If I ever saw this kind of stuff happening I'd have kicked the crap out of them. How could you do this to such a tiny, defenceless animal????

I don't find this so hard to believe. The licence to inflict pain/humiliation/social restriction is a vital part of our society, it signifies authority and amalgamates our complex hierarchies. You yourself claim that would have 'kicked the crap out of them' for doing something you disagree with, Mario. Such would be an expression of your power over them, should you have been successful in doing so.
I know nothing of the case, but I would imagine that these lads have 'hierarchy' issues. Torturing these kittens probably made them feel powerful. Maybe they themselves are quite weak and 'authorityless' in human society, and so resort to inflicting pain on smaller creatures that won't fight back to vent some of their frustrations in being low on their own species' pecking order...

Or maybe I'm full of shit and just wanking on about nothing....

[ 01-26-2005, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

It is abhorrent. If I ever see anyone doing this, I too would beat them to an inch from their life. If someone hurt Choc, I would kill them. Deadly serious. I would kill them.

I consider animals as important a lifeform as humans. No one should harm any.

G'day Heiro. You've been on this "strong can bully the weak" trip for a while now, haven't you? And yes I would kick the crap out of them.

[ 01-26-2005, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

No, I've been on the 'the strong do bully the weak, and the really smart ones will call it 'righteousness' and 'justice' and convince the weak that it's in their best interests to accept their bullying' trip for a while now ;)

And I'm not implying that you're wrong for wanting to kick the crap out of them. Hell, I'd join you in doing so [img]smile.gif[/img] But not because of any flimsy, subjective sense of moral superiority, but because that's the way we want the world to be (ie: that the bottom-feeders of human society are not allowed to take their frustration out on cute, cuddly, fuzzy-wuzzy widdle kitty cats ;) ), and we'd make it so by the age-old technique of physical force [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-26-2005, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

People are bastards. Especially kids.

I would wholeheartedly beat the shit out these two individuals if I ever met them.

They can stick their "hierarchy issues" if they have any.

Sicko's.

[ 01-26-2005, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

Heh heh. No posts as yet to refute that violence is ever the law of the land :D

Do you know what the sad thing is?

I don't think it would bother me as much if they had set a person on fire.

Why do you find that sad?


ps: sorry Memnoch, I don't mean to derail your thread. But we're touching on one of the few topics that actually hold my attention these days (the origin and nature of human social structures) and I'm really getting into this...

[ 01-26-2005, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Sometime's it's just too appropiate.

I can't see jail reformatting their brains into the train of thought that makes them think that maybe, just maybe stompin' on said kitten was morally wrong, personally I'd say an ass-whupping would.

yeah, heard about it mem!.. pitiful.

And I think it's high time we, as a culture, abandoned the idiotic notion that 'morality' is a universal constant.

And I think it's high time we, as a culture, abandoned the idiotic notion that 'morality' is a universal constant. </font>[/QUOTE]Morality may not be a universal constant.

But on this planet, with regards to humans beings, honour/morality is just good manners.

Lose that, and our society will destroy itself far quicker than it is currently doing.

That tiny peice of moral fibre, that litte itsy-bitsy grasshopper on our shoulder, whatever the thing telling us what is right and wrong in a given situation (odds are on the brain [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is what prevents me from randomly throwing a brick at my neighbour's head, and typically what stops another from setting a kitten on fire.

Let's be realistic, the idea of right and wrong may only be "figments of our imagination", but it sure is convinient ain't it? I wouldn't like to contemplate the alternative.

I couldn't agree more. Morality is social convenience, designed by the strong to suit the strong, and enforced upon the weak (by various means, violence and intimidation being two of the most common).

