Girl throw puppies in a river and film herself

[nitrocan]

No they are looking to find out what her identity is so they can get the Croatian version of RSPCA on her ass. And yeah if you REALLY wanna see here's the link http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml but be weary, this is not for the weak stomached.

First post of the thread:

I'm just horrified, I found this video in a national Italian news site, i don't know if your areas are talking about this (the origin of the video is unknown) but this is just horrible. In the article they say that they are looking for her, even if is very difficult.
Video here: http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/mondo/articoli/articolo489683.shtml

on topic
4chan seems to have come up with some stuff but nothing can be trusted for now.

 

[Cool Frog]

Good thing /b/ is all over this - They gon backtrace her, 'cause she dun goof'd. They climbin' in yo riverbeds, snatchin' yo puppies up.

Consequences will never be the same!

 

[Dene]

Animals are more intelligent than plants because animals have brains. If you're willing to contest the assumption that intelligence lies in brains, I don't myself have anything to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to point out that personally, I think it's rational to trust the overwhelming scientific majority on this issue.

Wikipedia says:

Sentience is the ability to feel or percieve.

Again, I believe that thoughts lie in the brain, which plants don't have. Throughout history, I also don't believe there's been any indication that any plant has an organ capable of generating thoughts and consciousness the way a brain can.

I should revise what I said to mean that certain animals have what I think is a clear will to live. Intelligent animals such as dogs, cats, and primates are fearful of bodily harm- nearly everything an animal does is to avoid harm, and I just don't think that we have the right to harm them.

What did I just explain which was not already self-evident?

Thank you for clarifying your points. Of course I already suspected what you meant but you could have meant several things, and by getting you to clear it up it makes it easier for me to prove you wrong/throw some doubt onto your views.

Let us tackle this one point at a time:
You say there is overwhelming scientific evidence that intelligence lies in the brain. Sure I won't deny that, but is there any evidence that intelligence cannot lie in some other substance? Also, I am quite openly prepared to debate right here that animals do not possess any intelligence in the way that humans do, and certainly not to an extent that they are more "worthy" than plants. Have you ever see a kitten take a dump on kitchen tiles (or some other hard surface), and then try to cover it by clawing at the tiles? This is a natural instinct of the kitten, and I have to admit it does not strike me as particularly intelligent.

You define sentience from wikipedia, which I am happy to accept. Now why is it that plants cannot feel and perceive? Shelley already provided a little defense for this view. Plants appear to react to their environments so they must be feeling and perceiving something there.

You talk about consciousness, but let's be honest this is something that is going to depend entirely on how you define conscious, which still generates huge philosophical debates and we are not about to solve this problem. What it comes down to is, again there is no reason to assume that "consciousness" can not exist in some other substance. (Actually I do not believe that plants, nor animals, are "conscious" in any robust sense as humans are).

I agree that animals have a will to avoid pain etc. But what about plants? What is poison ivy, if not a defense mechanism to protect the plant, perhaps from pain.

Turning this into an animal rights thread is just killing the topic in my opinion.

Boo you. Don't be a kill joy this debate is way more fun than anything about that video.

EDIT: I want to add something about the "plants don't have central nervous systems therefore can't feel" claims that have been thrown around. Does this not strike people as a blatantly ignorant view, like "we don't know better therefore it can't be true"? Let's be honest, we have no reason to assume that "feelings" cannot come from something other than a CNS.

 

[VP7]

Purina, will scale back production of Puppy Chow now.
Which means more jobs lost.

 

[nitrocan]

Besides, a will to live even exists on microorganisms since they consume to live and get away from predators in their own ways. In that case, I don't think humans should have sexual intercourse. Is it really "worth the pleasure"? You're killing millions of sperms. Neither should we defecate in a hygienic way, we should just go live in a forest and defecate right on the soil, thus enriching it and not letting die the millions of microorganisms living on it.

 

[Escher]

Vegetables don't display things like consciousness, self-awareness (as in 'I amongst others'), or recognisable pain responses. There are plenty of scientific studies on the most popularly eaten animals in the western world (pigs, cows, sheep) that show the above.

The core of the argument isn't 'killing animals is wrong'. It's 'causing unnecessary pain or death to conscious beings is wrong'.

Read the section on meat in Douglas Hofstadter's 'I Am A Strange Loop' for a very clear explanation...

First, define "consciousness". Second, prove that animals show "self-awareness" (you might care to define the term more clearly than you have done as well). I know there are the "elephants recognise themselves in the mirror" claims, but I have seen counter-arguments to the "self-recognition" theory that I have been convinced by. Thirdly, what is sap, but a recognisable pain response?

Yay, Deney posted!

