Animal cruelty

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
In fact I do. I don't care when people die, unless I know them personally. There's almost 7 billion of us. I don't feel sadness or anger when some joe blow gets run over by a street car and it's shown on the news. Do you?

And, by the way, you're discussing morality with me right now. You know as well as I do that that's not a topic that "should" and "reasoning" have any place in.

What morality? You not caring has nothing to do with anything. Fact is, it's against the law what she did. You speaking as if it doesn't matter is irrelevant. It matters in the eye of the law.

And seeing puppies being killed in such a manner, or really in any manner, is going to cause a stir. Such should be expected, and it can be understood.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's poor reasoning. No one has any idea why she did it or what circumstances were behind her doing it. Throwing puppies in a river, in and of itself, is hardly a diagnostic of one's personality. Certainly not something that by itself is worthy of being killed or thrown off a cliff or some shit.

I didn't say she should be killed, simply found, since she did -factually, break the law. You are attempting a very lazy straw man, there.

And I don't agree that this doesn't show that there is something off in the girls head. She's videotaping herself throwing puppies into a river. Is there a good reason to do this? Any plausible reason for doing something like this goes out the window by the simple fact that they decided to video tape themselves committing such a grim act. You don't video record yourself in such a manner when you're doing something that you feel is unpleasant.

The fact does remain that killing animals in your youth is often a sign of someone being mentally unstable and holding violent tendencies - all the more reason for her to be found.

Originally posted by BackFire
[B]What morality? You not caring has nothing to do with anything. Fact is, it's against the law what she did. You speaking as if it doesn't matter is irrelevant. It matters in the eye of the law.

Killing someone for throwing puppies in a river is against the law. And I really don't understand what law has to do with anything I've said so far. Stop moving the goal post. Where did I say it wasn't a legal crime to abuse animals? Point it out to me right now.

And seeing puppies being killed in such a manner, or really in any manner, is going to cause a stir. Such should be expected, and it can be understood.

And someone thinking that such a stir being caused is stupid, is also expected, no? Since when was "That's just how it is" a meaningful response to anything?

I didn't say she should be killed, simply found, since she did -factually, break the law. You are attempting a very lazy straw man, there.

I didn't say you did. Read what I am saying. Stop creating your own realities of what my posts are saying.

And I don't agree that this doesn't show that there is something off in the girls head. She's videotaping herself throwing puppies into a river. Is there a good reason to do this? Any plausible reason for doing something like this goes out the window by the simple fact that they decided to video tape themselves committing such a grim act.

Really? According to what?

You don't video record yourself in such a manner when you're doing something that you feel is unpleasant.

Ever? Really?

The fact does remain that killing animals in your youth is often a sign of someone being mentally unstable and holding violent tendencies - all the more reason for her to be found.

Could be. Often isn't enough, though. 'tis too ambiguous.

One thing's for certain, never letting Blax watch my dog while on vacation.

Originally posted by Robtard
One thing's for certain, never letting Blax watch my dog while on vacation.

But yeah. I totally wouldn't dive in the way of a moving car if he runs into the middle of a street.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love dogs.

But yeah. I totally wouldn't dive in the way of a moving car if he runs into the middle of a street.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love dogs.

Hmm.

Originally posted by chomperx9
yeah but dogs are not an endangered species right ? so why not run them over

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Killing someone for throwing puppies in a river is against the law. And I really don't understand what law has to do with anything I've said so far. Stop moving the goal post. Where did I say it wasn't a legal crime to abuse animals? Point it out to me right now.

And someone thinking that such a stir being caused is stupid, is also expected, no? Since when was "That's just how it is" a meaningful response to anything?

I didn't say you did. Read what I am saying. Stop creating your own realities of what my posts are saying.

Really? According to what?

Ever? Really?

Could be. Often isn't enough, though. 'tis too ambiguous.

So are we discussing just the legality of the act, or the morality of her killing little puppy-dogs?

From a legal standpoint, yeah she's clearly in the wrong and still at large.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Killing someone for throwing puppies in a river is against the law. And I really don't understand what law has to do with anything I've said so far. Stop moving the goal post. Where did I say it wasn't a legal crime to abuse animals? Point it out to me right now.

You seem to be implying that I think it's okay for someone to kill her over this. I didn't. I simply point out that I'm speaking of illegalities because you seemed to think that I was speaking of morality, when I never did. You brought up morality, not me. I'm not interested in your morality.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And someone thinking that such a stir being caused is stupid, is also expected, no? Since when was "That's just how it is" a meaningful response to anything?

