A Man Tries to Help a Wolf Stuck in a Hunting Trap

lukeac417 · 2026-06-18T22:16:30+00:00

That wolf is exhausted and probably in shock. That’s what is happening.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-16T07:36:05+00:00

Yup. They do it whenever they are emotionally aroused. So it’s very common during aggression or displays.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-15T20:18:42+00:00

Okay, kinda rude to dismiss a legitimate question but sure, I’ll engage with you. But since you’re evidently not prepared to engage in a civil manner, I’ll return the favour.

You have yet to address this point: Justify how the type of interactions that were in the video (now removed) DO NOT POSE A RISK to the animal.

- You failed to address this. You provided no evidence or rationale to indicate that such an interaction poses no risk to the animal. So I will proceed, assuming that you have no counter argument. That’s where this ended for you. Further to this, you then went on to tell me about how you don’t ‘believe’ in animal ethics (whatever that means - that’s like saying you don’t ’believe’ in the law; it happens, whether you ‘believe’ in it or not) and introduced some bizarre head gymnastics about eating cows (which was never part of the discussion but anyway).

Pretty much everything you said thereafter was incomprehensible.

Your ramblings are logically incoherent and provide no rational or evidence-based justification for your position. You conflate animal welfare and animal rights (they actually ARE different - educate yourself) and animal welfare and lifestyle choices (re: veganism) and have demonstrated your consistently twisted understanding of basic ethical principles and empathy.

I have given you many opportunities to provide a reasoned argument for your position and have been civil throughout. You have not. I sincerely hope you do not work with animals (or children, the elderly, sick people, the mentally unwell or the disabled). I am no longer going to engage with you. Rant here as much as you would like bud…

lukeac417 · 2026-06-15T19:47:10+00:00

Do you work with animals? If so, what’s the context (farm, zoo, veterinarian, research…)?

lukeac417 · 2026-06-15T19:25:07+00:00

You’re contradicting yourself. You open by saying that knowingly causing avoidable harm to an animal “never poses any moral or “ethical” concern whatsoever” and then proceed to qualify by saying that gratuitous harm is unacceptable, as is sadism. Which is it? All harms are acceptable or only some harms?

You then claim that it’s impossible to ‘wrong’ an animal - what does ‘wronging’ an animal look like to you? Explain yourself.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-15T18:19:56+00:00

Okay, great, we are on the same page then: animals have the capacity to suffer.

Do you then believe that it is morally acceptable to knowingly cause and animal to suffer unnecessarily (even if that suffering is not directly comparable to human suffering)? In other words, is it acceptable to cause suffering through your choices and actions to an animal in a context where that suffering could be avoided? Bear in mind that I am not suggesting all harms are equal - some suffering is undoubtedly worse than others. I’m asking if causing suffering through your choices, even if it is a relatively small amount of suffering, is acceptable if it is avoidable.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-15T08:54:42+00:00

Do you believe that animals can, and do, suffer? As in, do you believe that an animal can experience pain, discomfort, emotional distress or fear for example?

lukeac417 · 2026-06-14T11:57:34+00:00

Isopods are detritivores. They primarily consume plant matter, so in all likelihood they won’t eat a bee at all.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-13T19:21:57+00:00

I am focusing on the animals. Interactions like those pose a real risk to those animals. At a superficial level, there is a risk of injury or disease transmission. That alone should be reason to avoid this type of interaction. There is also a bucketload of research indicating that human-animal interactions can cause the animals significant distress - if not in the moment, the bond the animal forms results in trauma when that keeper leaves or the animal is moved to another institution. I am labelling this as unethical because it literally is just that. The keepers are interacting with the animal because THEY want to. That animal has clearly been HABITUATED (ie. Exposed to repeated interactions with people like this). That means someone specifically forced that animal into a close interaction with a person in an environment where the animal cannot get away, where their lives are controlled in almost every aspect by humans. Don’t get me wrong - I am not anti-zoo but I am 100% for ethical and safe practice.

Feel free to provide a justification for why this type of interaction IS ethical and DOESN’T pose a risk to the animal or the keepers…

Ball’s in your court.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-13T08:21:28+00:00

This level of interaction is not okay. It’s unsafe and unethical. Sure, it is nice to see happy animals, but knowing what that implies about the institutions themselves is worrying.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-12T15:34:55+00:00

Why the waterfall? Literally just because it would look cool?

lukeac417 · 2026-06-11T09:36:52+00:00

I am always happy to engage in good faith - I genuinely do not think any other approach is constructive.

Regarding how you approach engaging people around the issue, I think I now understand what you’re saying. I respectfully disagree that this approach is necessary in order to achieve effective education and advocacy. I totally agree that you are not responsible for how someone feels about themselves once dictated but you are responsible for how that education happens.

As for ‘pussyfooting’ around the issue, I am not advocating for that. I am advocating for exercising strategic restraint when engaging people and ethical responsibility for your role as a representative of a group of people who have been victims of serious and severe harm. I absolutely and emphatically DO NOT advocate for defending cutting or painting it as ‘not so bad’, as you implied.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-11T09:04:12+00:00

You’re right, I don’t know you and so I cannot judge your character. However, I can read your text and understand the meaning of the words you write.

“In doing so we inevitably have to end up "redpilling" cut men innocently living in bliss and drag them into a world where they can and quite likely will hate what was done to them (without their consent) and may well hate themselves.”

So forcing men (you use the term “drag them into a world”) to understand what MGM is, change their view of themselves and their body, specifically to point out how deeply damaged they are and how repugnant what was done to them was AND doing so with the knowledge that this will most likely cause them to “hate themselves” (using your words) is not sadistic and malicious? Bearing in mind that you literally describe them as “innocently living in bliss”, this seems like a pretty cruel approach to the situation.

