/lit/ - Literature

>>4633122
>>4633122

>What is it about violating trust that makes people become so vehemently angry? A squirrel getting wet is objectively no big deal, but there's something about the fact that it was tricked into that scenario that bothers people.

Vestigial, lower order processes from our retarded monkey layer of the brain

>>4633122
I think it's more that it looks like she punched the squirrel

>>4633122
>>4633141
Why would anyone defend this?

why this on lit tho

>>4633148
Because it's fucking nothing

Is it evil of you to let your dog kill a squirrel in the backyard?

>>4633159
Because /lit/ is a good place to discuss ethics, which is a field of philosophy

>>4633163
Are you comparing the actions of a dog to a conscious human?

You're being quite buzzword, anon.

THERE IS NOTHING OVERLY "CRUEL" IN THIS ADMITTEDLY SENSELESS ACT. NON-CONCERN WITH "CRUELTY" IS POSSIBLY THE ONLY VIRTUE.

WE MUST REMEMBER THE "NATURAL" TRUTH THAT THE WEAK MUST ULTIMATELY YEILD TO THE STRONG.

THIS PRINCIPLE CAN BE SEEN WOVEN THROUGHOUT ALL PARTS OF LIFE'S UNFOLDING TAPESTRY. JUST AS THE OWL SNATCHES UP THE BOUNDING FIELDMOUSE, SO TOO DOES THE WOMAN PUSH THE SQUIRREL INTO THE CHARGING RIVER.

can squirrels swim?

Because only a shitty human being would do something like that.

Squirrels are disgusting pests, nobody should be troubled by rough treatment of a vermin like that.

>>4633171
No, I'm simply saying, humans can intentionally act in ways that hurt others, but people simply are forgiving if it's obfuscated behind "unintentional", even if they're informed. I can know that, driving my car and powering my house will probably help with the death of hundreds of living creatures, yet it's justifiable, because somehow: using power to watch television that kills animals for your entertainment is socially acceptable, whereas getting an animal wet for your entertainment isn't

This squirrel IS FUCKING FINE. Do you really think it can't swim? This wasn't a death, wasn't even messed up. I don't understand the irrationally visceral reaction people feel to it. Maybe I'm desensitized to working in medicine for years now, or something, but people's "cruelty" alarms are all fucking bogus and wrong.

I don't know, maybe I'm more advanced than you, or maybe you've lived such a hermetically sealed life that these things bother you, but I don't see how it's even remotely wrong

>>4633174
>WE MUST REMEMBER THE "NATURAL" TRUTH THAT THE WEAK MUST ULTIMATELY YEILD TO THE STRONG.

So you mean that we should throw to the charging river every weak thing?

>>4633174
You're a terrible imitation.

>>4633122
Reddit's fucking gay to get in a collective uproar about a squirrel being thrown in the river, but it's still cruel. Not very cruel, because like you said the squirrel's going to be fine, but it thought it was getting a nice treat and then was thrown into a river. That's mean. Who can really argue otherwise?

>>4633182
Not really. There objectively worse treatment of creatures all around you, all times of the day, all the time, the difference is, that cruelty is obfuscated and considered "necessary" so it's overlooked

How about the thousands of animals that have died during logging to make paper for the books you read? Are you a cruel person for having participated in that? It's a nonsensical point and you're not more ethically in-tune simply because her actions were direct and yours are obfuscated

>>4633182
yeah right, faglord. let's talk dolphin gang rapes and killer whale antics. appeals to nature, etc.

>>4633188
>X are disgusting pests, nobody should be troubled by rough treatment of a vermin like that.

It's just reddit being the hugbox that it is.

Sure, it's hardly amusing pulling one over on an animal that's not very smart to begin with, but it's not especially cruel either.

>>4633202
IT'S NOT SO MUCH AN IMITATION AS IT IS "PASTICHE" ; BUT I AM RECEPTIVE TO ANY AND ALL CRITICISM.

>>4633205
>That's mean.

Maybe there's a huge problem with squirrels in this area aggressively going after people and chirping to get food. Maybe it's causing ecological problems because it's so common, and these people are there to train squirrels to not trust humans, to restore a bit of natural order.

Being mean absolutely has a place in making ethical and moral decisions, and only a simpleton goes "THAT'S MEAN"

>>4633200
It's satire you fucking twit.

>>4633198
A paragraph response; outlining that for some reason your indirect consequences of living somehow justifies you being cruel to animals.

