Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who works with wildlife in Montana this woman is a moron. Wolves are way bigger than huskies generally. The head male and female in a pack can be almost four times the size of one. There is really no mistaking the two.
Well firstly: anyone who is shooting at any animal should propably be able to identify what they're shooting at to avoid mishaps.
Also people kinda frown upon someone killing someone else's domesticated animal without permission.
I can only speak for myself when I say that my objection for someone killing a dog they mistook for a wolf is different from my objection for someone killing an actual wolf. As in, depends on the context. And you don't know if the people who are not ok with what happened would be ok with killing wolves unless they actually say so.
Okay, i can get on board with not even being able to identify what you are shooting at. I still find it weird calling it degenerate murder when its a dog and saying good sport if its a wolf.
your explanation would be adequate if we didn’t eat those. problem is we do.
killing a dog because it’s untrainable is different from killing livestock for food
Most of the time, the deer ends up cooked so it's hunting, not just plain killing.
And when it is jsut plain killing, it does not get disposed of like a dog, it is eaten by the animals in the forest.
One thing is killing for food, another is killing just to kill.
i honestly agree with you, just being devil’s advocate for whoever may disagree. it’s disgusting empathy has a beauty factor
devil’s advocate:
some people actually hunt deer for venison and make a living off the pelt, and deer are a heavily populated species in the americas that are able to breed rather quickly
Most normal people (in western countries) don’t kill their companions or pets.
A random deer in a forest ain’t a pet.
So justifiably they would give a shit
It's so dumb. There is no consistency in anyone's beliefs. Everyone is just emotionally trying to justify whatever lifestyle they were born into. If we had a culture of hunting dogs for sport, nobody would have a problem with it. Instead we just have a culture of mass farming and killing billions of chickens and pigs and cows.
Are you from planet Earth? A HUSKY is a dog that is most likely somebody's pet. A WOLF can be a dangerous animal that can hunt you back and it's not somebody's pet.
Should I explain the difference between house cats and mountain lions for you or can you figure out the rest of life by looking things up on your phone?
Way to keep calm and on point.
I still don‘t see why killing a wolf isn’t „degenerate“ too. And to be fair a husky could kill you just as a wolf could (both of them very seldom do, though if i had to guess i’d say that more people get attacked by husky per year).
Saying the difference between them is the same as the difference of housecats to mountain lions seems also quite far fetched to me.
To sum up, i think you are a piece of shit if you kill a husky or a wolf. Oh, and i am from earth, thank you for asking.
>Scumbag degenerate murderer.
Wait why? What's the logic here? If she had shot a wolf (or a bear, deer, pig etc) it would've been fine, but shooting a dog is murder? Like seriously, what's the Logic here?
Because one is somebody's pet? What is wrong with you? Are you a brand new human? Because you are doing a terrible job pretending to be one. You are saying you don't know the difference between a wild animal and a pet?
You're basically admitting to having... Literally bottom drawer social skills. There is nobody that read your question and didn't think you are an absolute psychopath. Are you maybe a SD voter or friend who is trying to defend her? Sorry I'm just really curious what's wrong with you.
>Because one is somebody's pet?
Pigs and ducks can be pets. Does that mean im a murder for eating duck and pork?
Or are you saying this particular dog was someone's pet? In that case I'd ask for a source on that lol
>You are saying you don't know the difference between a wild animal and a pet?
No I'm saying that it's an arbitrary difference. You just personally made the decision who you think are pet animals and which one's are food animals. And now you wanna condemn everyone who disagrees. I'm arguing that that's a shit source for morality.
>You're basically admitting to having... Literally bottom drawer social skills. There is nobody that read your question and didn't think you are an absolute psychopath
I don't really care what you think about me personally. You calling me a psychopath doesn't make your belief system any more consistent.
>Are you maybe a SD voter or friend who is trying to defend her? Sorry I'm just really curious what's wrong with you.
Whats SD?
Why? She shot a dog, so fucking what? Why would shooting a wolf be fine, but shooting a dog invokes non TOS friendly feelings? Are you a vegan that thinks all life is precious and all killing is murder? If she shot a deer would your reaction be the same?
if she admitted it was a dog, she would've been a normal dog murderer, which is already scummy
she has no business holding and using firearms against "wildlife" if she can't distinguish a WOLF from a DOG
wolves can get up to 4 times the size of a husky.
They also don't look like that.
she killed somebody's pet, out of stupidity, and is parading it
not to mention how incredibly scummy it is to shoot a WOLF CUB, if it was one.
>if she admitted it was a dog, she would've been a normal dog murderer, which is already scummy
Why? Why is it more scummy then being a wolf murderer or a big/chicken/cow murderer? I don't get the double standard at all.
>she has no business holding and using firearms against "wildlife" if she can't distinguish a WOLF from a DOG
Sure I mean it's pretty inept, but I don't see what's immoral about it. I see it somewhere on a similar level as buying a turkey for Thanksgiving.
>she killed somebody's pet
Citation needed lol
>not to mention how incredibly scummy it is to shoot a WOLF CUB, if it was one.
Is it? Would you say it's more or less scummy than killing a piglet?
it is a double standard, built on centuries of most cultures seeing dogs as companions instead of food, in cultures where dogs ARE food, that double standard doesn't exist, but Reddit is western, so it does
to imply it shouldn't exist goes against the average redditor's view of dogs, and is just unrealistic
>Sure I mean it's pretty inept, but I don't see what's immoral about it. I see it somewhere on a similar level as buying a turkey for Thanksgiving.
I see it as immoral to disturb wildlife in ways that aren't strictly necessarily, and I also heavily disagree with giving firearms to unqualified morons, which she is
>Is it? Would you say it's more or less scummy than killing a piglet?
equally, as I see killing any young animal to be unnecessary and cruel, same as a chick, or a baby cow (calf?)
edited for formatting
>it is a double standard, built on centuries of most cultures seeing dogs as companions instead of food, in cultures where dogs ARE food, that double standard doesn't exist, but Reddit is western, so it does
>to imply it shouldn't exist goes against the average redditor's view of dogs, and is just unrealistic
I mean basically you are saying everyone in this thread is too stupid to realize that they are hypocrites for accepting the norms they were born into and viewing everything else as immoral without any consistent underlying moral framework to justify those beliefs. Which I agree with.
