im not saying
that torturing animals is OK, but I take issue with the idea that you can pre-emptively judge whether someone will become a serial killer and baby rapist by what they do as a child.
I mean don't try to tell me that you've never stood on a spider..... or killed a wasp. That qualifies according to the broad criteria of killing animals.
Most of what everyone has said so far about this (basically things like "well if he killed a gerbil my 2yr old baby is next") is groundless. Before I would even consider forming such a biased prejudiced opinion on any matter I want to see evidence, and by evidence I don't mean statistics, as 74.345% are made up on the spot, and 49.9% are below average accuracy. The evidence would also need to be specific to a person, not to generalities and prejudices.
I'm not defending (or attacking) anyone, I'm pointing out my perception of the way we are so quick to link things together like this. only today I read an especially brainless article about how internet 'addiction' (/me rolls eyes) and depression were linked.
Some remtard actually said "what we don't know is which comes first - are depressed people drawn to the internet or does the internet cause depression?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8493149.stm)
After reading that, who can say.
I'm tired of this kind of bull. You may aswell say "What we don't know is what comes first - do people with hair breathe, or do people who breathe get hair?"
It tells you nothing other than they fact that this person had an exceptionally wide brush with 2 colours of paint to tar random people with. I mean this could qualify someone who got dumped via facebook.
After all the political correctness bullshit about discrimination, prejudice and racism, we still have people who's occupation it is to lump groups of other people together and then attach labels, and publish their findings.
I'm only sorry that I polluted my mind with this retarded crap.
Sorry for being a bit random and tangent-oriented.
It boils down to this: people are different. Grouping them together only works when you want to have an enemy to fight, or a side to be on.
We don't need a national crackdown on people who were violent towards animals in their childhood (sado-aniphiles?). It doesn't ever seem to be about morality or ethics, just one load of people ganging up on another, with some excuse in between about why the bigger group (isn't it always the bigger one doing the cracking down?) needs to crack down on the smaller group.
As soon as you get into it in detail, it turns out that nobody really fits properly into either group, because the only thing they have in common is that they don't have the thing in common that the smaller group has in common.
If anyone wants to reply and accuse me of being insensitive to children or something, please do. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on why we all need to gang up on ever increasing groups of bogeymen and judge *them* for what *they* did in *their* childhood in order to protect *our* children from *them* because *we* don't like *their* sort around here and they might be murdering baby raping paedophiles!!! ZOMG!!!!!
Again, not defending anyone. But by now I've done a little attacking :)
We claim to have progressed and become more tolerant as a society, but all we've done is traded one set of prejudices for another.
oh but it's ok to beat on PETA, *they* labeled *themselves*
/me hides from flames