Already posted it there - and was promptly told by a mod to post the issue here before he closed the thread.

Hi,

I would like to know, how bumping a thread that is only a month old with something very relevant and to encourage discussion, is "disruptive posting" ? A thread that was already in the middle of discussion but was closed for that very reason. It is better to bump up said thread and adding my thoughts (in a relatively recent thread), than wasting space by creating a new one of the same topic. It is not like it was a worthless bump post, it added to the content to the thread and actually got the discussion rolling. How, again, is this "disruptive" ?

It does not really make much sense to punish someone simply because they saw and bumped up a thread two pages down, a couple of weeks old, that happened to be the same as their topic. I would have assumed making waste of space threads was discouraged.

I can understand pointless bumps that add nothing to the discussion, but closing a thread just because someone posted something relevant and it actually generated discussion seems a bit unfair to me. And the reasoning behind it isn't really logical. Shouldn't stuff like this be moderated on a case by case basis?

For example, if there was a thread on pie recipies - and I wanted to add a new one even though the thread is a couple of weeks old, I need to create another thread like that just to add it in? And get punished for sharing a recipie? This is where bumping actually has merit.

I think it is an outdated ruling that is too broad and punishes meaningful discussion. Is there any possibility that such a ruling is reviewed and actually applied more logically? Apparenly bumping is "cluttering" the first page, but how is a thread that's getting attention going to clutter something that has several topics starting up at the one time?

I would like to know, how bumping a thread that is only a month old with something very relevant and to encourage discussion, is "disruptive posting" ? A thread that was already in the middle of discussion but was closed for that very reason. Who is the mod who did this, I'd like some clarification here please. It is better to bump up said thread and adding my thoughts (in a relatively recent thread), than wasting space by creating a new one of the same topic. It is not like it was a worthless bump post, it added to the content to the thread and actually got the discussion rolling. How, again, is this "disruptive" ?

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren't actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure."

oh man i hate how peopel say there just animals that even gets me madder. without animals we wuoldn't be able to surrived. eating animals and absuing animals are two diffrent things. as it takes plenty of things to do it safely. its not like your going into the woods and killing a deer than eating it.rcafan

What I found really odd was the person who agreed with that ego-centric, then said he has a dog. So what is the dog to him? "Just an animal" - an object? I shudder at the thought of such people holding these attitudes and having pets... anyone with a pet would understand that they are more than "just animals". It's also very disrespectful to life in general, sure, humans may be more important than other animals but to condescend animals to something like that...

Perhaps these people can go live for a month in a Siberian winter, then see exactly whether they are "just animals". Hell, you don't even need to appreciate their importance in some situations. Such scant disregard is bordering on willful, stupid ignorance.

dont care if some animals are getting abused, sorry. fix human problems first then ill give a crap. Oh no poor dog is hungry! theres people in first world countries that are also hungry butthose d-bags at peta dont give a rats ass about them, but if they see someone in a fur coat all hell breaks loose.

Thessassin

Ah yes, the "starving children in Africa" argument. Pity it's not relevant when we are talking about instances of non-human animal abuse. It appears to me that people make reference to worse atrocities when they do not give a damn about a topic in question, usually to deflect away from people's concerns and thoughts because they want their indifference to be in a stronger position. Funny that, because most of these people who cite stuff in Africa don't even care about such human issues.

Does having worse problems mean we can turn a blind eye to others? Using your logic, should we not give a damn about the sick and vulnerable in our local community because there are wars in the middle east? It's easy to say "fix human problems first", but realistically we never will because there will always be greed and malice. That's a cop out excuse really, if you are set on one problem at a time and not simultaneously, nothing would ever get done.

If the abuse is within my hearing range and/or my field of vision; then yes, I do care. If not: Out of sight - out of mind.BiancaDK

So if I told you that I saw someone abusing an animal horrifically, you would not care in the slightest? The "out of sight, out of mind" mantra can only go so far. It's not very practical, either.

Huh? It clearly does. He agreed with the guy that said I don't care they're just animals. Clearly he sees animals as a lower life form than humans and that they are not worthy of his empathy or protection. Maybe there's something being lost in translation, because that seems pretty obvious to me.guynamedbilly

Well, that's because this person is a self centered jerk. Probably some teenage, wapanese weeaboo who is yet to develop maturity. :)

As I've said before, we are animals too. People who say they're "just animals" shouldn't even be owning pets.

I don't care, they're just animals.rockerbikie

What a stupid thing to say.

You're technically an animal, too. "They're just animals"... "just animals". I HATE that attitude.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

people seem perfectly fine with leaving a rat on a glue trap for days while it chews its own legs off trying to escape

bloodling

Sorry but I'm having a hard time believing that.

Why?

Glue traps are typically used as a "set and forget" trap. The manufacturer instructions pretty much encourage people to "discard" the trap with the mouse on it. People are either too cowardly not to kill the animal themselves, or do not give a damn if it suffers in their garbage bin, still attached to the trap. People will justify it as "pest control", despite the fact that the animal is trapped, helpless and poses no nuiscance anymore.