>>4633200
TO SOME EXTENT, YES, IDIOT. PERHAPS YPU SHOULD DEVELOP YOUR "READING COMPREHENSION" ABILITIES TO A LEVEL BEYOND THE 5TH GRADE

animals don't know what the fuck they're doing half of the time. it's a dick move to manipulate that to their disadvantage. nevermind the trauma. i fell in the water as a child once. it was fucking terrifying.

but let's be honest. you just become uncomfortable when you see people you think are below you ( = redditors) acting passionately about something. so you stupidly take the contrary position like a little neckbeard. grow up, pervert.

>>4633198

>I'm special and better than you because you are loser and I'm great

Maybe you should see someone about that narcissism, you wannabe psychopath.

>>4633218
are you receptive to this?

*whips out dick*

>>4633217
>A paragraph response; outlining that for some reason your indirect consequences of living somehow justifies you being cruel to animals.

This isn't cruel. You have absolutely no basis to claim it is cruel. You're just responding viscerally because you do not have a mind that can process beyond simpleton-tier emotions.

>>4633226
If your life is so petty that you get pissed off over a squirrel getting wet, then yes, your life must objectively be less stimulating and shittier than mine.

>>4633227
I AM NOT FULLY AWARE OF MY POSITION ON THE SEXUAL SPECTRUM ; BUT I ASSURE YOU I AM BASICALLY UN-CURIOUS

Wanton abuse of power against something that is unable to defend itself (either because it's too weak or it doesn't understand the nature of the abuse) provokes empathy because it benefits social behaviours and blah blah blah

But even if we understand the conditions of our consciousness and motivations, we still inhabit them. According to the more-or-less shared collective unconscious opinion of modern humanity, that chick probably has a dogshit soul. Cruelty to momentarily vulnerable creatures is not a desired trait.

>>4633198
Read up on how peasant societies of the past treated women, children, the elderly, let alone animals. People are either very easy to brutalise or (if you want to look at it differently) very fluid in their ability to form empathy and learn to project themselves onto a mind that is vulnerable to their abuse. It was generally the norm to beat the living shit out of your wife for fun any time you felt like it, torture dogs to pass time, etc. Or look at the way that Romans casually dehumanised slaves to the point that they actually intuitively saw them as walking furniture.

I disagree with some Tumblrfags' utopias where everyone is a pussy who never experiences hardship, but we've come a long fucking way from former barbarism. The fact that people object to this kind of thing is probably a good sign for the species. Hell, it's probably a good sign for you personally, because the memetic aspects are filtering through the collective unconscious all the time. A person who is hypersensitive to whether some fag on Youtube is "cruelly" frightening their cat for the sake of making a dumb video is cultivating extreme empathy, and will be more likely to a) teach this behaviour to others, and b) help you somehow.

>>4633235
PERHAPS "CONTINUUM" WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PLEASING TO THE READING EAR

>mfw people always flip their shit over animal abuse but don't bat an eye at human tragedies

>>4633228
I'm responding viscerally? In what way is the ethical treatment of other living things based only on emotions? There are numerous logical and rational reasons why slapping a squirrel into water is cruel; what would be a sad reality is the idea that I would have to explain them to you.

I would be very interested in what you think would be 'beyond simpleton-tier emotions', but from the fallacies of arguing you're committing I don't think I value your opinion on anything whatsoever.

>>4633233

Didn't say I care about a squirrel.

Just that you are OBJECTIVELY a fucking moron for thinking the thesaurus you're reading out of makes you sound smart. It's like your some fourteen year old who thinks being morally gray makes you deep.

>>4633244
Reddit seems to be flipping its shit over Ukraine at the moment. I think it's because dumb Americans want Russian blood in their gullets, for whatever reason.

>>4633241
>is cultivating extreme empathy, and will be more likely to a) teach this behaviour to others, and b) help you somehow.

Explain how anything extreme is ever good. It's because people can't temper their emotions that we're close to wiping ourselves as a species thanks to people's good intentions.

>>4633206

Necessity excuses otherwise heinous actions. For example, there is such a thing as just war when war is required to progress toward some good. Going to war for the sake of having a laugh is bad. Likewise needlessly assaulting a squirrel is morally reprehensible (albeit less so) because it was not done for any reason other than entertainment.

>>4633207

I'm not claiming that dolphin rap gangs or killer whale antics are good.