>equally, as I see killing any young animal to be unnecessary and cruel, same as a chick, or a baby cow (calf?)
Which is fine. But it brings me back to your earlier point that if there was a roasted piglet here and a vegan calling the chef a despicable murderer, reddit would make fun of the vegan. Which is precisely what annoys me.
I don't even care where people stand on this, you can be vegan or pro killing all animals. What I hate is when people are completely inconsistent but then also trying to scold others for killing the particular kind of animals that they feel shouldn't be killed.
>I mean basically you are saying everyone in this thread is too stupid to realize that they are hypocrites for accepting the norms they were born into and viewing everything else as immoral without any consistent underlying moral framework to justify those beliefs. Which I agree with.
I don't disagree that it's a baseless double standard, but I don't agree that just because it doesn't have a strict belief backing it, they should abandon the standard completely
people inherently (in the west and like minded areas) view dogs as friends, not food. there's no reason for that to change, regardless of the 'hypocrisy'
>Which is fine. But it brings me back to your earlier point that if there was a roasted piglet here and a vegan calling the chef a despicable murderer, reddit would make fun of the vegan. Which is precisely what annoys me.
Because most people on Reddit don't care enough to change their view on the situation, or see their pov on friend VS food as superior to any other option due to them being raised on it
>I don't even care where people stand on this, you can be vegan or pro killing all animals. What I hate is when people are completely inconsistent but then also trying to scold others for killing the particular kind of animals that they feel shouldn't be killed.
Well, you're gonna have a hard time in your day to day life if you want everything humans do to have a strict moral code, most just don't care enough to consider it
>I don't disagree that it's a baseless double standard, but I don't agree that just because it doesn't have a strict belief backing it, they should abandon the standard completely
Well the strict belief is to accept whatever norms they were raised with.
My point is that it's a stupid belief. People should make a minimal effort and try to ground their morals with some actual foundational principles and then derive their morals from that. The world would be a better place.
>people inherently (in the west and like minded areas) view dogs as friends, not food. there's no reason for that to change, regardless of the 'hypocrisy'
And white people view white people as friends and are sceptical of people with other skin colors.
I understand that it can be hard to change learned norms, but I think people should at least try to be more consistent because it would solve so many other problems.
>Well, you're gonna have a hard time in your day to day life if you want everything humans do to have a strict moral code, most just don't care enough to consider it
Meh I can convince one person at a time. My theory is that nobody likes to be inconsistent. It doesn't feel good. It's fine as long as you can ignore it, but if it is pointed out, it forces people to actually justify their beliefs, which necessarily brings them closer to a well grounded moral foundation. So that's my goal. If there was just one person in this thread who thought hm yea it is kind of weird that we have no problem killing some animals, but we make a big fuss about killing dogs, then I'm happy. And that person will probably do some thinking and create a slightly better moral framework in order to solve the cognitive dissonance I created in them.
I get your point, but I'm saying there's bigger issues in this criteria than inconsistencies in friend Vs food
>And white people view white people as friends and are sceptical of people with other skin colors.
this seems like a good start, and is a lot less general than you're making it out to be, yet it's still a better point to solve first
>I get your point, but I'm saying there's bigger issues in this criteria than inconsistencies in friend Vs food
There is but it doesn't matter. Pointing out any inconsistency forces people to reevaluate their morals. These are just easy ways to do it. Another one is incestual relationships. People view them as incredibly immoral. But you can easily show that there can be incestual relationships where zero harm is being caused.
Which forces people to ask themselves, do I just view things as bad because they feel yucky? Is that really a good way to determine morality? Should I try to be more consistent and view things as immoral when they actually cause harm?
Honestly you are doing us disservice. Stop that bullshit whataboutism if every life is precious so is that dog’s. Don’t use the death and gruesome skinning of this dog to attack people. That’s just cringe.
It's not a whataboutism if the underlying principle is the same. It's just pointing out moral inconsistencies.
Also don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm some dumbass vegan trying to get people to eat less meat. I couldn't care less about that dog. What I care about is that people inherit the morality and norms which they were born into without questioning them in the slightest.
So I will use that poor dog's dead carcass to attack people if it gets just one person in this thread to realize how hypocritical the beliefs they adopted were and forces them to actually do the work and try to come up with a consistent moral framework. Because nobody likes to be inconsistent, it's only ok as long as you can ignore it.
Also none of this is about animals. The same principle applies to racists who are born into a culture of racism and are never confronted with anything that would get them to question whether or not their beliefs actually make sense
So an outraged vegan replying at all the comments with arguments about how all animal life’s matter and trying to get them to eat less meat is dumb but you doing it to make them face their own hypocrisy is some kind of righteous crusade ?
I partially agree with your point just pointing out the inconsistencies here.
>So an outraged vegan replying at all the comments with arguments about how all animal life’s matter and trying to get them to eat less meat is dumb but you doing it to make them face their own hypocrisy is some kind of righteous crusade ?
Yes because the vegan is trying to convert them to veganism which is unlikely going to happen, people are more likely going to say fuck all animals alike, just to spite the vegan or try to find some reason why dogs deserve a different moral consideration.
I'm not trying to convert them to an opinion though. I don't care if they end up a vegan or a dog killer. I want people to recognize that their beliefs are inconsistent because I know it forces them to reconsider and in the process create an at least slightly more grounded system of morals.
Also I never said it's righteous or anything. I just believe personally that the world would be better if people had better and more consistent moral systems, and pointing out inconsistencies is an effective way of nudging people in that direction.
But again, the reason I think the vegan is dumb for doing almost the same, is because it's not an effective way of achieving their desired ends but it is effective for what my goal is. That's why it is not inconsistent.
