Cruelty Towards Defencless Animals

the_syco

mikom wrote: »

So if this "scum" had a 5 year old daughter

If the scum had a daughter, I'd remove the child to social care, and get him psychoanalytical evaluated, in case he harmed his daughter to get his "fix" when hurting animals no longer "do it" for him...

Jimoslimos

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In fairness this is your fourth or fifth time asking if its okay to condone violence towards other humans. The OP subject matter is about cruelty to animals. Every time this subject is brought up its turned around to violence against people, its quite frustrating.

Along those lines, why should a thread on animal cruelty be fair game for people to vent their sick revenge fantasies, whether they intend to act on them or not?

stop animal cruelty

tin79 wrote: »

I dont. I think your point is complete tripe. I think Odysseus` point is the point I get.

Good for you

Odysseus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because fishing is the same as torturing a puppy for kicks is it? The vast majority of fishermen care about the fish they catch and put them back mostly unharmed.





Also, a register could be used, primarily, to send the message 'we're watching you you cunt'.

I get to work with some very violent people, I would not be happy to stand over such a statement. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201203/triad-evil Whole area need more research IMO

In my experience the links between animal cruelty are quite controversial and it seems to be one of those things that people just grapse at, in a lot of cases picking it up from TV ect.


EDIT: Sorry, you still don't really say what use such a list will be> I really cannot see such a list helping, there are lots of other things we could be doing, things that are really basic but would make a more of a difference IMO.

Augmerson

Really sad to hear. I'm from Portlaoise and I hate this is why the town is in the news. It's not Las Vegas or anything but it's my hometown. Tbh, if you harm anything living like this, there is something wrong with you, and I would be very much in favour of whoever did this spending some time in a jail cell. That Dahlmer guy in the US used to torture animals before he moved on to people.

SparkySpitfire

Odysseus wrote: »

So it is OK to propose acts of violence towards others because they are angry? Getting angry mean they can bypass personal responsiblity for their posts.

What is they get angry about a person who is of a different race, can they rant about that race then?

I thought the concept was discussion here, not ranting?

Can we just have a rant whenever we gat angry now, or just on the net?

Have you never in your life said "ugh I'd wring their neck!", "they need a swift kick up the hole!" etc. in a moment of anger? Doesn't mean you actually ever would do such a thing because your morality wouldn't let you.
This is the same as the above expressions of anger, they're responsible for posting it, for having those feelings, but they're not going to act on them, why? Morality.

This whole argument here is a total nitpick.

And yes, we can rant whenever we get angry, who are you to say we can't?

For someone who mostly reads boards as opposed to getting involved in these discussions, yours is the only opinion so far who has sparked a response from me, because you clearly are missing the point here.

And in response to the OP, absolutely disgraceful behaviour. Stories like these are so easily ignored by lawmakers, we need new legislation in regard to animal welfare asap.

dark crystal

Odysseus wrote: »

So it is OK to propose acts of violence towards others because they are angry? Getting angry mean they can bypass personal responsiblity for their posts.

What is they get angry about a person who is of a different race, can they rant about that race then?

I thought the concept was discussion here, not ranting?

Can we just have a rant whenever we gat angry now, or just on the net?

You seem to have an issue with anger full stop. Have you ever felt anger in your life?

If people wish to rant - let them. I don't understand how it affects anyone here negatively at all (unless there's some animal abusers who are feeling kinda sore about the abuse they're receiving here).

I highly doubt anyone ranting here would actually go out and torture a torturer just because they said it on the internet! Ever watch the film 12 Angry Men? There's a great scene in it which illustrates how what people say in the heat of the moment, doesn't actually reflect what they'd do in real life.

Also, the concept of discussion can take many forms. People get passionate, people get angry, people get hurt, upset, frustrated. It's a part of life. We can't always just process our thoughts like automons - emotion is a powerful part of who we are. I'd be worried if people didn't feel anger about such a heinous act, tbh.

MaxSteele

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Along those lines, why should a thread on animal cruelty be fair game for people to vent their sick revenge fantasies, whether they intend to act on them or not?

Why are you all so concerned about over the top revenge fantasies ? They're emotive responses. Same you would hear from people in response to paedophiles or sick acts of cruelty. People want the perpetrators to get their comeuppance and to feel the pain of their victims. Natural, irrational responses.