>>4633262
we all know we all want ww3 to happen

>>4633241
>Read up on how peasant societies of the past treated women, children, the elderly, let alone animals. People are either very easy to brutalise or (if you want to look at it differently) very fluid in their ability to form empathy and learn to project themselves onto a mind that is vulnerable to their abuse. It was generally the norm to beat the living shit out of your wife for fun any time you felt like it, torture dogs to pass time, etc. Or look at the way that Romans casually dehumanised slaves to the point that they actually intuitively saw them as walking furniture.

>I disagree with some Tumblrfags' utopias where everyone is a pussy who never experiences hardship, but we've come a long fucking way from former barbarism. The fact that people object to this kind of thing is probably a good sign for the species. Hell, it's probably a good sign for you personally, because the memetic aspects are filtering through the collective unconscious all the time. A person who is hypersensitive to whether some fag on Youtube is "cruelly" frightening their cat for the sake of making a dumb video is cultivating extreme empathy, and will be more likely to a) teach this behaviour to others, and b) help you somehow.

Bro, this is the lowest hanging fruit. Like I said, if you care about suffering, objectively, there are a plethora of ways to prevent a much larger amount of it. A visceral reaction to once incidence does nothing to help.

>>4633265
> Likewise needlessly assaulting a squirrel is morally reprehensible (albeit less so) because it was not done for any reason other than entertainment.

Objectively nasty things happen all the time because of entertainment. Is ignoring your children to watch TV cruel? Is digging up an ecosystem to make a racetrack cruel? Is it cruel to entertain yourself when there's cruelty to end?

The motive is completely irrelevant, and you're incapable of seeing that

>>4633268

I want you to die.

porbably because being a dick is axiomatically bad

dick

>>4633270
Is your argument seriously 'why are people overreacting, the squirrel is fine?'.

What is the justification for the woman to be able to do that to that squirrel? I think you're just being contrary because reddit was brought up.

>>4633284
No, it's not.

Being a dick can be axiomatically good.

Prove me otherwise

>>4633281
>>4633270

At the very least use a goddamn synonym for the word 'objectively'. It's used like, three fucking times in every post in this stupid thread.

>>4633292
axiom: don't be a dick

not an axiom: be a dick

ergo: being a dick is bad

suck my dick

>>4633288
>Is your argument seriously 'why are people overreacting, the squirrel is fine?'.

Yes.

>What is the justification for the woman to be able to do that to that squirrel?

She was bored. In fact, I applaud her initiative to directly entertain herself. She might make a good CEO someday.

You do realize right now, that suffering is happening this very second, and if you were to get off Reddit and put effort in, you could end this suffering? Go to an old folk's home and talk to people. If you choose not to, you've made a choice to participate in suffering.

>>4633299
Being a dick isn't even axiomatic, it's a conclusion from your reasoning.

>>4633301
>She was bored. In fact, I applaud her initiative to directly entertain herself.

do you applaud my 'intiative' to put a cucumber in ur urethra because it really 'directly entertians me'

>>4633198
>>4633233
>>4633270
>>4633301

>>4633299
wouldn't an axiom be like: being a dick hurts people

>>4633301
Jesus Christ, I remember when I went through this angry adolescence phase of accusing people of hypocrisy. It's as if you have no compassion or understanding of what it means to be a human, either.

>>4633281

Nasty things happen, but they are only cruel when they are imparted without good reason when we have an accessible option which does less bad.
>Is ignoring your children to watch TV cruel? Is digging up an ecosystem to make a racetrack cruel? Is it cruel to entertain yourself when there's cruelty to end?

It depends. The moral landscape is complex. There are no hard and fast rules.

>>4633270
The entire point of the post is that it's systemic.

I'm not saying go around and form a giant philosophical movement in favour of not punching squirrels. I'm saying it's not that bad for people to object to squirrel-punching - especially when they're part of a species of often psychotically violent apes, whose closest genetic relative wages cannibalistic wars of extinction against each other for no reason (and specifically eats their enemies' babies), which throws nuclear weapons at cities full of civilians or gasses entire races en masse, which existed in virtual slavery for thousands of years, etc.

Maybe a little widely-distributed sympathy for squirrels can act as a tiny counterbalance to the fact that we're otherwise nuts.

>>4633301
>I applaud her initiative to directly entertain herself

Protip: People aren't offended by teenage egoism because it's edgy, they're offended by it because it's stupid.

>>4633311
wouldn't a dick be you?

