Is this evil girl really Japanese? [Archive]

japan100uk

Jul 10, 2009, 06:02

Eh...what makes you say this.

There were a number of videos made by crushworld.net (now closed) which were based in China.
I contacted an animal welfare charity in China and soon the pics were all over Chinese forums and blogs. They tracked down the location where a movie was shot and a newspaper reporter eventually tracked down the people involved.

China was an obvious place to make such videos as they have no animal cruelty laws. The negative publicity made these people stop...but they may have been prosecuted under another Chinese law for offending public decency. The story was quite big....do a google search for it.

I will assume this woman is Japanese until someone suggests otherwise, and there are enough animal lovers in Japan to give this story ssome strong publicity.
If there aren't laws banning this cruelty in Japan....the negative reaction from the public will give the producers a hard time.

Thanks for your help.

Glenski

Jul 10, 2009, 06:51

IMO, she is not Japanese. The little Japanese she uses (ja ne) is too stilted and forced.

japan100uk

Jul 10, 2009, 08:32

IMO, she is not Japanese. The little Japanese she uses (ja ne) is too stilted and forced.

She's certainly playing a japanese role. I can't make out what she says near the beginning at 0.18 secs.
It's either something about being 'nipped' in English....or something in Japanese/Chinese.

FrustratedDave

Jul 10, 2009, 09:22

She's certainly playing a japanese role. I can't make out what she says near the beginning at 0.18 secs.
It's either something about being 'nipped' in English....or something in Japanese/Chinese.
How often do you ses a Japanese person wears shoes inside? She is not Japanese like Glenski said.

ASHIKAGA

Jul 10, 2009, 11:13

To the OP,

Why do you want to find out the woman's nationality? I'm a bit confused...

Seeing that your ID on YouTube is "findcrushgirl", is this whole "scene" a particular interest of yours? Or do you find this woman very attractive and want to find out more about her? Or, are you on a crusade against these videos and trying to expose the producer/s of this clip of the potentially illegal activities they promote?

JimmySeal

Jul 10, 2009, 12:18

How often do you ses a Japanese person wears shoes inside? She is not Japanese like Glenski said.

Plenty often, aside from domiciles, schools, temples and industrial facilities. It's my understanding that Chinese people wear shoes indoors equally as rarely.
Too little audio for me to make any guess about her nationality.

Putrefaction

Jul 10, 2009, 13:13

I don't think this is a casual video, so normal shoes and etc don't apply.

Half-n-Half

Jul 10, 2009, 15:12

How old is that video and when did you find it? Here is a link saying they figured out who she was, etc. It's from 2006.

http://opium.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=11954

I think this is what you are looking for in terms of Japanese animal cruelty laws:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/2/2/7/p22274_index.html

If her name is Wang Jeu she is probably Chinese. In fact that article confirms she is. Your video makes it seem you are pretty hell bent on finding her; why? What she did was cruel, disgusting, and wrong, but you should understand she doesn't deserve the same cruelty she showed the rabbit. I understand you might have strong feelings (as evident in your video) but don't be against animal cruelty and at the same time show hypocrisy in advocating human cruelty, in whatever form that may be. You really have no right to, as you put it, "make her life hell." Just my two cents anyways.

Edit: Seems that's not the same woman as in the article, my mistake.

butakun

Jul 10, 2009, 16:51

Anyhow, as Glenski points out, that Ja-ne at the end is a dead giveaway that she is not a native speaker of Japanese.

Kinsao

Jul 10, 2009, 23:03

Ah, that's terrible! :( I didn't see the full (uncensored) video, but that cute rabbit just made my heart melt! (And I'm not given to getting all soppy over animals :blush: )

MadamePapillon

Jul 11, 2009, 15:38

Wow, I'm glad they caught her. I had been wondering about it since my brother told me about the vid. He saw the uncensored version and even though he's pretty desensitized to most things on the internet I guess it really shook him up.

I can't say I agree with this:
What she did was cruel, disgusting, and wrong, but you should understand she doesn't deserve the same cruelty she showed the rabbit. I understand you might have strong feelings (as evident in your video) but don't be against animal cruelty and at the same time show hypocrisy in advocating human cruelty, in whatever form that may be. You really have no right to, as you put it, "make her life hell."

People need to be held accountable for their actions. If you're going to take a life, even the life of a kitten or a bunny, in a brutal and inhumane way then you had better be prepared to face the consequences. She walked into it with her eyes wide open and she and everyone involved, frankly, deserve everything they get. You can't do something like that without consequence.

caster51

Jul 11, 2009, 19:22

Plenty often, aside from domiciles, schools, temples and industrial facilities. It's my understanding that Chinese people wear shoes indoors equally as rarely

there is no such glass and surface of a wall in Japanese facilities any more..

