Is it okay for a moderator to insult rural communities with their rude and absurd assumptions?

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.

Let's not all rush in at once and flood the boards; I'd rather not see the servers crash, and honestly, it'll be impossible to keep up with everyone if you do...

Let's not play dumb here. While I won't say everyone, I’d bet most people who don't mind—or worse, actually get a kick out of—slaughtering livestock would find their moral compass toward killing a person significantly... shall we say, loosened. They just need a nudge. Some misplaced rage against someone from the "wrong" background, religion, or nationality, I suppose. Or maybe just some plain old vengeance.

It's true, hearing stuff like this is genuinely unsettling.

Maybe it's Deliverance's fault. 🤷

Andy clearly hasn't the slightest clue what kosher or halal food even entails, which makes him either completely clueless or just plain malicious in this instance. 😁
I’d love to invite him down to Chicago so he can see for himself that we’re actually perfectly decent folks who wouldn't dream of hurting anyone—let alone a child—unless, of course, he happens to stumble upon that bottle we spotted earlier this morning.

We’re still waiting on an official statement from the Progressive Party (I think Friscic is drafting it). 😬

Just as a heads-up, ever since the Animal Welfare Act kicked in back in early 2007, you aren't allowed to just slaughter pigs without stunning them first (per Article 17, Section 1 and Article 19, Section 3). If you break the rules, fines can run anywhere from $10,000 up to $5.00.

Pigs are sentient, sensitive creatures with intelligence levels comparable to a dog's. When they're slaughtered without being stunned, their throats are cut and they're left to bleed out while they're still fully conscious. With a nervous system almost identical to our own, pigs experience the knife and the resulting intense pain just as acutely as a human would. Once we become indifferent to the suffering of another living being and lose respect for animal life, we ultimately lose respect for human life itself.

Anyway, here’s how things actually go down on my grandad's farm:



Everything is perfectly fine and strictly follows all those European Union regulations.

@Endimion17

American farmers are expecting a formal apology. 😁

To quote from another one of my own threads:

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Not everyone is capable of killing animals in the woods—and even fewer would think it’s okay to take a photo with a dead animal just as a souvenir.

Brilliant. 😬

I suppose I should ask—is a moderator allowed to have an opinion? And I don't mean this is strictly about current rural populations, but rather about the legitimate thesis that there might be a connection between certain rural habits, impulses, or worldviews and a certain lack of sensitivity toward others' space, integrity, or life. Of course, that doesn't mean urban environments—as a construct—don't have their own version of "psychopathology." I find the points Endymion makes quite understandable, even if we can easily poke fun at both extremes—say, the "wild man" archetype versus the "urban hipster" type. The issue is that something which feels intimate or extreme to some people can, in certain ways, enter the cultural mainstream and effectively "mask" the raw process itself. It seems perfectly reasonable to wonder what drives that process on an individual level, or what keeps a particular ritual or custom alive. Furthermore, it's worth considering how much of those rural principles are actually transferred into high-functioning urban patterns or specific scenarios, such as war.

While it may be true that the actual execution of harmful acts is more prevalent among rural populations, the far grimmer reality is that the intellectual core of this negativity—which we often unfairly blame on those living in the countryside—almost always resides within urban centers, among the so-called "elite." These individuals trigger the chain reaction of malice, yet they rarely provide the opportunity for those in rural areas to vent their frustrations...
Essentially, the urbanite sacrifices the rural worker to handle the dirty work ordered by the city, only to turn around and claim that such negativity is simply part of the rural person's nature, while the true corruption remains hidden on the other side. 👎
Ultimately, those who live alongside living creatures—domestic animals, farming, witnessing the cycle of new life through plants, livestock, or poultry—possess a much greater capacity for empathy toward all living things than those who are raised amidst the cold indifference of concrete and steel, people who wouldn't even recognize a cow if they saw one. ☕

I honestly thought the admins moderating this subforum had gone MIA, so I was being patient and just waiting things out. But now I see that Smart_bitch and hollowtrucker77 are actually active, yet I still haven't seen a single response. I have to ask—what am I supposed to make of that?
I asked a specific question and filed a formal report that, in my opinion, is more than justified, and then... nothing. Absolutely nothing.
At the very least, you could have just said: hiddensailor14, you're being a nuisance, I'm locking this thread so please just GTFO.
A little bit of consistency wouldn't hurt.
If I, or any other user, had posted something like: Black people are less intelligent than white people, the moderation team would have slapped me with a red card worth at least 100 points—probably closer to 500—though I wouldn't be able to redeem that coupon at my local Walmart.
And yet, here we are, looking at a statement that is, to paraphrase, much more benign: Is rural populations committing greater atrocities in war than the racial outburst mentioned above?
Who exactly is the sane one here!?👎

