002 - Non-sentient Lifeforms
Sep. 23rd, 2011 12:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
not_annika[here comes the preamble. It's thoughtful and considered.] In the past couple of days, Mr Sexby attacked individuals he characterised as 'innocent', 'a soldier' and a 'old' man and his dog.
He seemed to believe, out of an assumption that the Admiral is influenced by emotional pleas, that where the human harm failed, he would have succeeded had he assaulted the Marquis' canine.
I considered this odd, but dismissed it as dry humour and irrelevant.
Then once the Marquis made a network post of his own, admittedly about finding medical treatment for that dog, I saw two individuals apparently horrified about the victimisation of the animal to the degree that it overcame their feelings concerning the assault of the Marquis.
[And the question: she's genuinely uneasy and puzzled.] While I would agree that the animal being harmed is regrettable, I don't understand why hurting the Marquis had an excuse, yet there would be no possible excuse for hurting the animal. Is his attack not the greater injustice?
He seemed to believe, out of an assumption that the Admiral is influenced by emotional pleas, that where the human harm failed, he would have succeeded had he assaulted the Marquis' canine.
I considered this odd, but dismissed it as dry humour and irrelevant.
Then once the Marquis made a network post of his own, admittedly about finding medical treatment for that dog, I saw two individuals apparently horrified about the victimisation of the animal to the degree that it overcame their feelings concerning the assault of the Marquis.
[And the question: she's genuinely uneasy and puzzled.] While I would agree that the animal being harmed is regrettable, I don't understand why hurting the Marquis had an excuse, yet there would be no possible excuse for hurting the animal. Is his attack not the greater injustice?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:30 pm (UTC)If you came aboard hoping for consistency and common sense, you're on the wrong ship.
no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 23/9/11 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 05:28 pm (UTC)...it's difficult to quantify and needs to be experienced to be fully understood, I think.
no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:41 pm (UTC)To imply that there could conceivably be an excuse for his beating while there couldn't possibly be one for the non-sentient creature with canine teeth, defending its owner, is unacceptable.
no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 24/9/11 07:55 pm (UTC)But individuals caring for the welfare of an animal before the welfare of the target of an assault is disturbing, particularly given, that that creature, as you say, couldn't possibly understand their concern. On the post of the man who had been attacked, implying that there was no excuse for the animal to get hurt.
no subject
Date: 24/9/11 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 25/9/11 10:33 am (UTC)USELESS COMMENT.
Date: 25/9/11 07:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 25/9/11 10:34 am (UTC)