Half-n-Half

Jul 21, 2009, 10:53

People need to be held accountable for their actions. If you're going to take a life, even the life of a kitten or a bunny, in a brutal and inhumane way then you had better be prepared to face the consequences. She walked into it with her eyes wide open and she and everyone involved, frankly, deserve everything they get. You can't do something like that without consequence.

I never said she shouldn't face any consequences. Yes, she should be punished, but within the limits of the law.

bakaKanadajin

Jul 23, 2009, 23:43

I didn't watch the video because I figured out what was going on and didn't want to see the rabbit die. From reading this thread it seems as though some Chinese people posing as Japanese people or whatever, that's kinda beside the point, made some animal cruelty videos for shock value or god knows why.

Someone in Toronto did the same thing a decade ago, skinned some cats on video for the hell of it. I think they caught the guy and he was let off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm an animal lover. My measly 2 cents: I wouldn't have a personal problem (read: I could sleep at night) after handling her the same way she handled that rabbit. Same goes for the guy who skinned the cats alive. Inflicting harm on an innocent creature that can't make sense of its own suffering is one of the most heinous things in the world.

That ***** would know precisely why she was being trampled under my big, heavy boots and understand why I was doing it.

MyNoteToSelf

Jul 29, 2009, 07:23

I was gonna say that she appeared Chinese to me, but it seems we have that under control.

That is really disgusting. Why anyone would take pleasure in watching or doing that is a complete mystery to me.

Putrefaction

Jul 29, 2009, 07:24

Inflicting harm on an innocent creature that can't make sense of its own suffering is one of the most heinous things in the world.

Agreed, and on par is destroying it's habitat solely for human "advancement".

Half-n-Half

Jul 29, 2009, 09:05

I'm an animal lover. My measly 2 cents: I wouldn't have a personal problem (read: I could sleep at night) after handling her the same way she handled that rabbit. Same goes for the guy who skinned the cats alive. Inflicting harm on an innocent creature that can't make sense of its own suffering is one of the most heinous things in the world.
That ***** would know precisely why she was being trampled under my big, heavy boots and understand why I was doing it.

You have a right to be angry and feel the way you do, but you don't have a right to commit the same cruelty on that person. I think you would personally have a very big problem with torturing another human, even if they tortured an "innocent" animal. Why? Because you are also human and you have shown you can empathize. Hypocrisy only makes you go around in circles; don't let your emotions get the best of you.

Derfel

Jul 30, 2009, 07:29

Half-n-Half

Jul 30, 2009, 14:12

Hypocrisy? I feel the same way as bakaKanadajin in respect of crushing the culprit, but I don't think its hypocrisy. Its not justice, its just an instinct. Personal satisfaction disguised as a strong sense of morality.

An eye for an eye is hypocritical. Poking out someone's eye is wrong, so if they do it we poke out their eye. If you think it is wrong and disgusting to torture an animal, which we all are, to death and yet find it right and/or satisfying to return the favor, that is hypocrisy.

Derfel

Jul 30, 2009, 16:22

An eye for an eye is hypocritical. Poking out someone's eye is wrong, so if they do it we poke out their eye. If you think it is wrong and disgusting to torture an animal, which we all are, to death and yet find it right and/or satisfying to return the favor, that is hypocrisy.

It is only hypocrisy if you believe you are doing the right thing, taking the appropriate steps. If I torture the culprit, fully aware of the fact that I'm merely doing it to satisfy my urges, created by my own instincts, why would you call that hypocrisy? I admit to being in the wrong, in the eyes of society.

Half-n-Half

Jul 31, 2009, 06:40

It is only hypocrisy if you believe you are doing the right thing, taking the appropriate steps. If I torture the culprit, fully aware of the fact that I'm merely doing it to satisfy my urges, created by my own instincts, why would you call that hypocrisy? I admit to being in the wrong, in the eyes of society.

No, I'm sorry but I have to flat out disagree here. You don't have to believe what you do is right to be hypocritical, you just have to go against a belief or idea you hold to be true. For example, animal cruelty and torture is wrong yet you turn around and commit torture. Whether the person in question is actually a hypocrite or not is irrelevant, however. The point I'm trying to make and stand by is that you do not have a right to torture someone with the same amount of cruelty that they showed to an animal. It's inhumane and you should not do it.

