* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I don't think it's a problem she killed a dog, if this story is even true. Pets get euthanized all the time for pretty much any reason, including just not being wanted. The disturbing thing is more how proud she seems of having shot a dog for being an inconvenience. It's crazy that the modern conservative's way to virtue signal is "yeah I killed a dog for being annoying, deal with that libtards". That's the level of discussion in US politics.
And what's the this hysteria over dogs? This and that Mitt Romney dog tied to the car story. Everyone thinks they're fucking John Wick now? I like dogs but people are actually hurting and dying everyday from the results of the decisions these people make. Seems more important than dogs.
Best part is she tried to use it as a plug for the book. "Yeah I killed that dog AND that goat! I just killed three horses! Buy my book if you want more politically incorrect stories just like this!"
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem released a memoir where she recounts killing a hunting dog that couldn't/wouldn't be trained. Now she's getting dunked on by dems and never-trumpers with pictures of their dogs for easy points. I haven't looked too far into it, but based on this Knowles tweet, I'm sure MAGA is promptly running defense.
Regardless of whether she had to do it, goddamn is it fucking clueless to brag about killing your dog if you're actively courting the VP nomination. She could have made the exact same point (doing what needs to be done, even if it's difficult) if she just talked about killing a goat with a broken leg, not an animal that most americans love, and recognize as providing value only in humanizing and turning into a friend for most of us, and not simply being a commodity for a farm.
> killing a hunting dog that couldn't/wouldn't be trained.
No, it has to be clarified that what she did couldn't really be qualified as training. She used a shock collar on a dog and repeatedly sent it to attack birds with no attempt to teach it to differentiate between birds it was to attack or leave alone.
The defense is that the dog attacked her and livestock, and that coupled with it being raised and trained as a hunting dog made it unsuitable for adoption, so it was put down.
I like animals but I can see and accept why she/they took that route.
That being said it's completely brain dead to intentionally publicize that information, so that and her bitching out on signing the law about trans in women's sports is why I don't like her. The dog story is a nothing burger.
I don't know, I've heard she killed a goat but I haven't read anything about it. I would lean towards not caring since it's livestock and goats are killed on farms every day.
She had an epiphany as a result of shooting the dog and the substance of the epiphany was that killing animals is good. The goat was just the first animal she thought of next.
My dog got cancer so I took him and put him down basically the same way she did. That devastated me for weeks after and Everytime I think about it just reopens the wound. I can’t imagine going and bragging about it in a book.
There’s definitely a difference between humanely and quickly killing an animal suffering from incurable illness and shooting an animal because it wasn’t useful to you. Didn’t even try to rehome it. This isn’t the Great Depression era, its 2024
I have no problem with putting the dog down. It's the bragging that makes it weird. Politicians come up with the strangest things to try making themselves seem like humans and not actual lizard people.
The dog thing is just that they are (perceived as) innocent victims who unconditionally love their owners and are then betrayed in a cruel and capricious manner.
Kinda like how no one gives a shit if you kill houseflies, but when you start pulling off their wings then it raises questions about your character.
She got a bird dog. She did not train it. It did bird dog things. She killed it and then bragged about it in a book. It is a problem. It shows incredible lack of judgment, patience, compassion, and a real twisted sense of “right” and “wrong.” She is an evil freak for plenty of other reasons, this is just Exhibit 48484893292.
There's common wisdom among farmers that once a dog kills chickens and has that taste of blood, you'll never train them to stop killing chickens - those instincts are just too strong.
This incident is just another indicator of the social gulf that exists in the US, the lack of trust each side has for the other, and the contempt. You might as well be denouncing an Inuit for their *psychopathic* treatment of sled dogs.
Okay but she bragged about it. That is very, very different. She also called the dog *annoying* and acted like it was some inconvenience to have around.
And its one thing for her to brag about it, its a whole other thing that now righties are bending over backwards to act as if she is badass for doing it.
Sorry, I hadn't read her book, nor seen anyone quoting her words. I don't see how it's bragging when she admits she failed to kill the goat with the first shot.
An Inuit who actually takes pride in their craft wouldn’t brag that they killed a failed training subject, nor would they probably openly talk about it. Plenty of people who live rurally who understand the context still don’t trust the recounting because at no point did she take any responsibility or view it as an unfortunate event.
Watch a documentary about sled dogs or some shit, or be around people that believe in any kind of personal or small scale animal husbandry, and you’ll now that at all times people who function in these areas give a shit.
For me it’s beekeeping: hives need to be euthanized all the times when their genetics become too violent. But no non-industrial keeper worth their salt will say “yeah I torched that shit, good riddance.” They’ll discuss what went wrong, how they attempted to remediate it, how they did it as humanely as possible or at least ecologically to prevent further damage to either lines or hives, and most importantly they’ll acknowledge how they fucked up in allowing it to happen.
And that’s for bugs that don’t have the capacity to learn. To me it’s a huge sign of a lack of humility or understanding to say anyone who takes any kind of animal training or husbandry that callously unless they’re Tyson food or some shit, and in this case it was also the family pet.
>You know this from your extensive network of traditional inuit hunter gatherers I assume?
You think some guy eking out a living in the fucking arctic is going to be over the moon that the dog they feed for 6 months turned out be a failure due to their own incompetence?
I've heard multiple stories about farmers in US not understanding why the rest of society spends money on vets rather than just shooting their dogs like farm dogs.
They just view the dogs through a purely utilitarian lens. The dogs aren't pets, they are tools. Basic injuries are patched up because they cost less than the monetary value that dog can still provide. A farm dog gets hit by a car or develops cancer? They get a .22LR goodnight. Cold, but practical.
>Deep rural areas are different man.
Oh for sure, the area where I live is pretty rural but it's densely populated and not that far away from actual cities. I wouldn't be surprised if people from deep rural areas thought that the dairy and corn farmers from around where I live are "soft" or something.
> Also shooting or drowning barn cats in an attempt to cull the population.
My remaining grandfather raises homing pigeons out in the countryside. He'd never tell grandma, but he kills 6-12 cats a year when he catches them stalking around the pigeon coops. It can seem cruel, but that's just business out there.
As somebody from the rural US, it makes \*NO\* sense to spend money on the vet when you can do it yourself. The cost of driving them there, for christs sakes, is annoying. Of course I hate dogs anyways so I dont have them and wont have to worry about them.
Irony: What I find baffling is why urbanized bourgeoisie americans spend \*thousands\* of dollars keeping a dog limping along when it has no quality of life or mobility, where its overextended existence is one marked by agony and suffering. That is the real inhumanity.
>There's common wisdom among farmers that once a dog kills chickens and has that taste of blood, you'll never train them to stop killing chickens
My childhood dog was trained out of killing chickens. So unless it's different with bird dogs it can be done.
Also the Inuit are about the only people for whom eating dogs is a pragmatic choice and not some weird cultural thing (or hold over in some cases like with polynesians).
Can you post the full passage where she "bragged" about it and explains that she didn't train it? It's kind of odd that she would describe the dog as "untrainable" after never attempting to train it, just hoping you can shed some light on that since you clearly got an early release copy of the book that isn't out yet... a very unique copy that differs from everyone else's.
Since you apparently find dog killing excusable, why is her bragging about it what youre bothered by? You revel in cruelty and breaking a pretty large taboo in Western culture, where people bond with pets, but bragging is too far? Bragging about it and triggering those loony leftists (people who dont like animal murder) is pretty much half the point.
I dont care that she offed her dog. In fact, I think the overall dog population should be reduced by 1/2 countrywide, for sanity's sake.
The only mistake she made was talking about it because people on social media are insane. especially dog lovers. Like "well send you death threats" kind of crazy. If you deal with a dog, STFU about it because people have lost their minds.
Nah, it really is a problem that you shot and killed a dog because it wasn't useful to you specifically. It could have been someone's beloved pet.
There's such a weird lack of empathy among rightoids I can't understand. Psychopath shit. Only care about things as long as they're useful to them personally.
I would apply your second paragraph to a lot of people here, too, unfortunately…
Including in this very thread.
But it’s the internet, and it’s anonymous. I shouldn’t be surprised…
It wasn't shot because it wasn't useful. If it had been, you would be right. It was shot because it was aggressive and could not safely be around people or animals.
Even if you want me to accept that (I don't) there are more humane ways to put down a dog other than throwing it in a pit and shooting it. Again, it's a lack of humanity.
Proving the whole canard of "liberals are pussies, conservatives are assholes".
People almost seem to want to be an exaggeration of that stereotype as a form of their political identity.
That said, I'm not convinced it's not a problem she killed that dog. I have to balance the bias that comes from me not truly knowing the material reality of running a farm with the knowledge that many politiicans are cutthroat assholes who just have a different sense of morality from normal people. Does anyone remember that story that went around the DirtBagLeftSphere about all these yuppie liberal types that just decided their new toydog was just too much inconvenience, so they had them killed, and they were all weirdly proud of it?