Firstly, ugh, no burden of proof can surely ask one to 'define consciousness'. I can give you a set of behaviours and brain scans of activity and results from studies and say that thats what I think can be practically considered 'consciousness' given the way we use the term. I guess the least I can do is say that the demonstration of learned behaviours implies some form of consciousness.

By 'self-awareness' I mean 'having a social structure', as in, 'behavioural and brain patterns that form an observable structure we consider social'. Being able to identify others and have different relationships with them implies a basic awareness of 'the self'.
I'm aware of the Gallup mirror test, but it relies on the animal having a developed sense of vision whereas other animals (like dogs) rely on other senses more (i.e. smell). There are plenty of other objections to it also.

Ya recognisable pain response is sap. You heard the doggies yelping though

 

[Whyusosrs?]

We THINK carrots don't have feelings, but if we find out in 1000 years they actually do, how will we feel for peeling their skin off, boiling them alive in water, cutting their heads off and eating them.

Not to good I assume.

~Chris

I'll probably keep on dipping carrots in ranch and then eating them. They're plants. Much in the same way that I don't care that I eat a hamburger.

Sort of off-topic: I also find this incredibly disappointing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this has gotten so much attention, but recently there was also a video with a man disrobing women in public that did not get nearly this much attention...it really is sad how people seem to care more about puppies than people...

I agree, 100% People get killed and no one cares. But heaven forbid if someone kills a dog.

It's messed up but they're probably just putting puppies down without losing money

This is true. Where I live when your dog has puppies and you can't afford to support them and you can't be bothered to spend money on bullets, you basically just hit them with a shovel. Neither I nor my family has done this however several of my friends have. They are poor and cannot support the puppies. It kills them instantly and it's better then dropping them off somewhere to starve to death.

2 cents.

 

[flan]

I agree that animals have a will to avoid pain etc. But what about plants? What is poison ivy, if not a defense mechanism to protect the plant, perhaps from pain.

If the ivy gets eaten it cant reproduce. The poison is an evolutionary defense mechanism to protect the species from extinction.

 

[Anonymous]

Spoiler

Animals are more intelligent than plants because animals have brains. If you're willing to contest the assumption that intelligence lies in brains, I don't myself have anything to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to point out that personally, I think it's rational to trust the overwhelming scientific majority on this issue.

Wikipedia says:

Sentience is the ability to feel or percieve.

Again, I believe that thoughts lie in the brain, which plants don't have. Throughout history, I also don't believe there's been any indication that any plant has an organ capable of generating thoughts and consciousness the way a brain can.

I should revise what I said to mean that certain animals have what I think is a clear will to live. Intelligent animals such as dogs, cats, and primates are fearful of bodily harm- nearly everything an animal does is to avoid harm, and I just don't think that we have the right to harm them.

What did I just explain which was not already self-evident?

Thank you for clarifying your points. Of course I already suspected what you meant but you could have meant several things, and by getting you to clear it up it makes it easier for me to prove you wrong/throw some doubt onto your views.

Let us tackle this one point at a time:
You say there is overwhelming scientific evidence that intelligence lies in the brain. Sure I won't deny that, but is there any evidence that intelligence cannot lie in some other substance? Also, I am quite openly prepared to debate right here that animals do not possess any intelligence in the way that humans do, and certainly not to an extent that they are more "worthy" than plants. Have you ever see a kitten take a dump on kitchen tiles (or some other hard surface), and then try to cover it by clawing at the tiles? This is a natural instinct of the kitten, and I have to admit it does not strike me as particularly intelligent.

You define sentience from wikipedia, which I am happy to accept. Now why is it that plants cannot feel and perceive? Shelley already provided a little defense for this view. Plants appear to react to their environments so they must be feeling and perceiving something there.

You talk about consciousness, but let's be honest this is something that is going to depend entirely on how you define conscious, which still generates huge philosophical debates and we are not about to solve this problem. What it comes down to is, again there is no reason to assume that "consciousness" can not exist in some other substance. (Actually I do not believe that plants, nor animals, are "conscious" in any robust sense as humans are).

I agree that animals have a will to avoid pain etc. But what about plants? What is poison ivy, if not a defense mechanism to protect the plant, perhaps from pain.

Turning this into an animal rights thread is just killing the topic in my opinion.

Boo you. Don't be a kill joy this debate is way more fun than anything about that video.

EDIT: I want to add something about the "plants don't have central nervous systems therefore can't feel" claims that have been thrown around. Does this not strike people as a blatantly ignorant view, like "we don't know better therefore it can't be true"? Let's be honest, we have no reason to assume that "feelings" cannot come from something other than a CNS.