>>4633306
oh wow mr. serious over here omg tell me about the B- you got in informal logic doucheboob

>>4633122
its a dick move but not "cruel"

>>4633322

Dick moves are just slight cruelties.

>>4633307
I'd have to admire certain qualities, but I can't say I'd like that. Same towards the squirrel

You do realize that axiomatically, might makes right, no?

>>4633320
how you feel about braxton miller starting next season

>>4633215
>being this autistic

I'm so sorry I can't live up to your elite standards of analysis every time I see a prank.

Don't worry though next time I see someone laugh at a retard I will take the time to ponder the implications of such a profound event.

>>4633314
Compassion is not the human virtue, objectively not so. Neither is empathy.

>>4633315
>It depends. The moral landscape is complex. There are no hard and fast rules.

I'd heavily agree, which is why responding viscerally to such an act as "wrong and cruel" is irrational.

>>4633316
>Maybe a little widely-distributed sympathy for squirrels can act as a tiny counterbalance to the fact that we're otherwise nuts.

Or maybe it's meaningless symbolism meant to help create a false image of the world as being anything but cruel.

>>4633327
ambivalent to sanguine

>>4633326
oh wow tell me more about ur really serious argument dickyslaps

>>4633334
>Compassion is not the human virtue

Because of twits like you mate.

>>4633334

Whoa, buddy, be careful with that edge. You might cut a finger off.

And, seriously, what the fuck is with you and that god damn word. Do you not know any words other than 'objectively'?

>>4633334
>Or maybe it's meaningless symbolism meant to help create a false image of the world as being anything but cruel.

>a fuckload of people disapprove of setting cats on fire
>one autistic man screams that it's "fake"

>>4633350
Can you write a coherent sentence about 'objectively', or are you simply trying to send me on a self-critical spiral by harping on an irrelevant part of an argument you know you can't debate against?

>>4633345
more like because of the jews

compassion is great but the real human virtue is swag

>>4633243
Nah, I like spectrum better.

>>4633357
the real human virtue is PURE NEGATIVITY

>>4633357
Compassion doesn't solve problems

>>4633334
>Compassion is not the human virtue, objectively not so. Neither is empathy.

Empathy and compassion are as essential to moral perception as is intellect. Combined they make humans intensely moral creatures.

>I'd heavily agree, which is why responding viscerally to such an act as "wrong and cruel" is irrational.

It isn't purely cold and logical perhaps, but it is rational. We have basic emotional connections to other beings which serve more or less as foundations when we do ethics.

>>4633364
problem: should we be dicks?

answer: no becuse compassion

problem solved assbarf

>>4633362
How about their is no human virtue, because such an idea makes absolutely no fucking sense and is the relic of primitive thinkers trying to make sweeping generalities of interactions they can't possibly comprehend?

>>4633355

No point arguing with fools, guy. All that can be done for them is to mock them and maybe they will notice how ridiculous they are eventually.

>>4633364
Nor does it create them.

How do you define "cruel?"
Google says: "willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it." Would you say that the squirrel is in pain or suffering?

>>4633364
Except compassion does, self-awareness and understanding stem off of it like branches off a sturdy and strong tree. It is the closest emotion we have to the understanding of a collectivist reality, and arguments could be heavily made in that favor.

>>4633369

>Let_me_laugh_harder.pnjpg.

Are you fucking serious? Are you not jerking the collective chain here?

>>4633369
how about you need a dose of pure negativity douchebloober i mean it's like you've never experienced absolute freedom and terror before

>>4633368
>problem: should we be dicks?

Answer: it's a widely known trend in psychology that you can train intelligent creature to behave based on how you treat them, whatever behavior gains them the most attention, will be the behavior most repeated. It's called behavioral conditioning.

Yes, being a dick absolutely has a place in making the world better. Do not reinforce shitty behavior, even if that means being a dick.

>>4633367
>Empathy and compassion are as essential to moral perception as is intellect. Combined they make humans intensely moral creatures.

>It isn't purely cold and logical perhaps, but it is rational. We have basic emotional connections to other beings which serve more or less as foundations when we do ethics.

This is the first post I'm starting to like, because you admit that the visceral reaction is a moral INTUITION, which should be regarded through rationality, instead of being the truth in and of itself.

Moral intuitions are not correct, and simply maintaining visceral reactions are objectively moral does far more harm than good.

>>4633387
wow ur very serious

>>4633370
No, actually, mocking fools gives them attention, which reinforces foolery.

Ignore them.

People like you are literally retarded when it comes to psychology.

