this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
235 points (93.7% liked)
okmatewanker
2591 readers
105 users here now
No foul language - i.e. French ๐คฎ
Obviously satire, dozy wankers
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's still senseless, while being willfully cruel and violent; it's just a smaller magnitude in the same wrong direction.
Oh, absolutely.
Beating it to death is 'overkill' though if your intention was simply to 'make it sorry'.
Tbh, reading this thread it seems like a lot of people don't feel able to pull their punch accurately enough to both make a seagull regret taking your food and not injure it in the process.
I mean, if you're really angry, and you've physically caught it, what's wrong with screaming in it's face then throwing it into the air. It'll be off like a bat out of hell after that.
But at the end of the day, it's a bit of food, not even worth doing the above either but I guess it depends on your anger management skills.
You underestimate the resilience of wild animals. A slap will only do them good.
It always harms us when we engage in cruelty and violence. Witness your callousness.
Nah man sometimes that's the only common language.
BTW your downvote is cruel.
No, my downvote is not cruel. You are engaging in absurdity and frivolity to distract yourself because you are not willing to emotionally process what is actually a very difficult topic, one's own cruelty and violence. Like a child, you just say whatever obvious nonsense comes to mind. The content of what you say isn't important, as long as it functions as a distraction.
Whether or not it's "the only way" does not attempt to refute my point that it harms the person doing it. There is a cost. That's just more misdirection.
Ultimately you will "win" every argument this way, because bad speech is cheaper than good speech, and you can just keep saying nonsense until the problem goes away. Congratulations, you found the loophole to never having to have a real thought.
I don't think so. It's my food and if a seagull comes in to steal it it's getting smacked away. It is the way of life. You think a different animal would let a seagull steal its food? I doubt it. And my benevolence only stretches so far.
The situation isn't that a gull is trying to take your stuff, it is that they already have and the person is seeking revenge.
There's 'smacked away' and then there is 'repeatedly punched so hard that it's chest cavity caves in' though.
Did you not read my original comment? I am against reducing the seagull to a pulp.
Yes, I was just pointing out that the dude in the article didn't just 'smack away' the seagul, so we agree.
I'm thinking I worded my reply badly, making it sound like a counterpoint when it wasn't.