Molestation, assault, battery, murder, ritual killing & desecration of animals:

wldhoney

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Posts
1,154
Media
3
Likes
29
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
He wasn't actually a serial killer though. I would say he was more of a pyscopath hitman because he didn't feel fear and he killed for money or if someone pissed him off or just to cover his tracks.

Actually, he went further than that, which is why he is considered to be a serial killer. He didn't just bump someone off. He planned at ways to extend the death and to torture, just because or because he liked it.

For instance, one associate he tied up and filmed being eaten by rats while still alive. Another he killed just because he felt like it.

And he is just one who had the difference in the brain. For example, I am not sure if it was wayne gayce or someone else, but they were executed before further before more comparisons could be made.

I took a course on it thru my work because of the type of work I do. I used to be more up on it, but after a while I had to take a break. It becomes quite disturbing when you see what people will do to each other.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
And I partied damned hard with some pilots when I worked for the airlines in my younger days. I don't know HOW they passed those tests! :biggrin1:

I think I'd be more concerned if they didn't party hard. I suspect the resulting stress relief was a significant factor in passing. :smile:
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, he went further than that, which is why he is considered to be a serial killer. He didn't just bump someone off. He planned at ways to extend the death and to torture, just because or because he liked it.


He didn't actually go through the phases of a serial killer though. (Aura, Trolling, Wooing, Capture, Murder, Totem, Depression)
 

JeepersJane

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
108
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Although it addresses some of the darkest aspects of the subject, it seems this has turned into a serious and informative discussion, thus far, on the issue. I have appreciated reading each post.

Does anyone have thoughts, information, ideas, or suggestions regarding the legal ramifications, assuming now that there is a basic consensus on what is unhealthy human behavior as it gets expressed through treatment of animals?

I would certainly agree that the act of hunting in itself is certainly NOT a pathological instinct, in and of itself, as I've previously posted. It would be a truly beautiful world if we didn't eat animals, however, I don't see this as any kind of realistic idea and it may not even be a healthy idea. Another factoid is the one about brain evolution and brain size being reliant on the fact that we changed over from being vegetarians to meat eaters.

The point is that it seems to me that we can fairly easily and peacefully distinguish, within this discussion anyway, a clear line between what is basically natural and what is basically "cause for concern" or a "red flag" or potentially pathological, as well as what is actually pathological.

Another possible aspect of the discussion:

Are there members here who are either lawyers, legal historians, or other concerned members with legal training, education, or other qualifications who would be able to shine light on the history of animal treatment regulations in the mainstream film industry? Do we know what it was that finally brought the regulations into effect? For example, film makers used to simply trip horses when they were shooting war scenes. I believe that special effects technique is totally out of the question, now.

It might be a constructive exercise to talk about what the realities are now and what might be involved or required in order to extend/legislate some of those same animal welfare concerns and regulations from mainstream cinema into the porn industry without compromising our rights to free speach and sexual expression.

The simple thought, maybe it's too simple, but the one I had and posted earlier was the basic notion that consentual sex is legal sex in the porn industry. If "consentual" means all living characters participating in sexual acts, real or depicted, including animals, must verify "consent" by signing release papers. It strikes me as a basic and simple way to clear up the issue without much paper work at all. If a bear can't sign it's name, a bear can't join in the fun? I don't know. I'd like to hear serious perspectives & interpretations from anyone educated in this area.

I don't think we'll be jeopardizing our constitutions if we agree to require all porn "performers" or "talent" to be of a legal age and able to sign papers of consent. We've already done that to a degree. It rules out children effectively and, hopefully, those who are legally insane or in a vegetable state, mentally or physically. So, I'm not sure what it takes to include animals in that same protected demographic for all the same simple reasons we protect them in Hollywood. Hollywood no longer says, "o, well, they're animals, so they don't count. We can hit them, or scare them, or shoot them in the head for your entertainment." It will not destroy the constitution if the Porn industry follows suit in that one area.