The bone I have to pick is with the morality of current so-called 'democratic' nations, which encourages non-violence, equal-rights (when you can tell that all are clearly NOT equal just by looks alone) and the overall domestication of the wild, animal vitality of our species. Saying that violence is imprudent or non-constructive in a given situation is totally different to saying it is morally wrong. Our current moral 'norms' appear to be a result of slave indignation against violent oppression... going all the way back to Jewish enslavement in Babylon. I think it is imperitive that our moral codes are restructured to once again encourage vitality over tameness.

For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom. In essense these boys were trying to 'synthesise' social power by torturing these kittens. If these boys were 'naturally' powerful they would have no need to torture kittens, they would 'pick on someone their own size' instead. They should be reminded of their low 'natural' station by physical force if necessary.

I agree.

Heh. Right on man. Well, I'm using the university library computers right now and they are closing up for the evening, so I've gotta go. S'been swell chattin' widcha [img]smile.gif[/img]

<span style="color: lightblue">If someone hurt either of my two cats, I would do much worse things to them than that.

I am not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say. I prefer to avoid having a knee-jerk reaction, but it seems to me that you're saying we need to bring more violence back to society (encourage vitality)and that equal-rights are bad. You also mention people needing to be reminded of their "station".

So, if you come across a guy in a wheelchair who is trying to overcome his disability and make himself the equal of a non-wheelchair-bound person (not that they aren't already equal), you would be within your rights to beat the crap out of him to "show him his place"?

Likewise, if you and I were to meet and I realized I was bigger or stronger than you, I could beat the bejeezus out of you and you wouldn't have a problem with it?

When you say "For instance, I would physically punish these young kitty-killers, not because they hurt a defenseless kitten, but because they were trying to excercise rights beyond their social station. The licence to inflict pain belongs to those at the top of the hierarchy, not the dregs at the bottom," you mean to say that torching a kitten is fine, so long as you're strong enough?

There will always be someone stronger, so from *their* point of view, anyone below them wouldn't have the right. They themselves wouldn't have the right, if viewed by someone stronger than them... So who is the final authority? Is the world's strongest man the only one with any rights?

I certainly hope I am misunderstanding your point, because it certainly *seems* that you are saying only the strong should have rights and anyone with any sort of disadvantage should be beat down and kept in their place.

Edited to remove excessive vitriol and sarcasm....

[ 01-26-2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: Arnabas ]

That's very sad. Unfortunately people are evil and have destructive nature. For me I think it's easier to hurt a human being then an animal.

Or perhaps it's the "strong's" desire to help the "weak", in this case the kitten.
To use their higher position in the hirearchy for good rather than these barstards did, sure they may be f**ked up, but i don't care, there are certain acts that are not appropriate, i don't care for what reason it occoured, (well i do care as it would be good to fix the cause at the source) but i don't like it happening, and as a society we have come up with a law against "cruelty to animals" and as there is no major financial benefit from such a law i believe it was put in place for the purpose of stopping acts like this that are just shearly "wrong".
I believe there is such a thing as "wrong" and we should be developed enough as a society to decided that, and this is wrong by all definitions, weather these kids have reasons is not relevant, the thing is they did it, they crossed a moral/legal guideline for no real purpose, and they should be punished, and i have to say if i had a rifel and i saw this happening i would defend the weak, the simple truth is the kids were in the wrong, and they deserve to be punished, hopefully by the proper authorities, but what is the gurantee that they will be?
there was obviously a witness from this report, all i'm saying is if that witness had have been me... well, defend the weak, and as these kids got pleasure from abusing the weak i would take pleasure in defending, and obviously pelasure in abusing the weak (the kids) but not without reason.

ok, what if a bear attacked and ate everyone you loved and cared for and nawed off both your legs?
although i suppose you would feel just as angry if a human did the same... but if you killed the bear you would get in less trouble from the authorities i guess...

i do understand what you mean, but it is a human's nature to care less for a being below itself, for example; you would not think twice about killing a fly, what about a human below you? a baby? i doubt it
it's a kind of empathy for one's own kind i think, what i'm getting at is the reason you would be hurting a human is with reason, if you did it without reason it is different, and it is difficult to compare, you can hardly say something offensive to an animal, you would have to physically abuse both the human and the animal, add to that whether the animal understands why it is being abused... and yeah, it's difficult.

this whole issue is complex, but i stand by the opinion that it simply should happen in our supposed developed society.