>>4633372
Yes, ill-placed compassion causes problems.

>>4633378
>Except compassion does, self-awareness and understanding

Not viscerally, no. It has to be understood rationally or it's going to lead to bad things just the same.

>>4633392

So you took some introductory psychology class for your freshman elective and now you know everything there is to know in the world, eh?

You are one dumb motherfucker. This is why kids aren't allowed to vote until they are 18. Even then, it would be best to put that shit off for a few years in cases like this.

>>4633387
also it's like you haven't even heard that the pure forms of intuition insofar as they present a unified manifold are subject to the synthesis of apperception i..e the understanding itself

wow get a load of this guy

>>4633396
Actually, no, it comes from years of training at my job brah

Do you even into careers of working with people? Oh wait, you've never been in a position of correcting negative behavior in your life, you probably couldn't be trusted with simple construction work, that's why you shitpost on 4chan with your shitty moral intuitions

>>4633401

Whoa, buddy, no need to pull rank with your fancy McDonald's managerial position.

>>4633180
This is what I was wondering... they have tiny paws, so I would guess not very well... maybe people are up in arms because she apparently killed a squirrel for no good reason?

It's all fun and games until somebody/something dies...

>>4633392
>Yes, ill-placed compassion causes problems.
...problems which couldn't happen if it weren't for the creation of society, for reasons I don't think can be called "compassion"

>>4633401
d0 you even into not talking like a twelve year old or are you even into le hashtag memes brah

>>4633387

A moral intuition is definitionally reasonable. Emotional responses are not so. Emotional responses can be filtered through our reason. When they are determined reasonable, through rational examination, then they are properly moral intuitions. A reasonable moral intuition need not be the best possible or "objectively true" moral intuition. It need only be rationally defensible. I would go further and claim that objective morality is a nonsensical concept and thereby you're working with faulty premises.

>>4633411
yes please ancient one, tell me how it was before society was "created" i mean really, enlighten me

>>4633432
Before society was created, neurotic fucks with daddy and mommy issues, slightly above-average IQs/knowledge about people, good work ethics, and unfounded prejudices and compassions couldn't gain power over millions of people and fuck shit up.

(see Hitler)
(see every politician)

>>4633443
ya but "where's the proof" as they say

>>4633443
no but really tho it's like the wool has been pulled off of my eyes WOW

oops where id my trip go

>>4633449
take the lint out of your eyes, son. this is what is happening: some world leader could just go "boop" and nuke the world 20 times over if they wanted to.

this is what is happening throughout history: highly flawed individuals becoming conquerors, leaders, rulers, and generally fucking shit up.

believe it.

>>4633462
ha ha ahahaha wow you really are like this serious i mea like get over yourself turst me omg

>>4633465
Well, I'll be here in my bunker. and you'll be dead. Then we'll see who has the last laugh

me

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>4633474
ha ha okay bb i think it's past ur bedtime

>>4633479
so.... ever actually read any Beckett?

>>4633481
not all of it but i've read the molloy / malone dies / unnameable trilogy plus read / seen most of the plays

motherfucker i am an adornian what do you think i mean "do you even resistance to barbarism"

>>4633485
Neato. Are you depressed?

>>4633493
well yeah i mean barbarism is a total bummer

but you wer denkt ist nicht wütend and all that

>>4633498
Are you a boy or a grl?

>>4633504
oh wow do yuo even know who i am, i am a very famous "tripfriend" from the days of old step up "brah"

>>4633122
>What is it about violating trust that makes people become so vehemently angry?
people despise liars and manipulators because we are social animals. we do not thrive individually. we exist in such a large sphere of information that we absolutely depend on the word of others to function. if you lie to me, you are robbing me not only of my sense of well-being, but also of a part of my humanity—the ability to trust in others.

liars are keenly aware of this fact because they experience it themselves. oh, of course there are those who 'expect' to be lied to, and so are 'not bothered by it' but these people lead lives that are ultimately less fulfilling than their counterparts. when one lies to another, they are effectively saying 'i don't respect your humanity.'

that is just one part of it, of course—nobody respects this squirrel's humanity because to do so would be ridiculous. this harkens to another facet of the human hatred of deception: we don't like seeing good souls being taken advantage of. we prize niceness. entities of a lower stratum of intelligence than humans, or of profoundly lower-than-average reasoning ability, are supposed to have 'inherent niceness' because they are ignorant, and can't be blamed for their actions.

so even though a squirrel is, for all intents and purposes, expendable, and even though it doesn't process 'trust' in the same way humans do, we feel bad when we presume its trust is being violated. we are seeing a 'nice' (ignorant) entity being deceived, and we don't like that one bit.