Derfel

Jul 31, 2009, 08:11

No, I'm sorry but I have to flat out disagree here. You don't have to believe what you do is right to be hypocritical, you just have to go against a belief or idea you hold to be true. For example, animal cruelty and torture is wrong yet you turn around and commit torture. Whether the person in question is actually a hypocrite or not is irrelevant, however. The point I'm trying to make and stand by is that you do not have a right to torture someone with the same amount of cruelty that they showed to an animal. It's inhumane and you should not do it.

I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in behaviourism, so no, I am not a hypocrite. I hate animal cruelty instinctively, not because I believe that it is wrong.

Who put that limitation on our rights if I may ask? Who the hell gave us rights to begin with? Rights can get to f*ck to be absolutely honest.

I hate the word 'should' (and its equivalents), it reeks of normative ethics.

bakaKanadajin

Aug 2, 2009, 14:33

You have a right to be angry and feel the way you do, but you don't have a right to commit the same cruelty on that person. I think you would personally have a very big problem with torturing another human, even if they tortured an "innocent" animal. Why? Because you are also human and you have shown you can empathize. Hypocrisy only makes you go around in circles; don't let your emotions get the best of you.

I never said I had a right to do anything, I was commenting on what I'd be okay with doing myself, personally. Just a comment more so intended to display my visceral hatred for those who inflict harm on animals than to say what's proper.

And no, I personally wouldn't have a problem inflicting harm on someone who violently killed or tortured an animal, trust me. Does that make me a candidate for the next 'Hey you're a nice guy' award? No, but, I don't want the damn award.

If the person apologized and really saw the wrong of their ways I wouldn't do it though, I'm reasonable. If the person realized what they had done and genuinely felt the weight of their actions, that would be sufficient for me. But the truth is most people see animals as lower than humans, less deserving, inferior, part of the background, etc. It's part of the reason this planet is going down the shllter.

I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty.

If I said I was against violence period, then inflicted harm on someone who had tortured an animal, THEN I'd be a hypocrite.

KeroKai

Aug 3, 2009, 00:00

I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in behaviourism, so no, I am not a hypocrite. I hate animal cruelty instinctively, not because I believe that it is wrong.

That's a really strong argument to put forward. But at the same time the reason we dislike animal cruelty is mostly likely due to emphasising with them with the idea of receiving pain. You can say that it's instinctive to dislike pain because due to the discomfort that is inflicted on us from an early age. Course emotions aren't exactly logical systems, so they tend to contradict belief systems when the blood is running high.

Half-n-Half

Aug 3, 2009, 00:31

I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in behaviourism, so no, I am not a hypocrite. I hate animal cruelty instinctively, not because I believe that it is wrong.

Who put that limitation on our rights if I may ask? Who the hell gave us rights to begin with? Rights can get to f*ck to be absolutely honest.

I hate the word 'should' (and its equivalents), it reeks of normative ethics.

Society put limitations on our rights. Whether you like them or not, many of them serve to benefit us. Do you also hate human cruelty instinctively? I don't think we are that dissimilar in our view of morals and "normative ethics." I'd be interested to discuss this further with you, perhaps in another thread or through private messages.

I never said I had a right to do anything, I was commenting on what I'd be okay with doing myself, personally. Just a comment more so intended to display my visceral hatred for those who inflict harm on animals than to say what's proper.

And no, I personally wouldn't have a problem inflicting harm on someone who violently killed or tortured an animal, trust me. Does that make me a candidate for the next 'Hey you're a nice guy' award? No, but, I don't want the damn award.

If the person apologized and really saw the wrong of their ways I wouldn't do it though, I'm reasonable. If the person realized what they had done and genuinely felt the weight of their actions, that would be sufficient for me. But the truth is most people see animals as lower than humans, less deserving, inferior, part of the background, etc. It's part of the reason this planet is going down the shllter.

I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty.

If I said I was against violence period, then inflicted harm on someone who had tortured an animal, THEN I'd be a hypocrite.

I don't think there is anymore to discuss on this issue since it has turned into opinions. You, "personally wouldn't have a problem inflicting harm on someone who violently killed or tortured an animal..." and I would. I don't think we can sway either side.

I concede my point about you being a hypocrite, apologies.

Derfel

Aug 3, 2009, 03:32

Society put limitations on our rights. Whether you like them or not, many of them serve to benefit us. Do you also hate human cruelty instinctively? I don't think we are that dissimilar in our view of morals and "normative ethics." I'd be interested to discuss this further with you, perhaps in another thread or through private messages.

