Sublette County Sheriff K.C. Lehr has received more than 7,000 emails about a Wyoming man who reportedly captured and tormented a wolf before killing it, he told Cowboy State Daily on Wednesday.
Some of those are threats.
Lehr said people in his office, as well as Sublette County and Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel, have been receiving threats — including death threats — stemming from Daniel, Wyoming, man Cody Roberts’ reported capture, torment and killing of a wild wolf in late February.
I dunno I wonder how much of this thread believes in rehabilitative justice when it's convenient for them to do so, but will then turn around and advocate for extreme eye for an eye style punitive, retributive justice whenever it strikes their moral fancy. If it was seen as socially acceptable to go to the coliseum and see people thrown off of large wooden towers, or to go and look at the gallows, I can guarantee we'd still probably do it.
I also don't think this act requires psychopathy, or else you'd probably have to classify like, every teenage boy who kicks over an anthill or tries to shoot a squirrel with a bb gun as a psychopath. No, I think probably the fact that he paraded it through the town and bragged about it is the biggest indication that, much like the people in this thread, he thought he was doing something morally justified and cool.
Maybe finally I'd just like to ask the question of, if you don't actually want this guy to be horribly tortured and killed, or become some sort of adverse strain on the medical industry, become disabled, dependant on medical care (really revealing of your opinions of the elderly and disabled there, guys), then why are you calling for these things? These things which you do not actually believe should happen? Probably it's because your brain's been rotted by social media which I can appreciate, but still, I must chastize you for it, because when I do it, it's morally justified and cool. While I don't think that "death threats" from random people usually carry with them the same kind of weight as when political pundits call for the deaths of a given population or even a single person, and it's unlikely that this guy actually gets tortured with all the fixin's and trappin's of a cut off your toes style collections agency, I still think it's pretty morally repugnant and obviously unproductive to send this guy hate mail. At least package some ricin in it or something, if you really care, c'mon.
I don't actually care if you go scoop out this guy's eyes with pomegranate spoons or take your toenail clippers to his teeth or whatever, or maybe like. Leave him in the unrefrigerated milk and honey bath for several weeks. You know, lest I be accused of being an animal torturer, or complicit in animal torture, which, really beating the witch hunt allegations there, Simone. No, I don't really care about that shit, what I do mostly care about is that it's fucking annoying to see a bunch of presumably men but also women who are unable to experience emotional distress without wanting to call for an eye gougathon. It's okay to be sad and kind of mad that this shitlord is basically going to get away with this, as it would seem. I don't think it's healthy or productive to vent your emotions at this random person, though.
I could also maybe call out the "well, are you guys vegan?" hypocrisy that everyone else has already done, but I'm not a vegan and I don't care because I don't have morals, so I'll leave that to them.
Thank you for your time.
Well.
I dunno what about any of that could possibly strike you as nonsensical
Not nonsensical, contradictory. You obviously have some morals.
nope, no morals whatsoever
Then why care if people are being hypocritical? Why should it bother you that people adopt whatever beliefs are beneficial at the moment and then change them when it suits them? Isn't that the smartest attitude to have? How could you even call someone else "morally repugnant"?
I mean having beliefs that are beneficial at the moment and then changing it whenever it suits you is a great short term option if you want to have moral beliefs, sure, but it's not great in the long term, societally or personally. So I wouldn't really call it the smartest attitude to have. I also don't think that not having morals would necessarily prevent me from caring if people are hypocritical, or thinking that other people are morally repugnant. I'm just thinking that they're morally repugnant by some external set of morals which aren't my own, obviously, some morals which I haven't internalized, and which aren't mine, probably.
Anyways, I gotta get back to shitposting online, and eating babies, or whatever it is that people with no morals do.
Think you have it in you to write at least one paragraph where you don't contradict yourself? You say you care, but have no internalized morals? Which is it?
Yes, having no morals would prevent you from caring if people are hypocritical -- this is what is known as a moral stance. Without morals, there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.
