[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There seems to be so much confusion in yours - and certain other members - abstract thought processing T.S.

On other threads - notably concerning ISIS or CHRISTIANITY - when usually countering my views:

A) You DENY God and Creationism and condemn religion.
B) You ADVOCATE Darwinism and the secular accident of Evolution.

Therefore - by your own often expressed opinions - HUMANS are nothing more than just another species of ANIMAL.

We may be 'prima inter pares' - 'first among equals', 'top of the food chain' - but by your definition we are mere animals nonetheless.

Now on THIS thread, you plead the UNIQUENESS of humans above ALL animals?

Without GOD just WHY then do you propose that we are unique?

Dogs, cats, corvids, cetaceans, primates, and a host of other animals display moral, cognitive and conscious behaviour. Even the humble Flatworm has qualities we humans lack. So Humans are no more 'Special' than any other animals - in fact; the word “special” is merely the adjectival form of “species”.

So being on an 'Equal Footing' with any other animal, is one human's LOVE and FONDNESS for his/her DOG any LESS VALID than another human's LOVE and FONDNESS for another human?

NO.

As humans we form attachments/relationships to satisfy our social needs - be they with other humans, with pets, or both, but INVARIABLY, a human-pet relationship is simpler and safer than human-human relationships, as equally rewarding, and involves less risk.

Pets - especially DOGS - can be accepting, openly affectionate, honest, loyal and consistent; all qualities that satisfy a person‟s basic need to be loved and feel self-worthy.

Unlike humans, Dogs will rarely 'Bite-The-Hand-That-Feeds-Them', and a dog's love is often more genuine, intrinsic, and instinctive.

So I will come to your statement that:

"And also, this idea that a dog's life is comparable to pretty much any human life is total madness"

And say; No - it is NOT madness and you are wrong.

The day I see a dog abduct a child from its mother, take it onto bleak moorland, torture it, then murder it.

The day I see a dog behead a cowering innocent human.

The day I see a dog set fire to a terrified innocent schoolteacher and burn her alive.

and the day I see a dog mercilessly beat an 84 year old pensioner to death after he has already surrounded his life-savings

is the day when I will agree with you and apologise to you.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You speak as though you were there TS. :/
It's all supposition, you don't know the circumstances or what occurred pre or post attack, nor are you privvy to the mind of the man then or now so your summation is irrelevant.

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.
You made connections where there were none based on the opinions of some, that is entirely unjustified.
You can't preempt from one scenario how anyone would react to another.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

[arista]

"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I have a lot of sympathy for this poor man, driven to despair by this yappy little rodent. Forced to finally silence this dogs incessant barking he should not been put in that position by his selfish uncaring neighbours.

Glad he escaped jail over this , and it sends a message to owners of other uncontrollable dogs

Bang On Right

[T*]

Originally Posted by arista

Bang On Right

Seriously?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Anyone can suffer from a temporary psychotic break. Anyone. I know that this is difficult for people to accept or believe; "No one who isn't evil could ever do anything like that" etc. etc. but that's actually quite a dangerous mindset. Fleeting psychotic episodes are a very real thing and you have no idea if it could happen to you. It is absolutely right to feel sympathy for someone in this situation, if they feel remorse.

To address what some people were saying earlier, also: no, it actually doesn't follow that it's "a good thing it wasn't a screaming baby!". People have a strong instinctive bias to not harm human infants. During a psychotic (or "rage") episode, those instinctive and subconscious controls are still very much in place. There are no such instinctive controls when it comes to non-human animals, our connection and love for animals is conscious and sentimental. People not wanting to believe that does not change the facts.

There is a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on here. He MUST be an evil pre-meditated dog murderer because;

1) He sneakily lured it over to carry out the plan

(Well no, it's equally plausible that it was barking at the fence and he was leaning over telling it to shut up and then eventually snapped and grabbed it)

2) He must have had the bucket of water sitting ready

(This one is actually daft. Would you really plan to kill a dog by drowning it? It seems needlessly complicated and it's far more likely that there simply happened to be a bucket in his garden nearby that had filled with water)

3) He cut the dog to pieces and pulled its guts out to remove the microchip

(Surely some willful ignorance going on here? Microchips are on the back of the neck just under the skin, you can feel where they are, especially on a small animal, and it would take little more than a tiny cut to then remove it. This is sensationalism.)

4) He covered up the "murder" afterwards.

(So his blind rage passes, he reaslises he has done something morally abhorrent [and it is! No one is saying that it isn't ffs, not even the guy who did it!], and his first reastion is amazingly NOT to run around telling everyone what he's done and hand himself in to the police. He tries to hide his shame. I maintain that this is 100% normal and that the vast majority of people who have done something terrible and inexplicable would panic and try to figure out how to hide it.


These things happen to people. Normal people. I understand that that's scary, and that there's a good reason that people want to reject it as "unthinkable", "couldn't possibly happen to them or anyone else who isn't a monster for that matter", but hiding under the bed with your fingers in your ears is quite unlikely to change facts. Abnormal psychology is scary and can affect anyone. Deal with it.