Society never put any limitations on our rights. We never had rights to begin with. What society did was create prescriptive laws, laws that prescribe a certain reactions to actions and omissions. They do benefit us, it would be foolish to argue otherwise, but they are not rights, merely prescriptive laws.

I both detest and adore human cruelty instinctively. If I was assaulted, my feelings would be different based on the identity of my assailant. If he was a poor, starving kid, I would want to disarm him and hand him over to the authorities inflicting as little pain as possible. If my assailant was a drug addict trying to rob me for his daily dose, my urges would tell me to ravage, to stab, to slash, to tear and to rip.

How can I explain this difference in terms of morality? I can't and I don't want to. My urges are irrational and illogical. It is pointless to describe and analyse, in terms of logic, something which does not observe logic in the abstract sense we have created.

I'd rather discuss it in a new thread, I mean its not like its confidential information lol. Could you please, if you wish to further discuss this matter, create a new thread? I would, but I'm quite confused as to what exactly to open it about. Thank you.

KeroKai, if you mean to say that empathy and altruism is to be equated with fear of certain negative occurrences, then I am with you all the way.

Chidoriashi

Aug 3, 2009, 12:58

And no, I personally wouldn't have a problem inflicting harm on someone who violently killed or tortured an animal, trust me. Does that make me a candidate for the next 'Hey you're a nice guy' award? No, but, I don't want the damn award..

No, but it would make you a candidate for a life sentence.

[/QUOTE]If the person apologized and really saw the wrong of their ways I wouldn't do it though, I'm reasonable. If the person realized what they had done and genuinely felt the weight of their actions, that would be sufficient for me. But the truth is most people see animals as lower than humans, less deserving, inferior, part of the background, etc. It's part of the reason this planet is going down the shllter.

I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you are essentially saying that humans and animals should be judged the same? How is it you are so certain that the animal was innocent? Animals do horrid things to other animals all the time. By your logic.. could it be that the animal was getting exactly what it deserved? Or unless you believe that no animal would deserve that.. because they are not capable of comprehending their actions, or just acting on instinct.... and that is kind of funny.. cuz it would be putting them down on a lesser scale than humans if you were to say that. So would you say that there are some animals who would deserve that treatment based on what they did other animals.. or humans? If you answer is no, no animal deserves that no matter what they have done.. then that would make you a hypocrite I suppose.

bakaKanadajin

Aug 3, 2009, 13:39

No, but it would make you a candidate for a life sentence.

Ok, so you are essentially saying that humans and animals should be judged the same? How is it you are so certain that the animal was innocent? Animals to horrid things to other animals all the time. By your logic.. could it be that the animal was getting exactly what it deserved? Or unless you believe that no animal would deserve that.. because they are not capable of comprehending their actions, or just acting on instinct.... and that is kind of funny.. cuz it would be putting them down on a lesser scale than humans if you were to say that. So would you say that there are some animals who would deserve that treatment based on what they did other animals.. or humans? If you answer is no, no animal deserves that no matter what they have done.. then that would make you a hypocrite I suppose.

Animals do what they do to survive. What she did was a choice she made and goes against what I believe to be ethical. Does that make my actions ethical? No of course not, as has been pointed out eye for an eye isn't a great policy and I should know better. I'm not seeking justification for my desire to educate her on how it feels to be stomped to death, and of course laws and jail time would be enough of a deterrent such that I wouldn't actually do it. I was simply saying how I felt.

But at the most basic of levels, the level at which we are all reacting to this video, can you seriously not see the difference between what animals do in nature and what she did?

Or does your opinion that animals do not have as much value as humans make what she did a case of 'oh well' and 'well it's not like she killed someone it was just a rabbit', and so on?

Chidoriashi

Aug 3, 2009, 14:33

First, animals do not always harm other animals just for survival. Watch more National Geographic.

My point is that animals are not on the same level as humans, and one eludes to that simply by suggesting the girl should be able to think with a higher moral sense in making that choice or be capable of more compassion. She should not get away with that kind of behavior of course, but suggesting that the girl deserves to have done to her what she did to the animal is wrong. To answer you question, quite honestly, yes it does sound better to me that.. she just killed some rabbit and not a human. I do not equate animals with people, therefore I do not think a human would deserve eye for an eye treatment for having done something to an animal. If you believe that, it is fine, but if you were to do that to her and I was the judge.. i would still give you a life sentence... and maybe put you up for parole in 40 years or so.

Derfel

Aug 3, 2009, 16:32

If you believe that, it is fine, but if you were to do that to her and I was the judge.. i would still give you a life sentence... and maybe put you up for parole in 40 years or so.

