The oriental guy wasn't was in any emanate danger, wasn't hubgrey, and went over the top protecting his property. If you were his lawyer and made this argument the judge would ask you for BA test. Your 'what if' scenarios are just idiotic and give FUJI a run for his money for ultimately stupid rants..
Raccoon attack
- Thread starter Worf
- Start date
In other words, you have no point to make.
Your arguments have been all but demolished.
...and over a fucking GARDEN of all things?!!
clearly he has some instability issues of some sort.....a GARDEN!
blackrock and CF already got dibs on the dunce cap.
I have compassion. I apply it appropriately and even handedly. The irony is that doing so often offends hypocrites.
OMG.... Blackrock.... try to keep up!
I know he wasn't hungry.... I know he wasn't in imminent danger. CaptainFantastic suggested that it would be OK if he killed the raccoon with a shovel if the man was hungry. I'm trying to get him to understand the hypocrisy in his words.
Ok, you've answered my earlier question: you really are that obtuse.
If one is starving (not simply "hungry") and has to eat to live and has no other food sources or means of killing, then you do what you gotta do - including clubbing an animal to death. It's called survival. It may be harsh and cruel, but that is what one does to stay alive.
That is entirely different than bludgeoning a nuisance animal because you don't like it digging up your garden.
If that is hypocritical, then so be it. I call it common sense and morality.
The fact that you and your ilk can't differentiate between the two scenarios and seemingly have no sense of right and wrong is frightening, pathetic and morally repugnant.
Shoot, I killed a mouse once (don't call the police or tell my neighbour). Stay away from me when you see me on the street if you value your life. Hee, hee, hee.
And you abandoning raccoons to starve to death is somehow ok and moral?
People can spend 100's of hours looking after a garden, hoping to get something to eat at the end. should this all be abandoned because some raccoons move into the area?
Can guarantee the farmers you like to support are not spending $1000 to relocate raccoons, or any other pests. Basically the farmer, likely the mother who looks after the garden would tell one of the boys to deal with it, and the only question she would ask the boy is, did you get him.
The guy in the Star article does seem cruel, but this story is in the Star, so it will be written to seem he is as cruel as possible.
Keep on dancing, Captain. Here's your original statement: "This man had no interest in eating the raccoons, hunting it in a humane way for sport or protecting the inside of his house" Here, you're not suggesting he needs to be starving. In fact, he doesn't even need to be hungry.... mere sport would make it ok to kill the animal.
And yes, I do believe that is hypocritical because you create this arbitrary line that suits your purposes. So it is really you that has no sense of what's right and what's wrong. You can't say that it's OK to kill a wild animal for the purposes of sport or sustenance (which is what you said) on one hand, and then say that this man should go to jail for killing a wild animal while protecting his garden. And if your argument is that he should go to jail because he is not an effective killer (i.e. he had to use a shovel), then the fisherman who hooks fish by the mouth and then let's them suffocate in a boat for the purpose of sport or sustenance should also go to jail because that is not a very effective way to kill an animal either.
I'm afraid, Captain that it is you that is not using common sense and it is you that has a morality issue as it pertains to the rights of this man who has had criminal charges laid against him.
After reading two pages of this thread, I must say I have never been more repulsed. Some of you are really pathetic.
As pathetic as the guy that thinks that kicking the shit out of a panhandler in front of his building can be equated to beating a raccoon with a shovel?
It was an analogy. I dislike things than annoy or convenience me, but I deal with them appropriately. I do not get violent and start whacking my inconveniences with a shovel. I do not stab them, shoot them or pound them with my fists. If my actions are hypocrisy, well then I am proud to be a hypocrite.
As an example, your stupidity annoys me and as tempting as it would be to drive your head into the wall, I know that is wrong, so I would not do it. Same as I would not punch a panhandler in the face, even though it is tempting as I am sick of being asked for money by the same 3 or 4 people who wait outside my building.
I will block you, so I do not have to read your moronic comments. See? I have solved a problem without violence and without committing a crime. Those of you faced with problems should consider analyzing what it takes to solve the problem or remove it from your life, instead of trashing others with your verbal diarrhea.
Now I am N1ght4wk free.
As an example, your stupidity annoys me and as tempting as it would be to drive your head into the wall, I know that is wrong, so I would not do it. Same as I would not punch a panhandler in the face, even though it is tempting as I am sick of being asked for money by the same 3 or 4 people who wait outside my building.
I will block you, so I do not have to read your moronic comments. See? I have solved a problem without violence and without committing a crime. Those of you faced with problems should consider analyzing what it takes to solve the problem or remove it from your life, instead of trashing others with your verbal diarrhea.
Now I am N1ght4wk free.
Stupid or not, the law is the law and he broke it. A fisherman is not an analogy by any stretch of the imagination. Also, there are indeed laws against overfishing and fishing of certain species like dolphins and I think even whales.