There's far too much black and white reasoning going on in this thread, what has happened here has a massive grey area. Do I think it's nice that a dog was killed and was probably distressed during? Of course not, it's a horrible thing to happen. But no, I certainly don't think that this man deserves for his life to be over because he suffered a clear, brief and - sentiment aside - relatively minor break in his mental health brought on by - reading between the lines - the incessant noise of a bored and neglected dog that was left yapping in its garden for hours on end. I VERY MUCH doubt this dog had only been barking for a few minutes, and it clearly wasn't supervised... so it had been barking, outside, on its own, for a prolonged period of time. A lot of people who claim to be "dog lovers" seem to be very quick to overlook the fact that this is NOT caring for a dog well.

Does he LOOK REMORSEFUL T.S - He's STARING DEFIANTLY and a TAD SMIRKY/SMUGLY STRAIGHT INTO THE CAMERAS.

The sick bastard should be hiding his head UNDER A RAINCOAT or BLANKET.

Remorseful my Arse.

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by arista

Bang On Right

erm

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Does he LOOK REMORSEFUL T.S - He's STARING DEFIANTLY and a TAD SMIRKY/SMUGLY STRAIGHT INTO THE CAMERAS.

The sick bastard should be hiding his head UNDER A RAINCOAT or BLANKET.

Remorseful my Arse.

It is literally impossible to tell from one or two still images, kirk. I could take a video of someone in extreme distress and selectively pause it to make it look like they're laughing.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out, while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

[Kizzy]

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

Jeremy Kyle?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that. And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...

Originally Posted by arista

"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

[T*]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go, isn't it outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...













..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out

The moral jury on everything is always out, such is the subjective nature of morality. I can assure you though, the psychological jury is not out. Killing animals can be indicative of psychological problems but on the scale of abnormal psychology, it's absolutely nowhere near murder. Murder being used in the proper sense of the word of course; killing another human being.

while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

To you. See above, re: the subjective nature of morality.

Originally Posted by Třm

You're a psycho. A deluded psycho.

Am I, doctor? Oh dear.

I take this to mean that you ARE a vegetarian?

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...






..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

Ammi

[Liam-]

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...

Originally Posted by Kirklancaster

an already prepared place of EXECUTION replete with bucket of water and sharp knives, then drown her and disembowel her

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Liam-

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?
I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire, or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?

Not to make presumptions about the sequence of events again Kizzy but I would guess the chip was removed after the dog was drowned in a rage. I will conceed: If he cut out the chip and THEN drowned the dog, that is cold and calculating. He cut it out afterwards to hide the evidence.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire

I'm trying to counter complete myths and misconceptions about human psychology more than this, to be honest.

or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

No. Not "anyone". There are plenty of people condemning it who I am sure (in fact, know) are also equally empathic when it comes to human ills, and that's fine. I am condemning (and even then, not really condemning, just mildly despairing) at the fact that there are people - not just people on this thread or forum but countless people - who will barely look up from their cornflakes for a humanitarian crisis but fly into a snot-fuelled tirade when they hear that a dead dog is involved. This isn't new information; this stuff sells. You will sell more papers by posting a picture of a sad looking puppy abandonned at a railway station than you will with pictures of starving children. It's ****ing mental.

At the opposite end of the scale: there are people upset by the death of this dog who proudly proclaim "lolz, Darwin awardz" for dead teenagers.

Just... what. What is that?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The moral jury on everything is always out, such is the subjective nature of morality. I can assure you though, the psychological jury is not out. Killing animals can be indicative of psychological problems but on the scale of abnormal psychology,

..I agree that there can be psychology attached to these things TS but that doesn't mean that any are true of this particular case either and you (appear) to be saying your (analysis) as more fact or at least that you are judging anyone/analysing them and why you think they are not of the same mindset... in this thread who disagrees with that analogy or doesn't except it as an excuse/reason etc for this story...and whether you mean to or not, that's what you're doing...lessening and dumbing down of those who disagree as there being another 'motive' or reason for their opinion, like being vegetarian..why can't they see what you see and how you see it all to be...so you are really analysing all posters in this thread as well....everything you say could be true but there is not always a psychology to everything either, some people are just pretty rubbish in their character...(something my family try to tell me..)...

..anyway in this case, there is no 'evidence' to any of his defence or excuses etc...he had a heart attack, I would presume that is true but no medical diagnosis of a barking dog being a contributory factor and not even any evidence of how much the dog barked because apparently he complained to the Council but no confirmation of his reports from them...he didn't say anything to his neighbours about his stress with their dog or try to talk to them..(they said that and he hasn't denied it so I'll presume that's true..)..he lost his job with this incident and act of his/lost the trust and respect of his fellow workers and had probably spent much time off work anyway with his heart issues..so fairly much all in all a very stressful time and over a long period of time and maybe enough to 'snap' as you say..?..but that doesn't mean/none of that means a dog being a contributory factor..none of that means that a dog was being neglected...none of that means that the dog indeed incessantly barked...the psychology..?...in his mind it did, the dog was responsible in some way but only in his mind because there is no evidence/facts atm to say otherwise...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

The humanisation and projected emotions of people on animals isn't "pseudo" psychology at all. No, you've never heard "a pig is man's best friend" but a dog doesn't know that it's supposedly man's best friend any more than a pig does. It ALL comes from the people and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the animal. Dogs, cats and other pers do not "love people" any more than cows or pigs do. The distinction is human, not natural, therefore reading a newspaper in the morning and getting upset about a dead dog whilst munching on a bacon sandwich is complete selective bias.