hollowtrucker77 said:Alright, alright, my bad for being MIA for a bit.
Aside from real life getting in the way, I just needed some actual time to digest everything and wrap my head around the context here.
Now that I’ve finally finished chewing through the whole thing, I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
It’s just basic logic, really—someone who's been desensitized is obviously going to find it much easier to go through with the slaughter than someone who nearly faints at the mere sight of blood.
And look, if you actually view suffering as a bad thing, you're naturally going to have a stronger moral compass than someone who treats it like a hobby or, you know, a standard Tuesday.
These are just scientific facts, and I fail to see where Mod went wrong, other than the fact that his writing style clearly rubs some people the wrong way.

Is it scientifically proven that people who slaughter their own pigs view it as fun—or even just normal—and therefore find it easier to kill a person during a war?

Then we should probably ban surgeons from participating in wars. I mean, they spend every single day cutting into meat, so under the stress of combat, they might just totally snap. Like, you say "good morning" to them, and the surgeon accidentally slices your ear off. Seriously, get outta here, you psycho surgeon, go slice your ear off at home for your mom and dad instead.

Tyler Bishop56 said:Is it scientifically proven that people who slaughter their own pigs view it as fun—or even just normal—and therefore find it easier to kill a person during a war?

Then we should probably ban surgeons from participating in wars. I mean, they spend every single day cutting into meat, so under the stress of combat, they might just totally snap. Like, you say "good morning" to them, and the surgeon accidentally slices your ear off. Seriously, get outta here, you psycho surgeon, go slice your ear off at home for your mom and dad instead.

Yeah, sure, because a surgeon is definitely better equipped to handle blood and will obviously react much more calmly to pain and suffering than someone like Steve the cashier, who spends her shift snacking on expired frozen appetizers she swiped from the breakroom.

It’s pretty obvious and logical, so there really isn't any need for this kind of infantile mockery.

Oh man, you really managed to get yourself all worked up over this... you don't even realize how much...🤣
Quote:>>

hollowtrucker77 says: >> I mean, yeah, it’s probably a lot easier for a surgeon to look at blood without flinching than it is for someone like Steve, the cashier who spends her shifts snacking on expired frozen appetizers she swiped from the aisles.

Well, Steve sees enough blood once a month, if nothing else!😬
Quote:>>

hollowtrucker77 says: >> That’s pretty straightforward and logical, so there’s really no need for any childish trolling.

Honestly, that makes zero sense. By that same ridiculous logic, women would be mass offenders just because we see plenty of blood!
Good grief!
😢>
The connection between slaughtering animals and being okay with human suffering isn't nearly as direct as you're trying to make it out to be.
😬

hollowtrucker77 said:Alright, alright, my bad for being MIA for a bit.
Aside from real life getting in the way, I just needed some actual time to digest everything and wrap my head around the context here.
Now that I’ve finally finished chewing through the whole thing, I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
It’s just basic logic, really—someone who's been desensitized is obviously going to find it much easier to go through with the slaughter than someone who nearly faints at the mere sight of blood.
And look, if you actually view suffering as a bad thing, you're naturally going to have a stronger moral compass than someone who treats it like a hobby or, you know, a standard Tuesday.
These are just scientific facts, and I fail to see where Mod went wrong, other than the fact that his writing style clearly rubs some people the wrong way.

I mean, honestly, if someone’s going to make such an obnoxious claim in those controversial posts by Endymion, they really ought to have some actual data to back it up, rather than just relying on their own gut feeling or whatever instinct they think they have, because we all know what most of that is actually based on in most cases. It's just pure bullshit, I guess.

Honestly, it’s just an embarrassment, I guess.😢

So, I was just sitting here wondering... did some hillbilly types from out of town beat up Luka Ritz, or was it more like those aggressive city punks? I guess it’s hard to say with these kinds of fights, maybe.

well, let's be honest, women have actually proven to be far more ruthless than men when it comes to warfare
😁

go ahead and hand a hunting knife to some high school kid from a suburb like Chicago and watch how people react
then, just for the sake of comparison, give that same blade to a kid raised out in the rural Midwest, where that kind of thing is just part of the scenery

once you take your notes on those two scenarios, I don't think there will be any doubt left about who's tougher

Rebecca Martinez4 said:I mean, honestly, if someone’s going to make such an obnoxious claim in those controversial posts by Endymion, they really ought to have some actual data to back it up, rather than just relying on their own gut feeling or whatever instinct they think they have, because we all know what most of that is actually based on in most cases. It's just pure bullshit, I guess.

