Now your being absolutely ridiculous. Dogs may not be humans, but are they 1/12 of a human? They have brains too. I'm not saying that she should be thrown in the river, that's absurd. It's pathetic, however, if you value one human over the entirety of another species.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Puppy drowning girl Walks.
- Thread starter Ninahaza
- Start date
Neither am I; my point is that crime is measured by a fusion of the two.
In Criminal Law, the prosecution must prove the actus reus, which is a particular activity; the mens rea, which is a certain mental state (e.g. intention); and most importantly, causation, that the mental state and the activity have a temporal link and related to each other.
For example, to prove murder, the Prosecution must show there was a voluntary act occasioning death (actus), with the intent to cause death, the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, or reckless indifference to human life (mens rea), and that the requisite mental state existed at the same time as the actus.
If you intended to kill the guy who stole your newspaper, but then got over it, and then the next day the guy runs out in front of your car and dies. You don't have causation, even though you can prove the two primary components.
why would you post something like this IN a thread like this?. all i got from this was that some people out there dont give a shit about the killing of animals and it doesnt mean they are insane or dont value life.
i mean its posts like this that start an extreme back and forth [like the recent one between norulz and mirza] at times with extreme views from both sides and the rest of us have to sit back and watch that. seriously why post this man? in a thread like this? i'd rather hear about interesting spins on the subject like what surgo brought up with thaught and action in situations like this. even the whole age[12] argument is better than crap like this.
also you dont have to be the internet or its shut-ins to find something wrong with a situation like this, or know that the killing of a species other than "Man" can be as wrong as the killing of a man. thats why animal cruelty laws are all over the place, the only difference is some countries enforce them more than others.
also do you really think if you actually went and drowned a bunch of puppies people would believe that you cannot "ever want to harm people and still believe in the sanctity of human life.", they would think something is seriously wrong with you[we are going with no real background reasons like too many puppies in a litter, just that you dont care] because thats whats written all over your original post. heh look at me, i have sidetracked from my original point of "why would you post something like this IN a thread like this?" to potentially starting a back and forth between us. better stop here but really in the future dont do this.
norulz
excellent
I agree with Ninahaza, there isn't any 'reason as to why she did it' out in the open, it's just speculation, we can only know for sure that she did it, excusing her by tossing whatever reason on the table without a valid source is all the more reason for you to subconsciously condemn this girl for her actions while still trying to excuse the motives for her action, but not the action itself, which is just as important.
And if you toss the 'overpopulation' or 'forced to do it' argument on the table which is just, repeating myself, speculation, I'll just counter with 'recorded it and put it online', which is factual, and even though my argument may not be convincing enough to take yours down, just remember: yours is purely speculative
Also, nice post Mikazukisieosidjjaisjdoijfaojsd, your honesty really brings out some interesting opinions like "I know I for one didn't really care about the girl drowning the puppies and knew the internet and it's shut-ins would rage about it." I'd say feeling indifferent to that video shows some pathological signs of sociopathy in its early stages, but what do I know? I'm just an internet shut-in.
And if you toss the 'overpopulation' or 'forced to do it' argument on the table which is just, repeating myself, speculation, I'll just counter with 'recorded it and put it online', which is factual, and even though my argument may not be convincing enough to take yours down, just remember: yours is purely speculative
Also, nice post Mikazukisieosidjjaisjdoijfaojsd, your honesty really brings out some interesting opinions like "I know I for one didn't really care about the girl drowning the puppies and knew the internet and it's shut-ins would rage about it." I'd say feeling indifferent to that video shows some pathological signs of sociopathy in its early stages, but what do I know? I'm just an internet shut-in.
No, you did and can't back out of an element you introduced in your argument.
Exactly and you countered his argument by attempting to point out a contradiction or inconsistency in his philosophy, trying to make him a hypocrite.
I simply pointed out that if he was upset that you killed his own pet for your pleasure there would be nothing wrong with him being upset at you for it. Afterall, it was his property.
I'm not saying anything about that.
Ninahaza said:
And yet you're still confused as to why I posted this? Seems you got my point pretty loud and clear.
Arguments that this girl could be a sociopath or insists that she is one are completely unfounded, even if anyone here was a certified psychologists (which I doubt Norulz is) because you can't possibly judge anything conclusively about her behavior from that video alone.
