I thought the same - or maybe that there must be some backstory to this, like the guy had some sort of run in with the kid when he was over at his friend’s place. You hear about crazy trolling like this with celebrities, but Traynor is just a bloke with a blog AFAIK.
You cannot seriously be making this comparison. You don’t need to be a parent to imagine how you might feel in a certain situation, but to do so based on the fact that you’ve owned pets is absolutely, completely absurd.
In this particular case, the fact that he has pets actually concerns me more, rather than lets me dismiss his opinion as uninformed. Seems to suggest that he wouldn’t have his dog properly restrained or put down if it attacked someone without provocation, and that’s a whole 'nother thread of irresponsibility…
I’m only talking about the emotional reaction, which is what this is about really. Realistically the only way I am going to understand what a parental bond feels like from a parent point of view is by having kids, but the next best thing is pets. I stress this purely about feelings, and nothing else. If you think this position is absurd I invite you to come up with a better idea - how else can I simulate this bond? I wouldn’t turn in a girlfriend or good friend who did this either btw, although then again apart from a couple of examples none of them would ever have done this kind of thing (and the others we’re only talking like 1 in 1000 chance).
To be clear I don’t currently have pets, but absolutely if they were not a danger then I would do my damn best to make sure they were not put down. After all there’s an orca in sea world that’s killed like four trainers and hasn’t been killed, why should my (theroetical) pets be different.
That is not to say that I would expose anyone to danger. I can’t imagine having pets that would savage people, maybe I would feel differently if I had. What I do know is that if somehow a previous dog of mine (and this would be comical given her size) bit someone she would never be in a position to do so again. But equally I sure as hell wouldn’t be letting anyone kill her.
You can’t. It’s like a woman asking how to simulate a kick to the scrotum. If you don’t have the parts, you don’t understand the pain.
Fair point.
But what I can get is that feeling has to be at least greater than to a pet. Analagously, if I punched you in the arm and you said it was bad, and I told you being punched in the scrotum was worse, and then suddenly you developed a scrotum you would at least take as much care of it as you would your arm, if you get me. Or if you were given a hypothetical scrotum care questionnaire, you certainly wouldn’t be recommending sitting on it if you were on an uneven chair 
That’s my point with the pet/kid stuff. If I can’t consider sacrificing a pet to the “justice” system for no good reason, then there is no way at all that I could consider sacrificing a kid of mine. I know all I need to know to understand that, surely?
But sometimes there ARE good reasons. If I had a child that committed rape, murder, child molestation, etc, I wouldn’t support any efforts on their part to evade the law, would you?
I would myself a failure as a parent if I were to help a child of mine to evade the law.
If you insist on your pet analogy, think of said kid, who sounds like a sociopath, as a rabid dog.
I don’t believe this story. His story about how he tracked down the troll and confronted him is a little too pat.
It does seem a bit contrived, especially with the whole “Turn The Other Cheek” schtick making the forgiving blogger look like a saint to his adoring readers.
I wonder if any of the claims can be independently verified?
ETA—In my experience, a kid who was predisposed to act in such a manner would be more likely to look his accuser/victim straight in the eye and then lie thru his teeth about his guilt, rather than starting to bawl like a baby in shame, fear and cathartic relief that the truth was finally out…
Unless the crying was an act as well.
Honestly, it depends. Curiously I’m more likely to let them get away with murder than rape, in the sense that most murders (at least in the UK) are basically when two drunk idiots fight each other for no good reason and one dies. Sorry, but I’m not turning my kid in for a drunken mistake. Rape on the other hand probably involves them being a sociopath although I suppose again I could forgive them for something like penetrating their sleeping girlfriend for a drunken joke and it obviously going wrong. Meanwhile, child molestation is a whole new level above that. If consensual and non manipulative sex with, I dunno, a fourtneen and a half year old girl is child molestation then once again I ain’t turning the kid in for that either. Most child molestation though is realitically going to be down to one of the two suggestions below.
My points is that it all depends upon the nature of the offence. Your rabid analogy is actually pretty decent in that I would not defend a child who was seriously loo-loo, be that extreme delusions or lack of capacity, or more likely relevant with these offences a sociopath/psychoapth. With the former, loyalty means I have to get them treatment*, with the latter they are essentially a robot so deserve nothing. But would I condemn my decent child for a few mistakes? Absolutely not.
*I could imagine certain mental illnesses and crimes when I would defend them as well. I’m not gonna turn in my schizophrenic kid for grafiitiing tube trains about the illuminati. Hell I could even see a certain situation I would cover up their murdering but only in really weird circumstances.