THICKOS!!!! Poor animals, reverse it let them be the alpacas and get chairs hurled at them but as you say DD if caught a caution may be the only punishment given, can't hurt them can we..
Sh#te like that should have no human rights. A good case for a damn good beating. I bet there is a few on here along with myself that would be willing to dole out the punishment to them.
While the I find the crime abhorrent, my biggest concern is that "people" with this sort of mentality exist.
We used to destroy ourselves or lumps of rock, not animals or other people. Violent films and games have brought everything to a new level and television based on entertainment through other people's suffering does not help.
Many do not want censorship but that doesn't mean it is not a necessity.
We used to destroy ourselves or lumps of rock, not animals or other people.
Nonsense: (I think I understand what you're saying, even though your sentence doesn't actually make sense) we've been warring with other tribes and killing animals for food since time immemorial. That doesn't mean I don't think the perpetrators are ....
I was talking about my friends and I during my youth.
If I rework the sentence to "I used to destroy myself or lumps of rock, not animals or other people" the sentence is sound and hence the only ambiguity is that I didn't qualify who "we" referred to. In turn you jumped to the conclusion that I meant a much larger "we".
I'd be amazed if you always qualify "we" whenever you use the word.
Please feel free to post a corrected version of my statement and indicate why the original does not make sense.
Chris , are you just taking the we? How could we possibly qualify its precise meaning each time? (Oops, sorry, Im asking on behalf of society, not DD and me)
DD, the syntax is faulty. It's necessary to qualify "we" since without qualification, misunderstandings can arise. I really thought that your "we" referred to humanity in general: who is in error here: is it I for making a false assumption or you, for failing to make your meaning clear? The "we" could be used without qualification only if previous reference had been made to a group which defined it.
Saw on local news tonight group of teenagers caught for doing this. Have had to apologise to the care home who own these Alpacas and community service, that'll teach them, Not!
Saw on local news tonight group of teenagers caught for doing this. Have had to apologise to the care home who own these Alpacas and community service, that'll teach them, Not!
Two of the three have to do community service as well.
I find it very strange that if this was a dog owner that had done it to their own dog then it would have been dealt with much more harshly but it would have been the RSPCA prosecuting and it would have gone to court.
This community reparation scheme is a cost saving project but of course in many cases it also dodges justice.
Theres a direct correlation between recession...animal or child cruelty increase...miss use of of animals via breeding to make money etc etc We seem to breed a low empathy aggressive unhappy youth who take pleasure in suffering & violence. As society is distracted by consumption. Money. Possessions .material things .debt junk tv & culture . Sectors of people dont even think or just consider their own rights&" needs" Ie: im angry and drunk. Bored. Ill bash these animals for fun...cause i can. They dont matter. The commodification and misuse of animals will continue....
How could we possibly qualify its precise meaning each time? (Oops, sorry, Im asking on behalf of society, not DD and me) 