Can't stand all this pretentious, level-headed faux outrage.

My name is URL

MaxSteele wrote: »

Why are you all so concerned about over the top revenge fantasies ? They're emotive responses. Same you would hear from people in response to paedophiles or sick acts of cruelty. People want the perpetrators to get their comeuppance and to feel the pain of their victims. Natural, irrational responses.

Can't stand all this pretentious, level-headed faux outrage.

lmao

SparkySpitfire

MaxSteele wrote: »

Why are you all so concerned about over the top revenge fantasies ? They're emotive responses. Same you would hear from people in response to paedophiles or sick acts of cruelty. People want the perpetrators to get their comeuppance and to feel the pain of their victims. Natural, irrational responses.

Can't stand all this pretentious, level-headed faux outrage.

Also, doesn't fantasy normally mean something you've had to think about for a significant amount of time in order to "fantasise" about it?

The above expressions of anger weren't "fantasies" because they were said in the heat of the moment, not sickeningly thought about for hours on end.

Odysseus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In fairness this is your fourth or fifth time asking if its okay to condone violence towards other humans. The OP subject matter is about cruelty to animals. Every time this subject is brought up its turned around to violence against people, its quite frustrating.

Well to be fair, if people kept to the topic and stopped ranting on about what acts of violence they would like to commit maybe I would not have to ask that question.

Madam_X

Obviously the act was utterly depraved and I'm delighted the little fella is making progress. I hope the ***** who did it get a hefty fine, prison sentence, community service, monitored to prevent them having such access to animals again.

That's it. Dont want them tortured. I understand the anger but I don't understand people being able to dream up sadistic punishments no matter who the subject is. Nor do I understand preferring animals to humans.

kinkygirl

Froyo wrote: »

It's truly pathetic that one can't empathise with defenceless animals being tortured without somebody crowing about 'yeah but kids are more important'.

Cop the fcuk on. The thread is about animal cruelty.

It's more than worthy of people's time and is an important issue.

Animals are heavily dependant on humans to treat them properly. Is it too much to ask they're not sickeningly abused? FFS.

I wish I could thank this post a million times.

Sometimes, it seems as though if you show empathy with/for animals, you are immediately branded a tree hugging, baby hating monster.

The piece of scum who did this to a defenceless creature is pond scum, and should be treated as such. :mad:

Bullseye1

Odysseus wrote: »

Well to be fair, if people kept to the topic and stopped ranting on about what acts of violence they would like to commit maybe I would not have to ask that question.

Fair enough but surely its better to verbalise it instead of actually inacting on it. I do think punishment is required for these acts and these laws should be legislated for immediately.

Jimoslimos

dark crystal wrote: »

If people wish to rant - let them.

There's a forum for that

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't understand how it affects anyone here negatively at all (unless there's some animal abusers who are feeling kinda sore about the abuse they're receiving here).

I'm not sure why you would say that, are you suggesting that a level-headed response, involving animals and people that 99% of those posting here would have no emotional connection with, equates to a predisposition towards animal cruelty?

dark crystal

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm not sure why you would say that, are you suggesting that a level-headed response, involving animals and people that 99% of those posting here would have no emotional connection with, equates to a predisposition towards animal cruelty?

No.

Odysseus

MaxSteele wrote: »

Why are you all so concerned about over the top revenge fantasies ? They're emotive responses. Same you would hear from people in response to paedophiles or sick acts of cruelty. People want the perpetrators to get their comeuppance and to feel the pain of their victims. Natural, irrational responses.

Can't stand all this pretentious, level-headed faux outrage.

I generally react the same way when people get hysterical in relation to sex offenders.


So its not faux outrage, no body have the right to carry out such acts on people because they attacked an animal or abused a child etc.


It the same with the hysterical outrage with sex offenders, yes most will not act out on their fantasies, however, some will, some do and some have. One reason why only law enforcement have access to the names of convicted sex offenders.

So I think such posts should be challenged, because there is always somebody prepared to carry out such acts.

As for the freedom of thought, my opinion would be that people have the freedom to think such things, but once they put them out on a discussion board like this they need to take responsibility for them.

MaxSteele

Odysseus wrote: »

I generally react the same way when people get hysterical in relation to sex offenders.


