You know you're an asshole when...

[Bonam]

This has nothing to do with punishing anyone for kicking a puppy. It has to do with an executive making a company look bad, and that companies last ditch attempt to salvage the employee with some kind of token gesture. My guess is the dog-beater came up with it himself.

I dunno, 1000 hours of community service sounds like a punishment to me. So does the $100k though in the case of this CEO I'm sure it's peanuts.

Lynch him? On what freakin planet do you live dude? Are you REALLY comparing the "slap on the wrist" sanction by a company of an executive whos core purpose is to convey the companies branch image to its customers with "lynching"?

Mostly just used the word cause it had already been thrown around in the thread a bunch.

Dude... this is about brand image. Do you HONESTLY not understand why a CEO caught on video beating an animal is not going to be a problem for the BOD of a company? Seriously?

Dude... do you honestly think that the people that are all outraged by this "dog beater" are gonna be at all placated by this "token gesture"? Where's the equivalent "token gestures" for much more serious offenses by executives?

[Wilber]

Pain is routinely applied to dogs as part of their training.

Really, what kind of training is that?

[On Guard for Thee]

Pain is routinely applied to dogs as part of their training.

I have had numerous dogs in my days. The only "pain" I ever inflicted on one was a bit of a raised tone of voice to get the attention of a pup chewing on my slipper or some such. The only hands I've ever laid on a dog was to either pick up or pet. I don't know where you got your idea.

[Peter F]

Sure it is easy to justify in this case. But what if the political winds shifted and CEOs found their job in jeopardy because they said the supported abortion? Would you be so sanguine? It is easy to join a lynch mob when the mob is punishing someone you don't like for positions you don't share. But what happens when mob turns it sights on someone you don't think deserves it? Do you just accept the will of mob?

Geez, it's almost like we must never stop buying their stuff - Ever.

[Peter F]

Pain is routinely applied to dogs as part of their training.

"never hit a dog."

- Pavlov

[Bonam]

Really, what kind of training is that?

Seriously, never heard of electric shock collars?

Not even mentioning the suffering endured by food animals, who are no different in any fundamental way than dogs, except that in Western countries humans choose to use dogs for amusement and companionship rather than food.

As in the purebred thread, we're back to hypocritical ideas by pet owners.

[On Guard for Thee]

Seriously, never heard of electric shock collars?

Not even mentioning the suffering endured by food animals, who are no different in any fundamental way than dogs, except that in Western countries humans choose to use dogs for amusement and companionship rather than food.

As in the purebred thread, we're back to hypocritical ideas by pet owners.

I know it's a "dog eat dog world" but most of us don't really raise dogs to eat them. So the fact that we kill cows for food does in no way justify needlessly beating a dog. Maybe if he'd of just killed the dog and ate it in the elevator.

Edited August 29, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Bonam]

I know it's a "dog eat dog world" but most of us don't really raise dogs to eat them.

Most of who? Dog meat is consumed in a number of countries comprising a significant portion of the world's population. The fascination with dogs is a subjective and largely Western phenomenon.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most of who? Dog meat is consumed in a number of countries comprising a significant portion of the world's population. The fascination with dogs is a subjective and largely Western phenomenon.

And all this is supposed to justify a wealthy man beating a dog in an elevator how?

[Bonam]

It's not a matter of justification. It's a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in people getting all outraged over a kick while ignoring the billions of animals of the same or comparably intelligent species being slaughtered for food, abused, trained with physical pain, etc. Westerners have very odd priorities and sensibilities.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's not a matter of justification. It's a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in people getting all outraged over a kick while ignoring the billions of animals of the same or comparably intelligent species being slaughtered for food, abused, trained with physical pain, etc. Westerners have very odd priorities and sensibilities.

The fact that other animals are abused does not justify abusing just one more as you seem to think. I don't think what this jerk did had anything to do with his ability to have dinner that evening.

[AngusThermopyle]

Forget it, Bonam has drunk the PETA cool aid and is beyond understanding. This is why I don't bother answering him on this subject any more, he just doesn't get it, nor apparently does he want to. I could refute everything he says but, honestly, I just can't be bothered. He apparently thinks that if bad things happen then all bets are off and bad things happening should be the order of the day for all.