Cry somewhere else dude... I'm not here to spare you from seeing an argument that makes you uncomfortable.
Okay, let's get this right and clear. Just because there are animal cruelty laws doesn't mean killing other species are just as wrong as killing a human being. You can look at the punishments stated in law books all over the world as confirmation of that.
You can think killing animals is immoral, but you should never confuse that for thinking killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person. It is that very thought that disturbs me about animal lovers/PETA and other extremists groups, because hypothetically if they had to save the dirtiest, ugliest, and most offensive person in the world or the cutest and fluffiest puppy, they'd save the dog. I'm tallking about crazy people like this guy:
And yet I'm apparently the sociopath that should be given a serious look at. This guy thinks an entire species of insect would be worth more than one human! Look at Kitten_Bukkake's post on the front page about humans not having any inherent right to life more so than animals!Deboog said:
Yeah man, because what people would think totally means they are right.
In the past people thought if you were a homosexual you had also to be a pedophile, even now there are quite a few people who believe the same thing. I don't care what people would "think" it doesn't mean they are right because there is always reality which isn't affected by what anyone thinks.
So I guess I just defeated this straw man argument, now how about actually addressing my statement that I would never harm people (unreasonably) and believe in the sanctity of life rather than argue 'b-b-b-but others would think differently!'.
In other words, don't post an opinion you find offensive or opposing to yours? Want to post a list so I can know what topics or opinions not to post about as to not offend you? Or are you ready to learn some tolerance?
Exactly, you're just a shut-in.Norulz said:
Not a certified psychologist and also only have this one video to analyze and of course my one post. You certainly can't say whether someone is a sociopath or not (and BTW, by definition one can't be a sociopath if they value human life).
Besides, your beliefs about animal rights and their life is obvious. Sociopathy is just an argument you use for leverage against those who are indifferent to animal death, a slippery slope argument. But I've taken that part away from you so what have you now? :/
I'm not interested in changing your morals, perhaps you will figure out it's a waste of time to try to change mine over the internet
norulz
excellent
nah I'm not a shut-in I was just ironically criticizing your criticism, you don't have to adhere to personal insults to get your point through
and besides, I barely scraped the 'sociopathy' area, my argument here is that without a source for the motives behind her actions, you're left with only one piece of evidence to analyze: the video, and by simply analyzing the video, you come to the probable and most obvious answer that
1) she filmed (or had someone filming) the whole thing, now you put yourself on her place and see under what circumstances you would film what happened
2) the way she was acting, it didn't really seem like a chore, seemed more like she was enjoying it (I'm talking to those of you who say [even though you can't back it up] that her grandmother had her do it for whatever reason)
3) without any valid sources to tell us what happened, one cannot simply 'make excuses', you can only analyze her behavior for about 40 seconds, that's all you got to work with. I'm not looking for people to compare what she did to what's done everyday on big fast food corporations, I'm not looking to discussing major animal rights problems either
and no, I'm not a psychologist, are you? this seems like an off-topic, petty subject to me as I wasn't trying to pose as one, I was just analyzing and giving my input on the subject
and besides, I barely scraped the 'sociopathy' area, my argument here is that without a source for the motives behind her actions, you're left with only one piece of evidence to analyze: the video, and by simply analyzing the video, you come to the probable and most obvious answer that
1) she filmed (or had someone filming) the whole thing, now you put yourself on her place and see under what circumstances you would film what happened
2) the way she was acting, it didn't really seem like a chore, seemed more like she was enjoying it (I'm talking to those of you who say [even though you can't back it up] that her grandmother had her do it for whatever reason)
3) without any valid sources to tell us what happened, one cannot simply 'make excuses', you can only analyze her behavior for about 40 seconds, that's all you got to work with. I'm not looking for people to compare what she did to what's done everyday on big fast food corporations, I'm not looking to discussing major animal rights problems either
and no, I'm not a psychologist, are you? this seems like an off-topic, petty subject to me as I wasn't trying to pose as one, I was just analyzing and giving my input on the subject
this wasnt about what was your point, but rather why make such a post in a thread like this. the only reason for that i see is to piss off norulz, but i see you did not get my point.