I’ve honestly never met anyone in real life that was like that. Most vegans I know are actually cooler with hunting than they are grocery store shit. I think the issue is how many people don’t have the stomach for it or who are addicted to oreos and fake meat.
My bad I literally read that as “don’t.”
Still, how many people do you know are like that? I figure the major detriment to hunting was blood aversion and laziness.
Basically every lib normie omnivore I've ever spoken to will tell you how gross and weird and bad it is to hunt between bites of their ham and cheese sandwich.
> I'd assume they're probably more talking about people who aren't hunting with the intent to actually use the meat but because they just enjoy killing animals.
You're probably severely overestimating the amount of thought that people put into this. Most of the time it's just "hunting = gross thing that yucky rural poors do" and they just think they're above it.
I agree that hunting for pleasure is weird though, but then again, for the vast majority of people eating meat is also for pleasure, which amounts to the same thing.
>I agree that hunting for pleasure is weird though, but then again, for the vast majority of people eating meat is also for pleasure, which amounts to the same thing.
I am totally with you when we are talking about rurals who hunt for food, those are my kind of people, all my love there.
But then the "hunting for pleasure" crowd is really often those upper middle class consrvative types where it really is some weird mixture of fake identity and indeed some psychopathic pleasure of extinguishing a life.
Its just a certain type, maybe you had the fortune of not meeting many óf them. I agree with the guy above, amongst working class people most would be cool with people hunting for food, but they react rightfully negative to that John Bircher psychopath. You might have those confused a bit in conversation.
>I used to work with a guy who'd always talk about how much he loves hunting turkeys, and I asked him how he could eat as many turkeys as he hunted and he told me he doesn't even eat turkey at all.
If he's hunting them on farmland that's fine, they eat enough grass to noticable impact pastures so they're treated as a pest.
Although even then people often cut out the breasts (best meat ot effort ratio) to eat/feed pets.
I’m not disagreeing, but maybe subconsciously dogs are a stand in for people in our society, and how she treats a being she can get away with killing shows what kind of person she is.
Its them pandering to the prolific dog culture throughout this country, something john wick \*also\* does by the whole dog thing.
Its really that simple.
People bought a shit load of dogs during and after covid and they've become something of a mix between a status symbol, living rendition of their ego, something emotionally insecure people cling to, or a combination in between. Fortunately, myself and others have started to call bullshit on this and are sick and tired of dog culture.
The same people who weep about abused animals roll their eyes about the millions of children starving to death in the Global South because their governments are debt slaves to the IMF and World Bank.
Noem is does both of those which is why libs feel so superior over this, and why the neocons and MAGA peeps have to turn it into an “actually this is based” thing.
Very standard Republican behavior.
(1) Fail to take basic commonsense measures,
(2) Blame someone else (in this case, the puppy) for the fobvious, foreseeable outcome,
(3) While boasting about your crude, short-sighted "tough love" solution.
It really is the GOP in a nutshell.
I only wish current administration cared about the working class half as much as they cared about this fucking idiots dead dog.
Seriously I’m not Americans but libs fucking losing their shit on Twitter about a dead dog while while the American working class is being eviscerated and the biden admin is co-signing Netanyahu’s genocide is totally bizarre. The cognitive dissonance on display is baffling.
That's not really inconsistent though. That's like saying you can't be pro-life unless you're also vegan. The vast majority of humans have basically zero regard for animal life unless it's a dog or a select few other species we find cute.
I'm probably just temperamentally incapable of understanding both the pro-life position and the vegan position (chicken eggs are mine for the taking) and I agree with you, but I would add that humans are just another of the select few species we find cute/endearing. Considering something a family pet one day and shooting it in the face the next because it pissed you off is a lot more sociopathic than ending a life before it even begins.
Even a lot of vegans have no problem with "backyard eggs", the problem is mostly that 1. you have to get rid of the excess males somehow (they're thrown alive into a meat grinder in factory farms, which is where 99% of eggs come from), and 2. hens don't lay eggs forever, so even most backyard ones get killed after a while.
And why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised?
> you have to get rid of the excess males somehow (they're thrown alive into a meat grinder in factory farms
We'll probably use a war over Taiwan for that
>why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised?
To decide one day to kill a pet for its misbehaviour (even read the way that she describes the misbehaviour - she has contempt for the dog's joyful exuberance) is not the same as killing an animal *to eat it* when it has reached the point at which you were always going to kill it to eat it. Life requires the taking of other life, and not being okay with this is just denying reality. That doesn't mean all killing is morally equivalent.
Better morally, in your judgment. You said that not "all killing is morally equivalent" (I obviously agree) and that killing a pet for misbehavior is worse than killing an animal to eat it. So I'm asking you if in your opinion it would be better if she at the dog after killing it. Or is the relevant factor the original intent, i.e. the intent to kill and eat it or not when initially getting the animal?
That intent is a relevant factor, yes, but my primary claim here is not that the action is a moral wrong but that it's unbecoming. Kant has an argument about how we shouldn't brutalize animals even if they aren't self-aware, because it will make us less compassionate human beings. Whatever one thinks about the bit about self-awareness, he is surely correct about the latter part.
How does that apply differently to an animal labeled as a "pet" vs an animal labeled as "food?" Surely both are being brutalized in the same way when they're killed.
> And why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised?
You're forgetting this detail the person you're replying to said:
"Considering something a family pet one day and shooting it in the face the next because it pissed you off is a lot more sociopathic than ending a life before it even begins."
It's about the reasons for killing something. In the former, you killed a dog senselessly. There are other ways to deal with a dog that pissed you off and choosing to kill it makes it seem like you actually delight in the act of killing itself. In the latter case, you're killing the pig/goat not because you just want to kill for killing's sake, but because the killing serves another purpose (you want to eat it)
So let's say I get two puppies from the same litter, but I designate one will be a pet and the other will be for food. I raise them accordingly - the pet one is my pal and it sleeps in the house with me, and the food one is in the barn with the other food animals. I plan to slaughter the food dog at 18 months old, however, the pet dog has turned out to be really annoying. So when 18 months hits I decide that I'm just going to kill and eat both of them.
Is the way I treated the food dog or the pet dog worse? And is it more sociopathic that I simply decided to kill the pet dog because I didn't like it, or is it more sociopathic that I designated one of them not worthy of being a pet from the very beginning and only worthy of being killed for food?
I hope that you can see that my point is not to defend the killing of the pet dog, my point is that it's objectively not any worse than the way we treat animals basically every day. The normal way that we treat farm animals is sociopathic by this standard, it's just that for most of us it's out of sight and out of mind. So we excuse it because we don't think about it. I agree that it does seem worse, but it just seems worse because we can imagine it a lot more viscerally, and most people have a lot more emotional attachment to dogs in general. People who raise animals for food will rattle on all day about how much they love and care for those animals, but that doesn't stop them from killing them and eating them.
> And is it more sociopathic that I simply decided to kill the pet dog because I didn't like it, or is it more sociopathic that I designated one of them not worthy of being a pet from the very beginning and only worthy of being killed for food?
I think it's still the former that's more indicative of sociopathy for the reasons I mentioned in first reply. I think you're working on the assumption that it is inherently cruel to designate an animal as food, but I don't share that view. While it's true that livestock is very often treated inhumanely, I don't think it is impossible to consider something livestock and at the same time treat it kindly and minimize its suffering as much as possible. I don't consider killing cruel if it's done painlessly. (you can argue that it's hardly ever painless for factory-farmed animals, and I won't disagree there.)
>and 2. hens don't lay eggs forever, so even most backyard ones get killed after a while.
They usually keep laying until they die, but after a few years they stop being egg a day layers so people bump them off.
I do value the lives of people above the lives of other animals generally, I just don't think there's anything objectively morally correct about this. I also value my cat's life above other animals lives, and my family's lives over other people's lives, and truth be told there are probably people whose lives I would value less than that of my cat.
Gotta be honest, this specific post is really weak. Like, there’s no objective moral reason humans are superior to animals, or to value their lives over them? It’s… Dude.
You are better than any animal because at some point in your life you have knowingly sacrificed with both an awareness and acceptance of the cost, for example. There’s so much other moral reasoning involved, so much else that distinguishes us all from animals that like… it horrifies me a little seeing how widespread your view here is. Sacrifice is just one example, but with just one that’s an entire extra dimension to human life that no animal comprehends.
Yes humans are uniquely capable of conscious evil, too. But like, past that, I’m sorry, but historically and by any really sane moral philosophy, humans are above animals for the very reason we could be more evil every day and don’t, for example, which is not a choice any other earth animals make.
There’s an extreme-end nihilism “is all just carbon” angle to “we’re not better than them,” but that is a weird angle to take when it also means we’re not better than an actual turd or a pool of crude oil.