I think killing those responsible would be just a little too harsh. I'm thinking more along the lines of dragging them to some sort of open area and beating them with a bullwhip.

Maz, something similar happened a few years ago in my state and they passed a law to make torturing and abusing an animal a federal offense after it happened. :( It's outrageous and almost impossible to believe that any human being could be so cruel and sadistic, isn't it? :(

But it happens and I for one, agree, no penalty is bad enough for those who deliberately cause such suffering.

Reading that just makes me sick. :( Something is wrong with those kids. When I was their age I never had any urge to go torture something, and I still don't. Anyone who does is disturbed and who knows how far they will go if given the chance.

That is so sick!

If anyone did that to my cats, I'd rip off their skin and dunk them in a vat of salt then lock them in a coffin with a swarm of snapping turtles! How could people be so cruel?

I hate this world


--Kestrel--

I think Hiero is not trying to say equal rights as a concept are bad, but more along the lines of "in the places where supposedly there are equal rights, most of the times it's a lie". In other words, even in the western world there is no such thing as equal rights, yet we are led to believe so.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Aaron ;)



The answer to this question would probably be the same as I wrote above, but this is how *I* see it, and you can agree or disagree, but it's my opinion. People today consider themselves more advanced and (in a sense) better than people a few centuries ago. We are smarter, we are more sophisticated than we used to, we are technologically more advanced, and so on, yet we've completely lost track of the way nature works. We try to ban all violence, we disapprove the violent way animals solve their disputes, hell, we even try to conquer death by finding medicine after medicine, by giving everyone who has even the slightest chance to life a life and by making rule upon rule to ensure a society without the basic things nature revolves around. And this may sound extremely harsh, but isn't it true that in the end, it's all a survival of the fittest?

Am I wrong to believe such a thing? Am I challenging a 'moral code', which, if I might add, only exist in the eyes of a human? You won't see animals behave to way humans do, and that's not saying we're better, or special, we're different. We back off from phenomena that have existed for like eternity, and for what? Please give me an explanation, because I fail to see one at first hand.



I think there's a difference between having the power to execute violence, and actually committing a violent act to enforce your higher position in the hierarchy.

[ 01-26-2005, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Link ]

Wow... so many different thoughts go through my mind.

First, IIRC, many serial killers and the like started on small animals before they worked their way up. Not that there's a cause/effect thing going on, but I'd mark them for close future scrutiny.

Second, it most likely is a power thing, just like rape isn't about sex. Most likely they've got an SSI (Sh!tty Self-Image), and this makes them feel more powerful. I don't know that being thrust back into their place (much as I'd like to do it) would help offset that...

Third, I'll take the midnight to two beating shift... :D

Fourth, there are two kinds of power or authority: positional and earned. They *are* higher on the food chain, so to speak, than that kitten. I would suspect they have little earned authority or respect from those higher up in the food chain, so they exerted their authority on the kitten. Unfortunately, they should consider that those higher up on the food chain may decide to exert their authority in a similar fashion...

That's all. I have to go wash my mouth out now...

<font color=plum>An interestng discussion so far, sparked by a heinous act. There have been several good points from many different members. There have also been some points I simply don't agree with.