It will sure bum out people who like to watch horses do things with people. I would certainly not assume that people who are aroused by bestiality fantasies in porn are ALL pathological or on their way to being mentally "unfit." From my experience and understanding of animals, including horses, I strongly believe they are innocent and would not reasonably be considered "consentual" players in any acts that include sex. They do like to be ridden, and they do like to race, even if they initially dislike being "broke." But, that's horse talk and another subject. Regardless of any stand on "bestiality" fetishes that most commonly include horses and dogs, I'm certainly less concerned about defending, defining, reforming, or furnishing horse & dog fetishists than I am about establishing some simple change in the laws to prevent pornographers from depicting or perpetrating an array of destructive acts on animals in a sexual context that either point to or stimulate many mental health problem indicators. Simply put, some events are not just a matter of preference, or moral taste. Some events actually ARE wrong. Harming children is one of those things. It's not a question. And we all can easily say that if our society were permissive in the area of harm against children, it would be a denegration of ourselves as a society in addition to the harmful act itself.

It would be less interesting to get into a pissing match about what things are right and wrong about how we currently treat animals. It would be more interesting and helpful to talk about what can be done to clarify and prevent the most obvious "wrongs" done toward them in the porn industry. Even if those "wrongs" are rare. Apparently they are less rare. And as a judge once said, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it..."
 

wldhoney

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Posts
1,154
Media
3
Likes
29
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
I don't know about the film industry. I can tell you that in most states abuse of an animal, not just a pet, is a felony punishable by fines and imprisonment.

I work with many officers who are animal lovers, and they will not tolerate abuse of one. There have been many of us who have fostered animals rescued from appalling conditions. I have a sargeant who watched a driver purposely swerve over to hit a possum in the road. The man was promptly arrested, and spent a lot of money on a lawyer and fines. There are laws in place, but you have to get involved. Check with your local police department on how you can volunteer to help. Even one animal saved from a painful existence means something.

I don't necissarily care for PETA, though I am a huge animal lover. I think there are far too many members who are unhinged, fanatical and who resort to a form of terrorism. This always takes a good cause down. However, they will have a lot of information for you.
 

JeepersJane

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
108
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
JJ, this is meant politely. Could you paragraph, please?
lol... I put in two paragraphs. They actually are two paragraphs, in fact, two issues, two aspects or dynamics to the discussion. Seriously. But, yeah, sure, if it helps you, I'll gladly divvy up a bit more for ya. Did you get lost!? O, dear. Well, thanks for letting me know. You weren't impolite at all! Though, I do suspect you're busting my chops simply because you haven't decided to stop hating me. That's ok. You take your time.
 

wldhoney

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Posts
1,154
Media
3
Likes
29
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
I agree with dong20 on the paragraphs, though I did read it. I can see a good number of places that the second paragraph would work better with division, simply because it does change a bit in concept and allows the reader to absorb the information, then move on.

I'm a great reader, but still found it a bit......aarrgh. :)

I'm not trying to be critical, because your cause and thought are great. But many will just stop reading if it becomes "work". *smiley face here
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
lol... I put in two paragraphs. They actually are two paragraphs, in fact, two issues, two aspects or dynamics to the discussion. Seriously. But, yeah, sure, if it helps you, I'll gladly divvy up a bit more for ya. Did you get lost!? O, dear. Well, thanks for letting me know. You weren't impolite at all! Though, I do suspect you're busting my chops simply because you haven't decided to stop hating me. That's ok. You take your time.

I asked you politely, (explicitly so, given our previous sharp exchanges) if you could help make your post more easily read (by all) and you respond with snark? It was uncalled for, and yet you have the petulance to complain about hostility? I tried, but no more.

I could have said your presentation was more akin to a junior school level "what I did in my summer holiday" essay than a meaningful post about animal rights in an adult forum; that it doesn't flow, contains numerous thematic disjoints, that there were several optimum points for paragraphs which would have allowed easier comprehension, that you rode right past. That your post reads like two long, rambling sentences. I could go on.

Oh, did I say that out loud? Oops.:rolleyes:

Forgive me for reminding you, but didn't you leave? Several times? If I'm not mistaken it was because we were mostly 'marginally literate barnacles' (and other such gems), who you said, didn't deserve you?