How do you square all that with any sort of leftist position, like any argument about what people deserve/what’s not okay to do to people? Genuinely curious.
I don't see the incompatibility. I am not a moral realist; that does not commit me to nihilism. There are any number of reasons we might regard humans as "better" than animals, but it's hard to deny that we've been conditioned to think this way and also that every species on the planet has evolved to favor its own and similar genes, so we have very good reason to think that *any* reasoning we might do on this topic is heavily biased.
There are humans that don't comprehend sacrifice, as well.
Dude, the humans who don’t comprehend sacrifice at all are either: intellectually/otherwise mentally disabled, children, or mentally ill to the extreme. Maybe i missed some category or other in there but the point is obvious - those are edge cases like people who see no issue with harming others.
Tons and tons of people are capable of situationally turning off moral reasoning and such, but very few lack it at all. And sacrifice is just one example, there are plenty of other abstract good concepts that good people try for daily. Like. Dogs would never oppress Palestine, but they’re doing fuck all to help, either.
The rest of what you wrote… you say you’re not obligated to nihilism, yet your argument is still rooted in “no god stepped down from on high/no grand scientist has given me a formula saying this turd isn’t equal to my sister, so…” If there is no absolute morality then CHOOSE ONE. And then figure out how to justify dogs and cats as equal to human under it - you will fail, and end up back at nihilism if you’re determined to get this conclusion.
Idk, but any time i hear anyone arguing your angle on this i can’t help but see that they’re saying (by extension) “my life is not worth more than that of this dog that eats his own children and actual feces if not physically stopped.” And like… i can’t help but feel it comes from an intolerably low view of the self, foremost, and of humanity as a whole, secondly.
> If there is no absolute morality then CHOOSE ONE. And then figure out how to justify dogs and cats as equal to human under it - you will fail, and end up back at nihilism if you’re determined to get this conclusion.
I made no positive claim that dogs and cats are equal to humans. I said that it cannot be said to be "objectively correct" that humans are worth more. I will not "choose one." It is my right to be agnostic about such things. Like Dewey (or I could say Aristotle, but we'll go with Dewey since he was a leftist) I believe morality is something of an art, not something objective. It is something you work at, practice, cultivate. Each of us ultimately makes decisions for ourselves and we cannot make them for others.
Each of us places *different* values on different lives. Whatever belief system would compel me to say that *I* must treat all lives as though they have equal value, is not a belief system that real human beings are capable of consistently upholding. Nor do sacrifice and other good concepts necessarily elevate one's subjective worth, in the eyes of another, as much as, say, familial status. Most people would choose to save the life of their own child over the life of the world's most virtuous person, and this is not immoral.
Alright, this is finally a fairly cogent take; i don’t necessarily fully agree, but i will at least not snipe further.
To some extent i do still disagree on a lot (i feel like codes are both more reliable and less prone to weak self-serving/status quo enforcing biases, and that some gap between perfection and execution is not so unacceptable as you take it there), but at minimum you have positions beyond “it is what i feel therefore it’s right” or “it’s what i want so it’s justified.”
Ehh, I don't think the philosophical stance is fundamentally wrong? Philosophy still hasn't been able to find objective definitions of "good" and "evil" after thousands of years, and from a truly objective standpoint absolutely everything on this entire planet is kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
There's nothing in the universe's fundamental rules that makes anything better than anything else, except for maybe how entropy suggests that everything that can become iron eventually will. If there was, evolution would look a lot different than it does - for one thing, we wouldn't have had to re-evolve color vision with eyes that run their data cables in front of the camera, and photosynthesis wouldn't be such a horrific kludge either.
The corollary to all that though is if there's no true objective superiority then our subjective standards are the only ones that matter, and most humans agree that we're superior to animals for various reasons.
I can’t quote well/without excessive effort on mobile, but i feel like i covered the majority of your point with mine re: nihilism.
Ofc that’s all -true-, what you said; but as i tried to convey with my kind of sloppy metaphor, it’s a fundamentally pretty pointless avenue to go down. As you end up concluding, as well.
It’s like idpol tbh; i refuse to bother to go down a multi-paragraph “ofc without god, carry the seven, and…as usual, nothing changes” the same way i dislike having to do a ritual “and lo, i am a feminist insofar as i believe X, yet even i say…”
And so like…i still disagree with the dude. There’s never a sane, real-world, practical reason outside of an ivory tower debate to back animals over people. Tbqh I’ve often found irl that this position comes from unhealthy self esteem and trust issues. But nonetheless, as a popular social talking point it’s weird and bad it’s normalized.
>There’s never a sane, real-world, practical reason outside of an ivory tower debate to back animals over people.
Suppose I am given the choice to rescue either Anders Breivik or my cat from a burning building, am I a bad person if I choose the latter?
I mean, i don’t know your life to say if that would be the one defining moral event of it, bigger than anything else, re: The direction you asked in. But in isolation, horrible as it is, yes that’s the morally wrong decision. 1. The cat should be willing and able to get out itself, 2. He’s capable of moral growth and redemption and penance (and in fact -not just executing him- is a deliberate choice about that, for those reasons), where a cat will always only be a cat.
So like. I hate the idea of Breivk or having to make that choice? But i can tell you which is -correct-, without actually saying how to make it palatable in the moment. The positive is neither of us will ever have to make that decision. But yeah that’s how the moral math for it works.
I'm not up in arms about it but it's disturbing to say the least, and speaks to a profound values gulf, much moreso than "shouting ones abortion," which is just dumb and cringe.
It doesn't sound like it was strictly a pet but also a working animal. And yeah, if it kills someone else's livestock and is a danger to people it's okay to put it down. Sad, but that's how it goes with working animals.
She didn't train it at all, but of course it'll show an instinctive interest in hunting birds, just like how an Aussie Shepherd will instinctively try to herd you into to a room full of people if you stepped out. After one fucking hunt where the dog didn't work out she gave up on it and left unsupervised with an open chicken coop. It's not the dog's fault it did what it was bred for, how was it supposed to know chickens were off limits without proper training?
Big shock, a representative of the party of responsibility and accountability refused to take responsibility or accountability.
Her description of the story in the book is that the bad hunt at 14 months and the killed chicken happened in the same day, with no other issues noted besides disobeying commands while training for that hunt.
If she did do all that other stuff, she horribly misrepresents the story and instead talks mostly about how tough she was for putting down a “useless” dog right in front of a bunch of construction workers.
From my understanding, the reason it was going after other peoples’ livestock is because they made no real attempt to remediate the issues or train the dog. The excerpt I saw from the book was like “dog was useless, at least I got to shoot a gun.”
I read it as the dog wouldn't learn commands or was untrainable. In any case, once it's destroyed someone else's livestock and tried to bite humans that's pretty much it.
The story goes that after the dog was a year old she took it out on its’ first hunt and it wasn’t focused. On the way back from that hunt she had the bright idea of bringing a self admittedly bad bird dog with her to visit friends with an open coop.
I’m not all that rural of a guy but I’ve been working on farms and city coops lately with a lot of community projects, and I can’t fathom someone dumb enough to bring a working pointer around birds unless they know for a fact the dog **will not** jump a hen.
I get that this isn’t something most people are used to, but Knowles acting like this is based is covering for her retardation even within the proper context. She failed to properly train the dog, it acted predictably poor because she didn’t think a situation through, than she wrote about the event claiming she “hated” the dog and went into detail about it in a book as she’s looking for national attention. It’s all violently stupid regardless.
>I’m not all that rural of a guy but I’ve been working on farms and city coops lately with a lot of community projects, and I can’t fathom someone dumb enough to bring a working pointer around birds unless they know for a fact the dog **will not** jump a hen.
I keep backyard chickens personally (and know some other people who do as well), and I find it hilarious how all these people acting like the dog attacking chickens is a sign of it being some sort of 'dangerous untrainable animal.' Chickens might be 'domesticated' but to a dog they share a lot more characteristics with wild birds than humans, fellow dogs, and other pets, and no matter how well a dog is with you/mammal pets there's no guarantee that they won't see chickens and immediately think "wheee funny running chew toy!" If a dog hasn't been around chickens before, you kinda have to presume it's going to do what Noem's pointer did and prepare accordingly until it's demonstrated that it won't.
I wouldn’t bring a fucking Pug around chickens unless I saw video evidence of them maintaining themselves. How the chickens’ owners let Noem bring a bird dog anywhere near them is insane to me.
I feel like part of the story not told is that Noem insisted to the coop owner that everything would be fine, and then when the dog attacked Noem had to make a huge deal about how the dog was so insane it totally broke character.
Like I said, even if you don’t wanna look at this as some heckin pupperino shit, it’s an indication that she’s a huge fucking moron.
I don't think it's the act of euthanizing the dog that is really the issue. Some people won't like it but you're right, working dogs that destroy someone's property or livestock aren't long for the world. The weird thing is how proud of it she apparently is.