actually you can judge anything conclusive about someone's behavior from 1 video alone, or 1 action/1 event. people are sent to therapy/ mental institutions based on 1 video/action/event all the time, especially here in the US[ofcourse it has to be strong, but then again that video wasnt weak either]
no all i was trying to do was prevent dumb posts from you in the future as well as not come back from work to find 2 new pages of back and forths because someone posted something like that to instigate someone else[again i think you were just trying to piss off norulz but a post like that is the foundation for 7 pages in this thread]
you know i cant speak on behalf of all animal lovers/PETA but i have seen this argument a few times in here now and would like to say REALLY?
if i had to save/pick the life of a human or that of an animal ofcourse i would pick the human. just because someone stand's up for animals or defends the rights of animals does not mean they would pick animals in general over humans. i am sure most of the "crazy" people you are addressing would save the life of a human over that of an animal if it came down to it. well i'm not PETA or part of an extremists group but if it came down to simply saving a human or an animal [one HAD to die] i am sure almost everyone would pick the human, but thats another topic not a case of animal cruelty
you missed my point again, i was simply trying to explain why as you said yourself "whether people like to believe it or not you can be indifferent to the killing of animals and yet not ever want to harm people and still believe in the sanctity of human life." trying to explain why most people would connect senseless killlings of animals to someone's mental state on the value of life
also thats really weak man,the bolded doesnt count because for every one example you find about people's thaughts being wrong i can find 2 easly of the opposite, so basically your response was "Yeah man, because what people would think totally means they are right". as for your bit on reality well think about it this way, in reality when you are in court trying to convince the jury that you killed some animals because you simply do not care about the killing of animals, that "you can be indifferent to the killing of animals and yet not ever want to harm people and still believe in the sanctity of human life" you will seal your own fate.
Are you a vegetarian? if not you're a hypocrite.
And for every of your 2 I could find 4 of the opposite.
Don't you see? It isn't what people think because what people think doesn't really make them right or wrong. That's the point you're totally missing. Arguing "but people would think this" is frankly stupid. We're arguing whether a person can be indiscriminate to the death of animals and still not be a danger to any human. Clearly you can't defeat this argument or else:
Continuing the strawman I see, guess it's just an old dog.
Better take it out back.
She should be sent to an asylum or something and be kept there for a long time; hurting animal so coldly is an early sign of an heavy antisocial and troubled mind. She needs helps, and we need to prevent her from eventually doing something else. However, for humans are able to change, and the fact that no tribunals will ever accept the ''something else'' argument, we probably can't prevent it. The age argument is, IMO, completely stupid. She is old enough to understand right from wrong and to understand at least the direct consequences of her actions.
someone does not want me to retaliat so i'll try make this short and nice
first off take a closer look there are 2 arguments going on here, the 2nd being that killing animals for no reason at all is wrong[in general, i wont use a strawman anymore]. also i see that you like using your "strawman" defense, well allow me to open your eyes a little more on that.
that is your original post, notice anything? you focus on people's view points on this matter, even " the internet and it's shut-ins would rage about it" counts. i simply went off of this and used "people's view points/what they think" as the foundation of my argument, so i find it funny that you keep pushing it off as a strawman argument and that its pretty much your only defense used each time.[ try a real response, see how i address your points, like the ones of judging her mental state based on 1 video or that who would animal lovers/peta save?]
now as for your side of the argument
its clear that this cannot be given a simple answer
can a person be indiscriminate to the death of animals and still not be a danger to any human? yes and no, borderline really. its hard to explain, because those views tells me that you value life[in general] less than the average person. not everyone loves animals, some may even not like them but very few will kill an animal for no reason excluding pleasure/not caring[hunting has already been covered in this thread].
so chances are someone who values life less than the average person is more likely to cause harm to other forms of life[including humans] in the future. ok here is a great example, have you ever seen this thread's OP?
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73076
2 people, someone with your set of views and someone with my set of views. in the future what are the chances [keeping the "drunk" factor] that this would happen to you vs me? yours are higher than that of mine.
also regarding the side argument you were having with others on the whole issue of "sociopath" and "mental state", well did you see the title of that thread?
nice joke, great set up for this "did you know that taking an animal out back to put down with a gun is common and considered more humane than drowning? but you wouldnt care after all you said
o thats right, another argument was edging other users on, which you just ignored after.