Of course it's expected. Regardless it's perfectly reasonable for people to be upset over seeing such images. People like puppies, many feel towards puppies as they do towards children - that they are defenseless, sweet and wholesome, so if they see someone killing them they will react strongly to it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I didn't say you did. Read what I am saying. Stop creating your own realities of what my posts are saying.

So then why do you keep bringing it up in your responses to me? If you understand that I am not saying anything about causing her harm then you inherently admit that you are stating things that are irrelevant to what I have been saying, since your retort to me has now twice been about people killing her, when I never said anything having to do with causing the girl physical harm.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Really? According to what?

Logic. I'm still all ears for you or anyone to offer a plausible reason as to why someone would voluntarily video tape themselves killing puppies, and then put it on the internet, all the while hating what they are doing.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Ever? Really?

Yes. Why would someone? It makes no sense.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could be. Often isn't enough, though. 'tis too ambiguous.

It is a known red flag and is enough to warrant speculation about her mental well-being.

IIRC, many serial killers started with torturing/mutilating/killing animals before they moved up to humans.

So this chick might be another 6-pack of puppies away from drowning a child or senile senior; we can't have that.

That's right. All the famous ones did.

During sessions with the prison shrink, Jeffery Dahmer admitted that when he was 8 and 9, one of his favorite pasttimes was torturing mice and gophers with a lit match.

Originally posted by BackFire
You seem to be implying that I think it's okay for someone to kill her over this. I didn't. I simply point out that I'm speaking of illegalities because you seemed to think that I was speaking of morality, when I never did. You brought up morality, not me. I'm not interested in your morality.

So then why do you keep bringing it up in your responses to me? If you understand that I am not saying anything about causing her harm then you inherently admit that you are stating things that are irrelevant to what I have been saying, since your retort to me has now twice been about people killing her, when I never said anything having to do with causing the girl physical harm.

Let's get this straight right now.

You, engaged me.. I was not talking to you, but you felt the need to come in here and contest my points. Therefore, what you want to talk about, is irrelevant. Don't come in here and say that my statements are wrong, and then when I defend them you say you don't want to talk about it. That's like you stating in a post that 2+2=4, and then I come in and say that you're wrong, because it's actually the male sea horse who give birth. What the hell do sea horses have to do with 2+2 equaling four? By that same notion, what the hell does abusing animals being a crime have to do with me saying that I don't think that throwing puppies into a river is a huge deal and is worth condemning an individual as scum of the earth who's not worthy of living? That was the point that I made that you came in and said was wrong. So of course that's what I'm going to talk about.

Of course it's expected. Regardless it's perfectly reasonable for people to be upset over seeing such images. People like puppies, many feel towards puppies as they do towards children - that they are defenseless, sweet and wholesome, so if they see someone killing them they will react strongly to it.

And it's perfectly reasonable to think that people are overreacting. Okay good, life is full of opposing opinions. We agree on this.

Logic. I'm still all ears for you or anyone to offer a plausible reason as to why someone would voluntarily video tape themselves killing puppies, and then put it on the internet, all the while hating what they are doing.

Yes. Why would someone? It makes no sense.

It is a known red flag and is enough to warrant speculation about her mental well-being.

Speculate away. But as you know, in the end speculation is nothing more than speculation.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Let's get this straight right now.

You, engaged me.. I was not talking to you, but you felt the need to come in here and contest my points. Therefore, what you want to talk about, is irrelevant. Don't come in here and say that my statements are wrong, and then when I defend them you say you don't want to talk about it. That's like you stating in a post that 2+2=4, and then I come in and say that you're wrong, because it's actually the male sea horse who give birth. What the hell do sea horses have to do with 2+2 equaling four? By that same notion, what the hell does abusing animals being a crime have to do with me saying that I don't think that throwing puppies into a river is a huge deal and is worth condemning an individual as scum of the earth who's not worthy of living? That was the point that [b]I made that you came in and said was wrong. So of course that's what I'm going to talk about. [/B]

The point that you made, that I was rejecting based on its wrongness, was that because it isn't a world altering event, then people shouldn't get worked up. This was made clear by my initial post, when that's all I was referencing.

You specifically said you didn't understand why people are getting upset over this. And it was made more clear that you didn't understand by your fallacious attempt at trivializing something because it isn't causing a species to be wiped out.