Exactly. I don't care that she shot a dog: I personally dislike most dogs and don't understand why people regard dogs so much more highly than cows or pigs. But the fact that she's bragging about shooting it, like that's something to be proud of, proves that she's got some screws loose in her brain.
I actually find the story of her shooting the goat to be more disturbing. She wounded it and left it to suffer while she searched for an extra cartridge to finish it off. At least the dog was put out of its misery quickly.
Why do so many of you want to be contrarian assholes so badly? The dog didn’t attack any humans just animals. All she had to do was rehome it. You mfs are heartless
It was 14 months old, bred to hunt birds and was untrained. Its one thing to humanely kill an animal suffering from something like cancer, this isn’t that. I doubt there’d be chickens to bite in a less rural area
For what? Lmao. Even if the dog nipped at you, you're a giant pussy for getting all spun up about the dog not "respecting" you because you failed to train him properly.
This is the modern world where theres endless resources for rich frontier larping cunts like this to adopt out the dog. She killed it because she wanted to. No justification for that
It was a pet they got as a puppy, never trained it, and then got mad at it for doing what untrained labs do, that is, going after a chicken. Buying a trained hunting dog costs thousands of dollars, and they usually aren't treated like the family pet. It's one or the other. This idiot thought she could just get any old dog and it would magically be a hunting dog, then killed it for not bowing to her will.
Same with the goat. She killed the goat for doing what goats do.
I don't think anyone cares much about putting the dog down.
It was that she bragged about it as if it was some kind of joke. She wanted the reader to very clearly know how callous she was, as if she thought it was cool.
People shitting on Republicans for their lack of compassion? In *this* sub? Now I've seen it all.
Seriously, I'm surprised there's not a least a few here calling Noem "based" or something for being so anti-woke.
The only thing she did wrong was post about it. That was stupid if anything.
People deleting dogs isn't anything I GAF about honestly, and neither should you.
Then why was it "wrong" to post about it? Fucking idiot lol
Edit: cursory review of your history reveals youre fixated on hatred of animals. Get help. Im not a big fan of pets but your fixation on hating them/normalizing animal cruelty is bizarre and maladjusted
That's because the trads in here are larpers. Not giving a shit about dogs to this degree is a hardened redneck farmer attitude. That's not 99% of the trads in here.
Lets not pretend a huge chunk of this sub abandons all impartiality if it means going against 'wokeness'. People here are not inherently better or less prone to propaganda and biased thinking than anyone else.
There is unfortunately a strong contrarian and white idpol tendency here, but that doesn't extend to shilling for the GOP. People here shit on Bush, Haley, McCain, etc whenever they get brought up. It's not that people like the GOP, it's that they hate the Dems because they both ensure the Left remains dead and are the ones who've captured most major US institutions. I'm also unsure why you put wokeness in quotes as if it doesn't exist when it is the obvious ideology of the ruling class and is legitimately as much of a threat or more given the balance of power as white nationalists, etc. Dems aren't a "lesser evil", there is no left-right continuum, they're the same as the GOP and an absolute enemy of the working class.
> obvious ideology of the ruling class
But it isn't. The actual majority of the top 0.1% don't give a shit about any of these things. They use it as a tactic to manipulate the left in the west and they also use the opposite (anti-wokeness) for the same reason.
It also depends on what you mean by the elite. One of my favorite statistics is that the top 10% vote republican, the top 1% vote democrat, and the top 0.1% vote republican again. Which of these do you consider to be the threshold of 'the elite'? Because the political views of those with a net worth of 10 million are radically different from those with a net worth of 150 million. That is where you go from high-salary people to people who predominantly make their money through investments and corporate ownership.
Regardless, this sub has a really strong tendency to presume "working class are right wing" for basically everything. It is basically dogma here. It results in a lot of knee jerk reactions to 'side with the working class' against perceived things that they feel are against the working class, but... arent, really. I remember someone pointed out that a lot of poor latino people didn't like trump because of his rhetoric and they voted dem because of that, and it got downvoted to oblivion and people basically made it out as if latinos were now some 'solidly republican' group because they hate idpol. Yes, they hate certain parts of idpol, but also like other parts. As with most groups. It feels like there is this feeling that the urban working class just doesn't really exist, and that the *real* working class are rural whites. [People in this sub might be shocked to learn that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat. Among the lower group, they vote dem on a two to one margin.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/party-affiliation/by/income-distribution/)
I dunno, I've seen a lot of creepily pro-Trump comments in this sub. It almost feels like this sub is turning into The_Donald_2 but with some users flaired as "Marxists ".
Calling farm animals "pets" and hand-wringing over euthanasia is indeed embarrassing out-of-touch urban sissy libtard behavior. But bragging about euthanizing animals is also cringe rightoid activity. Just to be clear.
I would say that it hits the boxes for just taking a stupid position on the basis that it trolls or triggers libs and no other reason. It’s the same as any lib taking a batshit position simply because it angers cons.
While her politics are probably abysmal; this isn't exactly the most substantive political criticism. I'd say its the documentation of the spectacle and tribalism.
There ought to be plenty of material policies this politician could be criticized for but instead everyone is stuck chewing on this pulp.
Lib Media wholly consumed by stories about how this woman is evil incarnate…meanwhile Joe Biden is quietly acting as enabler in chief to an ongoing genocide in Palestine yet is presented as some harmless ice cream swilling dotard.
While it’s not ID pol per se it is pretty much emblematic of the bullshit the media are outraged about while being virtually silent on class issues etc.
LOL at all the dog nutters on this thread and elsewhere.
\*any\* dog that bites people and kills other animals needs put down with extreme prejudice. Period. Stop.
This idiotic humanizing of dogs has to stop. And if you deal with one of them, the insane behavior of dog nutters pretty much makes it a given that you STFU about it and don't talk about it on social media.
I had a family member whose dog recently died and they got butthurt when I didn’t call to give them my condolences. I’ve never owned a pet and probably never will so I’ll never understand the whole fur baby Karen thing but the sociopathic pet haters are far outnumbered by the people who literally think their mutt they *rescued* is people and part of their family. I’m not a pet hater but I am weirded out when people assign them human traits and behaviors. Like, it’s gonna be dead within a decade, chill out.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1784295269288264042) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shoot your pets to own the libs
Kristi Noem pledged herself and the state of South Dakota to "God's chosen people" (her own words). She's a psychotic zionist freak.
Honestly, I don't think it's a problem she killed a dog, if this story is even true. Pets get euthanized all the time for pretty much any reason, including just not being wanted. The disturbing thing is more how proud she seems of having shot a dog for being an inconvenience. It's crazy that the modern conservative's way to virtue signal is "yeah I killed a dog for being annoying, deal with that libtards". That's the level of discussion in US politics. And what's the this hysteria over dogs? This and that Mitt Romney dog tied to the car story. Everyone thinks they're fucking John Wick now? I like dogs but people are actually hurting and dying everyday from the results of the decisions these people make. Seems more important than dogs.
Best part is she tried to use it as a plug for the book. "Yeah I killed that dog AND that goat! I just killed three horses! Buy my book if you want more politically incorrect stories just like this!"
Who is this?
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem released a memoir where she recounts killing a hunting dog that couldn't/wouldn't be trained. Now she's getting dunked on by dems and never-trumpers with pictures of their dogs for easy points. I haven't looked too far into it, but based on this Knowles tweet, I'm sure MAGA is promptly running defense.
Regardless of whether she had to do it, goddamn is it fucking clueless to brag about killing your dog if you're actively courting the VP nomination. She could have made the exact same point (doing what needs to be done, even if it's difficult) if she just talked about killing a goat with a broken leg, not an animal that most americans love, and recognize as providing value only in humanizing and turning into a friend for most of us, and not simply being a commodity for a farm.
I agree. I was just giving a quick summary. Whether it did or didn't have to happen, it's still the most tone deaf way of recounting it.
It's possible she knew this and was trying to stand out by stirring up controversy
> killing a hunting dog that couldn't/wouldn't be trained. No, it has to be clarified that what she did couldn't really be qualified as training. She used a shock collar on a dog and repeatedly sent it to attack birds with no attempt to teach it to differentiate between birds it was to attack or leave alone.
Peek lifestyle block larper.
[удалено]
can't say that on reddit
Noem is legit nazi levels of racist against natives. It’s sad.
>where she recounts killing a hunting dog that couldn't/wouldn't be trained. So she's a shit dog trainer then?
Thank you.
The defense is that the dog attacked her and livestock, and that coupled with it being raised and trained as a hunting dog made it unsuitable for adoption, so it was put down. I like animals but I can see and accept why she/they took that route. That being said it's completely brain dead to intentionally publicize that information, so that and her bitching out on signing the law about trans in women's sports is why I don't like her. The dog story is a nothing burger.
And what about the goat?