<font color=white>Heiro</font> - I don't agree with your "strong DO bully the weak" theory. Or that our laws and morality are imposed by the strong onto the weak. Our laws (at least in America) are designed to help protect the weak - regardless of their social station in life. And as our recent election showed, most of our morals were decided by the majority of members in a given settlement, village, town, city or state. But our Constitution was designed to make sure that the strong would NEVER be able to completely dominate or control the weak. Nor would we be able to legally "beat them back down" to their proper station.
Just as an example, the majority of Americans do not agree with homosexual lifestyles. These feelings are stronger and more concentrated in certain areas, but the overall disagreement with the lifestyle in general is pretty widespread. DESPITE this general disagreement from John Q. Public, Gay Right activists and organizations have been able to a lot of victories in regards to their general and civil rights. The playing field still isn't equal, by any means, but that particular minority segment of the American population has been able to make many advances. The same is true for the Civil Rights Movement of the '60's. Blacks have gone from being slaves to having most of the same opportunity to become successful as anybody else. Yes, racism still exists. It will never be eliminated completely. But it is definitely much less predominant than it used to be. Both of these groups have gained significantly over the last 50 years, sometimes against incredible odds. Back in the 50's, many whites agreed with your theory that blacks should be "reminded" of their proper station in life. That isn't the case anymore - thanks to our Constitution and laws that were passed to grant them the rights they deserved.

As for the reaction of most members (including yourself) as to what they would do to these kids if they had caught them, I DO agree with you that one reason for that reaction is because kittens ARE "fuzzy wuzzy cute widdle animals". To be perfectly honost, I seriously doubt there would be NEARLY as much "outrage" if these boys had been torturing rats or spiders instead of kittens. But we also want to punish these kids because they attacked an animal that was defenseless and didn't even understand why it was being attacked, much less being able to protect itself. So the "strong" actually want to rise up in defense of the totally weak and helpless. If these boys want to hurt something, we want to be the ones to say "How about trying to hurt something that can actually fight back?" This is also the reason some people admit they wouldn't be as upset if this had happened to another person. Because regardless of that person's situaton, we still think on some level that they could understand what was happening and at least have a chance to fight back. It still doesn't justify the attack, but it does make it "less heinous" in our minds because they attacked a person or animal that was capable of fighting back. I also daresay that many of us wouldn't mind at all to give these boys some petrol and matches and lock them in a cage with a hungry pit bull. "There you go boys. You want to burn an animal, here's one for ya." The difference in our reaction lies in the perceived ability of the animal to defend itself against the attack."

On a personal level, my gut reaction is the same as most other members here. A part of me would like to pour petrol on the boys and set them alight. But I will be happy enough for these punks to lose two years of their life in prison. It won't change thier anti-social tendencies. In fact, it might well endorse and enhance them. But these boys are obviously disturbed to begin with. One of the early warning signs of serial killers is a history of cruelty to animals.

I also agree, <font color=white>Heiro</font>, that these boys felt "empowered" by the torture and pain they inflicted. You're probably dead-on about them having social factors that make THEM feel helpless and powerless, and this is their way of striking back and finding a way to feel "good" about themselves again. It is a way to say "I'm NOT helpless". And as they grow older, these actions might well be taken out on other humans to increase their feeling of power - since they ARE now targeting creatures that "could" fight back.

To be perfectly honost, I don't know that ANY amount of psychological counseling would ever be sufficient to overcome their history and to enable them to feel good about themselves without inflicting pain, suffering and death on others.

As for the members endorsing "vigilante reactions", I certainly understand where you're coming from. I admit that if I actually saw the attack happen, I would want to run up and "beat the crap" out of the boys too. But - even though I AM an animal lover (and a cat lover in particular) - I doubt I could ever bring myself to actually want to kill another person for harming a cat (or any other animal). <font color=yellow>Ziroc</font>, I definitely understand your feelings regarding <font color=tan>Choc</font>. I've had several pets during my life and my wife had a cat that she was every bit attached to as you are <font color=tan>Choc</font>. Still, I don't think I could have been willing to kill somebody for harming the cat. Beat the hell outta of them and then make sure they go to jail, yeah, but not kill.