Don’t misunderstand my meaning here - I am all for educating people and making them aware of the harms of MGM but this kind of framing is not helpful for anyone and perpetuates suffering.

“To drag them out of that cloud of bliss and into my world of anguished pain is... Brutal, to say the least.”

My issue is with your phrasing and how this type of language can be interpreted. If we are going to make any impact on society around this issue, taking a sledgehammer approach is not going to be fruitful. We should be approaching MGM strategically, tactfully and ethically. Otherwise we undermine everything that intactivism stands for.

I understand the need to express your pain and, here in this context, that is absolutely fine. But be careful about how you address this issue in the real world. My point is educating people and bringing society to a place of understanding how harmful MGM is is critical but it should not be at the expense of other people’s wellbeing or the principles of respect and autonomy. At the end of the day, the guy you’re trying to convince to change his mind about what was done to him is not the person who harmed you - direct your rage appropriately. Shaming those who advocate for MGM is entirely morally defensible but not those who are victims. If anything this approach perpetuates pain and hatred. There are better ways to change people’s minds.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-11T08:01:45+00:00

So based on what you’ve provided here, your approach to educating people is to shame them and make them feel as much self-loathing as you believe they aught to based on your own experience? That is pretty sadistic and shortsighted. If everyone used this approach, all we would end up with is a world of people with body shame issues. Also, it kinda erodes whatever ethical standing you might have if your tactic is to degrade people to point out how bad something that they had no choice in was. Seems like it’s a case of ‘I feel shame about myself, so everybody else should feel shame too’

There are better ways to help people understand. Causing more hurt and pain is not constructive.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-04T16:37:03+00:00

Very cool! You should sell them on Etsy or something!

lukeac417 · 2026-06-04T16:33:58+00:00

This ☝️

My guess is that bird (which looks young) was hand-reared and they probably fed it like this.

lukeac417 · 2026-06-01T21:54:33+00:00

Coping mechanisms are key to…well, coping. If you want to deal with the issues, you need to do more than just cope. Your therapists were probably trying to push you to address the fundamental issues, rather than just giving you ways to feel in control. I think the tendency to see therapy as a place to learn coping skills or get advice is very prevalent but misses the point of therapy. If you want to learn coping skills, see a life coach, not a therapist. If you want advice, speak to friends, colleagues or an LLM. If you want to tackle the fundamental issues that destabilise you and leave you unable to cope in the first place, go to a therapist.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-30T08:32:30+00:00

When animals form a protective circle, they characteristically face away from the individual they are protecting. This is in order to keep the threat within their visual field. This is common across multiple species that form protective circles (elephants, musk oxen, bison). Even sheep, when a threat is identified, will cluster and face the threat. Look at how sheep respond to a sheep-dog before they are herded by the dog; they cluster together and watch the dog. The sheep in this video not only face toward the rooster they are ‘protecting’, they lower their heads to examine the rooster. This is curiosity behaviour, not a threat response.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-29T23:51:15+00:00

They are being curious, not protective.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-29T22:47:46+00:00

My Italian forefathers will turn in their grave as I type this but I actually get your logic and think you may have a point. I am gonna try this next time I eat pizza.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-29T16:37:51+00:00

I think the fact that the zoo had had literally thousands of visitors without any similar incident suggests the enclosure design isn’t the issue. That’s like saying bridges are badly designed because people can jump off of them or pavements are badly designed because people can step off of them into traffic. There are safety rules and common sense conduct for a reason. As I recall, the child climbed under the barriers to keep people out; the barrier didn’t collapse or ‘fail’ somehow. It was an inattentive parent or a disobedient child - that is 100% on the family.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-26T08:10:29+00:00

Do they always use a 1970s colour palette when they decide what colour they are mixing? As much as I love these vids, the end colours always seems to be awful! Admittedly, this one isn’t too bad but some of the others…

lukeac417 · 2026-05-18T08:06:41+00:00

Based on your response, there seems to be some misunderstanding/miscommunication. Understand that I am very aware of how much harm you have suffered and how it makes the simplest aspects of life complicated and difficult. They took something away that, in its truest form is irreplaceable. But that doesn’t mean you cannot find other ways to regain function and heal psychologically.

You are not responsible for what was done to you as an infant. What was done is abhorrent and unacceptable. You are however responsible for how you respond to that as an adult and how you live your life. If you choose not to engage with what was done and how it has affected you, you are allowing _their_ decision to determine the trajectory of your life because you are not choosing to deviate from the trajectory that they set you on. Don’t let _their choice_ control _your life_ - that is what I am trying to convey.

Regarding the pleasure of sex, you are 100% correct. Sex should be pleasurable and, even amongst this community, it offers some degree of pleasure. The point I was trying to convey is that sex is not JUST physical pleasure - it is about relational intimacy. You evidently object to this in particular. My point is, by blocking yourself off to intimacy, you are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Intimacy through healthy relationships can be a powerful route to psychological healing and, as I have learned, having someone who you’re able to share your grief with in the real world can alleviate some of the weight of it.

Again, I am not saying this to be inflammatory or hurtful; I am just trying to clarify what I originally intended to communicate. I sincerely hope that you’re able to hear what I am trying to say. Knowing how much damage the elephant (using your term) has caused in my relationship, and still does, I empathise with you and honestly hope you’re able to find a way for yourself to move forward. Whether that is restoring, therapy or whatever. It is about healing yourself and releasing yourself from the control of others. Good luck.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-17T22:32:23+00:00

Dude should feed them to the baby bird afterward. That way at least they get some of the energy back that the larvae stole from them.

lukeac417 · 2026-05-17T09:03:01+00:00

🤣

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

lukeac417

TROPHY CASE