I'd let him go and recommend him for a a knighthood lol. Honestly, animals and humans could very well be judged in the same fashion. If any animal had the cognitive capacity that the average hypothetical person in our society possesses, it would have to be judged not unlike our hypothetical guy, but seeing how a human, even with the mental capacity of the smartest non-human animal, would easily and undeniable be an incapax, someone lacking his or her mental facilities, I see no difficulty in saying that equal application of the law is a potential possibility.

Chidoriashi

Aug 3, 2009, 18:50

Hmm...as long as equal application does not mean stomping to death either of the parties. It would be good if such a principle could be used in favor of the better judgement for the animals. For instance, I disagree when a dog is put down simply for biting a human.

japan100uk

Aug 4, 2009, 02:11

Ok, i finally found out more. She is Chinese and uses the name Kim.

This is the offending website.

crushheaven.com

Like their predecessor they torture rabbits and cats for entertainment. See their private video section:

password 333026

Some of the images are very distressing....so don't look there if it will upset you.

I will now concentrate on Chinese forums and look to have the website shut by the server host and domain name controller.

Advert for the work (found searching email addy on google)
The Company engaged in the spread of Internet culture, honest and law-abiding. Long-term recruitment of part-time staff.
If you are:
Long Stay in Chengdu, aged between 18-35 years old female, good image quality,
Willing to work with the company long-term cooperation. . . Welcome you to join our team!
We are committed to providing excellent remuneration and long-term development.
Weekend part-time, income stability, a rare opportunity, what are you waiting for! You today on the application as soon as possible!
Salary: 800 yuan / month long stay in Chengdu, aged between 18-35 years old female, good image quality, Willing to work with the company long-term cooperation. General over the weekend to go to work, receive a monthly salary of probationary period. Interviews into the company. Address: 1206 Chengdu International牛王庙Dongheng room.
Contact Tel: 13808005778 Mr. Ren

成都视星网络数码工作室兼职礼仪模特
地址：成都市牛王庙东恒国际1206室。
本公司从事网络文化传播，诚信守法。长期招聘兼职人员。
如果您是：
长住成都市，年龄在18-35岁之间的女性，形象气质佳，
愿意同公司长期合作。。。欢迎您加入我们的团队！
我们承诺提供优厚的报酬和长远的发展空间。
周末兼职，收入稳定，机会难得，你还在等什么呢！今天就赶快报名吧！
工资待遇：800元/月长住成都市，年龄在18-35岁之间的女性，形象气质佳，
愿意同公司长期合作。一般周末上班，试用期满领月薪。统一到公司面试.地址：成都市牛王庙东恒国际1206室。
联系电话：13808005778 任先生

Half-n-Half

Aug 5, 2009, 05:07

Society never put any limitations on our rights. We never had rights to begin with. What society did was create prescriptive laws, laws that prescribe a certain reactions to actions and omissions. They do benefit us, it would be foolish to argue otherwise, but they are not rights, merely prescriptive laws.

Guess I should have been a little more clear when I said "rights." The definition of rights I was using is what you just stated, prescriptive laws, not some higher moral code.

I'll try and get the thread up in the serious discussion board soon.

Btracius

Aug 15, 2009, 12:12

She is NOT Japanese:okashii:

ChrisGR

Aug 15, 2009, 21:42

Why's this thread still in "Culture shock"? this **** girl thats done this is not part of a country's culture.

and what does it matter if she's japanese? (altho i believe shes not)

Kurtle

Aug 16, 2009, 06:39

I never said I had a right to do anything, I was commenting on what I'd be okay with doing myself, personally. Just a comment more so intended to display my visceral hatred for those who inflict harm on animals than to say what's proper.

And no, I personally wouldn't have a problem inflicting harm on someone who violently killed or tortured an animal, trust me. Does that make me a candidate for the next 'Hey you're a nice guy' award? No, but, I don't want the damn award.

If the person apologized and really saw the wrong of their ways I wouldn't do it though, I'm reasonable. If the person realized what they had done and genuinely felt the weight of their actions, that would be sufficient for me. But the truth is most people see animals as lower than humans, less deserving, inferior, part of the background, etc. It's part of the reason this planet is going down the shllter.

I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty.

If I said I was against violence period, then inflicted harm on someone who had tortured an animal, THEN I'd be a hypocrite.
Well explained.
It's stupid when people somehow think that the torture (directly by man or indirectly by machine or something) of a torturer of the innocent is the same as torturing the innocent. - It's very different.

