The fact specific animals, not pests, are being targeted isn’t a factor. If I kill an animal just gecause it is a random killing.
A rat that isn’t in your home or your eating your crops is not a pest. It is another animal and killing it because you see it on the street is a random killing.
So, the French person has pests in their home, and they and their cat are targeting those pests.
The guy with food in his hand was having that food stolen by a pest, and he exterminated that pest.
Those both really fit your criteria for pests. Gull guy did not target the bird because he saw it on the street, but because it was directly threatening his food.
The French person talked about killing them outside their home.
The guy in the article lost a french fry while eating in the space seagulls live. The only pests there are humans.
Was seagull guy going to starve because he lost a single french fry? No, he wasn’t. He killed a seagull because he’s a piece of shit. If you don’t want seagulls to eat your food maybe don’t eat in their home.
Both were examples of random completely unnecessary killings and it is messed up that you think this is ok. If a kid was killing animals just because we would place them in therapy.
Sure, but nothing about it was RANDOM.
What do you think random means?
What do you think random means? Dude’s not just walking around punching any bird he sees. There was a very clear cause and effect.
Again Im talking about the French guy I replied to not the person in the article.
Then why were you talking about seagulls as well as rats?
As I’ve stated repeatedly, it’s not random either way. SPECIFIC pests are being targeted.
Can you explain what you think is “random” about either scenario?
Because the other poster is talking about both.
The fact specific animals, not pests, are being targeted isn’t a factor. If I kill an animal just gecause it is a random killing.
A rat that isn’t in your home or your eating your crops is not a pest. It is another animal and killing it because you see it on the street is a random killing.
So, the French person has pests in their home, and they and their cat are targeting those pests.
The guy with food in his hand was having that food stolen by a pest, and he exterminated that pest.
Those both really fit your criteria for pests. Gull guy did not target the bird because he saw it on the street, but because it was directly threatening his food.
The French person talked about killing them outside their home.
The guy in the article lost a french fry while eating in the space seagulls live. The only pests there are humans.
Was seagull guy going to starve because he lost a single french fry? No, he wasn’t. He killed a seagull because he’s a piece of shit. If you don’t want seagulls to eat your food maybe don’t eat in their home.
Both were examples of random completely unnecessary killings and it is messed up that you think this is ok. If a kid was killing animals just because we would place them in therapy.
OK, so your reading comprehension is trash and you just want to get mad at people. Just go be miserable by yourself.
Bye.