PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
...I don't really think 'volunteering' at an animal shelter would be a suitable punishment for someone that deliberately ran over baby ducks.
Aikouka
Lifer
- Nov 27, 2001
- 30,383
- 912
- 126
Maybe because I'm not some bleeding hearted hippy who sees it as a big deal? Yeah, I think it's cruel to do, but fining someone a $1000 for it? Fucking retarded. Especially when you have the idiots here talking about an eye for an eye... for running over a fucking duck.
Are you going to make me sit in a road because I ran over a squirrel once?
EDIT:
You can also add in the fact that ducks aren't even fucking close to being endangered... it's not like there was truly a crime committed. Being a cruel person, sure, but a fucking crime? Damn hippies.
dbk
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2004
- 17,685
- 10
- 81
So what's your point? Tell the guy please don't swerve around people and run over animals so you can get your kicks again? Although I will say anyone who does that has some serious issues and I doubt any monetary fine is going to change what kind of person they are.
NaOH
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2006
- 5,015
- 0
- 0
It is a crime, just as you can't go around shooting random birds with a BB gun. It would be different if this was an ACCIDENT. Seeing as how he pleaded guilty, i doubt he was able to prove that it was indeed an accident.
Hitting an animal and killing it on accident is one thing. Purposely running over BABY ducks is another.
I don't know what the argument here is but:
A: I believe animal cruelty is a crime.
B: It's not ok to intentionally kill animals just because they're not endangered.
So what you said there made no sense at all.
Aikouka
Lifer
- Nov 27, 2001
- 30,383
- 912
- 126
Now please...you don't seriously think that he ran over the ducks to actually run over the ducks? Any sane person would believe he was simply some impatient 20 year old that didn't want to wait and didn't give a shit that there were ducks in the way. Or perhaps didn't even notice the ducks and simply got impatient waiting behind some stopped people with no idea of why? I can't say for sure because the lame excuse for an article is only about 4 sentences long.
Doesn't make sense to you, but to me for someone who doesn't give a shit if a couple ducklings die... yeah, makes perfect sense. Like I said... it's a little cruel, but I'll get over the world having a couple less fucking ducks in it. Would I do what he did? No, I don't get off on killing animals and in fact am a big softy to cute, cuddly things, but I still don't see it as a big deal at all. I would say force the community service and forgo the fine if you wish to punish him.
What always bothers me about threads like this is when the idiots say shit like "tie him in a road and let people run over him." If anything's sick and twisted, their idea of justice is fucking wrong. But I guess I'm a sensible person that doesn't compare the life of a duck to the life of a human?
EDIT:
And the endangered thing comes from the idea of how a couple ducklings don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If they were endangered, then it'd be a much more serious thing as as humans, we've been trying to curb our threat to wildlife and keep creatures from going the way of the dodo (I kinda wish I had a pet dodo, that'd be cool). Also, to me, animal cruelty would be someone purposely trying to inflict harm to them. I see this as an illegal driving maneuver results in animal fatalities. Like the kids in the second article intended to hurt the animal... that was their intent. To me, the two are distinctly different as one's more of a side effect.
NaOH
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2006
- 5,015
- 0
- 0
There's the flaw in your logic. What you "believe" does not equal what is moral and what is not. A typical person who has compassion and EMPATHY does not needlessly kill animals. A person who beats on their dog needlessly may think it's okay because seriously who gives a fuck? It's just a dog. But they lack something very important called EMPATHY. What makes us humans (i am implying mature people) more superior is that we are able to discern between what is right, wrong and everything in between.
Someone that is operating a motor vehicle should be able to apply these skills to their driving. This guy did not. Even if he was impatient, you think it's okay for someone go around cars and to run over a living animal because of it? I'd love to hear your argument to be used in ANY court room. You can argue over whatever circumstances you want to assume he was in. But the FACT is that he pleaded guilty because he had no other defense.
Also, him doing the illegal manuever and "accidently" killing an animal does not get him off the hook for killing the animal. For starters, it was an illegal maneuver. Secondly, he was not in any danger to have needed to do said maneuver in the first place. Sounds to me like an impatient teenage brat driver.
palswim
Golden Member
Finally, another person who thought this guy might just have lost his patience and tried to pass all of the cars that had stopped ahead of him for no apparent reason (and not have seen the ducks until too late or not at all). He can still plead guilty for that.
For some reason, I can't picture the guy thinking "I really want to play Duck Hunt, but I'm stuck here in my car. Poor, poor me. What shall I... Oh, excellent!"