It would be like saying that somebody who abducted/kidnapped someone shouldn't be put in jail...

Kurtle

Aug 16, 2009, 06:56

First, animals do not always harm other animals just for survival. Watch more National Geographic.
But they usually (Orca, Cats etc) have no knowledge of how the other animals feel about things - like pain etc; man does.

Ok, so you are essentially saying that humans and animals should be judged the same? How is it you are so certain that the animal was innocent? Animals do horrid things to other animals all the time. By your logic.. could it be that the animal was getting exactly what it deserved? Or unless you believe that no animal would deserve that.. because they are not capable of comprehending their actions, or just acting on instinct.... and that is kind of funny.. cuz it would be putting them down on a lesser scale than humans if you were to say that. So would you say that there are some animals who would deserve that treatment based on what they did other animals.. or humans? If you answer is no, no animal deserves that no matter what they have done.. then that would make you a hypocrite I suppose.

Fact is: People KNOW other animals feel pain, what it feels like, and can relate to it.
Other animals generally can't.
That is what makes a human guilty.

So why shouldn't a human be shown how it feels, if they're supposedly "superior"??
If they're superior, they should know what they're doing; if not, then they are "equal" to the other animals anyway.

If we're talking about evolutionary branches being unequal to each other based on individual opinion, then shouldn't racism be accepted aswell?
Maybe no black man should be punished for torturing a white man; as they and others have seen "races" as superiour to each other... Or the other way around or whatever...

Chidoriashi

Aug 16, 2009, 10:39

Fact is: People KNOW other animals feel pain, what it feels like, and can relate to it.
Other animals generally can't.
That is what makes a human guilty.
So why shouldn't a human be shown how it feels, if they're supposedly "superior"??

My point was that humans are in fact superior, so to say it would be just for him to get away with murdering that girl because she crushed a rabbit, is completely absurd.

And so you are saying that if we are superior, the superior thing to do would be to subject that girl to a barbaric and gruesome death? Yeah.......ok.

You can go ahead and think of yourself as equal to the animals, but i would still be throwing you and anybody who would murder somebody for killing an animal in jail for the rest of their life.

Derfel

Aug 17, 2009, 18:42

My point was that humans are in fact superior, so to say it would be just for him to get away with murdering that girl because she crushed a rabbit, is completely absurd.

How are we superior? In terms of capacity you mean? If that is what you wish to say, I agree, if you mean that we, somehow, have more worth, thats not agreeable. We are a species of animals and have about the same worth as other species: nothing. If someone tortures an animal that is a fact. Dominance had been established and the torturer does with the animal as he or she pleases. Same for someone torturing the torturer of an animal to death. Dominance had been established by one member of the same species over another member. We have no inherent 'value', therefore superiority, other than the apparent physical superiority, cannot be established.

And so you are saying that if we are superior, the superior thing to do would be to subject that girl to a barbaric and gruesome death? Yeah.......ok.

Again, you're throwing around superior here as if it had any actual meaning.

You can go ahead and think of yourself as equal to the animals, but i would still be throwing you and anybody who would murder somebody for killing an animal in jail for the rest of their life.

Subjective view vs subjective view. Hardly an argument.

Chidoriashi

Aug 17, 2009, 23:59

Derfel> Certainly I do speak of capacity and, albeit less noble I suppose, for me does make a valid case for human superiority and value (and define value in whatever sense you would like.) And I might add here your views also have subjectivity. Or am I not seeing your omnipotence here somewhere? Anyhow your view is that life has no value or worth, well I am just the opposite and I see all life as having value, or being worth something. Us being subjective beings though does not allow us to accurately place value on any life. So is the rabbit's life worth more than the girl's or vise versa? It's pretty much just a matter of opinion, and that is not my issue.

My problem is that some posters feel they would be justified in murdering that girl for smashing a rabbit, and I and probably a lot of humanity would disagree with that as being just. Regardless of what philosophical arguments can be thrown into this, we as humans are bound to human society and the code of conduct that goes with it. I personally feel it goes deeper than that and humans do have a conscience, but I suppose that is just my subjective opinion as well.

bakaKanadajin

Aug 19, 2009, 23:40

Since my post sparked this...

I don't think anyone truly and honestly believes that in the eyes of the law they could somehow be justified in stomping this girl to death in retribution for what she's done.

I think the point that people want to get across is that there are those of us out there who truly feel a strong sense of connection to nature and the living creatures around us and we'd feel personally ok with certain things happening in order to protect or avenge that bond.