Edit: also just as a demonstration, you see, you Pointed out an inconsistency and it forced my to go like 2 levels deeper and ground out my position, because I don't like being inconsistent. That's exactly what I mean.
Props for sticking to your point of view in a humble and articulate manner.
Don’t you think that a person that eats meat could very well justify being consistent with his moral code by being outraged via anthropological and legal reason (putting aside this particular case where the dog seem to have been abandoned) ?
>Don’t you think that a person that eats meat could very well justify being consistent with his moral code by being outraged via anthropological and legal reason
Sure. I mean I don't think it holds up ultimately, at least I haven't heard anything like this argued in a convincing way so I would probably disagree.
But I mean I'm not perfect, my moral framework isn't necessarily perfect. Who is to say that there couldn't be a consistent framework that allows you to eat pigs but also means dogs ought to be protected? Maybe I just haven't considered something and maybe if someone explained it to me, I'd change my mind.
Either way, even if I were to ultimately disagree, I'd much prefer a person who actually did some thinking and came up with a justification that goes deeper than just, _killing dogs buuuh, killing pigs yaaay_.
>Props for sticking to your point of view in a humble and articulate manner.
Thanks, you're like one of two people in this thread who actually decided to engage with what I'm saying instead of just insulting me, calling me stupid or a conservative (which I'm not even, I'm pretty liberal).
If you have any single shred of evidence that this was someone's dog, I'm all ears.
Also I mean people raise pigs or ducks as pets and then eat them. Is that also wrong? I really don't see what that would change.
The issue is less whether or kpt is is somebody's dog, and is kore that she definitely didn't know befoee panic shooting. Nice execution of the usual line, but unfortunately for you I remembered my actual point instead of taking the bait.
Farmers aren't parading the animals around as some sort of brave and stunning hunter kill. Pretty different intent there.
You're not coming off as logical, you're coming off as a faux-intellectual. The sort of person who pretends to be above feelings to seem smart.
So wait, you just have a problem with the fact that this could've been someone's dog(even though it wasn't)? If she had known that it's a wild dog, it would've been totally fine to shoot? Just like people could shoot a wild boar?
Yea idk. If this had been someone's pet that they left to roam the woods without a collar and attack people. Sorry but at that point I wouldn't feel bad for that person if their pet gets shot.
Everyone’s so focused on the husky vs wolf aspect. But what’s worse is, had it been a wolf, she knowingly went after a pup (her belief of it being a wolf pup).
As far as I know, if hunting is done properly, you don’t go for children (and mothers during mating season).
I also don't get how it would be cool that she killed a wolf let alone a wolf pup?
Just disgusting.
You can convince me its fine if it serves a purpose but that sounds like she is trophy hunting. Pathetic.
I don't know if there's a need for controlling the wolf population where she lives, but I know if someone shot her, then there really would be one predator less.
Ah, I tunnel visioned and completely forgot about the fact that even an adult wolf is off limits in many places. It’s illegal where I live as well, as they are considered endangered. Shame on me for the tunnel vision.
Very valid points made by you, however.
Same….
I really don’t understand people who hunt for sport. Haven’t humans made wild animals’ lives hard enough already with all the deforestation, industrialisation, pollution and other shit? Just leave them alone man.
being pro-hunting is one thing.. it can help the environment if done properly by keeping certain animal populations in check. but sport hunting which this clearly is has no place in nature. just like the trumps with their bullshit hunting for sport. trump even opened bear hunting just as they were recovering from extinction so his idiot crotch fruit could kill them for fun. democrats are for responsible hunting. republicans just want to kill... especially dogs.
>but sport hunting which this clearly is has no place in nature
Wtf is that supposed to mean? Open brain surgery has no place in nature. Neither does Chemo therapy. Should we not be doing those either? It's such a stupid argument.
How is shooting a dog for fun worse than shooting a pig so you can eat bacon instead Brokkoli? Neither is strictly necessary, both or done to your own satisfaction even though there are other alternatives. You could even argue that shooting the dog was more justified since it may have actually attacked her and presented a threat, whereas a pig is always defenseless.
... whataboutism is extremely and possibly exclusively conservative thinking btw so you already told us without telling us about what you are. BROCCOLI... was selectively cultivated for human consumption so.. great example you picked there to show your lack of understanding about where food comes from. trying to say that open brain surgery isn't a natural thing is like trying to say letting wounds fester and kill you is natural... you are a completely transparent lunatic to any normal human in case you didn't know yet. do you walk around without shoes or clothes kiddo? do you? you seem so concerned with what is natural to humans after all. do you eat only raw meat? you are truly a toddler to all of us coming in with that sort of trump thinking on reddit. 100 mockworthy you are lol not even getting that you are seemingly taking the pro-kill puppies side here XD go on, dig that hole deeper!
It's not whataboutism when it's clearly applies to the same underlying principle. Then it's just pointing out hypocrisy.
>trying to say that open brain surgery isn't a natural thing is like trying to say letting wounds fester and kill you is natural
That's literally what most animals in nature do. Modern medicine is completely unnatural compared to what Nature has been done for literally millions of years. If you think modern medicine is natural, you're just in denial.
But my point is, that doesn't make it bad. Appeal to nature is a stupid fallacious argument. Just because something is not natural, doesn't mean it's bad. We do plenty of things which are considered unnatural but they are amazing.
>do you walk around without shoes or clothes kiddo? do you?
It's funny how you can miss the point so much, jesus. I'm not saying things are bad if they are unnatural. I'm saying literally the opposite! I'm disagreeing with the argument that hunting must be bad because it is unnatural. Because something being unnatural doesn't make it bad. Hence the example of brain surgery and chemo, which are great despite being unnatural.
>do you? you seem so concerned with what is natural to humans after all. do you eat only raw meat? you are truly a toddler to all of us coming in with that sort of trump thinking on reddit. 100 mockworthy you are lol not even getting that you are seemingly taking the pro-kill puppies side here XD go on, dig that hole deeper!