Honestly, it’s just an embarrassment, I guess.😢

So, I was just sitting here wondering... did some hillbilly types from out of town beat up Luka Ritz, or was it more like those aggressive city punks? I guess it’s hard to say with these kinds of fights, maybe.

Look, there’s a massive difference between just getting into a scrap and what happened in Cologne—it’s a whole different beast entirely.
Statistically speaking, the percentage of people who actually have the stomach to take a life without having gone through some kind of rigorous training or psychological conditioning is basically zero. It’s a negligible number, really. Most folks just aren't built that way naturally.

hollowtrucker77 said:well, let's be honest, women have actually proven to be far more ruthless than men when it comes to warfare
😁

go ahead and hand a hunting knife to some high school kid from a suburb like Chicago and watch how people react
then, just for the sake of comparison, give that same blade to a kid raised out in the rural Midwest, where that kind of thing is just part of the scenery

once you take your notes on those two scenarios, I don't think there will be any doubt left about who's tougher

Wait, aren't you the same person who was literally just one post ago arguing that we should stop all this infantile nonsense?😍
And honestly, I almost found myself agreeing with you! I actually thought to myself, "No way, if I agree, people will think I'm just sucking up to you." Oh, the struggle is real!🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:well, let's be honest, women have actually proven to be far more ruthless than men when it comes to warfare
😁

go ahead and hand a hunting knife to some high school kid from a suburb like Chicago and watch how people react
then, just for the sake of comparison, give that same blade to a kid raised out in the rural Midwest, where that kind of thing is just part of the scenery

once you take your notes on those two scenarios, I don't think there will be any doubt left about who's tougher

:jadranka:
Looking at my own little mental notebook, I remember kids back in my hometown (mostly boys, if we're playing by those rules) used to play these games where they’d use bread, crates, sticks, or even old floorboards to trap pigeons just to clip their claws or legs.
They also used to toss cats off apartment buildings or skyscrapers just to see if they’d always land on their feet. And all sorts of things like that.
On the flip side, back in my grandma’s rural town, there weren't many pigeons around, but every single chicken had its legs! As for cats, I might have seen someone give one a kick once, which isn't exactly something to brag about, but at least the poor thing stayed alive.
So, based on my own little records, I’m still just as confused as ever.

People have tried to argue that there is a massive distinction between murder and slaughtering livestock, claiming it's obvious to everyone regardless of how much of a hillbilly someone might be.

hollowtrucker77 said:Yeah, sure, because a surgeon is definitely better equipped to handle blood and will obviously react much more calmly to pain and suffering than someone like Steve the cashier, who spends her shift snacking on expired frozen appetizers she swiped from the breakroom.

It’s pretty obvious and logical, so there really isn't any need for this kind of infantile mockery.

But sir, my infantile mockery is a matter of personal choice—it's perfectly legal and moral—whereas for a moderator, that shouldn't exactly be the case.

Honestly, I don't care one bit if the lady waiting in line for bread next to me is an idiot. I care a little more if the cashier is an idiot, because I'll inevitably have to deal with her since I don't steal from stores anymore. And I care quite a lot if the President is an idiot.

hollowtrucker77 said:well, let's be honest, women have actually proven to be far more ruthless than men when it comes to warfare
😁

go ahead and hand a hunting knife to some high school kid from a suburb like Chicago and watch how people react
then, just for the sake of comparison, give that same blade to a kid raised out in the rural Midwest, where that kind of thing is just part of the scenery

once you take your notes on those two scenarios, I don't think there will be any doubt left about who's tougher

Fine. Let's assume that conclusion is logically sound. In that case, professional butchers should probably wear aprons and handcuffs, because they kill things daily, and it's just a matter of time before someone pulls a massacre on a subway train.

The CEO of a poultry plant deserves to have his tongue pulled out, because the second he opens his mouth, he starts spreading genocidal ideas.

And hunters? Cut off their hands and fingers. Just to be safe.

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, there’s a massive difference between just getting into a scrap and what happened in Cologne—it’s a whole different beast entirely.
Statistically speaking, the percentage of people who actually have the stomach to take a life without having gone through some kind of rigorous training or psychological conditioning is basically zero. It’s a negligible number, really. Most folks just aren't built that way naturally.

That "training" can basically be anything. Watching the news on TV is its own kind of training. Actually, in certain moments, in certain countries, it's a very intense form of training.

And here you are, attacking pig farmers with your black-and-white rhetoric. You guys love your blood sausages, don't you? Typical...

