. There's a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. They aren't cowards. They're just generally vicious criminals.
Argument 3: animal abusers are sadists
no. they aren't doing it for sadism. In a study of undergrad students, they found 55% committed animal abuse at least once. They usually did it out of anger/prejudice, amusement/fun, or fear or disliking the animal. Usually it was out of anger/prejudice. These aren't sadists. In a sample of inmates, ones who admitted to animal abuse did it for fun, imitation or out of anger. Sadism is defined as "the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others." This isn't sadism. Sadists don't do it out of anger or for fun/amusement. They simply want to watch one suffer for pleasure, especially sexual pleasure.
FINAL ARGUMENT: Animals don't do anything wrong. They have nothing to do with our problems and don't do anything.
While animals don't do anything to you personally they do shit to each other. They kill each other off and they have mating competition. Some might have more mating success than others. We'd be incels or nearcels at least in the animal kingdom. In fact, many animals DO have foreplay and oral sex and have non-reproductive sex for pleasure. Many animals masturbate too. Don't believe me? Look it up. Inceldom could exist to an extent among animals for all one knows.
TLDR:
If you kill humans, you cannot stop at animals due to morals unless you have another more understandable reason that doesn't pertain to morals. If you have violent hatred towards animal abusers, you shouldn't react any differently towards human abusers. For example, I remember some child who deliberately closed the door on a cat's tail and everyone online, despite him being a prepubescent kid, threatened to murder him and doxxed him and praised his sister when she tied up, duct-taped mouth shut him and beat him. They probably WERE serious when they wished death on him. I know for sure everyone would've celebrated if the kid was murdered. Killing someone is way worse than what he did, but apparently this is somehow much worse because animals are adorable and thus it's even worse.
Humans don't think animal abuse is worse because animals are defenseless innocent creatures, they aren't. I could use the same incorrect logic for bugs yet nobody cares about us killing bugs because we think animals are adorable but think bugs look scary and yucky. that's why people hate animal abusers so much: they think animals are adorable but bugs look gross/ugly.
Last edited:
