• FerretyFever0@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s crazy behavior honestly. Don’t let that guy have access to kids, they wouldn’t make it long.

    • Schmuppes@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Those motherfuckers can be huge, too. The building where I work has a kestrel nest on the roof. Last week, there was drama when some seagulls showed up and were apparently trying to kidnap and eat the kestrels’ young ones.

  • Pothetato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    Bahaha I fully support his actions. Fucking prick seagull fucked around and found out.

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Labour’s weak attitude to immigration is to blame here just letting these thieves just fly into the country!

  • shneancy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    as someone who’s had their food stolen by a seagull a few times i once found myself in a fit of petty rage googling “can i kill a seagull” and the answer is no, like legally you cannot, they’re protected birds

      • shneancy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        it does not. Seagulls are protected in: UK, Ireland, all of Europe, all of North America, Mexico, Australia, Japan, Russia, and probably more but i can’t be bothered to go past the first few Google searches to find out

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I feel like the default is that you aren’t allowed to kill animals. Not as in most laws outlaw killing any animal, just that there are probably a lot of laws about randomly killing animals that aren’t like tiny bugs and stuff. Like you can’t just kill a deer unless you have a hunting permit. You can’t catch fish without a fishing license. Sure, you’re probably allowed to kill animals on your property that are a nuisance or anywhere in defense, but I wouldn’t just assume I can kill a random animal.

            • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think there’s a clear difference between an animal that’s a known nuisance and any other. If a rat and an emu both wander into my yard, the rat’s life is forfeit, but I’m not gonna fuck with the emu for multiple reasons.

  • RizzoTheSmall@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I grew up by the sea and seagulls can fuck right off. Ones where I was learned to shit on you and your food from above so you would put it in the bin, then they’d raid the bin and eat the shit covered food.

    A near-lifetime around these fuckers gives me some sympathy for this guy. Not a lot, but some.

    • Pnut@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I grew up with seagulls (well, lake gulls) and they weren’t a bother. Then I visited the actual seaside… I wondered why there weren’t more chip stands serving seagull meat.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Small flighted bird - Low meat ratio

        Human food scavenger - Dirty malnourished

        Of course, if you give McDonalds any hints, they might throw em in a grider whole and start a new line of nuggets.

      • RizzoTheSmall@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s been considered by many but unfortunately they are full of tiny bones, lack much meat, and don’t taste great owing to their ongoing diet of garbage, fast food, and their own shit

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Grew up by the sea too. Humans destroyed the vast majority seagulls’ habitat, overfished a ton, so if now they steal from us, it’s only fair. They are wild animals and need food. People should learn to protect their food instead of being a horrible piece of shit.

    • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      That just sounds like they’re being smart to me. They do it to get food, not to be malicious. Unlike humans.

      • RizzoTheSmall@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Doesn’t make them any more convenient to live with than hungry mosquitoes or botfly larvae

  • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    What he did was wrong, a bit because of the animal and a lot because of the spectators. It did not suffer, it was quick. It does however feel a bit like cognitive dissonance to strongly disapprove of his actions, while we systematically without any good reason eat animals and have them in small confined areas for optimal meat production per sqm. Vegans and vegetarians however, they can judge him all they want 😉 I am not one of them

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      It shows anger issues and a proloclivity towards disproportionate retribution. Most people wouldn’t kill an animal for a simple chip/fry heist.

      • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        He should not have. But we kill animals all the time simply for eating meat, because we think that tastes a bit better. We don’t need to inflict suffering on animals for years, we can abstain from meat. How are we more moral? Just because we outsource the killing? I so not condone his actions, just point out that we are not better.

        • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think there is a substantial difference though. Meat processing is done in a measured, considered way for a benefit (meat) that cannot be obtained without killing the animal. It is done in isolated facilities away from people who find the process disturbing. Just because people find something gross doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done - we have sewage maintenance done out of the public eye too - but it does maybe mean it should be done where people don’t have to see it. The only benefit this man gets from killing the animal is some sort of “revenge”. But this is in principle completely contradictory to meat processing, where animals are seen as less capable of higher order experiences and therefore more acceptable to kill. To seek revenge, you would need to be assigning more higher order experience to the seagull than we typically see it as having. You have to see the seagull as selfish, stealing, criminal, rude, etc., even though in reality a more reasonable person understands that it’s just an animal looking for food. Meat processing is not done out of some emotional vendetta against the animals, rather it is the cold detachment of it that is exactly what makes it acceptable. Can you imagine if we killed the same amount of chickens every day, not to eat them, but just because we hate them? This is much more horrifying! Because that would mean we think chickens are having complex enough inner experiences to warrant hatred, yet still we kill them.

          Meat processing maybe isn’t great, but it’s still much better than this seagull killer. It isn’t impulsive, it isn’t disproportionate in response to the situation, it acknowledges and conceals its own horrors; thereby paying respect to important social codes. The actions of this man, though, disregarded the well-being of children and others around him, in an impulsive and disproportionate response - your average meat-eater is indeed better than that, I think. When I have a craving for some meat, I don’t drag a calf down to the nearest playground, cut it in half and spray blood over the children, and proceed to mock the calf’s weakness and inferiority as I beat it to tenderize it before consumption. I just want some food, dude. But what’s this guy’s beef? It’s not beef, and it’s not even seagull meat, but rather some frightening notion of swift and decisive revenge, which reveals that he is just waiting for any excuse to get away with brutalizing things around him.

          • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think you might be debating a person who may refuse to acknowledge the points of their opponents. If they come back again, just sit it out.

        • Soulg@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The point is the it’s not cognitive dissonance, it’s just reacting to a different aspect of it than simply the dead animal.

    • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You don’t know it didn’t suffer and he didn’t kill it so that he could eat it (I’m disagreeing with you on the “cognitive dissonance” thing).

      Also im not sure if you are saying that you dont judge him for what he did or just saying youre not vegan, but doing as he did is judge worthy.

      • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Of course he should not have done this. What I am saying is that eating meat when we clearly don’t need to is also unnecessary killing. So he killed an animal for no good reason, and we kinda do the same. We have more ethical foods available for us, but we like the taste of meat, and don’t care enough about their suffering. Except for those that abstain from meat.

      • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        I know what you mean, it’s disproportionate as hell. I am just saying that we aren’t much better morally than him. Unless we abstain from meat.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Let’s think about it cold. Kill seagull -> no witnesses, and the next seagull might do the same. I mean, let’s get on his level of apeshit crazy, and let’s assume seagulls actually understand stuff like humans, morals, and above all, human morals, and on top of that, they even care about those and want to comply. You didn’t give it a lesson, because it died before it could learn from it, or before it could let the other seagulls know it’s not cool to steal chips.

      Hell, even when I’m trying to get on his level, it’s still primitively dumb.

      • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If a seagull is stealing chips from someone, odds are there are plenty of other seagulls around to witness their compatriot getting merked.

        Seagulls understand that stealing from humans is risky - that’s why they generally do it very quickly. The ones who fail suffer consequences for their failure, same as stealing food from any other creature. It’s the risk/reward calculation any scavenger has to make.

        Sometimes they calculate incorrectly. They get forcibly removed from the gene pool.

        Of course, it’s also illegal in a lot of countries to harm seagulls, so in that sense, he was in the wrong anyways.

      • ComradePenguin@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not about morals that the seagulls can understand. It is not about teaching something. He acted like a moron and completely disproportionately. However it’s not that much unethical than killing for meat, when we don’t need to eat meat.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      When’s the last time of these sky rats swung someone into a wall though. I’d say that counts for at least 5 chips.

    • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This would only be true, if that piece of shit had stolen the seagull it’s chip or if the seagulls had smashed more than two million people to death.

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Factory farms and the entire livestock/dairy/meat industry does indeed suck.

      Edit: exactly seven of you are pro-factory-farm and I think you probably need Jesus. To come back and slap each of you.