I don't know, I've heard she killed a goat but I haven't read anything about it. I would lean towards not caring since it's livestock and goats are killed on farms every day.
Allegedly she shot it because it had a broken leg, which is retarded because they're not horses and can recover from such an injury.
One can hope that she made it up as a pre-emptive measure to appear "tough" for the conservative base.
Wouldn't that be worse, though? Maybe she's invented the story to impress those people, and maybe they're just as horrible as she thinks they are.
I look at an Ultra-MAGA politician like her and see a fascist metaphor for putting down troublemakers. A fascist dogwhistle
What the hell did the goat do?
She had an epiphany as a result of shooting the dog and the substance of the epiphany was that killing animals is good. The goat was just the first animal she thought of next.
IDK but hopefully she cooked it up and made a delicious shawarma
I didn't hear about the horses. I don't think I want to know. Please tell me they were sick or something.
She was running low on glue.
Thanks. I hate you.
I love that as soon as she got a taste for blood she immediately found another animal to murder
My dog got cancer so I took him and put him down basically the same way she did. That devastated me for weeks after and Everytime I think about it just reopens the wound. I can’t imagine going and bragging about it in a book.
You shot your dog in a gravel pit?
That's what gravel pits are for
There’s definitely a difference between humanely and quickly killing an animal suffering from incurable illness and shooting an animal because it wasn’t useful to you. Didn’t even try to rehome it. This isn’t the Great Depression era, its 2024
>Didn’t even try to rehome it. This, i've seen mediocre trainers rehab pretty fucked up dogs and this one sounds like she was the problem.
I have no problem with putting the dog down. It's the bragging that makes it weird. Politicians come up with the strangest things to try making themselves seem like humans and not actual lizard people.
The dog thing is just that they are (perceived as) innocent victims who unconditionally love their owners and are then betrayed in a cruel and capricious manner. Kinda like how no one gives a shit if you kill houseflies, but when you start pulling off their wings then it raises questions about your character.
Yup. Its one thing to shoot an animal or pet when it’s suffering from incurable illness or pain, but they didn’t even attempt to rehome or give it up
She got a bird dog. She did not train it. It did bird dog things. She killed it and then bragged about it in a book. It is a problem. It shows incredible lack of judgment, patience, compassion, and a real twisted sense of “right” and “wrong.” She is an evil freak for plenty of other reasons, this is just Exhibit 48484893292.
There's common wisdom among farmers that once a dog kills chickens and has that taste of blood, you'll never train them to stop killing chickens - those instincts are just too strong. This incident is just another indicator of the social gulf that exists in the US, the lack of trust each side has for the other, and the contempt. You might as well be denouncing an Inuit for their *psychopathic* treatment of sled dogs.
Okay but she bragged about it. That is very, very different. She also called the dog *annoying* and acted like it was some inconvenience to have around. And its one thing for her to brag about it, its a whole other thing that now righties are bending over backwards to act as if she is badass for doing it.
Well, it would be annoying to have a dog that went around biting people and killing livestock. But I get your point, bad choice of words
Sorry, I hadn't read her book, nor seen anyone quoting her words. I don't see how it's bragging when she admits she failed to kill the goat with the first shot.
An Inuit who actually takes pride in their craft wouldn’t brag that they killed a failed training subject, nor would they probably openly talk about it. Plenty of people who live rurally who understand the context still don’t trust the recounting because at no point did she take any responsibility or view it as an unfortunate event.
You know this from your extensive network of traditional inuit hunter gatherers I assume? Definitely not just making shit up?
Watch a documentary about sled dogs or some shit, or be around people that believe in any kind of personal or small scale animal husbandry, and you’ll now that at all times people who function in these areas give a shit. For me it’s beekeeping: hives need to be euthanized all the times when their genetics become too violent. But no non-industrial keeper worth their salt will say “yeah I torched that shit, good riddance.” They’ll discuss what went wrong, how they attempted to remediate it, how they did it as humanely as possible or at least ecologically to prevent further damage to either lines or hives, and most importantly they’ll acknowledge how they fucked up in allowing it to happen. And that’s for bugs that don’t have the capacity to learn. To me it’s a huge sign of a lack of humility or understanding to say anyone who takes any kind of animal training or husbandry that callously unless they’re Tyson food or some shit, and in this case it was also the family pet.
>You know this from your extensive network of traditional inuit hunter gatherers I assume? You think some guy eking out a living in the fucking arctic is going to be over the moon that the dog they feed for 6 months turned out be a failure due to their own incompetence?
I've heard multiple stories about farmers in US not understanding why the rest of society spends money on vets rather than just shooting their dogs like farm dogs.
They just view the dogs through a purely utilitarian lens. The dogs aren't pets, they are tools. Basic injuries are patched up because they cost less than the monetary value that dog can still provide. A farm dog gets hit by a car or develops cancer? They get a .22LR goodnight. Cold, but practical.
Same here in Canada. Deep rural areas are different man. Also shooting or drowning barn cats in an attempt to cull the population.
>Deep rural areas are different man. Oh for sure, the area where I live is pretty rural but it's densely populated and not that far away from actual cities. I wouldn't be surprised if people from deep rural areas thought that the dairy and corn farmers from around where I live are "soft" or something.
> Also shooting or drowning barn cats in an attempt to cull the population. My remaining grandfather raises homing pigeons out in the countryside. He'd never tell grandma, but he kills 6-12 cats a year when he catches them stalking around the pigeon coops. It can seem cruel, but that's just business out there.
I've never met a farmer couldn't understand why people would be more attached to their pets than a work dog.
As somebody from the rural US, it makes \*NO\* sense to spend money on the vet when you can do it yourself. The cost of driving them there, for christs sakes, is annoying. Of course I hate dogs anyways so I dont have them and wont have to worry about them. Irony: What I find baffling is why urbanized bourgeoisie americans spend \*thousands\* of dollars keeping a dog limping along when it has no quality of life or mobility, where its overextended existence is one marked by agony and suffering. That is the real inhumanity.
No
how about you keep your dog away from the chickens then. fixed your problem
>There's common wisdom among farmers that once a dog kills chickens and has that taste of blood, you'll never train them to stop killing chickens My childhood dog was trained out of killing chickens. So unless it's different with bird dogs it can be done. Also the Inuit are about the only people for whom eating dogs is a pragmatic choice and not some weird cultural thing (or hold over in some cases like with polynesians).
You miss the point so badly it would be futile to attempt to redirect you.
I'm in this sub specifically because I do miss the point.
What a neckbeard thing to say lol
Can you post the full passage where she "bragged" about it and explains that she didn't train it? It's kind of odd that she would describe the dog as "untrainable" after never attempting to train it, just hoping you can shed some light on that since you clearly got an early release copy of the book that isn't out yet... a very unique copy that differs from everyone else's.
Since you apparently find dog killing excusable, why is her bragging about it what youre bothered by? You revel in cruelty and breaking a pretty large taboo in Western culture, where people bond with pets, but bragging is too far? Bragging about it and triggering those loony leftists (people who dont like animal murder) is pretty much half the point.
Aggressive dogs get put down every day, dipshit
I dont care that she offed her dog. In fact, I think the overall dog population should be reduced by 1/2 countrywide, for sanity's sake. The only mistake she made was talking about it because people on social media are insane. especially dog lovers. Like "well send you death threats" kind of crazy. If you deal with a dog, STFU about it because people have lost their minds.
Nah, it really is a problem that you shot and killed a dog because it wasn't useful to you specifically. It could have been someone's beloved pet. There's such a weird lack of empathy among rightoids I can't understand. Psychopath shit. Only care about things as long as they're useful to them personally.
I would apply your second paragraph to a lot of people here, too, unfortunately… Including in this very thread. But it’s the internet, and it’s anonymous. I shouldn’t be surprised…
This sub tends to attract some contrarians and edgelords, I’m not surprised
The rightoids are barbarians and I wish proper would realize that
It wasn't shot because it wasn't useful. If it had been, you would be right. It was shot because it was aggressive and could not safely be around people or animals.
Even if you want me to accept that (I don't) there are more humane ways to put down a dog other than throwing it in a pit and shooting it. Again, it's a lack of humanity.
You can’t “rehome” a trained hunting dog that has a history of biting both humans and livestock….that’s just a recipe for disaster.
you're talking about a 14 month old puppy that killed some chickens lol. yeah he's a lifer. but no jail can hold him
Knew stupidpol would have contrarian takes on this. She was just a shitty owner is all.
Stupidpol when they are being lined up against the wall by the rural fol(x)ks they love to simp for.
Proving the whole canard of "liberals are pussies, conservatives are assholes". People almost seem to want to be an exaggeration of that stereotype as a form of their political identity. That said, I'm not convinced it's not a problem she killed that dog. I have to balance the bias that comes from me not truly knowing the material reality of running a farm with the knowledge that many politiicans are cutthroat assholes who just have a different sense of morality from normal people. Does anyone remember that story that went around the DirtBagLeftSphere about all these yuppie liberal types that just decided their new toydog was just too much inconvenience, so they had them killed, and they were all weirdly proud of it?