[Black Dog]

Some of the people hung by lynch mobs were guilty too. That does not make the lynch mob a socially desirable way to dispense justice. Too often the innocent are persecuted as frequently as the guilty.

What difference does it make? It is not any more acceptable to get an innocent person fired from their job or punishing a company for actions of an employee that some yahoos on the internet decided was offensive.

I think these posts also make a good case for the thread title.

Comparing comparatively trivial consumer boycotts or employer sanctions for bad behaviour with lynching (a terrorist practice associated with white supremacists) serves only to diminish the latter. Anyone who uses lynching to describe anything other than terror and death at the hands of an extra-judicial mob loses teh right to be taken seriously.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Black Dog

[Mighty AC]

It's not a matter of justification. It's a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in people getting all outraged over a kick while ignoring the billions of animals of the same or comparably intelligent species being slaughtered for food, abused, trained with physical pain, etc. Westerners have very odd priorities and sensibilities.

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic." - Stalin (possibly)

Humans experience an interesting and thoroughly tested psychological phenomenon whereby we are more emotionally affected by a tragedy involving a small number of individuals than one involving many. Our willingness to help and donate to cause increases when the number of victims is small. Charities are aware of this fact which is why they often use a few individuals and personal stories to put a face on what would otherwise just be a statistic. http://reason.com/blog/2009/01/07/the-death-of-one-man-is-a-trag

In this case we have one cute and powerless puppy, being assaulted by one wealthy and powerful man. David and Goliath, Good vs Evil, the 1% vs the rest of us. People can get emotionally attached to a story like that. We would care less if the man was a poor redneck and we would care even less if the same redneck burned down a puppy mill containing 5,000 animals. Though, the fact that we can identify and quantify a nonsensical phenomenon within ourselves doesn't excuse the hypocrisy.

Pigs are more intelligent animals than dogs, yet we somehow overlook or even justify the millions of hogs and cows, and billions of chickens we torture every year in North America alone. I think we can tolerate this behaviour in part due to the large numbers involved, our arbitrary distinction between pets and food and the idea that we, as top predators, naturally eat our prey. Additionally, many are ignorant, sometimes willfully, of just how cruel the process is. During my undergrad years I toured top rated poultry, pork and beef facilities that exceeded animal treatment standards and was still appalled by how cruel the process is. This is one of countless videos documenting how animals are treated in far too many factory farms in North America. Can you imagine how these places are run in less developed nations?

[Mighty AC]

Forget it, Bonam has drunk the PETA cool aid and is beyond understanding. This is why I don't bother answering him on this subject any more, he just doesn't get it, nor apparently does he want to. I could refute everything he says but, honestly, I just can't be bothered. He apparently thinks that if bad things happen then all bets are off and bad things happening should be the order of the day for all.

By pointing out our hypocritical tendancies, Bonam is not justifying the abuse of the puppy in the OP. Try rereading the posts. Bonam has simply drawn attention to widespread animal cruelty that we tolerate. I think our hypocritical treatment of animals is worth talking about.

[Argus]

Well, at least he didn't beat it unconscious and then have to drag it out of the elevator... Think of the punishment he'd have faced then!

Or worse still, if he'd choked it in a fancy restaurant, just think of the boycotts his company would face!

Edited August 29, 2014 by Argus

[Black Dog]

Well, at least he didn't beat it unconscious and then have to drag it out of the elevator... Think of the punishment he'd have faced then!

Or worse still, if he'd choked it in a fancy restaurant, just think of the boycotts his company would face!

Well, if he'd gotten it to fight another dog, he might have seen time.

[Big Guy]

I would think that the point is the decision making process of the CEO. This individual has shown that either he cannot keep his temper or is an unconscionable bully capable of cruelty to anything weaker than he is. Either one of those qualities are detrimental to anyone in his position.

I wonder why the company would keep him on. I would assume that there is a morals or ethics clause in his contract that would provide grounds for dismissal for cause.