Okay, so to your first point, which is that science has not disproven that intelligence can lie in places other than the brain. Isn't the default position supposed to be disbelief? It's been demonstrated that intelligence lies in the brain, but insofar there's been 0 evidence suggesting that intelligence is capable of being elsewhere. It isn't "We don't know better, so it can't be true," it's that "It hasn't been proven, so we'll assume it's not true until more evidence surfaces".

Your second point makes me want to ask you what you think makes "human" intelligence unique, other than its (for lack of a better word) quantity. To specifically address your example of the kitten (which made me laugh)- yes, many animals do not have the power to think as logically as humans do.They do, however, seem to act as though they have some sort of an ability to solve problems logically. My dog, for instance, if confronted with an obstacle in a hallway, will circle around a different hallway to get to the same destination. This is anecdotal, mind you, but so was your kitty.

Your third point is pretty much your first point- perception lies in the brain, and so far there's been no evidence that anything other than the brain can facilitate that. I don't really know what Shelley was thinking of, but I've seen articles on a weed which grows in a way that seeks out adjacent plants and then wraps around them. This is interaction with the environment, but hardly in a way we'd expect of thinking creatures. It's just growing, in a special predefined pattern.

And then there's your last point about plants having a similar will to avoid pain to animals. Your point about poison ivy equates adaptions with learned behaviors, which isn't valid. You wouldn't cite a person's immune system as evidence that humans don't like to get sick- you would cite their complaints about getting sick. I know that that was only a specific example, but I doubt you could come up with one that doesn't have the same fundamental problem.

 

[Micael]

Please let this be fake.

+∞

yea, but it looks real...

 

[4Chan]

Oh wow, she's got a good throwing arm.
(Terrible joke.)

But no seriously, I love dogs and I am shocked.
I once made a post about my love for dogs.

 

[JeffDelucia]

To everyone saying we care about animals more than people do you honestly think this is causing more uproar than a video of a girl enjoying throwing babies in a river? Seriously think before you talk.

 

[Dene]

It isn't "We don't know better, so it can't be true," it's that "It hasn't been proven, so we'll assume it's not true until more evidence surfaces".

I am of the opinion that a more reasonable stance is "We don't know nearly enough to make any judgement on the matter". Do you think this is unreasonable?

Your second point makes me want to ask you what you think makes "human" intelligence unique, other than its (for lack of a better word) quantity.

I think the evidence for unique human intelligence is all around us. No other living being has shown any evidence of even touching the surface of advancements in stuff [e.g. technology, knowledge] that we have. Perhaps there is no difference other than in quantity, but the point still remains that plants show no difference in intelligence (compared to animals) other than in quantity.

I don't really know what Shelley was thinking of, but I've seen articles on a weed which grows in a way that seeks out adjacent plants and then wraps around them. This is interaction with the environment, but hardly in a way we'd expect of thinking creatures. It's just growing, in a special predefined pattern.

Ah but this is what evolution does to every living being! The point with the kitten example was that it just does what evolution has put into it's repertoire of things to do. It seems that just as the behaviour of plants is strongly determined by genetic inheritance, so too is the behaviour of animals.

And then there's your last point about plants having a similar will to avoid pain to animals. Your point about poison ivy equates adaptions with learned behaviors, which isn't valid.... I know that that was only a specific example, but I doubt you could come up with one that doesn't have the same fundamental problem.

A good point you raise. Learned behaviours is certainly something that would be hard to find in plants and I am no expert in vegetation so I am not about to bust out a super example of it. However, is this really the fundamental distinction that you want to make between animals and plants that makes it ok to slaughter plants, but not to harm animals?

 

[Andreaillest]

So I guess she was caught. Karma sure does suck.
If she'd tried that on my dog, I'd have to bring out my pimp hand.

 

[Edward]

Profanity D:
Chill mayne.

I like how the rage levels in this thread were pretty low compared to what I expected.

 

[penguin009]

4Chan already got her MSN... thats how good... i mean creepy they are

 

[Sa967St]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html

She wrote an apology explaining why she killed the puppies. At least now we know that she didn't do it just to entertain herself. :/


edit: http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...chnik-the-girl-who-threw-puppies-into-a-river
Last sentence, she was arrested.

 

[StachuK1992]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html

She wrote an apology explaining why she killed the puppies. At least now we know that she didn't do it just to entertain herself. :/


edit: http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...chnik-the-girl-who-threw-puppies-into-a-river
Last sentence, she was arrested.

Video taken down. :/

 

[Sa967St]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20015305-71.html

Video taken down. :/

Yeah, it was like that when I found the page too. You can still see the apology though.

 

[Parity]

Omg I just wanna punch her in the face.