My kids, on the other hand, are a completely different story. When my middle son was only two years old, I took him to a McDonald's playground one day. Two older boys (around 10-12yrs old) trapped him on the playground and would not let him off. When I called to my son and he tried to come to me, the boy closest to him tried to kick him in the face!!! All I can say is that God had mercy on him, because if he HAD of actually kicked my son, I WOULD have beat the ever-lovin hell outta him right then and there. As it was, I dove into the playground on top of both these boys and jerked them away from my son. I then cussed them out for everything they were worth and told them what would happen if they laid a finger on my son. They mocked me at first, but I think I finally got the message throught to them that I wasn't joking and I literally meant every single word I was saying. That was just a minor threat (in reality) to my boys. If someone every actually DID harm them...then I definitely would have no problem hunting them down and shooting them like a rabid dog.

We all have the capacity to defend the ones we love with violence - and sometimes with excessive violence. Most of the time, this level of "parental protection" applies to our kids and parents (and maybe a few other members of our immediate family). But those that don't have children often feel that same level of parental protection for their pets - because their pets ARE their "children". And woe be to anyone that would be stupid enough to harm our "kids".</font>

Good thoughts, Cerek. I think part of what we have evolved to in some parts of the world is an obligation (felt, moral, or otherwise) that those *in* positions of authority and power are supposed to help, protect, or defend those who are not in those positions.

Hence, your defense of your son. And frankly, I would do the same thing to protect my kids -- not because I'm their dad, but because they're not able to defend themselves against that kind of action at this point in time. I certainly don't want to be doing it forever -- at some point, they need to leave the nest -- but in a situation like that, I'm up there with you. The downside would be that I might have to explain a whole lot of language to them afterwards... :D

Hmmm... in a McDonald's playground, I might have insisted they take me to their parents... or else I'd take them to the restaurant manager and have the manager call the police. That might have an impact on them... might make them see that I'm serious.

Part of the issue comes down to the age-old discussion of whether or not they can be rehabilitated -- whether they can learn to live like the higher-order beings they really are. It can be done -- I got busted for shoplifting in my teens, and I've never had the urge or inclination to do it since.

It worked on me. Would it work on them? I don't know. It depends on a lot of things, including the environment and behavior of those around these kids, including their parents and peers. Part of what I'd be curious about is what led them to a point in life where something like setting a cat on fire was a reasonable thing to consider doing... unless the catalysts behind that are changed, little else will change with it.

<font color=plum>Yes, I should have demanded to know who the parents or gaurdians were of these two kids when I jerked them off the playground. But when they kid attacked my son, I lost all rationale thought. As they finally left, one was with his dad and the one that tried to kick my son was with his grandmother. But what amazes me to this day is the fact that NOBODY stood up to do anything about ME going crazy on these kids. My voice is rather loud and carries a long way under normal conditions, but this was in a veritable fishbowl setting and I was literally yelling at the top of my voice. I'm sure people could hear me all the way to the counter, but NOBODY came up to me and said "HEY, what the heck do you think you're doing to these kids?" And I'm especially amazed that neither the father or the grandmother stood up and said "Get your hands off my kid". Yet noone seemed to take ANY notice of my actions.</font>

<font color=plum>There is a big difference between shoplifting and deliberately torturing helpless animals. As I and another poster mentioned, such cruelty to animals is a warning sign of a sociopathic mentality. We've probably ALL broken rules at one time or another, but most of these were relatively minor violations. To be able to get enjoyment from inflicting so much pain and suffering on another living creature warns of a very dangerous mentality in the individual - one that I feel can NOT ever be "corrected" with counseling. The only solution is to lock them away from society forever once it's proven conclusively that they are sociopathic.</font>

Woops, there go your Christian principles (IIRC) out the window [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I like where this discussion has led. Lots of good discourse.
OK, apparently I need to touch up my communication skills and articulate myself more clearly....

