Pagalina, if I missed your point, it's only because you don't really make one. Why do you presuppose that because people are objecting to a video showing animal abuse here, that they aren't objecting about other (more significant) abuses elsewhere? This is a video about squirrels, after all -- not brick-kiln workers or children in Darfur -- so doesn't it make sense that people's comments here are about SQUIRRELS?
And as far as "scaling aggression" goes, it seems to me that posting a comment on a blog in response to a post on that blog is an appropriately scaled response.
This is incredibly weak thinking. He says, "I... came to the conclusion that Stonehenge must have been a building - and why not?" And why not? Coming up with some random scenario and saying "why not?" hardly constitutes a solution.
You know what, I take back my previous comments. Chad's eloquence convinced me that animal cruelty IS funny. I don't know where I was coming from before. Kudos, Neatorama, keep the yuks comin'!
Hey Pagalina, I have a great idea: why don't we ignore all the small problems in the world and only pay attention to the big ones. Sounds great. In fact, why don't we all agree on The Single Biggest Problem in the World, and bring all of our energy to bear on that, because we all know that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be concerned about squirrels and brick-kiln workers at the same time. Can't be done.
Josh, the act of eating meat (or owning a cat, or killing pests in one's home) is a far cry from torturing animals for recreation. So, you may be astounded at our "hypocrisy," but we are likewise astounded at your specious logic.
Robert Aronson says that Greenpeace is full of crackpots "from what [he] hears" -- but then chastises people for believing everything they hear. How interesting.
Another Jake: this clearly isn't an example of one "budget-managing executive" making a "bad call." A lawsuits of this magnitude wouldn't get filed and litigated without the support of church leadership.
And Dave, I really doubt that the Salvation Army was really "only trying to get the specifics of the will carried out," as if the church were only looking out for the interest of the deceased. They were trying to get more money; the interest of the deceased was clearly contrary to theirs.
I was going to comment that this went on waaay longer than it should have, but then I realized that it couldn't have been short enough. I don't know what's more upsetting: that someone would do this at their WEDDING, or that a bunch of people would stand around and laugh like its the funniest thing they've ever seen. Cripes.
I have to agree, the photo does look doctored: there's a telltale dark border in the image, running right between the croc and the hand. But I just found a bunch of other photos, so either someone spent a tremendous amount of time on this, or its real. The story, in any case, does seem legitimate.
And as far as "scaling aggression" goes, it seems to me that posting a comment on a blog in response to a post on that blog is an appropriately scaled response.
Another Jake: this clearly isn't an example of one "budget-managing executive" making a "bad call." A lawsuits of this magnitude wouldn't get filed and litigated without the support of church leadership.
And Dave, I really doubt that the Salvation Army was really "only trying to get the specifics of the will carried out," as if the church were only looking out for the interest of the deceased. They were trying to get more money; the interest of the deceased was clearly contrary to theirs.