[quote]Squiggles wrote:
Humans become jaded. Welcome to reality. What is right and what is wrong is a fine line. Killing the puppies was fine if needed, if you can’t feed them and no one wants them, is it less cruel to let them starve or go feral? - so where’s the line between how to kill them rightly and wrongly? I think heaving them into the air like it’s a fucking game is sick, but I don’t know what that kids seen. She’s in Bosnia. Maybe she’s seen terrible things, and is so jaded that tossing some pups into the river was like kids in the US squashing fireflies and smearing their glowing goo all over.
I’m not saying it’s right. I am saying that people need to step back and get a reality check before going all Internet mob on her. She killed them. She shouldn’t have tossed them, but is that such a grievous crime so as to demand that she be beaten or jailed for life or other such ridiculous things?
And before any one of you say that the puppies should have been treated better before/as killed, answer this question: do you eat store bought meat? If so, do you make sure it comes from a happy farm, or is it a factory animal? If it is a factory animal, you support horrific animal cruelty that is much worse and lasts much longer than tossing puppies in a river. Difference is that you hire someone else to do the dirty work for you, and you don’t have to see it.
Keep things in perspective.[/quote]
C’mon…don’t be that guy.
[quote]Squiggles wrote:
Humans become jaded. Welcome to reality. What is right and what is wrong is a fine line. Killing the puppies was fine if needed, if you can’t feed them and no one wants them, is it less cruel to let them starve or go feral? - so where’s the line between how to kill them rightly and wrongly? I think heaving them into the air like it’s a fucking game is sick, but I don’t know what that kids seen. She’s in Bosnia. Maybe she’s seen terrible things, and is so jaded that tossing some pups into the river was like kids in the US squashing fireflies and smearing their glowing goo all over.
I’m not saying it’s right. I am saying that people need to step back and get a reality check before going all Internet mob on her. She killed them. She shouldn’t have tossed them, but is that such a grievous crime so as to demand that she be beaten or jailed for life or other such ridiculous things?
And before any one of you say that the puppies should have been treated better before/as killed, answer this question: do you eat store bought meat? If so, do you make sure it comes from a happy farm, or is it a factory animal? If it is a factory animal, you support horrific animal cruelty that is much worse and lasts much longer than tossing puppies in a river. Difference is that you hire someone else to do the dirty work for you, and you don’t have to see it.
Keep things in perspective.[/quote]
Who the hell is ANYONE to decide wheather a living creature should live or die just for the hell of it?
I don’t care what that bitch has lived through or seen. She had no right to kill the puppies.
Food is necessary for survival and unfortunately I cannot afford to buy food from a “happy farm”. So no it’s not the same thing.
And before any one of you say that the puppies should have been treated better before/as killed, answer this question: do you eat store bought meat? If so, do you make sure it comes from a happy farm, or is it a factory animal? [/quote]
One thing is for sure-- when my meat isn’t happy meat, I beat it.
[quote]Squiggles wrote:
Humans become jaded. Welcome to reality. What is right and what is wrong is a fine line. Killing the puppies was fine if needed, if you can’t feed them and no one wants them, is it less cruel to let them starve or go feral? - so where’s the line between how to kill them rightly and wrongly? I think heaving them into the air like it’s a fucking game is sick, but I don’t know what that kids seen. She’s in Bosnia. Maybe she’s seen terrible things, and is so jaded that tossing some pups into the river was like kids in the US squashing fireflies and smearing their glowing goo all over.
I’m not saying it’s right. I am saying that people need to step back and get a reality check before going all Internet mob on her. She killed them. She shouldn’t have tossed them, but is that such a grievous crime so as to demand that she be beaten or jailed for life or other such ridiculous things?
And before any one of you say that the puppies should have been treated better before/as killed, answer this question: do you eat store bought meat? If so, do you make sure it comes from a happy farm, or is it a factory animal? If it is a factory animal, you support horrific animal cruelty that is much worse and lasts much longer than tossing puppies in a river. Difference is that you hire someone else to do the dirty work for you, and you don’t have to see it.
Keep things in perspective.[/quote]
No one has suggested that she be beaten or jailed for life, but she shouldn’t have gotten off scott-free either. She made a game out of drowning puppies and a second person filmed her doing it (plus they apparently tried to cover it up when the authorities caught up with her). I wouldn’t call that the result of a jaded life.