It was you who specifically stated:Ninahaza said:
This would mean that the life of an animal is equal to that of a human being. Yet now you state that in a situation where one "must die" you will always save the human. Now how can an animal's life be worth that of a human when in a hypothetical situation you'd always save a human?
That is why I and others use that argument, because when taken to the extreme that is what that philosophy (humans aren't worth more than animals) comes down to. Then what other factor would a person choose to save one over the other? Doesn't matter, because either way inherently if you don't hold humans above animals that would mean in some situations you'd save the animal.
To me, that is completely repulsive. Yet somehow people who are uncaring or unsympathetic towards animal violence are sociopaths.
Okay, either way the basis for your argument was a flawed one which is why your argument wouldn't actually address mine.
I who argue that people's views (whether in the majority or minority) doesn't make them right, why would you ever use people's views/what they think as the basis for any opposing argument?
It was a bad argument.
Your logic is flawed, the minority of people may kill an animal for no reason excluding those you stated and those that do may value life "in general" less than the average person however this speaks nothing if their views of humans are that they are different or special.
If a person values humans above all else, no matter their attitude towards animals why would they harm humans because they don't value the life of animals? Let's take this hypothetically and say there is a human with these core sets of beliefs:
- Human life is sacred and holy
- Plant and Animal life are beautiful however exists solely for the benefit of humans
- Humans and Animals are different
Tell me how someone like that, whether they abhor violence towards animals or enjoy it, could ever grow to get pleasure from harming other humans?
I'm a happy drunk, but either way this is another terrible argument. The argument that because with my viewpoints when under alcholic influence or any other mood altering chemical the chances of me doing something violent isn't at all exclusive to someone with my beliefs. Alcohol effecs all sorts of people differently. Even the "peaceful" and kind people in everyday life can be totally violent and dangerous when drunk.
If anything, yours is an argument for not getting drunk than to change my viewpoint.
Well I'm not going to argue against or for that. I'm a moral skeptic.
how the fuck did you go about comparing
to
have you ever been in a situation where you literally had to save 1 life, condeming the other to death? i dont think you can even begin to understand how different a topic of saving x's life over y's life is compared to animal cruelty.
i will do you one better, in my quote about saving a human over an animal lets replace the animal with a friend/family member. now its a case of human vs human, on a topic like this we dont act based on the values of which life/species is more important or your philosophies. we act based on priorities and instincts because of the intensity of the situation, no one is going to come to you saying "dude i cant believe you saved your mother over that stranger".
when there are natural disasters [say like the flooding of new orleans] we all feel heartbroken and sad for all those invovled, we pray for them but in the end we exhaust all our resources trying to save our friends/loved ones. we make endless phone calls not to find out is this guy bob still alive but rather our famillies. we sit on the couch in pain crying heavy tears because we dont know how our children are or if they are even still alive. what about those there that rush to make sure thier guys are safe before busting down the nieghbors door and helping him. dont fucking compare animal cruelty to such a topic that i havent even scratched the surface of. they are both important but worlds apart. lets also replace family/friends with myself and replace human with my little brother, now its me vs my little brother [instead of animal vs humans]. i used my little brother instead of family/friends because thats whom i am sure i would give up my life for. do you think anyone will come to my grave and say "dumbass why did you pick your brother".
i am really in awe as to how you were able to even think of comparing these two topics.
anyways regarding our main argument, i can see were its going and frankly i have stoped caring for our argument enough to be content with your last words
this argument took about half a page and can go on but i'm done.
Actually I do act based on values.
The people I care about are more valuable to me then a stranger, go figure. Those priorities and instincts you talk about are values too, personal ones.
I did, deal with it. You brought up that argument, I demolished it. Now you want to try and turn my comparison to human vs. human, to make a point.
You can't both use my argument and also condemn it, can't have the cake and eat it my friend.
also 'fuck'
I'm a pretty awesome guy, I know. I also like how apparently I'm the one who compared the two topics when all I really did was trump you on multiple claims:
1. Killing an animal is just as wrong as killing a man 2. that is why animal cruelty laws are all over the place
I showed you that both the law doesn't consider it so and that even further, hypothetically that philosophy when taken to it's extreme would mean in a situation where a person had to choose between an animal and a man, there are certain factors they take into place that could have them choose the animal.
