Why is it that if you express the slightest sympathy for an animal

I'd blame nature documentaries for developing that kind of mentality over the fragile minds of people in order to justify the injustice of the animal world. You get to see everytime how the big mean wolf merciless executes the defenseless fox that just wanted to get some food. Or that snake killing some drugged rodent. Or how a pack of hyenas tear apart a buffalo's balls and eat it alive.

>>2200234
Way to miss the point.

>>2200227
People don't even do it for actual natural processes and predation, if you've seen some of the threads lately you'll have noticed various anons crawling out of their holes to defend trophy hunting, Mexican-related dog abuse, Flamingo-throwing etc., shit that no rational person would aggressively argue to justify. It's almost as if it's become counter-cultural to hate animals and the natural world, so an animals and nature board appears to be a bountiful playground for these edgy faggots to experiment in.

>>2200241
What point did i miss? Also what i just said is reflected on >>2200242. It's all about promoting the bad side of nature just to put imperialism, slavery, oppresion and hatred towards animals on a good light.

>>2200227
I don't think those statements are edgy. Death and suffering tend to be distressing to see, and one way to deal with them is simply trying to accept them as what they are; an inevitable part of the nature.
Lacking empathy is not good, but having too much empathy isn't good either. If you care too much about everything bad taking place in the world, you can drive yourself insane. You don't have the power to change animal behavior occurring in the nature. It's better for your mental health to just accept it and focus on what's close to you.

>>2200265
I don't think they're edgy either, hence "trying to".

I've noticed it too, don't worry. It's definitely irritating.

But it's the perfect response. It sounds wise and there's no worthwhile "argument" against it. In short, saying it lets you feel better than the person who's expressing sympathy, and people have no choice but to respect you for your insightful dispassion. No wonder it's a popular thing to say.

There's two sides to how you can react to animal harm (ignoring any form of enjoying it). One gets you shit for it, and the other is designed to be agreed with. You get conditioned. This applies to a lot of things.

>>2200271
Very well put. It's a cheap, self-congratulatory back-slap of a comment, like when morons say "well I think ALL politics is stupid, if I sit on the fence posing and postulating then everyone will think I'm morally and intellectually superior, when I'm actually just shallow and dismissive".

>>2200234
the f*** you mean and Justice it's called balance you dumb n*****

>>2200227
Because this is an open forum. You expressing your feelings on the matter when animals are and have been mauled to death throughout all history is probably as silly to them as their views are to you.

File: 1468158345339.jpg (15KB, 279x284px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 279x284px

It's even more irritating when something unnatural occurs which causes harm or death, such as a car hitting an animal or someone abusing an animal, and people still dismiss it as part of the natural circle of life or "whatever it's just an animal".
Or when it goes full circle and if you try to aid an animal and people say "don't interfere with nature". Sure when it has severe negative impact, don't. But apparently when you injure or destroy habitat it's "excusable" to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

>>2200900

And...that was the wrong article.

My bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>>2200227
Well if the corpse in question was supposed to be a neglected pet people will laugh at that shit owner in thin hope s/he will do better next time.
Since, you know, humans are social beings and frustration as any other strong emotion in general can get all the way to their self-awareness or at least add to it.