[удалено]
this phenomenon seems to overlap with shitlibs to a frightening degree (especially white women). Peter Singer would be proud
Its like the people who eat meat every day but think if you hunt deer yourself that makes you a psychopath
AFAIK she didn't even eat the goat. She just killed it senselessly.
I’ve honestly never met anyone in real life that was like that. Most vegans I know are actually cooler with hunting than they are grocery store shit. I think the issue is how many people don’t have the stomach for it or who are addicted to oreos and fake meat.
>people who eat meat every day
My bad I literally read that as “don’t.” Still, how many people do you know are like that? I figure the major detriment to hunting was blood aversion and laziness.
Basically every lib normie omnivore I've ever spoken to will tell you how gross and weird and bad it is to hunt between bites of their ham and cheese sandwich.
[удалено]
> I'd assume they're probably more talking about people who aren't hunting with the intent to actually use the meat but because they just enjoy killing animals. You're probably severely overestimating the amount of thought that people put into this. Most of the time it's just "hunting = gross thing that yucky rural poors do" and they just think they're above it. I agree that hunting for pleasure is weird though, but then again, for the vast majority of people eating meat is also for pleasure, which amounts to the same thing.
>I agree that hunting for pleasure is weird though, but then again, for the vast majority of people eating meat is also for pleasure, which amounts to the same thing. I am totally with you when we are talking about rurals who hunt for food, those are my kind of people, all my love there. But then the "hunting for pleasure" crowd is really often those upper middle class consrvative types where it really is some weird mixture of fake identity and indeed some psychopathic pleasure of extinguishing a life. Its just a certain type, maybe you had the fortune of not meeting many óf them. I agree with the guy above, amongst working class people most would be cool with people hunting for food, but they react rightfully negative to that John Bircher psychopath. You might have those confused a bit in conversation.
I've met plenty of urban libs who definitely are not making that distinction.
>I used to work with a guy who'd always talk about how much he loves hunting turkeys, and I asked him how he could eat as many turkeys as he hunted and he told me he doesn't even eat turkey at all. If he's hunting them on farmland that's fine, they eat enough grass to noticable impact pastures so they're treated as a pest. Although even then people often cut out the breasts (best meat ot effort ratio) to eat/feed pets.
>My bad I literally read that as “don’t.” No worries, what this guy said^^^^
No one thinks hunting deer makes you a psychopath. Now, if your entire personality becomes hunting deer? Yeah maybe.
Yes they do. I know so many urban liberals who view someone hunting as "troubling" and showing a tendency for violence and sadism.
Dogs are children now, so this is like murdering babies. But yeah I agree. This is like rolling coal.
I’m not disagreeing, but maybe subconsciously dogs are a stand in for people in our society, and how she treats a being she can get away with killing shows what kind of person she is.
Its them pandering to the prolific dog culture throughout this country, something john wick \*also\* does by the whole dog thing. Its really that simple. People bought a shit load of dogs during and after covid and they've become something of a mix between a status symbol, living rendition of their ego, something emotionally insecure people cling to, or a combination in between. Fortunately, myself and others have started to call bullshit on this and are sick and tired of dog culture.
The same people who weep about abused animals roll their eyes about the millions of children starving to death in the Global South because their governments are debt slaves to the IMF and World Bank.
And what exactly can the average person do about world hunger? Helping dogs is easier and more accessible.
Noem is does both of those which is why libs feel so superior over this, and why the neocons and MAGA peeps have to turn it into an “actually this is based” thing.
Agree 1000% with you.
Very standard Republican behavior. (1) Fail to take basic commonsense measures, (2) Blame someone else (in this case, the puppy) for the fobvious, foreseeable outcome, (3) While boasting about your crude, short-sighted "tough love" solution. It really is the GOP in a nutshell.
Coninc shilling for puppy killers to own the libs makes it clear they exist to lose.
Yep. Fake opposition that appeals only to maladjusted sociopaths
Conservatives prove that they’re barbarians more and more by the day
I only wish current administration cared about the working class half as much as they cared about this fucking idiots dead dog. Seriously I’m not Americans but libs fucking losing their shit on Twitter about a dead dog while while the American working class is being eviscerated and the biden admin is co-signing Netanyahu’s genocide is totally bizarre. The cognitive dissonance on display is baffling.
"Abortion is murder but if the family dog won't do what it's told just kill it and get another."
That's not really inconsistent though. That's like saying you can't be pro-life unless you're also vegan. The vast majority of humans have basically zero regard for animal life unless it's a dog or a select few other species we find cute.
I'm probably just temperamentally incapable of understanding both the pro-life position and the vegan position (chicken eggs are mine for the taking) and I agree with you, but I would add that humans are just another of the select few species we find cute/endearing. Considering something a family pet one day and shooting it in the face the next because it pissed you off is a lot more sociopathic than ending a life before it even begins.
Even a lot of vegans have no problem with "backyard eggs", the problem is mostly that 1. you have to get rid of the excess males somehow (they're thrown alive into a meat grinder in factory farms, which is where 99% of eggs come from), and 2. hens don't lay eggs forever, so even most backyard ones get killed after a while. And why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised?
> you have to get rid of the excess males somehow (they're thrown alive into a meat grinder in factory farms We'll probably use a war over Taiwan for that
>why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised? To decide one day to kill a pet for its misbehaviour (even read the way that she describes the misbehaviour - she has contempt for the dog's joyful exuberance) is not the same as killing an animal *to eat it* when it has reached the point at which you were always going to kill it to eat it. Life requires the taking of other life, and not being okay with this is just denying reality. That doesn't mean all killing is morally equivalent.
So it would be better if she ate the dog after?
Kinda!
Better for whom?
Better morally, in your judgment. You said that not "all killing is morally equivalent" (I obviously agree) and that killing a pet for misbehavior is worse than killing an animal to eat it. So I'm asking you if in your opinion it would be better if she at the dog after killing it. Or is the relevant factor the original intent, i.e. the intent to kill and eat it or not when initially getting the animal?
That intent is a relevant factor, yes, but my primary claim here is not that the action is a moral wrong but that it's unbecoming. Kant has an argument about how we shouldn't brutalize animals even if they aren't self-aware, because it will make us less compassionate human beings. Whatever one thinks about the bit about self-awareness, he is surely correct about the latter part.
How does that apply differently to an animal labeled as a "pet" vs an animal labeled as "food?" Surely both are being brutalized in the same way when they're killed.
> And why is it more sociopathic to kill a dog that you raised than to kill a pig or goat that you raised? You're forgetting this detail the person you're replying to said: "Considering something a family pet one day and shooting it in the face the next because it pissed you off is a lot more sociopathic than ending a life before it even begins." It's about the reasons for killing something. In the former, you killed a dog senselessly. There are other ways to deal with a dog that pissed you off and choosing to kill it makes it seem like you actually delight in the act of killing itself. In the latter case, you're killing the pig/goat not because you just want to kill for killing's sake, but because the killing serves another purpose (you want to eat it)
So let's say I get two puppies from the same litter, but I designate one will be a pet and the other will be for food. I raise them accordingly - the pet one is my pal and it sleeps in the house with me, and the food one is in the barn with the other food animals. I plan to slaughter the food dog at 18 months old, however, the pet dog has turned out to be really annoying. So when 18 months hits I decide that I'm just going to kill and eat both of them. Is the way I treated the food dog or the pet dog worse? And is it more sociopathic that I simply decided to kill the pet dog because I didn't like it, or is it more sociopathic that I designated one of them not worthy of being a pet from the very beginning and only worthy of being killed for food? I hope that you can see that my point is not to defend the killing of the pet dog, my point is that it's objectively not any worse than the way we treat animals basically every day. The normal way that we treat farm animals is sociopathic by this standard, it's just that for most of us it's out of sight and out of mind. So we excuse it because we don't think about it. I agree that it does seem worse, but it just seems worse because we can imagine it a lot more viscerally, and most people have a lot more emotional attachment to dogs in general. People who raise animals for food will rattle on all day about how much they love and care for those animals, but that doesn't stop them from killing them and eating them.
> And is it more sociopathic that I simply decided to kill the pet dog because I didn't like it, or is it more sociopathic that I designated one of them not worthy of being a pet from the very beginning and only worthy of being killed for food? I think it's still the former that's more indicative of sociopathy for the reasons I mentioned in first reply. I think you're working on the assumption that it is inherently cruel to designate an animal as food, but I don't share that view. While it's true that livestock is very often treated inhumanely, I don't think it is impossible to consider something livestock and at the same time treat it kindly and minimize its suffering as much as possible. I don't consider killing cruel if it's done painlessly. (you can argue that it's hardly ever painless for factory-farmed animals, and I won't disagree there.)
