I am certain that the word terrorism has never been used pre... pre 9/11 when referring to that kind of despicable act.
Terrorism has a very precise definition and it does not include unknown persons torturing pets for unknown purposes. Terrorist acts have an ideological or a political motive behind them. They're not irrational.
The fact that some people are now willing to use the word as soon as something bad happens says a lot about how paranoiac and paralayzed by fear our society has become - in a sense, exactly what the terrorists were trying to achieve, even though I was a bit tongue-in-cheek when saying the terrorists have won, given how corny that sentence now is.
Dictionary.com said:the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
I bet you're wrong, but I'm not going to do the work to prove it.I am certain that the word terrorism has never been used pre... pre 9/11 when referring to that kind of despicable act.
[...]
The fact that some people are now willing to use the word as soon as something bad happens says a lot about how paranoiac and paralayzed by fear our society has become - in a sense, exactly what the terrorists were trying to achieve, even though I was a bit tongue-in-cheek when saying the terrorists have won, given how corny that sentence now is.
But remember: If everything is now called intimidation then the intimidators have won.
I bet you're wrong, but I'm not going to do the work to prove it.
Or the opposite. Society sees and names it for what it is, without reserving "terrorism" for the same kind of "ism" as say fascism or nihilism, but rather the kind of ism like obstructionism. Terrorism regards acts meant to terrorize. Terrorism is not an idealogy in of itself. Instead of making terrorism the end all, be all of evils, its becoming just another motivation or even classification for crimes.
I am feeling something mixed about this.
On one hand i would agree that decapitating a dog is not exactly an action worthy of praise. On the other hand, though, i am wondering how life could be for a person who focuses so much on a dog, and feels great loss if it is killed. In the end it is just one dog, not as worthy as a human being, and ussually just an object of projected emotions for its keeper.
In my own view, which is not very zoophilic, violence against animals should be regarded in the same way that 'violence' against one's possesions is; it should be understood only in regards to the suffering it may cause to the person who owns them.
Your dog messing with me means you'll both die.This is the kind of thing that would cause me to take law into my own hands. Call me a dangerous citizen or whatever, but you mess with my dog, and you're dead.
Dangerous citizen.Atlas14 said:I have no clue what some peoples' relationships to their pets are, but my dog is literally my best and closest friend, and my family member. You fudge with my family, and you better be half-way across the country.
This is the kind of thing that would cause me to take law into my own hands. Call me a dangerous citizen or whatever, but you mess with my dog, and you're dead.
I have no clue what some peoples' relationships to their pets are, but my dog is literally my best and closest friend, and my family member. You fudge with my family, and you better be half-way across the country.
Terrieristic threat maybe.
Two unconnected comments:
It wasn't in the story posted here but the dog the girls medical aid dog which makes this crime even more sick in my mind.
"Making terroristic threats" has been a crime in most of the US since before the modern definition of terrorism. It means making a threat that is intended to cause fear of personal harm or violence. For example if you threaten to beat up your neighbor and there is a witness they can have you arrested for making terroristic threats.
I am feeling something mixed about this.
On one hand i would agree that decapitating a dog is not exactly an action worthy of praise. On the other hand, though, i am wondering how life could be for a person who focuses so much on a dog, and feels great loss if it is killed. In the end it is just one dog, not as worthy as a human being, and ussually just an object of projected emotions for its keeper.
In my own view, which is not very zoophilic, violence against animals should be regarded in the same way that 'violence' against one's possesions is; it should be understood only in regards to the suffering it may cause to the person who owns them.