Who engaged who is spectacularly irrelevant here. The points being made is all that matters. You made your points poorly, by arbitrarily stating that they aren't endangered species you innately implied that people shouldn't care. And then when several people called you out on said stupid point, you cowardly backtracked and said "well I didn't SAY that, now did I". Ignoring the implications of such a statement. It's a foolish and dimwitted point made very very poorly, which is why everyone's rejected it. And why you've danced around having to validate it, because you can't.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Did she put it on the internet? Did she want it on the internet? Was she under the influence? Was she perhaps so coked out of her mind that doesn't even remember doing it? Did she think about it later and realize what a horrible thing she did and she now regrets it and cries herself to sleep every single night and considers herself to be sum of the earth? Did someone put her up to it? Pay her, maybe? Did she do it because she sucks and she thought it would be a funny thing to do and she has no regrets at all? Do you know the answer to any of these questions?

Who else put it up on the internet? If she didn't want it on the internet then why did she allow it to be filmed in the first place. I see no evidence in the video of her being coked out of her mind. The most likely and logical scenario is that she is simply not right in the head, and that she had it recorded because she thought it would be cool.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Speculate away. But as you know, in the end speculation is nothing more than speculation.

Unless when it's based on a foundation prior knowledge, as this one is.

Originally posted by BackFire
. The most likely and logical scenario is that she is simply not right in the head, and that she had it recorded because she thought it would be cool.

Uday Hussein (Saddam's oldest son) always video-taped it when he tortured someone, and then saved it later for his viewing pleasure. When US troops raided a presidential palace in 2003, they found an entire library of videos showing people being tortured.

So maybe this girl is of a similar mentality.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love dogs.

But yeah. I totally wouldn't dive in the way of a moving car if he runs into the middle of a street.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's right. All the famous ones did.

During sessions with the prison shrink, Jeffery Dahmer admitted that when he was 8 and 9, one of his favorite pasttimes was torturing mice and gophers with a lit match.

That's some ****ed up shit, yo.

Originally posted by BackFire
The point that you made, that I was rejecting based on its wrongness, was that because it isn't a world altering event, then people shouldn't get worked up. This was made clear by my initial post, when that's all I was referencing.

In what way am I wrong in saying that people shouldn't get worked up over something relatively unimportant?

You specifically said you didn't understand why people are getting upset over this. And it was made more clear that you didn't understand by your fallacious attempt at trivializing something because it isn't causing a species to be wiped out.

How is it fallacious?

Who engaged who is spectacularly irrelevant here. The points being made is all that matters.

You've failed horribly to even understand my point.

You made your points poorly, by arbitrarily stating that they aren't endangered species you innately implied that people shouldn't care. And then when several people called you out on said stupid point, you cowardly backtracked and said "well I didn't SAY that, now did I".

Ignoring the implications of such a statement. It's a foolish and dimwitted point made very very poorly, which is why everyone's rejected it.

No I didn't. It's not my fault that you're failing miserably to understand what I'm saying. Perhaps this should be a lesson to you to simply address what has been stated, instead of trying to be some sort of super smart person who can read between the lines and shit. I don't care what you think I was implying, because you thought wrong.

I think it's funny that every time I ask you to provide "the point" in quote, you don't even do it. Do you even know what "this point" that I supposedly made, and am now supposedly back peddling from, is?

Also pretty funny that now you're not saying crap about the "legality" of it all, since you've been called out on that shit came out of nowhere. Feel free to quote the line from my posts implying that abusing animals isn't a crime, please. If you can't do that, apologize.

And why you've danced around having to validate it, because you can't.

I don't need to validate words that are put in my mouth. Do yourself a favor and discuss what's been said, not what you think is being said. Assumptions make an ass out of you and you.

Who else put it up on the internet? If she didn't want it on the internet then why did she allow it to be filmed in the first place.

I see no evidence in the video of her being coked out of her mind.

Ah, I apologize. I wasn't aware that I was talking to an expert in the field of identifying those under the influence.

The most likely and logical scenario is that she is simply not right in the head, and that she had it recorded because she thought it would be cool.

Prove this.

Unless when it's based on a foundation prior knowledge,

Which you apparently have none of, considering you didn't answer half of the questions I asked, and the other half you gave "well I don't see any sign of", which doesn't really mean anything.

This is a waste of everybody's time.