[TimG]

Comparing comparatively trivial consumer boycotts or employer sanctions for bad behaviour with lynching

What distinguishes a lynching from a simple murder? If you thought about it you would realize that it is the mob psychology is what makes a lynching a lynching - not the death. i.e. a group of people, many of whom may not feel that strongly, are enticed by the mob into attacking a designated victim in order to dispense what the mobs decides is "justice".

Incidents like these where an internet mob is created and encited into doling out punishments that far exceed the alleged "crime". As with the lynch mobs of old, the internet lynch mob is not interested in careful analysis of the facts - they only want blood (i.e. the guy fired from his job).

If you cannot understand the dangers of mob psychology and why encouraging is a bad thing even when the victim is unsympathetic then you have serious problems.

Edited August 29, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I would think that the point is the decision making process of the CEO. This individual has shown that either he cannot keep his temper or is an unconscionable bully capable of cruelty to anything weaker than he is. Either one of those qualities are detrimental to anyone in his position.

I wonder why the company would keep him on. I would assume that there is a morals or ethics clause in his contract that would provide grounds for dismissal for cause.

Depends on the corporation. I'm pretty sure there are many who do in fact value these qualities and would just as soon fire someone for not employing them to advance/pursue the corporations interests. Corporate culture often rewards sociopaths and usually only punishes them when they break the golden rule i.e. they get caught. Sometimes, depending on the public mood du jour, they're even celebrated.

[Bryan]

Seeing everyone's reaction before I saw the video, I was expecting it to be much worse.

[Black Dog]

What distinguishes a lynching from a simple murder? If you thought about it you would realize that it is the mob psychology is what makes a lynching a lynching - not the death. i.e. a group of people, many of whom may not feel that strongly, are enticed by the mob into attacking a designated victim in order to dispense what the mobs decides is "justice".

Incidents like these where an internet mob is created and encited into doling out punishments that far exceed the alleged "crime". As with the lynch mobs of old, the internet lynch mob is not interested in careful analysis of the facts - they only want blood (i.e. the guy fired from his job).

If you cannot understand the dangers of mob psychology and why encouraging is a bad thing even when the victim is unsympathetic then you have serious problems.

Except unlike lynch mobs, the power of the internet mob to achieve its ends is extremely limited, which is exactly what makes the comparison so facile.

Well than and the whole dead people hanging from trees thing.

[TimG]

Except unlike lynch mobs, the power of the internet mob to achieve its ends is extremely limited

A lynch mob got the CEO Mozilla fired for exercising his democratic right to opinion on a voting measures years before he took the job. That is A LOT of power. When mobs start attacking free speech it is something we all have to worry about. I suspect you wish to minimize the problem because the mobs are doing things that you support - today. I doubt you would be so sanguine when they inevitably start attacking people and causes that you agree with. Edited August 29, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

A lynch mob got the CEO Mozilla fired for exercising his democratic right to opinion on a voting measures years before he took the job.

Actually he resigned.

That is A LOT of power. When mobs start attacking free speech it is something we all have to worry about.

You don't seem to have a good understanding of how free speech works. Guys like Brendan Eich have the right to support and believe in whatever they want and express that. Mozilla customers have the right to express differing opinions and withhold their custom as a result. Corporations like Mozilla have the right to decide when an employee's statements are negatively impacting their bottom line and act accordingly. Everyone's within their rights, no one's speech rights are being trampled: rather, it's an example of the basic idea that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

I suspect you wish to minimize the problem because the mobs are doing things that you support - today. I doubt you would be so sanguine when they inevitably start attacking people and causes that you agree with.

Except this already happens.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Black Dog

[BC_chick]

Forget it, Bonam has drunk the PETA cool aid and is beyond understanding. This is why I don't bother answering him on this subject any more, he just doesn't get it, nor apparently does he want to. I could refute everything he says but, honestly, I just can't be bothered. He apparently thinks that if bad things happen then all bets are off and bad things happening should be the order of the day for all.

Bonam's view is nothing like PETA. He has stated before that he eats meat and supports animal testing.

He pointing out the hypocrisy in everyone getting upset over this and sitting down to a plate of dead animal to discuss the issue.

I agree, kicking a puppy is horrible but if you're outraged by that yet at the same time but turn a blind eye to the horrors of slaughterhouses and factory farming, then yes, it is hypocritical to be so outraged over this issue.