And the simple act of flicking the ‘on’ switch on the camera is not something that can be explained away by Bosnian atrocities - however many of those she may have witnessed. Comparable (I’m not saying ‘identical’ before anybody requests examples of more puppy drowning hilarity) acts occur in far more ‘civilized’ countries.
The uncomfortable truth is that some people are just moral voids. Not saying ‘evil’ in the classical sense. But something is just missing. And that for many is worse, because most people need something to blame to make themselves feel better about living in a world where medieval shit goes down on a regular basis. What if there isn’t anything to blame and they are just out-and-out bad apples?
Not to mention there is a hy-uge distinction between killing an animal (or human for that matter) with indifference or necessity vs. killing with malice or enjoyment.
I would imagine most of you eat chicken and aware what happens to chickens. I do too (I think it is wrong but eat it because it is convenient.) What’s difference between what she is doing and what we are doing, if anything they are suffering less. We pay people to do our bidding. I , too find it abhorrent but
our actions don’t hold to scrutiny.
Anyway apparently it is not Katya in the video. It is someone speaking Croatian with a strong Bosnian accent.
Again, I’d be angry if someone threw chickens into a river too.
Notice many of us are fully aware that in parts of China and Korea they eat dogs but we haven’t brought that up as something totally wrong…we know that they’re using them for food (though I, of course, like to draw a distinction between animals that I consider companions and the ones I will use for food)
Why would anyone want to come into this thread and play this hard role of acting like they’re the enlightened one that can see the problem from a more objective viewpoint?
Go stir up shit in a thread that’s not so cut and dried. Go debate in the Politics and World Issues forum.
Even if I told a friend that someone was doing this defending thing they’d ask me “Well, what was the topic of discussion that this person was playing Devil’s Advocate with?”
I’d say “About throwing a bucket of puppies in the river”
Then my buddy would chuckle and say “No, really, what was it about now?”
Disclaimer-that was some sad, sick shit. I like puppies and prefer not to see them drowned.
My boss grew up on a small farm. They had rats. When he and his brother were about the same age as this girl they would tee up the babies and whack them with a 9 iron into a pond, where big ass fish would eat them. As boys they thought this was pretty awesome. If they had a camera I bet they would have filmed it. F’ed up, I know, and so does he, but they grew up routinely slaughtering animals so their perspective was different. My boss doesn’t appear to be a psycho and he tells the story now with some remorse. Obviously rats and dogs are not the same to us but the same principles apply IMO. Kids of a certain age often to go through a cruel phase and these days they film everything. Add to that the desensitization to violence of someone from that part of the world and I can imagine a “normal” person doing this. The guy who beat the pit bull to death is another thing all together.
I don’t buy the “densensitized to violence” argument. At all. The human mind doesn’t react in that way.
Look at all the examples of soldiers in the battlefield breaking down at the sight of various atrocities.
They don’t become “de-sensitized”; the opposite happens.
A friend of mine watched Alien when he was three: he was scared shitless and said it took him years to get over it. My nephew watched Stephen King’s It when he was around the same age as the little brother who gets dragged down the storm drain. I told him not to watch it, but he did and couldn’t sleep for weeks.
We don’t respond to violence by going out and being violent. Atrocities aren’t committed because people are de-sensitized: they happen because it becomes a matter of survival. Faced with stress too great for the mind to cope with, ‘the normal’ response is to turn that stress inwardly (suicide and self-harm).
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. Personally I have helped kill a few animals for food and found it progressively less upsetting. I understand the military will use animals to help soldiers break down the “kill barrier”. We as a society enjoy a reverence for life that is commendable but not universal. Because we grow up with this we react badly if we are suddenly immersed in violence. However I firmly believe violence can become your norm if you are surrounded by it daily, particularly if it begins at birth and you are never taught to hold life in such high regard. You may not become violent yourself but you will become more indifferent to violence. Obviously I don’t think this is good but it happens.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. Personally I have helped kill a few animals for food and found it progressively less upsetting. I understand the military will use animals to help soldiers break down the “kill barrier”. We as a society enjoy a reverence for life that is commendable but not universal. Because we grow up with this we react badly if we are suddenly immersed in violence. However I firmly believe violence can become your norm if you are surrounded by it daily, particularly if it begins at birth and you are never taught to hold life in such high regard. You may not become violent yourself but you will become more indifferent to violence. Obviously I don’t think this is good but it happens. [/quote]
The departure from puppy drowning was a necessary tangent. You brought up de-sensitization and atrocities as explanations for what the girl did. My post regarding the effects of extreme violence on the human mind show that atrocities do not automatically lead to de-sensitization, and de-sensitization does not lead a person to commit acts of cruelty purely because they’ve become used to doing it.