So its not faux outrage, no body have the right to carry out such acts on people because they attacked an animal or abused a child etc.


It the same with the hysterical outrage with sex offenders, yes most will not act out on their fantasies, however, some will, some do and some have. One reason why only law enforcement have access to the names of convicted sex offenders.

So I think such posts should be challenged, because there is always somebody prepared to carry out such acts.

As for the freedom of thought, my opinion would be that people have the freedom to think such things, but once they put them out on a discussion board like this they need to take responsibility for them.

Well as long as you don't attempt to rape and kill someone or slash puppies throats, you have nothing to worry about Odysseus.

I hope in the near future we have Minority Report like technology. That way we can just abort these scumbags before they manage to pollute society.

Odysseus

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Also, doesn't fantasy normally mean something you've had to think about for a significant amount of time in order to "fantasise" about it?

The above expressions of anger weren't "fantasies" because they were said in the heat of the moment, not sickeningly thought about for hours on end.

No I think the term has been used correctly here, thinking about carrying act is fantasising about it.

kowloon

The law takes a very relaxed attitude to animal cruelty in this country. Always has and probably will long after the rest of the world has cleaned up its act.
I don't need someone to 'move onto humans' for me to find the act reprehensible.

Odysseus

MaxSteele wrote: »

Well as long as you don't attempt to rape and kill someone or slash puppies throats, you have nothing to worry about Odysseus.

I hope in the near future we have Minority Report like technology. That way we can just abort these scumbags before they manage to pollute society.

I really hope that never happens.

I haven't seen that movie, but if I understand it correctly would it not mean that half of this thread would be locked up?

I have lots of sick thoughts myself, though I try to explore them in therapy and take responsibility for them, on an ongoing basis.

Bruthal

mikom wrote: »

1 child and 10 puppies in a burning building.
You can only rescue either the child or the 10 puppies.
Which would you choose?

The answer might be different if it was a fella who had slashed throats of a few animals for fun, and 10 puppies in the burning premises.

SparkySpitfire

Odysseus wrote: »

No I think the term has been used correctly here, thinking about carrying act is fantasising about it.

I guess you're thinking of definition 2 and I'm thinking of definition 1.

fantasising present participle of fan·ta·size (Verb)
Verb
1. Indulge in daydreaming about something desired.
2. Imagine (something that one wants to happen).

burgermasters

It should be treated as murder tbh, sad but true as said before the will never get caught!

Madam_X

MaxSteele wrote: »

Why are you all so concerned about over the top revenge fantasies ? They're emotive responses. Same you would hear from people in response to paedophiles or sick acts of cruelty. People want the perpetrators to get their comeuppance and to feel the pain of their victims. Natural, irrational responses.

Can't stand all this pretentious, level-headed faux outrage.

Lol. Oh noes, levelheaded!

That said, I don't agree that those dreaming up revenge tortures are "as bad as" the sickos who did this. They'd only be as bad if they tortured a small animal.

Odysseus

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

I guess you're thinking of definition 2 and I'm thinking of definition 1.

Yep, well it would be a common psychotherapeutic use of the concept. In a psychological sense it would not matter if it was even a fleeting thought. If you work with an unconscious you can even have ones you are unaware of.

x Purple Pawprints x

It's very doubtful that whoever tortured that poor puppy will be be caught. I agree that he should be punished, but I don't think violence is the answer. Two wrongs don't make a right. Serious jail time for acts such as this, that's what I would like to see. Ireland's animal welfare legislation needs to be changed dramatically because animals are regarded as just property at the moment, not living things.

SparkySpitfire

Odysseus wrote: »

Yep, well it would be a common psychotherapeutic use of the concept. In a psychological sense it would not matter if it was even a fleeting thought. If you work with an unconscious you can even have ones you are unaware of.

Surely you have to be aware of something to fantasise about it.

keithclancy

You know, perhaps the people that think this is someway justified 'ok' or funny should have a look at the pictures first:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.480131225358179.95573.308687865835850&type=1

Madam_X

keithclancy wrote: »

You know, perhaps the people that think this is someway justified 'ok' or funny should have a look at the pictures first:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.480131225358179.95573.308687865835850&type=1

There are no such people on this thread.