/townhall/ - Townhall

>>14627
No it wasn't

>>14627

I guess none of the people who signed off on this were familiar with internet trolls or perhaps ethics. Unlucky. Also, I've noticed it only takes about 10 years for satire to happen in real life.

In this real life case, the NYC Department of Environmental Conservation plays the role of Bojack Horseman.

And now Wikipedia are arguing they shouldn't have an article about this and the current article should be deleted

Have I mentioned that I hate Wikipedia?

This is the same Wikipedia that renamed the article about grooming gangs in the UK to

"Grooming gang mass hysteria and moral panic in the UK"

And claimed to it just being a far right conspiracy before then caving in to the pressure and changing it back

>>14627
I'm rather surprised this was moved. I wouldn't have expected this to be a political issue. I would've thought we all, regardless of affiliation, could come together and say the state murdering a beloved pet who had done no harm is unequivocally reprehensible.
It's a bit disheartening, honestly.

>>14632
I didn’t want this to be made about politics either. DEC should’ve realized that if Peanut's owner had her for 7 years, he would’ve been dead from Rabies a long time ago.

>>14629
*NYS

>>14632
one of the interviews of the guy has a strong political sentiment and it was two days before the election; there is also little actual information about why this happened.

>>14633
the NYS DEC could have used inductive reasoning to determine that the animals did not have rabies. they applied only the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. they were most likely influenced by internet trolls, as well.

An article said that Peanut bit an animal handler. It's likely she was put down in retaliation.

Is this the start of Nuts out for peanut?

>>14635
Only stuff I've heard around that is it was one of the guys grabbing them.
In which case, I think it's a fairly reasonable reaction.

Least Peanut went out fighting...

1. Squirrels are a 'food animal' and not a 'friend animal', with them being like cows, rabbits, deer, sheep, chickens, pigs, and the like.

2. 'Food animals' aren't pets, with some incredibly rare exceptions.

3. Grabbing a wild animal that either runs about free or is hunted for food and trying to make it into a pet, despite the species' lack of proper domestication, is not just wrong but bewildering.

I could go on, but I'm honestly really angry about this.

Would all of you break into a KFC connected factory and steal a chicken that would otherwise be a set of honey barbecue nuggets? And then pretend that it's your friend? And pretend even that somehow it's a member of your family or otherwise has the same moral worth as a person?

Stop putting in a bed something that God designed to be put on a plate! For fuck's sake! Okay?

Squirrels (used properly):

>

Police just randomly shoot dogs all the time in this country. It's almost like a constant.

Why are (mainly) conservatives all completely up in arms about this squirrel? It seems completely dumb.

>>14645
Because at least when the police do that garbage, they're looking for some other crime.
Not to mention dogs are obviously actually capable of harming someone.
Neither of which is true in this case.
They were there with a warrent literally just for this animal.

>>14645

they are using it as an example to promote the idea that government agencies are too big and have too much power, even though we don't have all the details on the reasons behind the happenings of this case.

if you want to go into deep psychology, of which hardly any of the hypothetical "mainly conservatives" would be aware, the squirrel represents a holy figure, perhaps even jesus christ themself - innocent and without blame, bringing happiness to all.

the nys dec represents the nonbelievers who put jesus to death.

so, the hypothetical conservatives are mad about the innocent squirrel (jesus) being killed, which may be ironic in some cases....

in addition, the name, "pnut," has connotations with peanut butter sandwiches, which many people associate with innocence and childhood.

further complicating matters, pnut was rescued, or "saved" by a loving family - only to have had nonbelievers (in their minds) stop them.

regardless of the psychology and emotional reactions behind it, however, the system failed the squirrel (and raccoon), as the department acted like automatons and didn't take into consideration the circumstances surrounding pnut's domicile. the department should have shown more care and consideration of the situation as soon as they found out they were a youtube rescue pet of 7 years (if they even asked). rip pnut.

>>14647
I am curious what kind of reasoning you think could exist that justified all this.
We know what happened. We know what they said they were there for.
Are you suggesting they were lying, using a false pretense to go in?

>>14648

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, as I was entertaining viewpoints from both sides.

Unless new information comes out (or there is info I'm not aware of (haven't really been keeping up with the story)) there is currently no excuse for what happened. The NYS DEC shouldn't have rushed into things and should have allowed for the owner to provide an explanation before taking the animal. The ideal conversation might have gone something like this:

DEC: *knock knock*
Squirrel Owner: "Hello?"
DEC: "Hey, we received some suspect complaints coming from people about a wild squirrel with rabies being here, so we wanted to see if it was true."
Squirrel Owner: "Oh, yes, that is my squirrel. He is a famous YouTuber." *shows video* I rescued him and have had him for 7 years. No, he doesn't have rabies."
DEC: "Oh, OK. Those complaints must have been internet trolls, then, lol."
Squirrel Owner: "Yeah, lol. It happens all the time."
DEC: "Do you have a license for your squirrel?"
Squirrel Owner: "No, sorry. I don't."
DEC: "OK, well just get a license by next month. Have a nice day."
Squirrel Owner: "Thanks, I will. Have a nice day."
DEC: *exits front porch*
Squirrel Owner: *closes door*