Sorry to keep you from your preferred activities, I just think you should really think this through before you mention it to anyone again.
You think too much. Shut that brain off. Nothing online is important enough to type that many words.
You advocate for a fair justice system when you're rational because you know at some point you're going to have an irrational reaction. It's the entire point.
This is true, but it does remain irrational behavior, an irrational reaction.
So the most rational thing to do about it is to acknowledge that irrationality happens to you and other people against their will and to build a system to avoid it. If you don't think you act irrationally you've already fallen into a catch-22 cause that is in fact irrational.
Now if you think we can act rationally more often, I'm right with you in advocating for socialized mental healthcare.
Didn't really get that from the rest of what you said, though. How is that a catch-22? Cause everyone will just be irrational eventually? No, not me, I am the one without sin, only I can cast stones.
Also find it kind of funny because the catch-22 itself, referencing the book, is an example of the paradox of how the only people who would want to fight in war are probably insane, but also that insanity is a way to get dismissed from service. The scenario itself references a paradox which, in wartime, is unsolvable. If you're sort of assuming that, for rational people, the default state of them is to assume they're irrational, and also that, for the irrational, the default state of them is to assume they're rational, I dunno if that really, uhh, works.
Okay, I'm assuming I'm irrational. Yakka foob mog, grug pubbaqup zink watoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
We're probably operating on different ideas of what "rationality" and "irrationality" means, here. I don't actually disagree with any of what you said, I'm just pushing your buttons.
Lol. I think you realized you didn't actually agree with what you were talking about halfway through and instead of deleting the comment you tried to play it off.
I want him to be put in prison never to be free again. But that will not happen so to protect more animals being tortured by this pos I wouldnt be sad if he gets killed either
dude holy shit this post is like if you asked chatgpt to write a dissertation on this shit in a sociological tone, but without fucking punctuating it.
Yeah I typed it all on mobile when I was taking a huge dook
respect the honesty i guess lol
Hypocritical mob rule for me not thee advocate checking in for duty
Tl/dr
And you wouldn't classify a kid shooting a squirrel for fun as psychopathy? It doesn't necessarily have to mean anything but I'd definitely see it as a warning sign. Killing anything just for fun the fun of it seems weird to me.
Probably not. Teenagers are still developing their brains, empathy, etc.
Some teenagers are taught that hunting is a valuable skill and want to practice it. Some just want to use their toy and don't actually consider the full implications. Some might have been taught that squirrels are vermin.
All those things are more likely than the teen shooting the squirrel because they enjoy causing pain. Probably the squirrels POV never even shadowed their thoughts.
tl;dr teenagers are stupid and do stupid shit without thinking about what they're doing.
No, I wouldn't, for the same reason you instantly stated after your question.
Warning signs are warning signs. They are not indicative of anything other than a possibility.
It'd be pretty hard to kill a squirrel with most bb guns, I would think, it'd just be really harmful and kind of a stupid thing that I can imagine a kid not thinking through, or thinking is funny after seeing their friends get shot with them and coming out okay.
None of that really parallels with the current instance, but the broader point I'm making, I think, is that people throw around words like "psychopathy", but then that's never used as a way to discuss anything further. It's used as a way to shut down discussion and pretend that these things are inevitable instead of being things that kind of stem from a collective cultural cruelty. You see accusations of psychopathy in this thread side by side with people wishing the cruelest possible things on this guy. If it is psychopathy, then this dude is more like a victim of incredible mental illness, and calling for his torture is, a very weird approach to mental illness. Then you also get people who are like "it isn't an excuse", and then I think you can dismiss those people out of hand because they're coming into the discussion thinking that you're trying to use mental illnesses as an excuse for torturing animals, which is really dumb.
I'd also make the side point that if you were to classify that behavior as psychopathic, than as evidenced by both the thread and just kind of my general admittedly anecdotal experience, then psychopathy would probably be the default state of humanity, which I don't think really lends meaning to psychopathy as a term.
Thank you for writing this out.