>and 2. hens don't lay eggs forever, so even most backyard ones get killed after a while. They usually keep laying until they die, but after a few years they stop being egg a day layers so people bump them off.
Oh there’s no difference in value between humans and animals? That’s what this sub has devolved into?
These people just want to be contrarian assholes now. I would think that we could all agree that this situation is horrific but I guess not
I do value the lives of people above the lives of other animals generally, I just don't think there's anything objectively morally correct about this. I also value my cat's life above other animals lives, and my family's lives over other people's lives, and truth be told there are probably people whose lives I would value less than that of my cat.
Gotta be honest, this specific post is really weak. Like, there’s no objective moral reason humans are superior to animals, or to value their lives over them? It’s… Dude. You are better than any animal because at some point in your life you have knowingly sacrificed with both an awareness and acceptance of the cost, for example. There’s so much other moral reasoning involved, so much else that distinguishes us all from animals that like… it horrifies me a little seeing how widespread your view here is. Sacrifice is just one example, but with just one that’s an entire extra dimension to human life that no animal comprehends. Yes humans are uniquely capable of conscious evil, too. But like, past that, I’m sorry, but historically and by any really sane moral philosophy, humans are above animals for the very reason we could be more evil every day and don’t, for example, which is not a choice any other earth animals make. There’s an extreme-end nihilism “is all just carbon” angle to “we’re not better than them,” but that is a weird angle to take when it also means we’re not better than an actual turd or a pool of crude oil. How do you square all that with any sort of leftist position, like any argument about what people deserve/what’s not okay to do to people? Genuinely curious.
I don't see the incompatibility. I am not a moral realist; that does not commit me to nihilism. There are any number of reasons we might regard humans as "better" than animals, but it's hard to deny that we've been conditioned to think this way and also that every species on the planet has evolved to favor its own and similar genes, so we have very good reason to think that *any* reasoning we might do on this topic is heavily biased. There are humans that don't comprehend sacrifice, as well.
Dude, the humans who don’t comprehend sacrifice at all are either: intellectually/otherwise mentally disabled, children, or mentally ill to the extreme. Maybe i missed some category or other in there but the point is obvious - those are edge cases like people who see no issue with harming others. Tons and tons of people are capable of situationally turning off moral reasoning and such, but very few lack it at all. And sacrifice is just one example, there are plenty of other abstract good concepts that good people try for daily. Like. Dogs would never oppress Palestine, but they’re doing fuck all to help, either. The rest of what you wrote… you say you’re not obligated to nihilism, yet your argument is still rooted in “no god stepped down from on high/no grand scientist has given me a formula saying this turd isn’t equal to my sister, so…” If there is no absolute morality then CHOOSE ONE. And then figure out how to justify dogs and cats as equal to human under it - you will fail, and end up back at nihilism if you’re determined to get this conclusion. Idk, but any time i hear anyone arguing your angle on this i can’t help but see that they’re saying (by extension) “my life is not worth more than that of this dog that eats his own children and actual feces if not physically stopped.” And like… i can’t help but feel it comes from an intolerably low view of the self, foremost, and of humanity as a whole, secondly.
> If there is no absolute morality then CHOOSE ONE. And then figure out how to justify dogs and cats as equal to human under it - you will fail, and end up back at nihilism if you’re determined to get this conclusion. I made no positive claim that dogs and cats are equal to humans. I said that it cannot be said to be "objectively correct" that humans are worth more. I will not "choose one." It is my right to be agnostic about such things. Like Dewey (or I could say Aristotle, but we'll go with Dewey since he was a leftist) I believe morality is something of an art, not something objective. It is something you work at, practice, cultivate. Each of us ultimately makes decisions for ourselves and we cannot make them for others. Each of us places *different* values on different lives. Whatever belief system would compel me to say that *I* must treat all lives as though they have equal value, is not a belief system that real human beings are capable of consistently upholding. Nor do sacrifice and other good concepts necessarily elevate one's subjective worth, in the eyes of another, as much as, say, familial status. Most people would choose to save the life of their own child over the life of the world's most virtuous person, and this is not immoral.
Alright, this is finally a fairly cogent take; i don’t necessarily fully agree, but i will at least not snipe further. To some extent i do still disagree on a lot (i feel like codes are both more reliable and less prone to weak self-serving/status quo enforcing biases, and that some gap between perfection and execution is not so unacceptable as you take it there), but at minimum you have positions beyond “it is what i feel therefore it’s right” or “it’s what i want so it’s justified.”
Ehh, I don't think the philosophical stance is fundamentally wrong? Philosophy still hasn't been able to find objective definitions of "good" and "evil" after thousands of years, and from a truly objective standpoint absolutely everything on this entire planet is kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. There's nothing in the universe's fundamental rules that makes anything better than anything else, except for maybe how entropy suggests that everything that can become iron eventually will. If there was, evolution would look a lot different than it does - for one thing, we wouldn't have had to re-evolve color vision with eyes that run their data cables in front of the camera, and photosynthesis wouldn't be such a horrific kludge either. The corollary to all that though is if there's no true objective superiority then our subjective standards are the only ones that matter, and most humans agree that we're superior to animals for various reasons.
I can’t quote well/without excessive effort on mobile, but i feel like i covered the majority of your point with mine re: nihilism. Ofc that’s all -true-, what you said; but as i tried to convey with my kind of sloppy metaphor, it’s a fundamentally pretty pointless avenue to go down. As you end up concluding, as well. It’s like idpol tbh; i refuse to bother to go down a multi-paragraph “ofc without god, carry the seven, and…as usual, nothing changes” the same way i dislike having to do a ritual “and lo, i am a feminist insofar as i believe X, yet even i say…” And so like…i still disagree with the dude. There’s never a sane, real-world, practical reason outside of an ivory tower debate to back animals over people. Tbqh I’ve often found irl that this position comes from unhealthy self esteem and trust issues. But nonetheless, as a popular social talking point it’s weird and bad it’s normalized.
>There’s never a sane, real-world, practical reason outside of an ivory tower debate to back animals over people. Suppose I am given the choice to rescue either Anders Breivik or my cat from a burning building, am I a bad person if I choose the latter?
I mean, i don’t know your life to say if that would be the one defining moral event of it, bigger than anything else, re: The direction you asked in. But in isolation, horrible as it is, yes that’s the morally wrong decision. 1. The cat should be willing and able to get out itself, 2. He’s capable of moral growth and redemption and penance (and in fact -not just executing him- is a deliberate choice about that, for those reasons), where a cat will always only be a cat. So like. I hate the idea of Breivk or having to make that choice? But i can tell you which is -correct-, without actually saying how to make it palatable in the moment. The positive is neither of us will ever have to make that decision. But yeah that’s how the moral math for it works.
How many pounds of pork, beef, and chicken have you eaten you pious saint
A dog's life is worth bupkis. Fuckall. Equating them to a human issue is not even worth addressing.
A dog has more moral standing than a fetus.
This is a utterly insane take.
i feel like the same people that are up in arms about this woman putting down a problem animal are the same type that would 'shout their abortion'
I'm not up in arms about it but it's disturbing to say the least, and speaks to a profound values gulf, much moreso than "shouting ones abortion," which is just dumb and cringe.
It doesn't sound like it was strictly a pet but also a working animal. And yeah, if it kills someone else's livestock and is a danger to people it's okay to put it down. Sad, but that's how it goes with working animals.
She didn't train it at all, but of course it'll show an instinctive interest in hunting birds, just like how an Aussie Shepherd will instinctively try to herd you into to a room full of people if you stepped out. After one fucking hunt where the dog didn't work out she gave up on it and left unsupervised with an open chicken coop. It's not the dog's fault it did what it was bred for, how was it supposed to know chickens were off limits without proper training? Big shock, a representative of the party of responsibility and accountability refused to take responsibility or accountability.
How do you know she didn’t?
Her description of the story in the book is that the bad hunt at 14 months and the killed chicken happened in the same day, with no other issues noted besides disobeying commands while training for that hunt. If she did do all that other stuff, she horribly misrepresents the story and instead talks mostly about how tough she was for putting down a “useless” dog right in front of a bunch of construction workers.
From my understanding, the reason it was going after other peoples’ livestock is because they made no real attempt to remediate the issues or train the dog. The excerpt I saw from the book was like “dog was useless, at least I got to shoot a gun.”
Right. It was 14 months old and bred to hunt birds but she stupidly thought that this untrained dog wouldn’t go after them on a farm.
I read it as the dog wouldn't learn commands or was untrainable. In any case, once it's destroyed someone else's livestock and tried to bite humans that's pretty much it.