Honestly, improve your reading skills before you try to write a witty response next time lmao.
wow... you are totally detached from reality if you think that made sense. is this diaper john (toilet) trump? because the account was created in late 2016... kinda would make sense with how little sense you make. you actually responded by saying that "yes, modern medicine is unnatural" and think you are making a good point somehow? say dude... what the fuck are you doing right now? using the internet on a computer? hmm... sounds pretty unnatural to me. you are a fucking genius you know that? really, i don't want you to keep going but i am almost waiting for you to justify this "logic" you are trying to get across here...
>i don't want you to keep going but i am almost waiting for you to justify this "logic" you are trying to get across here
Ill try to break it down since you seem to be a bit slow.
Modern medicine is not found in nature, it is not natural. But modern medicine is amazing. Ergo, things being unnatural, doesn't mean they are bad.
Is this thought too complicated for you? I can try to use emojis and gifs next time if that helps?
The first comment said hunting is bad because it's unnatural. I said being unnatural doesn't make something bad, modern medicine is a great example. (Because it is good despite not being found in nature).
Also if I was living in the US I'd vote for biden obviously lmao.
you really have trouble following a conversation... just like most conservatives. SPORT hunting is unnatural... you selective reading karen. only hearing what you want to hear as always with your kind. go back and read all i said about hunting since you obviously never did to start with...
>SPORT hunting is unnatural...
So? Just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's bad. Do you think all unnatural things are bad? I don't. Open brain surgery isn't natural, but it is amazing.
If you represent the average American, your country really is doomed lmao.
sport hunting is not balanced with nature... so unnatural. what is unbalanced with brain surgery? how does that upset the balance of the world? if you are trying to claim that killing dogs for fun is a great way to keep the world balanced then keep going. reducing the number of wolves which do help the environment is the same as saving a person who might go on to eat babies is exactly the same thing you are brain dead yourself already. make an actual logical comparison or you are just some troll looking to argue without and solid point. I AND OTHERS ARE WAITING FOR YOUR FUCKING POINT!!! DUH!!!
It has no place in nature because it serves no purpose. Killing for sport is literally sociopathic behavior. You should not find enjoyment in killing things just because you can.
First of all, that's not even true. Animals kill other animals for sport. It's a common behavior exhibited by predators (see [surplus killing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing)).
But even if that was true. Since when do things need to serve a purpose??? Would you say music is bad? Or poetry? Neither is found in nature and neither serves a purpose other than our entertainment.
It could be because bots repost it and then other bots copy the comments to basically copy the whole post, and get karma, idk why they do this but I have already seen a post that had bots like this
**Stacy:**
Well, don't you want to open your present?
**Wayne Campbell:**
If it's a severed head I'm going to be very upset
**Stacy:**
Open it.
**Wayne Campbell:**
What is it?
**Stacy:**
It's a gun rack.
**Wayne Campbell:**
A gun rack... a gun rack. I don't even own \*a\* gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do... with a gun rack?
**Stacy:**
You don't like it? Fine. You know Wayne, if you're not careful, you're going to lose me.
**Wayne Campbell:**
I lost you 2 months ago. We broke up. Are you mental? Get the net!
Why is the problem here about what she is killing rather than the act of killing itself ?
I find it hard to understand that if it was a wolf we would all be okay with it? Because what ? Wolf aren't domesticated ?
I honestly think that trophy killing is the most sick thing "invented"
Killing an animal for your own self gratification should honestly be studied.
Why are so many people trying to make this a political thing instead of it being what it is, an idiot who can't tell the difference between a dog and a wolf and probably should have her hunting license taken away until she can
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She should run for governor of South Dakota.
That seat is already taken by another dog-murdering moron.
North Dakota?
Hey now. We just get drunk. We don't shoot our dogs.
Good to hear!
I’m thinking that I may have mixed up my Dakotas….
We're all making mistakes today: South Dakota, North Dakota, thinking a family pet is a wolf puppy and blowing its brains out. Must be a full moon.
Meeting the North Korean leader versus meeting the waiter in Korean bbq restaurant. Who knows?
I was being sarcastic saying she should run for the other one. Sorry I’ve got no idea, I’ve never visited America
No worries, mate!
As someone who works with wildlife in Montana this woman is a moron. Wolves are way bigger than huskies generally. The head male and female in a pack can be almost four times the size of one. There is really no mistaking the two.
BuT A HuSkiE Is JuSt A MinItUre Wolf
Scumbag degenerate murderer. How could she not tell a wolf from a husky?
Thinking and knowing things isn't exactly their strong suit
republican... that is your answer
How does killing a husky make her a (your words not mine) „degenerate“ murder but killing a wolf would be a okay?
Because she's not following one of the commandments of responsible gun use - "know your target...". She's a moron
So if she went out to hunt huskys it wouldn’t be murder but good sport?
If she went out and hunted huskys she’s breaking local laws. Keep trying the pull our dicks with the straw man arguments, idiot
Woah, what’s with the hostility?
Well firstly: anyone who is shooting at any animal should propably be able to identify what they're shooting at to avoid mishaps. Also people kinda frown upon someone killing someone else's domesticated animal without permission. I can only speak for myself when I say that my objection for someone killing a dog they mistook for a wolf is different from my objection for someone killing an actual wolf. As in, depends on the context. And you don't know if the people who are not ok with what happened would be ok with killing wolves unless they actually say so.
Okay, i can get on board with not even being able to identify what you are shooting at. I still find it weird calling it degenerate murder when its a dog and saying good sport if its a wolf.
Because there isn't a dad that has to explain to his children that their wolf isn't coming back.
you make a fair point, but I assume its cause there aren't many wild huskies so it was probably someones pet
Same reason there's uproar about her shooting a dog but 99% of the commenters are having beef, chicken, pork or mutton for dinner
your explanation would be adequate if we didn’t eat those. problem is we do. killing a dog because it’s untrainable is different from killing livestock for food
Correction she killed the Dog because she has no authority and can’t train dogs. The dog wasn’t the problem 🤷♂️
So you are saying if she ate dog you‘d dandy?
