[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.

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[user104658]

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 Tøm

You're a psycho. A deluded psycho.

Am I, doctor? Oh dear.

I take this to mean that you ARE a vegetarian?

[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...