[ SECRET POST #2419 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2419 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Way early because taking dog to the vet. :c

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #346.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see what's so baffling about it. Another adult human is the killer's equal, their peer; in theory, at least, they have a reasonable chance of defending themselves. But an animal -- and especially a domesticated pet -- is inherently dependent on humans, because we have bred them to be dependent on us. Killing someone or something dependent and vulnerable inspires a stronger reaction than killing an equal; there's a level of betrayal layered on top of the cruelty of the killing itself. It's similar to why people react more strongly to harm against children: children are more vulnerable and not as able to protect themselves, so they rely on and trust adults to protect them. Harming a child is a breach of that trust. Is that so hard to understand?