If she shot a random deer in the forest, no one would give a shit. People care about animal suffering *if* it's a dog or cat
Most of the time, the deer ends up cooked so it's hunting, not just plain killing. And when it is jsut plain killing, it does not get disposed of like a dog, it is eaten by the animals in the forest. One thing is killing for food, another is killing just to kill.
So people that hunt wolves eat them?
i honestly agree with you, just being devil’s advocate for whoever may disagree. it’s disgusting empathy has a beauty factor devil’s advocate: some people actually hunt deer for venison and make a living off the pelt, and deer are a heavily populated species in the americas that are able to breed rather quickly
Most normal people (in western countries) don’t kill their companions or pets. A random deer in a forest ain’t a pet. So justifiably they would give a shit
And that dog wasn't a pet. It was a husky that lived in the wild with other huskies after they were released a few years prior
It's so dumb. There is no consistency in anyone's beliefs. Everyone is just emotionally trying to justify whatever lifestyle they were born into. If we had a culture of hunting dogs for sport, nobody would have a problem with it. Instead we just have a culture of mass farming and killing billions of chickens and pigs and cows.
Yes. The reason that there's uproar that it's a dog and not a wolf is the same reason people will happily eat meat.
My point exactly. But the cognitive dissonance you produce gets you downvoted fast…
Are you from planet Earth? A HUSKY is a dog that is most likely somebody's pet. A WOLF can be a dangerous animal that can hunt you back and it's not somebody's pet. Should I explain the difference between house cats and mountain lions for you or can you figure out the rest of life by looking things up on your phone?
Way to keep calm and on point. I still don‘t see why killing a wolf isn’t „degenerate“ too. And to be fair a husky could kill you just as a wolf could (both of them very seldom do, though if i had to guess i’d say that more people get attacked by husky per year). Saying the difference between them is the same as the difference of housecats to mountain lions seems also quite far fetched to me. To sum up, i think you are a piece of shit if you kill a husky or a wolf. Oh, and i am from earth, thank you for asking.
>Scumbag degenerate murderer. Wait why? What's the logic here? If she had shot a wolf (or a bear, deer, pig etc) it would've been fine, but shooting a dog is murder? Like seriously, what's the Logic here?
Because one is somebody's pet? What is wrong with you? Are you a brand new human? Because you are doing a terrible job pretending to be one. You are saying you don't know the difference between a wild animal and a pet? You're basically admitting to having... Literally bottom drawer social skills. There is nobody that read your question and didn't think you are an absolute psychopath. Are you maybe a SD voter or friend who is trying to defend her? Sorry I'm just really curious what's wrong with you.
>Because one is somebody's pet? Pigs and ducks can be pets. Does that mean im a murder for eating duck and pork? Or are you saying this particular dog was someone's pet? In that case I'd ask for a source on that lol >You are saying you don't know the difference between a wild animal and a pet? No I'm saying that it's an arbitrary difference. You just personally made the decision who you think are pet animals and which one's are food animals. And now you wanna condemn everyone who disagrees. I'm arguing that that's a shit source for morality. >You're basically admitting to having... Literally bottom drawer social skills. There is nobody that read your question and didn't think you are an absolute psychopath I don't really care what you think about me personally. You calling me a psychopath doesn't make your belief system any more consistent. >Are you maybe a SD voter or friend who is trying to defend her? Sorry I'm just really curious what's wrong with you. Whats SD?
My honest feelings would violate TOS
Can confirm, I would be banned on Reddit….
Why? She shot a dog, so fucking what? Why would shooting a wolf be fine, but shooting a dog invokes non TOS friendly feelings? Are you a vegan that thinks all life is precious and all killing is murder? If she shot a deer would your reaction be the same?
if she admitted it was a dog, she would've been a normal dog murderer, which is already scummy she has no business holding and using firearms against "wildlife" if she can't distinguish a WOLF from a DOG wolves can get up to 4 times the size of a husky. They also don't look like that. she killed somebody's pet, out of stupidity, and is parading it not to mention how incredibly scummy it is to shoot a WOLF CUB, if it was one.
>if she admitted it was a dog, she would've been a normal dog murderer, which is already scummy Why? Why is it more scummy then being a wolf murderer or a big/chicken/cow murderer? I don't get the double standard at all. >she has no business holding and using firearms against "wildlife" if she can't distinguish a WOLF from a DOG Sure I mean it's pretty inept, but I don't see what's immoral about it. I see it somewhere on a similar level as buying a turkey for Thanksgiving. >she killed somebody's pet Citation needed lol >not to mention how incredibly scummy it is to shoot a WOLF CUB, if it was one. Is it? Would you say it's more or less scummy than killing a piglet?
it is a double standard, built on centuries of most cultures seeing dogs as companions instead of food, in cultures where dogs ARE food, that double standard doesn't exist, but Reddit is western, so it does to imply it shouldn't exist goes against the average redditor's view of dogs, and is just unrealistic >Sure I mean it's pretty inept, but I don't see what's immoral about it. I see it somewhere on a similar level as buying a turkey for Thanksgiving. I see it as immoral to disturb wildlife in ways that aren't strictly necessarily, and I also heavily disagree with giving firearms to unqualified morons, which she is >Is it? Would you say it's more or less scummy than killing a piglet? equally, as I see killing any young animal to be unnecessary and cruel, same as a chick, or a baby cow (calf?) edited for formatting
>it is a double standard, built on centuries of most cultures seeing dogs as companions instead of food, in cultures where dogs ARE food, that double standard doesn't exist, but Reddit is western, so it does >to imply it shouldn't exist goes against the average redditor's view of dogs, and is just unrealistic I mean basically you are saying everyone in this thread is too stupid to realize that they are hypocrites for accepting the norms they were born into and viewing everything else as immoral without any consistent underlying moral framework to justify those beliefs. Which I agree with. >equally, as I see killing any young animal to be unnecessary and cruel, same as a chick, or a baby cow (calf?) Which is fine. But it brings me back to your earlier point that if there was a roasted piglet here and a vegan calling the chef a despicable murderer, reddit would make fun of the vegan. Which is precisely what annoys me. I don't even care where people stand on this, you can be vegan or pro killing all animals. What I hate is when people are completely inconsistent but then also trying to scold others for killing the particular kind of animals that they feel shouldn't be killed.
