![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
002 - Non-sentient Lifeforms
Sep. 23rd, 2011 12:16 pm[here comes the preamble. It's thoughtful and considered.] In the past couple of days, Mr Sexby attacked individuals he characterised as 'innocent', 'a soldier' and a 'old' man and his dog.
He seemed to believe, out of an assumption that the Admiral is influenced by emotional pleas, that where the human harm failed, he would have succeeded had he assaulted the Marquis' canine.
I considered this odd, but dismissed it as dry humour and irrelevant.
Then once the Marquis made a network post of his own, admittedly about finding medical treatment for that dog, I saw two individuals apparently horrified about the victimisation of the animal to the degree that it overcame their feelings concerning the assault of the Marquis.
[And the question: she's genuinely uneasy and puzzled.] While I would agree that the animal being harmed is regrettable, I don't understand why hurting the Marquis had an excuse, yet there would be no possible excuse for hurting the animal. Is his attack not the greater injustice?
He seemed to believe, out of an assumption that the Admiral is influenced by emotional pleas, that where the human harm failed, he would have succeeded had he assaulted the Marquis' canine.
I considered this odd, but dismissed it as dry humour and irrelevant.
Then once the Marquis made a network post of his own, admittedly about finding medical treatment for that dog, I saw two individuals apparently horrified about the victimisation of the animal to the degree that it overcame their feelings concerning the assault of the Marquis.
[And the question: she's genuinely uneasy and puzzled.] While I would agree that the animal being harmed is regrettable, I don't understand why hurting the Marquis had an excuse, yet there would be no possible excuse for hurting the animal. Is his attack not the greater injustice?