Arnabas: Nowhere have I ever stated that 'beating up people just for the hell of it' is a wise course of action. What I was trying to allude to is that our culture, as an animal hierarchy, is governed by a 'natural' appreciation of power (much like any other social animal grouping, such as a pride of lions, a hive of bees or a flock of sheep). Whenever you meet someone new you subconsciously size them up in terms of their personalities and physical attributes (including mental capacity). First judgments are by no means the best ones, but nevertheless we, as social animals, need a sense of hierarchy when interacting with others of our species (and with those of other species too). Now, those at the high end of the pecking order will usually only stay there for as long as they can hold onto their power. No matter how strong an individual may be, if a group unites against them they are likely to be deposed from their position at the top of the hierarchy. Therefore, in order to avoid garnering the indignation of their subordinates, it is in a dominant individual's best interests to not exert more force than is necessary to maintain their dominance. Picking on someone in a wheelchair for no logical reason is just plain foolish. Yet if the person in a wheelchair was attacking you (and in essence challenging your power), then one should feel no qualm with eliminating this challenge by force.

Power comes through the ability to inflict pain on others, but there are many different forms of pain, physical pain being only the crudest form of which. Social isolation, public humiliation, removal of access to resources (freezing their assets in a sense), psychological torture (such as threatening to destroy the people or things that a person values and cares about), psychological intimidation (such as saying 'such-and-such a behaviour is evil/sinful, and if you do it God'll getcha and you'll go to hell!'), repression of self-expression and cultural identity (like how African slaves were stripped of their tribal identities when taken to work in the Americas for instance) .... they are all equally potent forms of pain (and often provide more effective methods of maintaining power than by primitively beating people up).

I do not advocate being a belligerant, chest-banging idiot. I simply have no hesitation in recognising and accepting my animal instincts.

Now, ask yourself, with all honesty, what are 'rights'? Indeed, what are 'laws'? Really? They do not exist as physical phenomena. They are psychological codes and limitations, nothing more, but most certainly nothing less. Claiming a 'right' to something is in essence claiming the power to excercise one's will upon the world in a physical way. No two bodies are alike. Sexual genetic variation is a wonderful thing. No two humans are alike. And therefore, no two humans possess equal means of excercising their will upon the world. Therefore, claiming 'equal rights for all' (to be bestowed by the STATE no less! Which is another phenomenon of power altogether!) is a fallacy of catastrophic ramifications. As Link said, equal rights are a phantom, an illusion of security to give the weak of society a false sense of empowerment. Rights have nothing to do with race or skin colour, they have to do with one's ability to influence and subjugate others. But the ARTFUL subjugator shall make their subjugation seem appealing. When President Bush (and any other state leader) says that he shall protect and watch over American citizens, he essentially says that they are under his domination, and are subject to his rule. However, the weak will usually jump at such a promise of security, and thus his subjugation is interpreted rather as patronage. His dominance is viewed as a positive.... the benevolent dictator ;)

Absolutely
Nothing
Wrong
With
That

Now, to bring it back to the boys in question. While I speak from total ignorance of them personally, I imagine they are act out of frustration of being powerless within their own hierarchy (as many others have already stated). Theirs is an impotent gesture of resentment. Resenting their society's unwillingness to support their weakness. There's nothing wrong with being weak, indeed varying levels of strength are vital for maintaining a working social hierarchy. However, the usurpation of 'false', illusory, synthesised power by weaklings is something that I think that those who possess 'real' power should not tolerate. It muddies the structure of the hierarchy. As such, these would-be usurpers and self-gratifiers-out-of-indignation should be made an example of. The weak should accept their place, and the strong should not 'abuse' them needlessly. No guilt, no sin, no good nor evil. Just the strong ruling the weak, wisely and practically.

[ 01-26-2005, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Some people are just sick.

If anyone tryed to do that to Sox, or even that lazy bugger Rip, I'd flay them alive, and beat them to death, slowly.

Unfortunately things like this go on all too often and even worse, with minimal punishment to the people who do it.