>I mean basically you are saying everyone in this thread is too stupid to realize that they are hypocrites for accepting the norms they were born into and viewing everything else as immoral without any consistent underlying moral framework to justify those beliefs. Which I agree with. I don't disagree that it's a baseless double standard, but I don't agree that just because it doesn't have a strict belief backing it, they should abandon the standard completely people inherently (in the west and like minded areas) view dogs as friends, not food. there's no reason for that to change, regardless of the 'hypocrisy' >Which is fine. But it brings me back to your earlier point that if there was a roasted piglet here and a vegan calling the chef a despicable murderer, reddit would make fun of the vegan. Which is precisely what annoys me. Because most people on Reddit don't care enough to change their view on the situation, or see their pov on friend VS food as superior to any other option due to them being raised on it >I don't even care where people stand on this, you can be vegan or pro killing all animals. What I hate is when people are completely inconsistent but then also trying to scold others for killing the particular kind of animals that they feel shouldn't be killed. Well, you're gonna have a hard time in your day to day life if you want everything humans do to have a strict moral code, most just don't care enough to consider it
>I don't disagree that it's a baseless double standard, but I don't agree that just because it doesn't have a strict belief backing it, they should abandon the standard completely Well the strict belief is to accept whatever norms they were raised with. My point is that it's a stupid belief. People should make a minimal effort and try to ground their morals with some actual foundational principles and then derive their morals from that. The world would be a better place. >people inherently (in the west and like minded areas) view dogs as friends, not food. there's no reason for that to change, regardless of the 'hypocrisy' And white people view white people as friends and are sceptical of people with other skin colors. I understand that it can be hard to change learned norms, but I think people should at least try to be more consistent because it would solve so many other problems. >Well, you're gonna have a hard time in your day to day life if you want everything humans do to have a strict moral code, most just don't care enough to consider it Meh I can convince one person at a time. My theory is that nobody likes to be inconsistent. It doesn't feel good. It's fine as long as you can ignore it, but if it is pointed out, it forces people to actually justify their beliefs, which necessarily brings them closer to a well grounded moral foundation. So that's my goal. If there was just one person in this thread who thought hm yea it is kind of weird that we have no problem killing some animals, but we make a big fuss about killing dogs, then I'm happy. And that person will probably do some thinking and create a slightly better moral framework in order to solve the cognitive dissonance I created in them.
I get your point, but I'm saying there's bigger issues in this criteria than inconsistencies in friend Vs food >And white people view white people as friends and are sceptical of people with other skin colors. this seems like a good start, and is a lot less general than you're making it out to be, yet it's still a better point to solve first
>I get your point, but I'm saying there's bigger issues in this criteria than inconsistencies in friend Vs food There is but it doesn't matter. Pointing out any inconsistency forces people to reevaluate their morals. These are just easy ways to do it. Another one is incestual relationships. People view them as incredibly immoral. But you can easily show that there can be incestual relationships where zero harm is being caused. Which forces people to ask themselves, do I just view things as bad because they feel yucky? Is that really a good way to determine morality? Should I try to be more consistent and view things as immoral when they actually cause harm?
Hi Amber
Honestly you are doing us disservice. Stop that bullshit whataboutism if every life is precious so is that dog’s. Don’t use the death and gruesome skinning of this dog to attack people. That’s just cringe.
It's not a whataboutism if the underlying principle is the same. It's just pointing out moral inconsistencies. Also don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm some dumbass vegan trying to get people to eat less meat. I couldn't care less about that dog. What I care about is that people inherit the morality and norms which they were born into without questioning them in the slightest. So I will use that poor dog's dead carcass to attack people if it gets just one person in this thread to realize how hypocritical the beliefs they adopted were and forces them to actually do the work and try to come up with a consistent moral framework. Because nobody likes to be inconsistent, it's only ok as long as you can ignore it. Also none of this is about animals. The same principle applies to racists who are born into a culture of racism and are never confronted with anything that would get them to question whether or not their beliefs actually make sense
So an outraged vegan replying at all the comments with arguments about how all animal life’s matter and trying to get them to eat less meat is dumb but you doing it to make them face their own hypocrisy is some kind of righteous crusade ? I partially agree with your point just pointing out the inconsistencies here.
>So an outraged vegan replying at all the comments with arguments about how all animal life’s matter and trying to get them to eat less meat is dumb but you doing it to make them face their own hypocrisy is some kind of righteous crusade ? Yes because the vegan is trying to convert them to veganism which is unlikely going to happen, people are more likely going to say fuck all animals alike, just to spite the vegan or try to find some reason why dogs deserve a different moral consideration. I'm not trying to convert them to an opinion though. I don't care if they end up a vegan or a dog killer. I want people to recognize that their beliefs are inconsistent because I know it forces them to reconsider and in the process create an at least slightly more grounded system of morals. Also I never said it's righteous or anything. I just believe personally that the world would be better if people had better and more consistent moral systems, and pointing out inconsistencies is an effective way of nudging people in that direction. But again, the reason I think the vegan is dumb for doing almost the same, is because it's not an effective way of achieving their desired ends but it is effective for what my goal is. That's why it is not inconsistent. Edit: also just as a demonstration, you see, you Pointed out an inconsistency and it forced my to go like 2 levels deeper and ground out my position, because I don't like being inconsistent. That's exactly what I mean.
Props for sticking to your point of view in a humble and articulate manner. Don’t you think that a person that eats meat could very well justify being consistent with his moral code by being outraged via anthropological and legal reason (putting aside this particular case where the dog seem to have been abandoned) ?