Attacking a pig slaughter? Seriously?
Not in a million years!!!
Look, as a self-proclaimed devotee of sausages, liver, and all those other delicacies made from freshly processed livestock, I wouldn't dream of even whispering a word against the butcher's craft in my wildest dreams.
But at the same time, I’m fully aware of that empathetic side of my psyche—that part where it isn't exactly easy to drive a knife home, listen to those final death rattles, and watch the blood start to pool.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that some city kid, someone who has probably never even been close to actual death, would witness this and immediately join the Green Party just to escape the trauma; it would easily be the most harrowing experience of their entire lives.
On the flip side, you have kids raised out in the rural Heartland, where raising and processing animals is just a completely normal, everyday part of life, and they’re probably actually feeling pretty proud of their very first bloody experience.

hollowtrucker77 said:Attacking a pig slaughter? Seriously?
Not in a million years!!!
Look, as a self-proclaimed devotee of sausages, liver, and all those other delicacies made from freshly processed livestock, I wouldn't dream of even whispering a word against the butcher's craft in my wildest dreams.
But at the same time, I’m fully aware of that empathetic side of my psyche—that part where it isn't exactly easy to drive a knife home, listen to those final death rattles, and watch the blood start to pool.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say that some city kid, someone who has probably never even been close to actual death, would witness this and immediately join the Green Party just to escape the trauma; it would easily be the most harrowing experience of their entire lives.
On the flip side, you have kids raised out in the rural Heartland, where raising and processing animals is just a completely normal, everyday part of life, and they’re probably actually feeling pretty proud of their very first bloody experience.

Sorry, but I don't see any real difference between a sausage lover who slaughters their own pig and a meat lover who supports big agribusiness. At the end of the day, everyone just wants to eat meat; the executioners don't really matter. If we didn't have them, we'd all figure out how to butcher pretty fast anyway.

Also, I feel like being a war criminal depends on way more important things than whether we've ever killed an animal—like, did our moms love us, were we bullied in preschool, did we have a healthy sex life, did we lack attention growing up, or did we eat enough peanuts in our lifetime.

So, Andy should probably apologize to the farmers. Unless he was just trolling, but then again, it's not cool to troll when you're acting as a moderator. Personally, I wouldn't let myself do that. Being a mod and all.

I honestly can't even begin to wrap my head around how some people manage to navigate a single day without completely losing their grip on reality, but here we are, staring down the barrel of yet another instance of pure, unadulterated nonsense being treated like gospel. It’s funny, really, in a deeply cynical sort of way, how we collectively decide to ignore the obvious just because the alternative requires actually using a brain cell or two, which, let's face it, is asking a lot from most of the folks scrolling through these threads. You see it everywhere, this desperate need to cling to a narrative that falls apart the second you apply even a shred of common sense, and yet everyone acts like they've discovered fire when they're really just playing with matches in a dry forest. It’s exhausting, watching the same tired arguments cycle through like a bad sitcom that should have been canceled three seasons ago, but I suppose that's just the modern American experience for you—constant noise, zero substance, and a whole lot of people shouting into the void while pretending they aren't just echoing what they heard on some half-baked news segment. kaže:
Look, I’m going to be honest here, because I really don't see any meaningful distinction between the guy who insists on slaughtering his own pig in the backyard just to feel close to the source, and the person who happily buys their steak from a massive industrial meat conglomerate. At the end of the day, the fundamental motivation is identical: they both want to eat meat, and frankly, the person pulling the trigger doesn't change that reality. If you take away the professional butchers, we aren't some enlightened species that suddenly loses its appetite; we’d all just figure out how to do the killing ourselves pretty damn fast.

I honestly feel like if we’re going to sit around labeling someone a war criminal, there are a whole lot of more pressing life details we should probably be looking at first—things that actually carry weight, you know? It seems a bit much to focus on whether or not someone ever slaughtered an animal, when we could be discussing far more consequential stuff, like whether their mother actually loved them, or if they were getting bullied back in kindergarten, or even just whether they had a fulfilling romantic life. I mean, does it really matter if you've lacked attention growing up, or if you didn't eat quite enough peanut butter in your lifetime, when compared to the actual gravity of the crimes being discussed? It all feels a bit misplaced.

Honestly, Andy really owes those folks an apology. I mean, unless he was just trolling the whole time, which would be even worse because you shouldn't be pulling stunts like that when you're holding down a moderator position. Personally, I could never live with myself if I did something like that; being a moderator comes with a certain level of responsibility that he clearly just ignored.

Look, if you’re asking whether being a war criminal matters, the answer is obviously no. It doesn't matter at all.
Look, at the end of the day, what really matters isn't just the act itself, but the specific nature of the crime—you know, the actual methodology used to pull it off.
There’s a massive difference between just pulling a trigger and actually getting your hands dirty, picking up a blade, and doing the real work. One thing is easy enough, but having the stomach to look someone in the eye and handle business that way? That’s a whole different level of grit, and honestly, most people just don't have it in them.