The worst parts of human nature not existing in these creatures while they at the same time provide us with near-human unconditional 'love' and companionship, as well as practically speaking, food, clothes, many things, etc., creates a deep sense of reverence and respect. If you're not tuned into it you wouldn't get it. Let's also not forget, we are not so unlike them for the time being. We are closer to them than any 'evolved' self-image we may have of ourselves; that image stops where clothes and LV bags start because aside from that drapery we all just go about our day eating, trying to screw, sleeping and relieving ourselves etc. as well don't we. The difference is we used a credit card.

Personally, for all the ills we as a species visit upon the natural world in our current, bloated, consumer state, I feel even moreso disgusted with senseless acts like those in the videos, because unneeded acts like that can be avoided and they are senseless and serve no purpose. It's a very disgusting violation of ethics. Basically if someone has to be stomped, then stomping someone so void of compassion like that, human or not, is to me, less disgusting than stomping the innocent rabbit. The innocent rabbit will hop around and do no one any harm, whereas that girl will continue to KNOWINGLY inflict senseless harm on other living creatures or possible one day people. If everyone's back was turned, I know it'd be an easy choice for me, which one goes, the rabbit or the girl.

RolandtheHeadless

Sep 12, 2009, 02:36

Some of you make the mistake of trying to rationally defend your emotional reactions. E.g.:

"I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in behaviourism, so no, I am not a hypocrite. I hate animal cruelty instinctively, not because I believe that it is wrong."

"Behaviorism"? Animal-to-animal cruelty is part of natural behavior. Most predators, especially cats and canines (wild and domestic) will torture their food before killing it. Humans are animals too. We have that same instinct. Cruelty to other living things is part of natural behavior.

You don't hate animal cruelty "instinctively." You hate it because it violates your learned value system. And that is what separates us from other animals: we can learn to suppress our baser animal instincts.

"I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty."

So how do you know that the cat that was crushed by a human was "innocent"? Maybe that cat had just tortured a mouse, and is "guilty" too. So, by your own value system, the guy crushing the cat was punishing the guilty -- just as you hope to punish him for being guilty.

You're completely wrong. There is plenty of hypocrisy in what you've posted.

RolandtheHeadless

Sep 12, 2009, 02:45

"I both detest and adore human cruelty instinctively."

How can you both detest and adore something?

"If I was assaulted, my feelings would be different based on the identity of my assailant. If he was a poor, starving kid, I would want to disarm him and hand him over to the authorities inflicting as little pain as possible. If my assailant was a drug addict trying to rob me for his daily dose, my urges would tell me to ravage, to stab, to slash, to tear and to rip."

Oh, come on. Are you going to stop your assailant and interview him as to his motives? If his motive is "good," in this "instinctive" value system or yours, you'll just lay down and submit?

"How can I explain this difference in terms of morality? I can't and I don't want to. My urges are irrational and illogical."

BINGO! We have a winner!

Derfel

Sep 12, 2009, 07:27

How can you both detest and adore something?

It is pretty simple, I feel totally fine when I feel I need to be cruel and I am outraged when I feel others needn't.

Oh, come on. Are you going to stop your assailant and interview him as to his motives? If his motive is "good," in this "instinctive" value system or yours, you'll just lay down and submit?

Not once did I say or imply that I would accept harm to my body, you are reading whatever suits you into my statement. Additionally, it isn't difficult to differentiate between a child and an adult. And its not a 'value system'.

Its not a system, because there is no coherent and permanent taxonomy, its more of a set of trends.

BINGO! We have a winner!

Bloody hell man, you're thick. I have made a descriptive statement in respect of my thought processes, and now you're trying to argue that I am, in some way, wrong or blameworthy or whatever the hell.

bakaKanadajin

Sep 12, 2009, 07:49

Some of you make the mistake of trying to rationally defend your emotional reactions. E.g.:

"I don't believe there is any hypocrisy in what I've said, I'm talking about inflicting harm on the guilty to protect/avenge the innocent. There's a different principle (if you can call it that) at work. You're saying that the hypocrisy stems from demanding compassion without showing it but I'm not demanding it and taking it away from the same two parties. One is clearly innocent, one is guilty."

So how do you know that the cat that was crushed by a human was "innocent"? Maybe that cat had just tortured a mouse, and is "guilty" too. So, by your own value system, the guy crushing the cat was punishing the guilty -- just as you hope to punish him for being guilty.
You're completely wrong. There is plenty of hypocrisy in what you've posted.

For future reference, there's a 'quote' function, make it easier for everyone to determine who said what as well as whos words you're replying to.

These appear to have been my words so I will reply.