You are already ‘de-sensitized’ to a degree if you can bring yourself to kill an animal in the first place, no matter how upsetting you find it (having to do so under duress is different). Same goes for the “kill barrier”. Soldiers who can’t be trained to kill aren’t very good soldiers. And I would say that the “kill barrier” exercise is more to eliminate hesitation under pressure than anything else.
But killing with a gun from a distance or pressing a button to detonate a bomb are not the same as dispensing death with bare hands or at close quarters, or in a manner that increases the killer’s awareness of the act of killing… That’s why warfare-related breakdowns mostly happen when violence is witnessed first-hand. And that’s why serial killers prefer to kill their victims in ways that maximize interaction with their victims. Weapons like guns cut that out and ‘impersonalize’ killing, so it’s easier for the mind to cope with.
Oh, and filming the act is also a way of maximizing the experience, so I don’t think she or her friend are as indifferent as they appear.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. [/quote]
[quote]batman730 wrote:
^^
We’ve departed from puppy drowning a little but I’ll bite. People who work in slaughterhouses, for instance, do become numb over time. Personally I have helped kill a few animals for food and found it progressively less upsetting. I understand the military will use animals to help soldiers break down the “kill barrier”. We as a society enjoy a reverence for life that is commendable but not universal. Because we grow up with this we react badly if we are suddenly immersed in violence. However I firmly believe violence can become your norm if you are surrounded by it daily, particularly if it begins at birth and you are never taught to hold life in such high regard. You may not become violent yourself but you will become more indifferent to violence. Obviously I don’t think this is good but it happens. [/quote]
The departure from puppy drowning was a necessary tangent. You brought up de-sensitization and atrocities as explanations for what the girl did. My post regarding the effects of extreme violence on the human mind show that atrocities do not automatically lead to de-sensitization, and de-sensitization does not lead a person to commit acts of cruelty purely because they’ve become used to doing it.
You are already ‘de-sensitized’ to a degree if you can bring yourself to kill an animal in the first place, no matter how upsetting you find it (having to do so under duress is different). Same goes for the “kill barrier”. Soldiers who can’t be trained to kill aren’t very good soldiers. And I would say that the “kill barrier” exercise is more to eliminate hesitation under pressure than anything else.
But killing with a gun from a distance or pressing a button to detonate a bomb are not the same as dispensing death with bare hands or at close quarters, or in a manner that increases the killer’s awareness of the act of killing… That’s why warfare-related breakdowns mostly happen when violence is witnessed first-hand. And that’s why serial killers prefer to kill their victims in ways that maximize interaction with their victims. Weapons like guns cut that out and ‘impersonalize’ killing, so it’s easier for the mind to cope with.
Oh, and filming the act is also a way of maximizing the experience, so I don’t think she or her friend are as indifferent as they appear.[/quote]
Good points man, I can’t really disagree with you at all. As I’m sure we’re all aware almost all serial killers begin their careers by torturing/killing animals. I like your notion of “maximizing the experience” through video. That makes sense to me. I cannot really speculate as to her mental state regarding indifference however.
If my ability to kill an animal, without duress, for food when it is not necessary for my survival means that I am desensitzed, then does it follow that I am a potential serial killer? Not being a dick, just asking.
Good points man, I can’t really disagree with you at all. As I’m sure we’re all aware almost all serial killers begin their careers by torturing/killing animals. I like your notion of “maximizing the experience” through video. That makes sense to me. I cannot really speculate as to her mental state regarding indifference however. [/quote]
Me either, I was trying to stay away from that: no real way of knowing what’s going through her mind. You can only go by outward signs like body language, the filming and her general reaction to the experience. The more she’s “into” what she’s doing, the less likely indifference is driving her actions.
[quote]
If my ability to kill an animal, without duress, for food when it is not necessary for my survival means that I am desensitzed, then does it follow that I am a potential serial killer? Not being a dick, just asking. [/quote]
I would say no. As you said, serial killers often torture animals before progressing to humans. In 2007, two Ukranian teens were filmed by a third accomplice and the vids posted to the internet.
^ That is when you’re well on your way to becoming a serial killer. You can read the above and react in one of three ways: a)be totally sickened; b)shrug with indifference; c) be positively stimulated by it. Only ‘c’ will mark you out as a potential mass murderer. But by that time you wouldn’t mind being one, anyway.