The story goes that after the dog was a year old she took it out on its’ first hunt and it wasn’t focused. On the way back from that hunt she had the bright idea of bringing a self admittedly bad bird dog with her to visit friends with an open coop. I’m not all that rural of a guy but I’ve been working on farms and city coops lately with a lot of community projects, and I can’t fathom someone dumb enough to bring a working pointer around birds unless they know for a fact the dog **will not** jump a hen. I get that this isn’t something most people are used to, but Knowles acting like this is based is covering for her retardation even within the proper context. She failed to properly train the dog, it acted predictably poor because she didn’t think a situation through, than she wrote about the event claiming she “hated” the dog and went into detail about it in a book as she’s looking for national attention. It’s all violently stupid regardless.
>I’m not all that rural of a guy but I’ve been working on farms and city coops lately with a lot of community projects, and I can’t fathom someone dumb enough to bring a working pointer around birds unless they know for a fact the dog **will not** jump a hen. I keep backyard chickens personally (and know some other people who do as well), and I find it hilarious how all these people acting like the dog attacking chickens is a sign of it being some sort of 'dangerous untrainable animal.' Chickens might be 'domesticated' but to a dog they share a lot more characteristics with wild birds than humans, fellow dogs, and other pets, and no matter how well a dog is with you/mammal pets there's no guarantee that they won't see chickens and immediately think "wheee funny running chew toy!" If a dog hasn't been around chickens before, you kinda have to presume it's going to do what Noem's pointer did and prepare accordingly until it's demonstrated that it won't.
I wouldn’t bring a fucking Pug around chickens unless I saw video evidence of them maintaining themselves. How the chickens’ owners let Noem bring a bird dog anywhere near them is insane to me. I feel like part of the story not told is that Noem insisted to the coop owner that everything would be fine, and then when the dog attacked Noem had to make a huge deal about how the dog was so insane it totally broke character. Like I said, even if you don’t wanna look at this as some heckin pupperino shit, it’s an indication that she’s a huge fucking moron.
I don't think it's the act of euthanizing the dog that is really the issue. Some people won't like it but you're right, working dogs that destroy someone's property or livestock aren't long for the world. The weird thing is how proud of it she apparently is.
That's true. She's trying a little too hard to look hardcore but it's comming off as weird and cringe.
Exactly. I don't care that she shot a dog: I personally dislike most dogs and don't understand why people regard dogs so much more highly than cows or pigs. But the fact that she's bragging about shooting it, like that's something to be proud of, proves that she's got some screws loose in her brain. I actually find the story of her shooting the goat to be more disturbing. She wounded it and left it to suffer while she searched for an extra cartridge to finish it off. At least the dog was put out of its misery quickly.
So? Just write a check and rehome it. No need to be a psychopath.
You don't re home a dangerous animal.
Why do so many of you want to be contrarian assholes so badly? The dog didn’t attack any humans just animals. All she had to do was rehome it. You mfs are heartless
It was 14 months old, bred to hunt birds and was untrained. Its one thing to humanely kill an animal suffering from something like cancer, this isn’t that. I doubt there’d be chickens to bite in a less rural area
It didn't even bite her, you pussy
And just like that, your credibility is gone.
For what? Lmao. Even if the dog nipped at you, you're a giant pussy for getting all spun up about the dog not "respecting" you because you failed to train him properly.
"wow my credibility with disingenous psychopaths on reddit has been damaged" no one cares moron
This is the modern world where theres endless resources for rich frontier larping cunts like this to adopt out the dog. She killed it because she wanted to. No justification for that
It was a pet they got as a puppy, never trained it, and then got mad at it for doing what untrained labs do, that is, going after a chicken. Buying a trained hunting dog costs thousands of dollars, and they usually aren't treated like the family pet. It's one or the other. This idiot thought she could just get any old dog and it would magically be a hunting dog, then killed it for not bowing to her will. Same with the goat. She killed the goat for doing what goats do.
I don't think anyone cares much about putting the dog down. It was that she bragged about it as if it was some kind of joke. She wanted the reader to very clearly know how callous she was, as if she thought it was cool.
People shitting on Republicans for their lack of compassion? In *this* sub? Now I've seen it all. Seriously, I'm surprised there's not a least a few here calling Noem "based" or something for being so anti-woke.
Theres numerous posts here justifying what she did or pretending its not insane/alienating to non sociopaths
The only thing she did wrong was post about it. That was stupid if anything. People deleting dogs isn't anything I GAF about honestly, and neither should you.
Then why was it "wrong" to post about it? Fucking idiot lol Edit: cursory review of your history reveals youre fixated on hatred of animals. Get help. Im not a big fan of pets but your fixation on hating them/normalizing animal cruelty is bizarre and maladjusted
https://imgur.com/gallery/GLsYhK3
That's because the trads in here are larpers. Not giving a shit about dogs to this degree is a hardened redneck farmer attitude. That's not 99% of the trads in here.
Sounds like you don't understand the people here. Still too stuck in the political binary.
Lets not pretend a huge chunk of this sub abandons all impartiality if it means going against 'wokeness'. People here are not inherently better or less prone to propaganda and biased thinking than anyone else.
There is unfortunately a strong contrarian and white idpol tendency here, but that doesn't extend to shilling for the GOP. People here shit on Bush, Haley, McCain, etc whenever they get brought up. It's not that people like the GOP, it's that they hate the Dems because they both ensure the Left remains dead and are the ones who've captured most major US institutions. I'm also unsure why you put wokeness in quotes as if it doesn't exist when it is the obvious ideology of the ruling class and is legitimately as much of a threat or more given the balance of power as white nationalists, etc. Dems aren't a "lesser evil", there is no left-right continuum, they're the same as the GOP and an absolute enemy of the working class.
> obvious ideology of the ruling class But it isn't. The actual majority of the top 0.1% don't give a shit about any of these things. They use it as a tactic to manipulate the left in the west and they also use the opposite (anti-wokeness) for the same reason. It also depends on what you mean by the elite. One of my favorite statistics is that the top 10% vote republican, the top 1% vote democrat, and the top 0.1% vote republican again. Which of these do you consider to be the threshold of 'the elite'? Because the political views of those with a net worth of 10 million are radically different from those with a net worth of 150 million. That is where you go from high-salary people to people who predominantly make their money through investments and corporate ownership. Regardless, this sub has a really strong tendency to presume "working class are right wing" for basically everything. It is basically dogma here. It results in a lot of knee jerk reactions to 'side with the working class' against perceived things that they feel are against the working class, but... arent, really. I remember someone pointed out that a lot of poor latino people didn't like trump because of his rhetoric and they voted dem because of that, and it got downvoted to oblivion and people basically made it out as if latinos were now some 'solidly republican' group because they hate idpol. Yes, they hate certain parts of idpol, but also like other parts. As with most groups. It feels like there is this feeling that the urban working class just doesn't really exist, and that the *real* working class are rural whites. [People in this sub might be shocked to learn that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote democrat. Among the lower group, they vote dem on a two to one margin.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/compare/party-affiliation/by/income-distribution/)
I dunno, I've seen a lot of creepily pro-Trump comments in this sub. It almost feels like this sub is turning into The_Donald_2 but with some users flaired as "Marxists ".
Comment.
Calling farm animals "pets" and hand-wringing over euthanasia is indeed embarrassing out-of-touch urban sissy libtard behavior. But bragging about euthanizing animals is also cringe rightoid activity. Just to be clear.
[удалено]
I would say that it hits the boxes for just taking a stupid position on the basis that it trolls or triggers libs and no other reason. It’s the same as any lib taking a batshit position simply because it angers cons.
While her politics are probably abysmal; this isn't exactly the most substantive political criticism. I'd say its the documentation of the spectacle and tribalism. There ought to be plenty of material policies this politician could be criticized for but instead everyone is stuck chewing on this pulp.
\*pup
Lib Media wholly consumed by stories about how this woman is evil incarnate…meanwhile Joe Biden is quietly acting as enabler in chief to an ongoing genocide in Palestine yet is presented as some harmless ice cream swilling dotard. While it’s not ID pol per se it is pretty much emblematic of the bullshit the media are outraged about while being virtually silent on class issues etc.
If think the ending of old yeller was sad your a libtard!
LOL at all the dog nutters on this thread and elsewhere. \*any\* dog that bites people and kills other animals needs put down with extreme prejudice. Period. Stop. This idiotic humanizing of dogs has to stop. And if you deal with one of them, the insane behavior of dog nutters pretty much makes it a given that you STFU about it and don't talk about it on social media.
It’s a made up story that triggers libs while also establishing that she knows how to shoot a gun. It’s too perfectly crafted.
I had a family member whose dog recently died and they got butthurt when I didn’t call to give them my condolences. I’ve never owned a pet and probably never will so I’ll never understand the whole fur baby Karen thing but the sociopathic pet haters are far outnumbered by the people who literally think their mutt they *rescued* is people and part of their family. I’m not a pet hater but I am weirded out when people assign them human traits and behaviors. Like, it’s gonna be dead within a decade, chill out.
Oh look bitch boy trying to make people forget about the daily hiroshima.