you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 66 points 1 year ago (29 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Whatever I'll say it. Is she a dangerous sociopath, very likely. Does what she did to the goat fit the definition of the South Dakota law written above, doubt. A judge/ jury would find she thought a gunshot would kill the goat, and shot it. And since it is her story no one can prove she pranced around or did anything other than what she said she did, which was go get another "shell" to end its life. Her compete disregard for other peoples lives/feelings/wants/freedoms make her a shit person who should fear the possibility of her claimed religion being real. But being a shit person isn't part of that law.

    What I don't understand is why I've seen people say she used a pistol and she keeps using the term shell. Her wording seems specific to her using a shotgun to shoot the goat, which should make it harder to miss... But it isn't a guarantee. But my point being is that if she shot the dog with a pistol she had on her, she would have had to put the pistol away, see the goat, go grab a shotgun from the truck and shoot it at least once, and realize she was out of shells and go back.

    She may need to see a specialist to figure out if she should be committed, but I don't think anyone could prove she broke a law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -36 points 1 year ago* (23 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Not withstanding what @boddhisatva wrote in reply and in no way a defense of the meat industry, you're missing the point.

    The point is the woman demonstrably lacks any empathy and in fact appears to be a sociopath. She should never have been in any position of power over others, far less the position she holds now.

    It's about her, not the animals (as horrible as it was for these, and is for other, animals).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 35 points 1 year ago (19 children)
  • [+] -23 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [+] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    How they're "put down" (that's a very kind euphemism) is only part of the problem. It's how they're forced to live

    That's their entire life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is the internet. Deflection from the point being made, in an effort to one-up or simply argue with a post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    More specifically this is Lemmy. If we don't have morons arguing with the dumbest logic possible, something is wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    You used an individual animal's tragic death to stand on a soapbox and denounce the animal agriculture industry. It's a bit like being told a child died and saying, "Are you aware of what happens to children in Gaza??"

    You don't need to make everything about your personal (plant-based imitation) beef with humans eating meat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Between what the law says and what actually happens, there is a yawning gulf. It's the same in basically all jurisdictions where there are animal-welfare laws. The meat industry is powerful and consumers are unrelenting in their clamor for cheap meat. With such incentives, the weakest link is always going to be animals, which by definition have no voice.

  • source
  • parent