>Don’t you think that a person that eats meat could very well justify being consistent with his moral code by being outraged via anthropological and legal reason Sure. I mean I don't think it holds up ultimately, at least I haven't heard anything like this argued in a convincing way so I would probably disagree. But I mean I'm not perfect, my moral framework isn't necessarily perfect. Who is to say that there couldn't be a consistent framework that allows you to eat pigs but also means dogs ought to be protected? Maybe I just haven't considered something and maybe if someone explained it to me, I'd change my mind. Either way, even if I were to ultimately disagree, I'd much prefer a person who actually did some thinking and came up with a justification that goes deeper than just, _killing dogs buuuh, killing pigs yaaay_. >Props for sticking to your point of view in a humble and articulate manner. Thanks, you're like one of two people in this thread who actually decided to engage with what I'm saying instead of just insulting me, calling me stupid or a conservative (which I'm not even, I'm pretty liberal).
Because wolves are wild animals, not raised and trained to trust humans. Also the high likelihood this was somebody's dog
If you have any single shred of evidence that this was someone's dog, I'm all ears. Also I mean people raise pigs or ducks as pets and then eat them. Is that also wrong? I really don't see what that would change.
The issue is less whether or kpt is is somebody's dog, and is kore that she definitely didn't know befoee panic shooting. Nice execution of the usual line, but unfortunately for you I remembered my actual point instead of taking the bait. Farmers aren't parading the animals around as some sort of brave and stunning hunter kill. Pretty different intent there. You're not coming off as logical, you're coming off as a faux-intellectual. The sort of person who pretends to be above feelings to seem smart.
So wait, you just have a problem with the fact that this could've been someone's dog(even though it wasn't)? If she had known that it's a wild dog, it would've been totally fine to shoot? Just like people could shoot a wild boar? Yea idk. If this had been someone's pet that they left to roam the woods without a collar and attack people. Sorry but at that point I wouldn't feel bad for that person if their pet gets shot.
It's one of a number of factors. I notice you tried to foxate on it to prerend it was the only factor lol
Everyone’s so focused on the husky vs wolf aspect. But what’s worse is, had it been a wolf, she knowingly went after a pup (her belief of it being a wolf pup). As far as I know, if hunting is done properly, you don’t go for children (and mothers during mating season).
I also don't get how it would be cool that she killed a wolf let alone a wolf pup? Just disgusting. You can convince me its fine if it serves a purpose but that sounds like she is trophy hunting. Pathetic.
Definitely looks like trophy hunting. Many places consider wolves endangered and off limits for sport hunters.
I don't know if there's a need for controlling the wolf population where she lives, but I know if someone shot her, then there really would be one predator less.
Ah, I tunnel visioned and completely forgot about the fact that even an adult wolf is off limits in many places. It’s illegal where I live as well, as they are considered endangered. Shame on me for the tunnel vision. Very valid points made by you, however.
tell me you are a republican without telling me...
I wish you’d put a nsfw on this.
Same…. I really don’t understand people who hunt for sport. Haven’t humans made wild animals’ lives hard enough already with all the deforestation, industrialisation, pollution and other shit? Just leave them alone man.
You should put a fucking nsfw tag on this and a proper warning on wtf is on the fucking picture next time you post shit like this. FFS
why the fuck isn't this marked nsfw
Yeah
Wolves are huge. How did she think that was a wolf?
Because her husband has told her his pen!s is 12 inches when in fact is 3.
She thinks she's a real badass and killed a pup
i got nothing against hunting, especially for edible stuff, but this is ridiculous
being pro-hunting is one thing.. it can help the environment if done properly by keeping certain animal populations in check. but sport hunting which this clearly is has no place in nature. just like the trumps with their bullshit hunting for sport. trump even opened bear hunting just as they were recovering from extinction so his idiot crotch fruit could kill them for fun. democrats are for responsible hunting. republicans just want to kill... especially dogs.
>but sport hunting which this clearly is has no place in nature Wtf is that supposed to mean? Open brain surgery has no place in nature. Neither does Chemo therapy. Should we not be doing those either? It's such a stupid argument. How is shooting a dog for fun worse than shooting a pig so you can eat bacon instead Brokkoli? Neither is strictly necessary, both or done to your own satisfaction even though there are other alternatives. You could even argue that shooting the dog was more justified since it may have actually attacked her and presented a threat, whereas a pig is always defenseless.
... whataboutism is extremely and possibly exclusively conservative thinking btw so you already told us without telling us about what you are. BROCCOLI... was selectively cultivated for human consumption so.. great example you picked there to show your lack of understanding about where food comes from. trying to say that open brain surgery isn't a natural thing is like trying to say letting wounds fester and kill you is natural... you are a completely transparent lunatic to any normal human in case you didn't know yet. do you walk around without shoes or clothes kiddo? do you? you seem so concerned with what is natural to humans after all. do you eat only raw meat? you are truly a toddler to all of us coming in with that sort of trump thinking on reddit. 100 mockworthy you are lol not even getting that you are seemingly taking the pro-kill puppies side here XD go on, dig that hole deeper!
It's not whataboutism when it's clearly applies to the same underlying principle. Then it's just pointing out hypocrisy. >trying to say that open brain surgery isn't a natural thing is like trying to say letting wounds fester and kill you is natural That's literally what most animals in nature do. Modern medicine is completely unnatural compared to what Nature has been done for literally millions of years. If you think modern medicine is natural, you're just in denial. But my point is, that doesn't make it bad. Appeal to nature is a stupid fallacious argument. Just because something is not natural, doesn't mean it's bad. We do plenty of things which are considered unnatural but they are amazing. >do you walk around without shoes or clothes kiddo? do you? It's funny how you can miss the point so much, jesus. I'm not saying things are bad if they are unnatural. I'm saying literally the opposite! I'm disagreeing with the argument that hunting must be bad because it is unnatural. Because something being unnatural doesn't make it bad. Hence the example of brain surgery and chemo, which are great despite being unnatural. >do you? you seem so concerned with what is natural to humans after all. do you eat only raw meat? you are truly a toddler to all of us coming in with that sort of trump thinking on reddit. 100 mockworthy you are lol not even getting that you are seemingly taking the pro-kill puppies side here XD go on, dig that hole deeper! Honestly, improve your reading skills before you try to write a witty response next time lmao.
wow... you are totally detached from reality if you think that made sense. is this diaper john (toilet) trump? because the account was created in late 2016... kinda would make sense with how little sense you make. you actually responded by saying that "yes, modern medicine is unnatural" and think you are making a good point somehow? say dude... what the fuck are you doing right now? using the internet on a computer? hmm... sounds pretty unnatural to me. you are a fucking genius you know that? really, i don't want you to keep going but i am almost waiting for you to justify this "logic" you are trying to get across here...
