I suspect that many on this thread are making a joke of this young woman’s odious behavior because the pet is in the rodent family. I don’t care for gerbils or hamsters either, but it is a pet . . . a member of the “family” so to speak.
I doubt the jokes would be so lavish if the pet had been a dog or cat.
>>I suspect that many on this thread are making a joke of this young woman’s odious behavior because the pet is in the rodent family. <<
Not me. For me it is that the pet was not a human being. And the pet really is not the point. People seem to fall into two groups:
1. Those that see humans as special (in the image of God) and unique compared to the rest of creation.
2. Those that value all life to varying degrees.
The problem is, that those in the second camp see those in the first camp through their own lens and assume that if someone in the first camp can kill or harm an animal, they are just performing a “gateway” act to doing the same to a human. But those in the first camp see nothing in common between doing harm to an animal and doing harm to a human.
To be honest, someone from the second group that tortures animals really would be dangerous, in a Hanibal sort of way.