Animals are not guilty in the same way humans are. I mean that much seems obvious I find it amusing you're disputing this point. At the point where they've proven chimps can lie, then we may start to see arguments to the contrary but that's a special case.

But animals of lower awareness in general do not possess the same faculties for 'evil' that humans do. A cat toying with a mouse is not thinking the same thing as an American soldier in Guantanamo. That cat is only doing what its instincts tell it to do, that is to hunt and hone its skills, make sure its prey is dead, etc. It doesn't really have a choice, actually. Unless naturalized to rodent presence through domestication and training by humans, you never see natural predators/prey in the wild just hanging out and relaxing together.

Humans, having moved out of the trees into society, have choices before them when it comes to their actions. I do think humans are hairless, bathing apes, but we're still smart enough to know right from wrong.

Are you saying 1) animals know right from wrong or 2) humans and rabbits possess equal levels of intelligence?

Your comment seems to lean towards one of these ridiculous conclusions.

Miyamoto Mushashi

Sep 13, 2009, 06:59

You guys are real racists. Who's care she is Chinese or Japanese, her animal cruelty show has make a stir on this forum. She needs immediate psychiatry treatment.

Derfel

Sep 13, 2009, 17:06

You guys are real racists. Who's care she is Chinese or Japanese, her animal cruelty show has make a stir on this forum. She needs immediate psychiatry treatment.

If you actually read through the thread, you will notice that we are no longer talking about whether she is Chinese or Japanese. Not to mention that her being Chinese is a matter of fact, not of opinion, so your accusations there fail.

RolandtheHeadless

Sep 14, 2009, 13:10

bakaKanadajin

Sep 14, 2009, 14:54

"For future reference, there's a 'quote' function, make it easier for everyone to determine who said what as well as whos words you're replying to."

Let me introduce you to a long-standing (pre-internet) convention in writing: the "quote function" is served by quotation marks.

You're either really old-fashioned, or just hate to concede even when what's presented is obvious. The quote function makes it easier to read the posts and clarify who said what, and it's only a click or a few key strokes away. Everyone uses it, it's for everyone's benefit. At any rate I applaud you for making the leap from typewriter to internet, welcome.

They don't possess the same faculties, period. They are of "lower awareness," as you say. They don't have rights -- they would never comprehend such an abstract concept -- and their lives aren't equal to human ones. Not in my value system.That's fine, agree to disagree.

I can accept that not everyone sees themselves as an equal part of the continuum on the planet, more so they seem themselves as the 'owners'. But questions of equality aside I think in general what people here would like to see is more respect for animal life period. Just because you (your 'value' system) deems one life less valuable than another doesn't that mean it's there to be wasted or squandered or stomped to death for a few dollars.

Another example, I am supremely confident I would score higher than you on an IQ test, that my physical reflexes are superior and so on. Be that as it may, do I have some kind of right based on that belief to value you less? Where does one draw the line? Chimpanzees are highly intelligent. Most normal chimpanzees are probably more intelligent than a severely mentally-ill/disabled human. What then?

If your human/animal stance is based completely on 'intelligence' it goes right out the window.

A cat toying with a mouse is relying on the same thing as a soldier who torments a prisoner: instinct. You must be joking. The soldier has a choice as to whether he wants to stick an electric prod up that poor fellas arse as he lays there tied up. Completely different situations and frames of thinking.

Modern humans, for the most part, have learned to suppress this type of instinct for the sake of our humanity and to live in some form of civilization together. Empathy, compassion, recognition of rights for others -- these things are learned behavior.

Some humans haven't or can't learn these values. We tend to label such people as "sociopaths" or "psychopaths." They fit the description of your cat. Blameless, according to you. In my opinion, such people deserve imprisonment, but don't deserve to have their lives snuffed-out by some self-appointed telepathic judge of good and evil intent.
You might think differently about that once it's your child that's been diddled by that repeat-offender who just got moved from half-way house to half-way house around the country running through the revolving-door law system, just as an example. If the law at that point deems him some kind of mentally ill case that can't be sentenced to death and he's put in yet another situation where he can repeat-offend how tempted would you be to look him up and go bash him inside out with a crow bar? The law is written by men and men are idiots. For the most parts the laws are fine and we follow them obediently, but sometimes they don't cover the greater good.

My ONLY point in saying all that is that people who feel compelled to act out against others who waste life are NOT out of their minds. Am I gonna go hunt her down and actually kill her? No of course not. Does everyone who got angry and said to themselves 'Even if she was on fire I wouldn't piss on her to put her out' have a right to feel that way? I think so.