Recently here in Tucson a woman was charged with varying degrees of child endangerment after dousing herself and her three year old daughter in lighter fluid and then setting fire to her house.
She was severly burned but lived to face the consequences and the child was miraculously unharmed other than being frightened and traumatized before being rescued by a local firefighter.

I sometimes wonder if the punishment ought to fit the crime (like torching those teens over 30% of thier bodies).

Ugg, that woman must have been totally deranged Violet. At least the only one harmed physically was her. That's almost considered a good story in comparison with some of the things I hear and read on the news. Like that freak who killed some woman and cut out her baby and tried to pass it off as her own. I swear I hope they put her away for life, she has quite a messed up background and flushed baby hamsters down the toilet in front of her kids. Such a lovely one... :(

I am sure she isn't in her right mind. Above all, I hope that her child is never returned to her custody, no matter how much rehabilitation she goes through. Sterilize her while they are at it too I say.
I know about the baby-from-the-womb theft you mentioned but had no idea about the hamsters. Sometimes a deepeer look into the psyche of killers is just what we don't need. Who knows how messed up her kids are going to end up over it.
Definite kids to pray for, that's for sure.

But with all due respect, why? What are you afraid of? That it will someone 'corrupt' you or something? Forbidden knowledge?

[ 01-26-2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Poor cats! We had a story when i was 9 years old we had a cat we loved wery much and some kids hang it with a rope under a bridge for all to see, :( i was so angry that i used a hammer and hurt one of the kids wery hard so i went to some kinda "talks" with the police but i dont think they do this again :(
Anyway i think "burning" living kitties is allmost worse poor them!!!

[ 01-26-2005, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Megabot ]

But with all due respect, why? What are you afraid of? That it will someone 'corrupt' you or something? Forbidden knowledge? </font>[/QUOTE]I can't speak for Voilet, only myself. For me sometimes it can be too much, too much violence and death on the news, and you watch it every day, and sometimes if it goes indepth, re a killer's mind, it can just get overwhelming. It'd be an enigma if it happened rarely, we'd all be interested and curious how a person could do such a thing, but when you see sick stuff on the news everyday, it just gets to be too much, and kinda redundant. I.E., I do think people who are violent have a childhood past that may explain it. Some say, Oh but so-and-so had loving parents who doted on him, well I say even THAT can be wrong, if a parent has absolutely no discipline no matter what their kid does. Of course to me that also does not excuse, as we all have a choice what we are, what we do, in our lives. And I don't care if killers get the death penalty, or jail time, as long as they are taken out of the public, so as to not cause harm to more innocent people or animals or whatever.

Just gets so frustrating for me, seeing the news and all the f-'ed up things that go on, it really changes my thoughts re humanity. It is disheartening to say the least. But of course I also realize that the news likes to only show scandalous, intense things. I know civilized humanity still exists, and this is what I stand for. Screw "human nature" and all that crap, that is unevolved humans from the past. We learn ever year that goes by as humans, and evolve. Those that cannot control their emotions, and kill and do sick things to kittens, are to me, still in the caveman ages, unevolved, using basic animal instincts instead of human intellect, logic, and control. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Woops, there go your Christian principles (IIRC) out the window [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>You're right, <font color=red>Vaskez</font>, that is a direct violation of my Christian principles. But I have acknowledged this before and I know from personal experience how I react when my children are threatened. Had that boy actually kicked my son in the face, I know for a fact that I would have slapped HIM in the face as hard as I could so HE could see what it felt like. Yet at the same time, I can admit (from a rational POV) that such an action is even more abhorrent because I am an adult and should have better control of my emotions. Still, even though I know it is wrong, I also know that is exactly what would have happened. I also freely acknowledge that I would have to answer for any such action when I stand in Judgement before God after my death.

But as <font color=white>Heiro</font> pointed out, I am simply acknowledging my own "animalistic" response to a threat or danger to my child. None of us are perfect, and I recognize my weakness (from a Christian POV) in this situation.</font>