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
my guess is he got frustrated by people stopped in front of him in parking lot, didn't know why (couldn't see ducks) and swerved around blindly to pass, creaming the ducks.
no excuse for it, as most sane people realize that people stop tend to stop for a reason. Hell, I can't mention how many times when driving through the city, I'm stopped at a crosswalk with someone walking directly in front of my car and some POS sits behind me blaring their horn. They'd prefer I just nail the pedestrian so they can get on with their precious lives?
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
Such callous disregard for life is a well-documented and understood trait for far more heinous actions. Most serial killers begin their lives torturing animals, for example.
He's being punished in an attempt to instill in him that his actions are incredibly inappropriate.
hmmm....perhaps you need to talk to someone?
Aikouka
Lifer
- Nov 27, 2001
- 30,383
- 912
- 126
The flaw in your logic is someone beating on a dog is doing it to beat on the dog. Like I said, nothing said that he ran over them for the pure sake of running them over. I do not believe he did (nor is there anything in the "blurb" to prove me wrong). See, you need to look at it this way... his actions are not good, but if they were not for the pure sake of inflicting harm on them, they're different from someone who literally does it for the sake of doing it. A guy hitting his dog because he wants to hit his dog is different than a guy that ends up running over an animal because he was impatient. One person's a sick fuck that shouldn't own a dog and the other should probably get some patience and not be a douche.
What is right and wrong is purely dependent on the person in question, which is quite obvious here as my idea is different than yours (although I don't think they're quite different). To me, running over a duck isn't the right thing to do, but I don't think it's severe enough to then tie the person to a road and have people run them over. I think that's what we call sadistic and the fact that we're... well not all of us... that stupid is what separates us from heathens. I do think the second example is far worse and is comparable to your example of beating a dog for the sake of doing so.
Yes, he has no defense... because you can't make a defense when you performed an illegal driving maneuver and then didn't stop. You could more than likely replace all the ducklings he killed from a store for less than $20 (seen 'em before in stores, they're not expensive
), yet it's a $1000 fine... I thought we like to say here that deterrence doesn't work? Like I mentioned above... pushing the community service to an animal farm/shelter thing would be a far more suitable punishment or anything if you want him to "give back from whence he took."Also, don't even get me started on emotions and empathy.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
Birds have very long lifespans. Many larger birds can live well into their 90s in captivity
There's a story about a Blue Macaw that was supposedly once owned by Winston Churchill. The Macaw still lives; the elderly son of Churchill's former butler makes the claims that it belonged to the Prime Minister.
The most convincing evidence, besides the age (damn bird's feathers are falling out everywhere) is its tendency to randomly spout anti-nazi diatribes.
brb....
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
Originally posted by: Aikouka
The flaw in your logic is someone beating on a dog is doing it to beat on the dog. Like I said, nothing said that he ran over them for the pure sake of running them over. I do not believe he did (nor is there anything in the "blurb" to prove me wrong). See, you need to look at it this way... his actions are not good, but if they were not for the pure sake of inflicting harm on them, they're different from someone who literally does it for the sake of doing it. A guy hitting his dog because he wants to hit his dog is different than a guy that ends up running over an animal because he was impatient. One person's a sick fuck that shouldn't own a dog and the other should probably get some patience and not be a douche.
What is right and wrong is purely dependent on the person in question, which is quite obvious here as my idea is different than yours (although I don't think they're quite different). To me, running over a duck isn't the right thing to do, but I don't think it's severe enough to then tie the person to a road and have people run them over. I think that's what we call sadistic and the fact that we're... well not all of us... that stupid is what separates us from heathens. I do think the second example is far worse and is comparable to your example of beating a dog for the sake of doing so.
Yes, he has no defense... because you can't make a defense when you performed an illegal driving maneuver and then didn't stop. You could more than likely replace all the ducklings he killed from a store for less than $20 (seen 'em before in stores, they're not expensive
Also, don't even get me started on emotions and empathy.
except that the person who "runs over an animal simply b/c they're impatient" is no different than the person who "beats their dog b/c they want too."
I don't see how you can logically differentiate the two personalities--it baffles the mind.
Seek help there, little rebel.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3414323.stm
ah, so apparently most historians feel it isn't Churchill's bird; but I don't see anything wrong with a 104 year-old Nazi-hating bird
I saw elsewhere that Churchill did own an African Grey, the smartest bird out there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter