[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849718]About as many that formed from playing violent video games. Terrible argument, don't use it.[/QUOTE]
I think the psychological distance between being violent in a video game and being violent in real life is great enough that the effect it has on otherwise normal players is insignificant. The psychological distance between murdering an animal and murdering a human is much, much smaller.
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
I've killed countless apparently living creatures in video games for fun, but if I did the same for real, tangible beings then I would be immeasurably fucked up.
In general, I have more simpathy towards mistreated animals than mistreated people.
[Editline]July 2 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;30849715]How many serial killers do you think started out like this?[/QUOTE]
I'd hazard a guess that most serial killers start off on animals before realizing that people are more rewarding game to kill.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849718]But would you feel the same had it been some hideous creature that also would have not done anything wrong? The answer, despite your protest, would be no.[/QUOTE]
yeah, actually.
i don't know about you, but it bothers me when people needlessly kill something simply because they enjoy doing it.
i think part of the difference in most people's reactions between someone killing a puppy, and someone killing, say, a crab or something, is maybe because dogs show more human-like emotions and reactions than crabs do, so i guess it makes sense.
[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;30849867]I think the psychological distance between being violent in a video game and being violent in real life is great enough that the effect it has on otherwise normal players is insignificant. The psychological distance between murdering an animal and murdering a human is much, much smaller.[/QUOTE]
But to say that serial killers start because of murdering animals is an incorrect statement. Something else would have to motivate them to kill the animal in the first place, be it a position of power, an opportunity to wealth, generally those kinds of things. I can see where you're coming from with the whole psychological distance argument, and I would have to agree, but to say that the killing of the animals itself results in serial killers is erroneous. There is an outside motive that pushes them to do it in the first place, that is the true 'cause for conversion', if you will.
[QUOTE=Dannyxowns;30849793]if i saw some nasty looking lizard being chopped up by douche bags and theyre smilling? yeah i would think thats fucked up, so dont tell me my opinion.
the point of my argument doesnt revolve around the part that the puppy is cute, it's the sick fucks that do that shit. and if you think thats okay, you do realize that almost all serial killers start by killing animals? because they become insensitive to the idea of taking away something elses life for their enjoyment. so yeah, it is psychologically fucked to kill things for fun. im sorry.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;30849935]yeah, actually.
i don't know about you, but it bothers me when people needlessly kill something simply because they enjoy doing it.
i think part of the difference in most people's reactions between someone killing a puppy, and someone killing, say, a crab or something, is maybe because dogs show more human-like emotions and reactions than crabs do, so i guess it makes sense.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps that argument was rather incorrect, I'll admit to that. Just a very, very common trait I've noticed in those of whom argue for animal's rights. My original argument still stands, however: why do you care? You have no connection to the organism other than that you've seen a picture of it being killed by a few punks acting like they're professional huntsmen. My point here is that there are so many of these things in existence that it's almoust illogical for such a small thing to bother you to the point of which you would like to get the owners arrested.
If I see those guys I'll be sure to rip their innards out.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849949]But to say that serial killers start because of murdering animals is an incorrect statement. Something else would have to motivate them to kill the animal in the first place, be it a position of power, an opportunity to wealth, generally those kinds of things. I can see where you're coming from with the whole psychological distance argument, and I would have to agree, but to say that the killing of the animals itself results in serial killers is erroneous. There is an outside motive that pushes them to do it in the first place, that is the true 'cause for conversion', if you will.[/QUOTE]
This logic is sound. The cause of serial killers is not the act of killing the animals. Rather, the motivation is external and the animals are the experimentation stage.
okay but you admit its an experimentation stage, but once they get there is there not a need to stop them, before they move to human beings? youre stating the facts that it is the gateway murdering to serial killing, but you dont see that it should be stopped then? because it's not okay to kill animals for fun in any way. it does desensitize people. who knows what caused someone to get to that stage, but once theyre there, you cant act like its okay
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849445]Not to bring you or the thread down, but it was just one dog. I would understand if the dog was stolen or something, but it wasn't. It was their dog and they can do whatever they damn well please with it.[b]you gotta be fucking kidding me[/b] Isn't the domestic dog population beginning to reach into the billions? Perhaps a bit of culling wouldn't be bad for the species as a whole.
Frankly, I've never gotten this whole 'feel sympathy towards animals' thing with the internet. I mean, I could understand if it was an animal you had owned and grown attached to over the long time you've had it, but again, this isn't your dog and it wasn't stolen from anyone. It's their dog. One dead dog isn't going to affect anything, yet you treat it like it's some god damn Earth moving change.
I figure I would like to add that I, too, own a dog. Two dogs, actually. The first died when we moved houses, as it was very old and generally was in poor health (bitten by a wild coyote, leukemia if I recall correctly, etc.) I was rather young at the time so I couldn't fully understand the concept of our dog's death. Now I look back at it and am truly saddened, he was a great dog. As for the second, we got it fairly recently. I could never get myself to exhibit violence towards it, I simply am not that type of person, and I would be saddened if something were to happen to it. Again, this is because it's my dog, and I have a reason to care about it. Seeing a random dead dog/puppy doesn't bother me in the same way I feel towards the death of our first dog. In fact, I feel nothing at all.
Call me an apathetic heartless bastard, shower me in boxes and disagrees, I don't really care. I just figured I would contribute my two pence.[/QUOTE]
"I don't care if dogs die so they shouldn't be stopped"
[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;30849737]Did a puppy bite you as a child or something[/QUOTE]
no, i just don't like it when people have their own little posse of people who go around defending them. it's exceedingly childish and makes you look like an asshole.
you know what, fuck it ima play the sims.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849949]But to say that serial killers start because of murdering animals is an incorrect statement. Something else would have to motivate them to kill the animal in the first place, be it a position of power, an opportunity to wealth, generally those kinds of things. I can see where you're coming from with the whole psychological distance argument, and I would have to agree, but to say that the killing of the animals itself results in serial killers is erroneous. There is an outside motive that pushes them to do it in the first place, that is the true 'cause for conversion', if you will.[/QUOTE]
That's not quite the point here. The men in the OP have already killed something for amusement. That thing was a puppy and therefore capable of showing human-like emotions during the killing. The point follows that they are fucking batshit and need to be apprehended before they get up the balls to decide to kill something their own size.
[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;30849562]I like how facepunch gets more angry about dead animals than dead people
actually I dont like that[/QUOTE]
If someone gets sad when a dog dies that doesn't mean they like animals more than humans. This is a thread about a dog getting murdered, you want us to talk about children starving in Africa?
[QUOTE=Dannyxowns;30850046]okay but you admit its an experimentation stage, but once they get there is there not a need to stop them, before they move to human beings? youre stating the facts that it is the gateway murdering to serial killing, but you dont see that it should be stopped then? because it's not okay to kill animals for fun in any way. it does desensitize people. who knows what caused someone to get to that stage, but once theyre there, you cant act like its okay[/QUOTE]
So, are farmers serial killers to you? What do you define as justifiable grounds for legal action towards those of whom defy what you define as animal rights? How can you monitor something like this, whether the owner was doing it for fun or for food/clothing/etc.?
[QUOTE=Nigey Nige;30850094]That's not quite the point here. The men in the OP have already killed something for amusement. That thing was a puppy and therefore capable of showing human-like emotions during the killing. The point follows that they are fucking batshit and need to be apprehended before they get up the balls to decide to kill something their own size.[/QUOTE]
You're implying that there is absolutely no gray area from killing an animal to killing a human. You act as though all people who do it for enjoyment end up as serial killers. This is a terrible argument. Have you ever met anyone that enjoys hunting? They do it for the enjoyment and satisfaction of killing an animal, much like these people in the photo do. They exhibit the same joy and sense of accomplishment that these lads did, yet most fail to end up as serial killers in the future. I'm going to go on and say that this argument is incredibly flawed, because there's an incredibly large amount of people who hunt and don't turn to cold-blooded murderers in one foul swoop. In fact, the percentage that do is exceedingly close to nil. So stop using this argument.
[QUOTE=GrabbinPills;30850080]no, i just don't like it when people have their own little posse of people who go around defending them. it's exceedingly childish and makes you look like an asshole.[/QUOTE]
No-one's ganging up on you, you're just frustrated because you acted like a dick and people are calling you out on it.
But that's irrelevant. The point here is that these men are clearly potential killers and need to be found.
That image is really old. 4Chan already tried to search for them but to no avail. I saw it about 1,5 years ago.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30850137]So, are farmers serial killers to you? What do you define as justifiable grounds for legal action towards those of whom defy what you define as animal rights? How can you monitor something like this, whether the owner was doing it for fun or for food/clothing/etc.?[/QUOTE]
Farmers do not kill things for pleasure and post photos of it on the internet.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30850137]So, are farmers serial killers to you? What do you define as justifiable grounds for legal action towards those of whom defy what you define as animal rights? How can you monitor something like this, whether the owner was doing it for fun or for food/clothing/etc.?[/QUOTE]
farmers arent killing things for fun. farmers arent the kind of people you ever hear of becoming serial killers usually.
there's a huuuuuge difference between killing cattle and foodstock, and using the parts wisely and responsibly, to feed, clothe, and make a livng, as opposed to hanging a puppy and probably just burying it in the back yard, and doing it just because it makes you feel cool.
you dont even have a good argument if you dont understand that those are two completely different kinds of killings.
[QUOTE=Dannyxowns;30850230]farmers arent killing things for fun. farmers arent the kind of people you ever hear of becoming serial killers usually.
there's a huuuuuge difference between killing cattle and foodstock, and using the parts wisely and responsibly, to feed, clothe, and make a livng, as opposed to hanging a puppy and probably just burying it in the back yard, and doing it just because it makes you feel cool.
you dont even have a good argument if you dont understand that those are two completely different kinds of killings.[/QUOTE]
And how can you imply that these fellows did not use the dog's part as food/clothing/etc.? You only know that these people killed the dog, and that's it. Nothing previous or after this. Everything you think happened before or after the event is an implication, and isn't concrete fact. Perhaps they just wanted to show that they had killed the dog before using it, you don't know that.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30850269]And how can you imply that these fellows did not use the dog's part as food/clothing/etc.? You only know that these people killed the dog, and that's it. Nothing previous or after this. Everything you think happened before or after the event is an implication, and isn't concrete fact. Perhaps they just wanted to show that they had killed the dog before using it, you don't know that.[/QUOTE]
There is reasonable suspicion to warrant an animal cruelty investigation.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30850269]And how can you imply that these fellows did not use the dog's part as food/clothing/etc.? You only know that these people killed the dog, and that's it. Nothing previous or after this. Everything you think happened before or after the event is an implication, and isn't concrete fact. Perhaps they just wanted to show that they had killed the dog before using it, you don't know that.[/QUOTE]
and what would the point in showing they had killed the dog before using it be? doesnt that go without saying, seeing how if theyre using dog meat then i'd already guess that they killed it. a farmer doesnt take a picture of a dead cow, flipping off the camera with a wicked smile on his face. my friend worked at a small town meat plant, and they didnt enjoy killing cattle and stuff like that. but dont try to defend them, do you honestly think they killed that animal and ate it? made fur? no theyre two dumb ass fucking teenagers.
all you do is escape every point of our arguments and try to make a new one.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30850269]And how can you imply that these fellows did not use the dog's part as food/clothing/etc.? You only know that these people killed the dog, and that's it. Nothing previous or after this. Everything you think happened before or after the event is an implication, and isn't concrete fact. Perhaps they just wanted to show that they had killed the dog before using it, you don't know that.[/QUOTE]
arguing with you is completely pointless.
why the fuck would you post this? are you trying to make us feel like shits on purpose??
[QUOTE=GrabbinPills;30850093]you know what, fuck it ima play the sims.[/QUOTE]
sims 2: pets?
[QUOTE=Dannyxowns;30850335]and what would the point in showing they had killed the dog before using it be? doesnt that go without saying, seeing how if theyre using dog meat then i'd already guess that they killed it. a farmer doesnt take a picture of a dead cow, flipping off the camera with a wicked smile on his face. my friend worked at a small town meat plant, and they didnt enjoy killing cattle and stuff like that. but dont try to defend them, do you honestly think they killed that animal and ate it? made fur? no theyre two dumb ass fucking teenagers.
all you do is escape every point of our arguments and try to make a new one.[/QUOTE]
Implications, implications, implications. You act as if teenagers are incapable of doing anything, and that's a terrible argument for anything. Ever. While I do see your point with the meat plant, you can't argue that for all cases. There was probably people there that had grown to enjoy doing it, or enjoyed doing it from the start, and the number of people who do would surprise you.
As for your second point, I fail to see how I exhibit this quality. I am simply taking your argument and abstracting it for additional rebuttal. This is how debates work, and quite frankly, I have been responding to your points. If you can't see this, you're blind.
Meh. A lot of us kill deer for sport. But when someone kills a dog it's fucking serious business.
[QUOTE=MallocNull;30849445]Not to bring you or the thread down, but it was just one dog. I would understand if the dog was stolen or something, but it wasn't. It was their dog and they can do whatever they damn well please with it. Isn't the domestic dog population beginning to reach into the billions? Perhaps a bit of culling wouldn't be bad for the species as a whole.
Frankly, I've never gotten this whole 'feel sympathy towards animals' thing with the internet. I mean, I could understand if it was an animal you had owned and grown attached to over the long time you've had it, but again, this isn't your dog and it wasn't stolen from anyone. It's their dog. One dead dog isn't going to affect anything, yet you treat it like it's some god damn Earth moving change.
I figure I would like to add that I, too, own a dog. Two dogs, actually. The first died when we moved houses, as it was very old and generally was in poor health (bitten by a wild coyote, leukemia if I recall correctly, etc.) I was rather young at the time so I couldn't fully understand the concept of our dog's death. Now I look back at it and am truly saddened, he was a great dog. As for the second, we got it fairly recently. I could never get myself to exhibit violence towards it, I simply am not that type of person, and I would be saddened if something were to happen to it. Again, this is because it's my dog, and I have a reason to care about it. Seeing a random dead dog/puppy doesn't bother me in the same way I feel towards the death of our first dog. In fact, I feel nothing at all.
Call me an apathetic heartless bastard, shower me in boxes and disagrees, I don't really care. I just figured I would contribute my two pence.[/QUOTE]
You know, the human population is pretty big too. And they're breaking the planet. I'm sure 1 human wouldn't change the earth either. Especially a human as dumb as you.
What I'm saying is that a dog's life should be valued as much as a persons.
EDIT: As long as you don't need the animal for food.
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;30850651]You know, the human population is pretty big too. And they're breaking the planet. I'm sure 1 human wouldn't change the earth either. Especially a human as dumb as you.
What I'm saying is that a dog's life should be valued as much as a persons.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with you, therefore I'm dumb. Yeah, brilliant argument there. Quite frankly, your last point is flawed because you're implying there's no difference between the value of a human life and the value of a canine's life. This is literally this dumbest thing I have ever heard. Humans have achieved amazing feats animals could never do, are capable of free thought, and tons of other things, and what do dogs have? Basic instinct. That's it. Nothing ground breaking, just a live and die mentality along with an eat or get eaten property amongst them.
to stop this pointless shitstorm, here's what I was trying to say:
i think these people need to be dealt with. i'm saying this because people seem to be using it as some kind of weapon against me, despite me never saying, directly or indirectly, that I don't want them to be caught.
i also think that trying to contract us into dealing with your problems is wrong. here's the facts: it's a picture. one picture, no other information. it's like going into the middle of a street and yelling if anyone knows anything about these people. these are two retards in some small town in the middle of fuckass nowhere. they will probably be caught because it's being spread all over the internet, but that's it. trying to go super c00l internet crim3 detective isn't going to solve anything. the reasonable thing to do is to do nothing, which sounds heartless, but that's the only thing to do.
/thread
more and more you're just trying to substitute more formal sounding words to make your argument sound better. in the end you make basically no valid points, and i'm done bothering with you
[QUOTE=GrabbinPills;30850777]to stop this pointless shitstorm, here's what I was trying to say:
i think these people need to be dealt with. i'm saying this because people seem to be using it as some kind of weapon against me, despite me never saying, directly or indirectly, that I don't want them to be caught.
i also think that trying to contract us into dealing with your problems is wrong. here's the facts: it's a picture. one picture, no other information. it's like going into the middle of a street and yelling if anyone knows anything about these people. these are two retards in some small town in the middle of fuckass nowhere. they will probably be caught because it's being spread all over the internet, but that's it. trying to go super c00l internet crim3 detective isn't going to solve anything. the reasonable thing to do is to do nothing, which sounds heartless, but that's the only thing to do.
/thread[/QUOTE]
Thread is now won by this man. Discussion is invalid after this point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
