[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.

[user104658]

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?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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'll file that under you don't know .


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

If we all had the same mindset then there would be no need for rules or laws would there, so the concept that we are all inherently alike is not true psychology isn't an exact science is it?



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.

I get this to an extent it is upsetting when the plight of millions are reduced to boats full of 'cockroaches'. Yet it isn't a question of perspective from a position of ignorance towards inhumanity to other humans that needs to be questioned here, I can see the frustrating comparison you're making however.

It's the acceptance that when you want to address an issue you lash out in the most violent way possible, it was a dog... that's not the point, it gives the suggestion that level of force is acceptable.
Do I feel this dog was at fault for this mans actions? No, I believe he was a dangerously anxious quick tempered man who lashed out in a fit of rage.. There's nothing to suggest that behaviour couldn't or wouldn't be repeated either.


Just... what. What is that?

We are a nation of dog lovers, maybe we do care more for dogs than people overseas? I would like to think it was the actions of the man, but yes I can't help but think that we can care less for some humans is a valid point.

.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

.

I definitely don't think it's acceptable, somewhere buried right at the start of the thread I did say that I feel bad for the dog, I genuinely DO like dogs (although I don't humanise them or their emotions) and I think the whole story is tragic. I actually had a border terrier when I was younger that looked just like that one, funnily enough. I like to think also that I could and would never harm a dog in any way, I really don't think I would, but I know enough about psychology to state that you CAN'T be sure. No one can. We like to think we can, but we just can't. It's like people reading or watching documentaries about dementia and turning to their partner who they love with all of their heart and saying, "I would never forget you!". They believe it with their entire soul but the truth is... if they get dementia, they're going to forget that person. If someone (anyone, the gentlest person you know) suffers an acute temporary psychotic break, they have the potential to turn violent. It's scary but it IS fact.

So I'm just not naive enough to think that I or anyone else is immune from mental breakdown. I, like anyone, like to believe that it's unthinkable that I could drown a dog. Maybe a cat, but never a dog. But people break. And when they do they need help, not punishment.

I just wish more people took the time to try to understand what has actually happened (in every situation) even though, as you say, getting an exact picture is impossible. No one 100% knows what happened apart from the man who did it, and even he might not.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I definitely don't think it's acceptable, somewhere buried right at the start of the thread I did say that I feel bad for the dog, I genuinely DO like dogs (although I don't humanise them or their emotions) and I think the whole story is tragic. I actually had a border terrier when I was younger that looked just like that one, funnily enough. I like to think also that I could and would never harm a dog in any way, I really don't think I would, but I know enough about psychology to state that you CAN'T be sure. No one can. We like to think we can, but we just can't. It's like people reading or watching documentaries about dementia and turning to their partner who they love with all of their heart and saying, "I would never forget you!". They believe it with their entire soul but the truth is... if they get dementia, they're going to forget that person. If someone (anyone, the gentlest person you know) suffers an acute temporary psychotic break, they have the potential to turn violent. It's scary but it IS fact.

So I'm just not naive enough to think that I or anyone else is immune from mental breakdown. I, like anyone, like to believe that it's unthinkable that I could drown a dog. Maybe a cat, but never a dog. But people break. And when they do they need help, not punishment.

I just wish more people took the time to try to understand what has actually happened (in every situation) even though, as you say, getting an exact picture is impossible. No one 100% knows what happened apart from the man who did it, and even he might not.

I made a mess of that last post... It looks like I replied to you with a dot
The guy stressed himself out to such an extent his anxiety gave him a heart attack... this wasn't some usually calm rational man, it was a man with manifested internal and external rage.
You would have thought that following his attack he would seek to reduce his anxiety levels by more positive means such as meditation or yoga than killing small animals.