it’s curious how people react isn’t it?
The distinction between being legally right and morally wrong is sometimes blurred, but as a person you generally know when you are doing wrong and what other people would find unacceptable.
Take this dentist Walter Palmer who killed Cecil the friendly Lion and gets a deserved roasting ( in my opinion ) after he and his fellow poachers lured the animal outwith its National Park home.
Where’s the crime here?
Apparently the crime isn’t that he killed the lion, its that they deliberately lured it from its place of safety and then killed it.
Does that make it any less reprehensible?
Should the crime not be wanting to kill such a beautiful creature at all?
What I struggle to believe is why would anyone pay 50 grand to kill a lion?
What kind of rich psycho are you Walter?
Too much money, not enough morals, what else does this fucker get up to?
Heres a question .. so Walter shot a lion, what difference would it make if he shot a cow or sheep?
Are we discrimating? Of course we are.
So if there are lesser animals .. are there lesser people too? ( whole other story there!! )
On social media, Walter is being “slaughtered” forcing his dental practice to close.
Which I’m personally delighted about, a small penalty in my opinion, some people, usually arrogant wealthy dicks like him just need a right good kicking to show them how the world works and what is not acceptable to the majority of society.
But that would be legally and morally wrong .. right?
Compare and contrast with the offences of Lord Sewel, allegedly caught with hookers and snortng cocaine.
Both legally and morally wrong?
Most people including myself would probably agree
This opens a few questions ..
Forgetting the legalities for a moment, what personally I find makes it morally uacceptable is that as an individual he is married with children.
But if he was single, and arguably not hurting anyone or forcing anyone to do something they didn’t want to do, would it be any different?
Not that I condone that, both activities are illegal, neither work for me morally.
But it could be argued that as long as you aren’t hurting anyone and taking personal responsibility for your own actions then what differences does it make?
Who are you to judge?
What does make his case worse is that he is the head of professional conduct at The House Of Lords.
That hilariously makes him a judge who isn’t in a fit place to judge.
Oh the irony!
As if any of these over paid non-elected fuckers in the Lords actually make a difference anyway!
However what I am finding interesting is the comparison between both cases on social media and in the news.
The red-tops have been full of moralising about poor Cecils killer, people love animals and social media has been full of it .. calls for him to be prosecuted, hung drawn and quartered etc.
In comparison, although the news has been full of the legal and moral objections regarding Lord Sewel, in particular the more right leaning media are loving the opportuity to stand on their ivory towers and point their fingers at a Labour peer.
But social media has been fairly quiet where Lord Sewer .. .. Sorry Sewel .. is concerned, apart frm the odd obvious joke.
What does that tell us about ourselves as people?
That we largely don’t care about a Lord doing what we always expected that these over-priviledged fuckers did anyway …
Just as long as they don’t go killing any cuddly animals?
Just as well Lord Sewel isn’t part of the fox hunting lobby or he would really be in trouble!