Doesn't matter whether I've been in a situation or how likely it is, that is why it's called a hypothetical kid.
This I knew, this I didn't argue otherwise. What I argued is that the claim that animal life = human life, when adopted by a defender of animal rights could lead to harmful behavior towards humans at the expense of animals. If you don't believe there are any such crazy people out there, probably should do more research on PETA or hell.. maybe take a look at a few posts already made here.
I'm the last person you'll see defending PETA, but this is the most fucked up thing I've been exposed to in the last week and I've been binge-watching Dexter.
you know i dont consider anything demolished when you achieved that[or tryed] by comparing 2 things that are worlds apart or when you keep using such weak responses like "i did deal with it". reminds me of other weakass responses like
wait but you passed that off as a strawman argument, speaking of which i see you brought the law back into this with
funny seeing as in the first half of our argument i tryed using the law as well and you passed it off as part of my strawman argument.
another thing to think about seeing as you want to bring the whole thread into this. do you find it odd that no one has agreed with you yet but rather multiple people have taken a jab at your "bullshit" arguments, i wasnt the first and apparently wont be the last [firestorm brought something up that i originally wanted to address but chose this argument instead]. the two of us are done. think up whatever response to this you want but i will not answer
i just hope that although you kept ignoring one of my main points in all of this[ which was dont instigate/edge other users on] you atleast listened and dont do that again in the future, because this
in a thread like this is absolutely unacceptable [o wait let me guess your awesome response, "you did, i should deal with it"]
Do I seem like the type of person that cares whether there was anyone else who agreed with me or supported my argument?ninahaza said:
Unlike you, I don't need to know there are other people who agree with me to be confident in my opinion.
I doubt it, first of all you already said this before:
and you seem like the type of person that can't help but get the last word. Or prove to other people that they are wrong so you can win an argument on the internet.
Me? I'm just having my kicks, uninterested in whether I convince you or anyone else to agree with me. I just simply enjoy expressing my opinion and contesting it with others. Trying to change people's minds on the internet is retarded, something I learned as I've grown older.
Yes sir, you taught me a valuable lesson. I'll never do it again.
I'm sure an angel just gained it's wings. In other words, the real motivation behind all of this was basically you got mad and are now even madder when you realize how futile this misguided goal of yours to "enlighten" me was? Even though I already told you a long time ago how silly that is?
Dexter is awesome, only saw up to Season 2 though because Netflix doesn't have season 3 for instant stream.Firestorm said:
I saw a video of some anime where a guy was raped to death. Now that was the most disturbing thing I've seen in my life. Look up "goosh goosh" if you're interested.
It was pretty funny.
Humans are the reason dogs exist in the first place.
This is really fucked up.
This is really fucked up.
this is so fucked, I hope she burns in the fiery pits of limbo... Just had to let my inner hippie come out for a second...
Evil actions shall be met with punishment. Because of her actions, she shall sit in wait for karmic retribution.
lmitchell0012
Wi-Fi Blacklisted
Are you f***ing kidding me?!?! She was tossing puppies in the river!!! She deserves to be in jail so that more animals don't suffer because of her.
who the fuck cares
they're dogs
animals have no rights, and should have no rights.
it's sick and all that, but I would never charge ANYONE with harming animals. The protection of the law is for humans, and humans only (and if you think otherwise, cease eating meat or meat products IMMEDIATELY.)
they're dogs
animals have no rights, and should have no rights.
it's sick and all that, but I would never charge ANYONE with harming animals. The protection of the law is for humans, and humans only (and if you think otherwise, cease eating meat or meat products IMMEDIATELY.)
Not that doing so would change the law.
(Takes another bite of his chedder-worst)
(Takes another bite of his chedder-worst)
Oh, well then, why not just throw a parade with a big monster truck. And everyone lines up to throw animals under the wheels. Why not, in Ancien Regime's fantasy world its not like anyone would be charged with it. It's sick (according to Ancien Regime), but it shouldn't be against the law to torture baby pandas with rusty nails. THEY AREN'T HUMAN. They don't feel pain or have a survival instinct and if they do, fuck it, they aren't MY species. What an asshole.