Thinki, doing something because it‘s beneficiary is fine. That‘s enough for dogs and all you can expect from them. From humans I expect to understand the reason why. So, if even their parents don‘t get it, then I am not surprised about their kids behaving like that. And if such a kid get‘s killed as an immediate reaction of one of the victims or bystanders, then I am the last one to blame that person. Rather the opposite. I am the first to defend him/her.
PS: Nice side effect from googling that video. YouTube offered me this old scene from the original Law & Order series (my favourite one), with Sam Waterston in it. I had to check twice to realize him. He‘s so young in it, lol. In the episodes I watched he was way older and had heavy grey hair, lol.
yes iam also not surprised either that if their parents didnt get “it” that their kids also dont get “it” (no matter what it is) and that adult dogs or humans that see that will bark with lots of emotion lol
the question remains:
do you really believe kids and dogs that dont get “it” should be given up on and even killed?
or
do you believe kids or infant dogs deserve another chance (or even lots of chances) and can be taught to behave differently?
Dogs always deserve to get another chance, as if they have issues the reason for this issue was manmade. But if they get hurt or even killed by a human who defended himself, then I wouldn‘t held this against that human either. And if the dog owner would complain instead of apologizing and take responsibility for not being able to control the dog, then I don‘t mind to punish him as well, especially if he was the one who caused the dogs issue.
Same about humans attacking other humans. But here, my patience with humans is way shorter, because humans (should) have the intelligence to learn faster and also understand the reason for why their behavior was wrong. If not - to hell with them.
so if i understood correctly you basically believe all humans that attack other humans should be killed because there is no way they can change their behaviour?
except when they act in defense or revenge then its ok to attack other humans and its a justified kill?
No. My punishment for those idiots who attacked those girls would be social work on the weekends for the next 10 years. And if any of their victims or bystanders would have hit them back and that hit would have killed any or all of them, I would call that person a hero and let her/him walk free. Those kids hopefully will use those 10 years of social work to learn to become social and useful eventually. Hence, I would give them a chance.
Defending always means to apply violence, so yes, to „attack“ in defence is legal in any country in the world, as much as I know. If any of the girls or bystanders would have hit the culprits lethally, and assumed they didn‘t do it with the purpose to kill them but to simply stop them instead of letting them a chance to attack again as a horde, then I would consider this still as appropriate. If any of them had a gun and shot at any of them, now that would have been out of proportion.
I am giving them a chance, despite they are idiots. But alone that you blamed the victim for stepping behind the yellow line as well as the security and just view those scumbags as immature, proves how immature and irresponsible you are.
Some dogs and some kids are naturally (possibly genetically, possibly otherwise) predisposed to violence and pose a threat to the group. Their behaviour is not learned and the blame does not lie with their teachers. This threat should be neutralized in both cases.
Yes, you have said this many times. It doesn’t make it true. This is a simplistic world view that denies the facts in obvious evidence. Can you teach a viper not to strike, too, if you just hug it a few times? I encourage you to try.
I agree. We should respect and keep our distance from pit bulls by placing them 6 feet underground. We should respect and keep our distance from violent children by placing them in prisons hundreds of kilometres from cities.
Failed? The Rwandan genocide resulted in the best country in all of Africa. Rwanda is a near-paradise now. I know that fact is inconvenient but it is true. We should also genocide mosquitoes and carp while we’re getting rid of pit bulls.
I actually can’t think of a single genocide in history failing, meaning it resulted in a worse state after the genocide. Obviously it is impossible to compare what the state would have been if different methods had been used, but most states are demonstrably better after genocides, as inconvenient as that fact may be.
lol sure if you compare during genocide and after genocide stopped its always a big improvement thanks to a lot of outside help and care (another +1 evidence)
