How can people do something like this????

[Intrepid]

Originally posted by Xen: 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.

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.

[Iron Greasel]

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.

[Cloudbringer]

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.

[Ladyzekke]

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.

[Kestrel Daystar]

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--

[Link]

Originally posted by Arnabas: 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".

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

Originally posted by Arnabas: 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"?

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.

Originally posted by Arnabas: 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.

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 ]

[Bungleau]

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...

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...

[Cerek]

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.

Heiro - 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, Heiro, 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). Ziroc, I definitely understand your feelings regarding Choc. I've had several pets during my life and my wife had a cat that she was every bit attached to as you are Choc. 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".

[Bungleau]

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...

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.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Bungleau: 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.

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.

Originally posted by Bungleau: 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.

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.