>>4633511

Are you Fabulous? I wanted his dick/companionship.

>>4633526
bitch i am me

>>4633244
People always say this, but it's such a dishonest load of bullshit to frame it that way, because hardly anyone is actually completely indifferent to human suffering while being totally empathetic to animal suffering.

Stop spouting that stupid phrase because it's meaningless and makes you look like a moron.

ps the bitch in op's gif is a cunt and it is right that she's condemned.

>>4633122
It's not so much the squirrel getting wet as this whore's sadistic psychological state that gets showcased. You can guarantee she is a bad person and will be a bad mother. Seriously, this event in itself might seem trivial, but taking joy in behaviour of its kind is fundamentally incompatible with being a worthy person. Schopenhauer is right on this one.

>>4633206
Absolutely irrelevant regarding whether the action of that woman is cruel or unethical or not.

>>4633122
i don't know why you deny that it is arbitrary cruelty. that said it's not a big deal. pointless thread.

>>4633206
There's a difference between 'functional harm' and recreative cruelty.

>>4633198
>This squirrel IS FUCKING FINE. Do you really think it can't swim?
That aint the point, genius.

>>4633244
If she would do the same to a toddler people would get even more infuriated.

What a cunt. Deserves a crack in the mouth.

Sorry but this sort of thing upsets me.

>>4633122
Heroic virtues.

To envision a Hero, you must imagine yourself to be completely innocent and helpless. Finally, you envision a hero possessing complementary traits: The hero is self-sufficient, benevolent, loving, intelligent, confident, honorable, etc.

After the hero and his essential properties are envisioned, then you must embody such virtues and be wary of those who are vicious (possessing the antithesis of heroic virtues; vice) due to your sense of heroic justice. This process comes easy to a social creature. Morality cannot be imagined in a vacuum and such attempts lead to errors (hedonism, arbitrary relativism, anti-social misanthropy, etc.).

Now, we have not even discussed gender, but women have a certain incapacity in regard to heroism. There are alternative feminine virtues which are derived from reflection on child-rearing which are very similar to some of our heroic virtues, exept that they are exemplified. They are heroic in their own manner.

A lesson to learned is that it is always worse for a woman to be vicious, in the eyes of a man, and visa-versa. These are very obvious reflections of the sensus communis. I'd suggest a reading of Cicero's De Officiis.

>>4633564
And even then, 'functional harm' can't be automatically supported and justified simply because 'that's the way things are'.

Here is something interesting my mother and father just walked in and I asked them what their opinions were on the gif without showing any of the text or opinions, now bear In mind that they have basically the same moral, social, spiritual etc. beliefs. My mother immediately said "That's mean," while my father said "eh...it's not that bad, it's just a squirrel." Then later said "it's only bad because she tricked it, it thought it was getting food, but then it got hit into a river." So could it be that women, see it as cruel because of their "wiring" so to speak. (Motherly instinct, hormones, bigger heart, etc.) and men see it as "eh" because masculinity requires that we not be phased by anything? Also would the reactions be more intense, if it were a man hitting it into the river. I think so, because women would love to blame men for being barbaric, simplistic mouth breathers, and in defense men would say absolutely nothing is wrong.

>>4633598
Your father likely has more vices than your mother. Your mother is probably a good woman and may have been upset by the gif woman's un-maternal behavior.

>>4633598
I like your mother better.

Masculinity has nothing to do with not being phased by anything. In fact, if masculinity is at all related to the virtuous and noble aspects of men, then if anything it should mean that you're 'easily phased' ie experience concern, empathy, sympathy etc towards the weak or defenceless.

Hitting an animal is mean even if it isn't deceived before hand. To derive pleasure from such an act is suggestive of some serious problems.

>>4633210
>>4633210
It's not hugely cruel compared to other ways we treat animals, but it still is cruel. Even if the squirrel isn't harmed at all, even if it can swim, to deceive it into thinking it's going to be fed and then hitting it into a body of water is mean and totally unjustified. I mean that girl did it for pleasure. She isn't exactly the type your parents would be proud of to see you with.

They're not angry about misleading the squirrel, they're angry that she punched it into the river for no reason other than to be a dick

It's like kicking a dog, it's no big deal but people look at you like you're a baby eater or something