Controversial... post It’s right here in the thread...
Luka Dončić—president of the animal rights group...... on the subforum...
the world around me....
And he’s actually a moderator, too...
Endymion17 Just based on their own personal biases...
Endymion17 said:I don't have any specific studies to point to right now, but there’s definitely some logic to it...
The conclusions being drawn here feel like a direct shot at people like me... someone living out in the rural parts of the country. It’s honestly pretty insulting to anyone who calls the countryside home...😠
Endymion17 said:Let’s not play dumb here. It won't be everyone, obviously, but I’d venture to say that most people who don't mind—or worse, actually find some twisted satisfaction in slaughtering livestock—will have a significantly diminished sense of revulsion toward the idea of killing a human being. They just need a catalyst. Maybe it's a sudden surge of rage against someone from the "wrong" background, religion, or ethnicity... or perhaps it's just plain old-fashioned revenge...
Not only did he get it completely wrong...
The root causes... I think I might have missed something there... or maybe I just hit send too early. If you were trying to say something, feel free to try again. I'm listening...
purpose... Instead of just wondering why everyone seems to be in such high spirits during a backyard BBQ—you know, from the moment the grill gets fired up to that final spread of food that serves as an unwritten rule for a perfect evening—Endymion17 has managed to jump to some truly wild conclusions, much to his own embarrassment...👎 And my utter disgust...🤮 And then they actually have the nerve to link them to the absolute lowest, most disgraceful depths of human behavior...
Rural populations are more than capable of committing severe human rights violations, war crimes, and...
It happens way more often than you'd think... ...from the urban population.
Endymion17 said:To make matters worse, you have to look at the horrific events surrounding the American Civil War. Generally speaking, things became much more gruesome whenever there was a higher involvement of rural aggressors—it didn't really matter if they were Americans, Mexicans, or some other group entirely... On American soil, the most appalling atrocities tended to happen in those small towns scattered across California and the Midwest, unless you count the rural criminals operating out of urban prisons.
Even if we assume it’s true that some of the worst atrocities took place out in the rural stretches of California or the Midwest, you can't jump to the conclusion that the soldiers fighting in those areas were mostly just farm kids...
I’d love to see some actual evidence to back up that first sentence. Otherwise, we're just looking at another baseless prejudice—the kind of thing that only serves to reinforce insults without any foundation. Honestly, given how educated you've proven yourself to be so far, Endymion17, I wouldn't expect you to let something like this slide...
Now Endymion17 is starting to lose the plot, getting all granular about the distinctions between shooting or poisoning someone versus using a knife. Why? Honestly, I haven't a clue... maybe he's just trying to argue that slaughtering a pig at a farm is basically the same as killing a man with a blade during the American Civil War.😕🤷 He claims that stabbing someone is inherently sadistic, which feels like just another bias from someone who knows about military combat about as much as they know about running a livestock ranch.
Most people shot or poisoned don't even die instantly.
Endymion17 said:A more civilized person, if they happen to be a malicious bastard, will opt to shoot or poison someone; whereas a less civilized individual will indulge in much harsher entertainment, which involves torture and killing with cold weapons. Slaughtering someone is far more intimate than poisoning them. You have to listen to the victim gasp and choke on their own blood, feeling their muscles tighten and seeing them shake from pure terror and pain. It’s pure sadism.
I didn't quite catch the point of that penultimate paragraph, so I'd appreciate some clarification. Are we saying pigs shouldn't be slaughtered because their "primitive" brain functions are identical to ours!?😕
Endymion17 said:The difference between a pig and a human is simply that when we look at a person, most of us see an individual—but those are primarily higher brain functions. Beneath those lie the functions responsible for more primitive thoughts, and there really isn't any difference there.
So the idea isn't entirely without merit.
The premise is incredibly discriminatory and built on nothing more than some unproven
logic. I find it shameful and a crude insult, so I’m requesting that the other moderators and admins take a look at this.
If they decide I'm right, I ask for the author to be sanctioned and for Endymion17 to issue an apology to all the small-town folks on this forum, and to me personally.