Google "correlation between animal abuse and serial killers"

This is but one of the many hits:

Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer have more in common than just being serial killers. These three murderers are also connected by the fact that each of them tortured and/or killed animals during their childhoods. "Researchers as well as FBI and other law enforcement agencies nationwide have linked animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse, serial killings and to the recent rash of killings by school age children", says Dr. Randall Lockwood (vice president of training and initiatives for the Humane Society of the United States.

Some children are cruel to and torture animals to impress their peers, but future serial killers usually torture animals purely for their own enjoyment. Animal abuse is a recognized sign of a mental disorder. If a child hurts animals it should be a red flag and immediate action should be taken. While there are many factors that contribute to someone becoming a serial killer, the one constant they share is animal abuse.

Jeffrey Dahmer showed an intense interest in dismembering animals as a child. As an adult he was charged with murdering and dismembering at least sixteen people. Dahmer is just one example of this. As a matter of fact, most people who are on death row for murder admit to abusing animals as children. A study done by North Eastern University and the Massachusetts SPCA found that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to abuse humans than people who do not. Albert Schweitzer said it best when the wrote that "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives". - end snip

Full Story

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
In what way am I wrong in saying that people shouldn't get worked up over something relatively unimportant?

Because it ignores a person's innate emotional response to seeing something cruel and horrible. Simply because you don't deem this cruel or horrible doesn't mean it's unreasonable for others to. Seeing life taken is an unpleasant thing and people will react strongly to it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How is it fallacious?

It is a foolish attempt at oversimplifying. By the logic you use you can say that pretty much anything that's ever happened isn't all that important, because we are still here and alive and the world hasn't ended.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You've failed horribly to even understand my point.

Then make your point properly next time. And don't whine when people take the logical implication of your statement and call you out on it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No I didn't. It's not my fault that you're failing miserably to understand what I'm saying. Perhaps this should be a lesson to you to simply address what has been stated, instead of trying to be some sort of super smart person who can read between the lines and shit. I don't care what you think I was implying, because you thought wrong.

I think it's funny that every time I ask you to provide "the point" in quote, you don't even do it. Do you even know what "this point" that I supposedly made, and am now supposedly back peddling from, is?

Reading the blatant implication of a person's words isn't trying to be super smart. It's simply how communication is done. If you weren't implying that the act doesn't matter by pointing out that the world isn't lacking in the population of puppies, then what was the grand point that you were making?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Also pretty funny that now you're not saying crap about the "legality" of it all, since you've been called out on that shit came out of nowhere. Feel free to quote the line from my posts implying that abusing animals isn't a crime, please. If you can't do that, apologize.

Because I thought that segment of the argument was completed. On account of you not mentioning it in your last post.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't need to validate words that are put in my mouth. Do yourself a favor and discuss what's been said, not what you think is being said. Assumptions make an ass out of you and you.

I have done nothing but discuss what's been said. You said something that nearly everyone here has questioned, that's all I've been talking about. Ironically, it's you who attempted to portray me as saying that I thought it was acceptable for the girl to be killed or hurt as a response to her actions, despite the fact I never even mentioned her having anything done to her other than being found.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you think that everyone who records something wants it to be seen by everyone on the planet?

Why else put it on the internet? For people to see it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Ah, I apologize. I wasn't aware that I was talking to an expert in the field of identifying those under the influence.

So then you have no evidence to support your theory that she consumed mass amounts of drugs and then decided to go out and kill puppies? Of course. After all, I did ask for plausible explanations as to why she would do it, and this isn't plausible.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Prove this.

1. She did it.

2. It was voluntary.

3. She filmed it.

4. She was smiling during the act.

5. She put it on the internet.

6. No other plausible alternative has been given with any supporting evidence.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Which you apparently have none of, considering you didn't answer half of the questions I asked, and the other half you gave "well I don't see any sign of", which doesn't really mean anything.

Saying that there is no evidence for something has plenty of meaning. It means that there is no evidence for it. And this matters when making a claim.

Besides Robtard provided plenty to show that killing animals is a red flag for possible violent tendencies. Quero has also stated factual references supporting this. This is a well known fact and has been well documented, information is freely available on the internet for you to look at if you were truly unaware that killing animals is a sign of mental instability. But if you want more, here:

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php

http://cats.about.com/cs/crueltyconnection/a/cruelty.htm

Also this is going to be my last response here as I agree with your previous post that this is pretty much a big waste of time. If you wish to have the final word be my guest, everything that is worth saying has already been said and we know where the other stands.