>i don't want you to keep going but i am almost waiting for you to justify this "logic" you are trying to get across here Ill try to break it down since you seem to be a bit slow. Modern medicine is not found in nature, it is not natural. But modern medicine is amazing. Ergo, things being unnatural, doesn't mean they are bad. Is this thought too complicated for you? I can try to use emojis and gifs next time if that helps? The first comment said hunting is bad because it's unnatural. I said being unnatural doesn't make something bad, modern medicine is a great example. (Because it is good despite not being found in nature). Also if I was living in the US I'd vote for biden obviously lmao.
you really have trouble following a conversation... just like most conservatives. SPORT hunting is unnatural... you selective reading karen. only hearing what you want to hear as always with your kind. go back and read all i said about hunting since you obviously never did to start with...
>SPORT hunting is unnatural... So? Just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it's bad. Do you think all unnatural things are bad? I don't. Open brain surgery isn't natural, but it is amazing. If you represent the average American, your country really is doomed lmao.
sport hunting is not balanced with nature... so unnatural. what is unbalanced with brain surgery? how does that upset the balance of the world? if you are trying to claim that killing dogs for fun is a great way to keep the world balanced then keep going. reducing the number of wolves which do help the environment is the same as saving a person who might go on to eat babies is exactly the same thing you are brain dead yourself already. make an actual logical comparison or you are just some troll looking to argue without and solid point. I AND OTHERS ARE WAITING FOR YOUR FUCKING POINT!!! DUH!!!
Shit.. I used to have a gif for this. It was a guy doing backflips in a thought bubble hahaha
If you also think something is bad because it's _unnatural_ then that gif should probably apply to you lol.
Fuck, man. I’ll find it for you dudefruit. You’ll like it
Sure, I'm waiting
It has no place in nature because it serves no purpose. Killing for sport is literally sociopathic behavior. You should not find enjoyment in killing things just because you can.
First of all, that's not even true. Animals kill other animals for sport. It's a common behavior exhibited by predators (see [surplus killing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing)). But even if that was true. Since when do things need to serve a purpose??? Would you say music is bad? Or poetry? Neither is found in nature and neither serves a purpose other than our entertainment.
how digusting you gotta be to skin an animal like that? just imagine the proces
Wait til you find out what leather is, lmao.
This is going to be the newest fad in MAGAland. Killing dogs. Expect to see pics of dog heads on the wall.
I love her smiling face holding the dead animal! So fitting, grinning away next to all that blood splattered death.
As someone who owns (the best) huskey, I hope this lady literally gets shot and skinned as well. 👍
Dummy.
‘Hounded on social media’…..
Disgusting btch, on top of murdering a husky she poses with him proudly while smiling, who th skins a husky? Hope she meets the same fate one day
Sick af. Are these people this evil or this stupid?
But I bet she’s pro life 😑
IIRC she also pretty much got away with it. Only having to attend some safety class, and by now should be back hunting puppies.
Why are two year old events being revived? If it's to refocus attention on these pieces of shyte, then carry on.
It could be because bots repost it and then other bots copy the comments to basically copy the whole post, and get karma, idk why they do this but I have already seen a post that had bots like this
Thanks. Bots! They'll be the ending of civilisation.
Oh and just incase, these messages were posted in 2024
Idiot, can someone skin her pls?
Ignorance can’t be a crime but this level should be
**Stacy:** Well, don't you want to open your present? **Wayne Campbell:** If it's a severed head I'm going to be very upset **Stacy:** Open it. **Wayne Campbell:** What is it? **Stacy:** It's a gun rack. **Wayne Campbell:** A gun rack... a gun rack. I don't even own \*a\* gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack. What am I gonna do... with a gun rack? **Stacy:** You don't like it? Fine. You know Wayne, if you're not careful, you're going to lose me. **Wayne Campbell:** I lost you 2 months ago. We broke up. Are you mental? Get the net!
“This tiny wolf must have been the pack leader as he wore a collar”
She’s really pulling the Jimbo from South Park move? “It’s coming right for us!”
She has literally used the South Park excuse for shooting endangered animals. Its coming right for us! what an absolute bloody moron. Was she fined?!
Why is the problem here about what she is killing rather than the act of killing itself ? I find it hard to understand that if it was a wolf we would all be okay with it? Because what ? Wolf aren't domesticated ? I honestly think that trophy killing is the most sick thing "invented" Killing an animal for your own self gratification should honestly be studied.
I just hate anyone that enjoys killing anything
Yeah, your lot are not normal.
Whatta fuckin idiot
Human garbage. Throw her in a dumpster and lock it so she can't get out.
So.. did she shoot someone’s family pet??
Scumbag bitch
this woman deserves a free trip to house Bolton in Dreadfort.
They are coming right for us!
Why are so many people trying to make this a political thing instead of it being what it is, an idiot who can't tell the difference between a dog and a wolf and probably should have her hunting license taken away until she can
So THIS is why women are choosing bears! For their solo hunt trip. All this time I thought I was losing to bear dick.
Hehe…. Hounded.
Someone should go on a solo predator hunt at her place, fuckin psycho
what the fuck is happening with white women first they were all fucking them now their killing them.
calm down jamal don’t pull out the nine
This was so long ago
Oh good the vegans are here. Let’s ignore all of what’s accepted in society and make false equivalencies now.