"I'm through with LPSG, largely because of it's little marginally literate barnacles that lodge themselves on thread-boats bound for better glory.

<...>

Nothing any up-start posts below this will be read by me. Tell it to your lonesome and lacking balls ..."

Well, that was a week, 16 (mostly equally badly presented) posts and several "final" farewells later. Credit where it's due, you're nothing if not inconsistent.

As for me hating you...is that what you need to validate your angst? Sorry, no can do, JJ. But, I will happily admit that I have less than zero interest in your chops, though that is, marginally more interest than I now have in your post.

It's late and I'm cranky, so sue me.:rolleyes:
 

JeepersJane

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Posts
108
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
I asked you politely, (explicitly so, given our previous sharp exchanges) if you could help make your post more easily read (by all) and you respond with snark? ...

It's late and I'm cranky, so sue me.:rolleyes:
wow... I guess so! "Snark"? Pshaw! Snark is a specialty where I certainly don't corner the market around here. Sorry to tread on any turf. You might have pm'd me. Surely a critical view on writing style wasn't such a big deal for the whole world to have to see. It no longer applies as the paragraphs have been adjusted for your personal satisfaction.

New paragraph: perhaps an "anger management" class is in order? ....snark. Please... distractions, distractions! My serious and sincere post still stands for those interested beyond puntuaction and "snark."

I'm still here because I remain concerned and because the thread is still addressing important material, as I posted previously, probably yesterday.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
For a start I differentiate hunting for food from hunting for fun, I have no problem with anyone killing something they intend to eat, whether they're doing it or their butcher is providing them with meat it's still for a purpose, however I would ban all forms of hunting for pleasure. I fail to see what pleasure people get from killing something.

However I still feel that it's more important to focus on getting people to treat each other properly before worrying about animals, there are children being tortured every day by their own parents, children who are bullied by their peers to the point where they commit suicide, people being killed for a few pounds. Only when we treat one another with care and compassion does this begin to filter down to the animal world.

You questioned when were laws governing the maltreatment of animals changed in regard to their use in films, I have no idea but if you go back to Victorian times child prostitutes were ten a penny, children were sent down the mines, used as chimney sweeps, starved and beaten as a daily occurrence, if over the age of ten (I think it was ten) they were able to be executed for a crime and this was all seen as normal, reformers worked hard to change this situation and it began to be seen as unacceptable, to the same Victorians bear baiting, dancing bears, dog fights were normal entertainment and it seems to go hand in hand that as people find certain behaviours unacceptable towards humans this filters through to our behaviours towards animals, but it takes time.

There are laws in place to protect animals, there are laws in place to protect people, but the fact is that the people who are being cruel to animals, who are having sex with them are already breaking those laws, the sites that show this sort of vid are already breaking laws so it's not really going to do much good appealing to any of these, and it's not going to do much good complaining to animal rights groups they're already against that sort of shit and doing what they can, complain to your government possibly, well we all know what a huge waste of time that is, so apart from contributing money to animal rights and child protection groups who do have more authority than an individual person does what can we all do? Well we can actually put our money where our mouth is and if we see someone slap their child in the street we can tell them to stop it, we can offer to help someone with no idea of their being a gain to ourselves in it, we can save up our pennies in a jar and give them to charity :) we can sign online petitions, we can join one of the groups on the net like freecycle where instead of taking our old but working stuff (fridges, sofas, etc) we simply give them away to someone who needs them - we can stop being so bloody selfish and treat one another better because when we treat one another better it becomes a way of life to treat everything better.

Badly put but I'm knackered :)
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Some threads are well worth poking fun at, there, Mr. Machine Gun. But, you're backing up my claims by showing yourself here. It's not comedy material. Or jerk off material. But, you're not connected to the subject so you missed it. Thanks for introducing yourself to us, though. Nice to see ya! You all catch that?

Whoa... easy tiger. He's just throwing some logic to (although a stretch) highlight some hypocrisy. Granted one is for sport the other for consumption.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't necissarily care for PETA, though I am a huge animal lover. I think there are far too many members who are unhinged, fanatical and who resort to a form of terrorism. This always takes a good cause down. However, they will have a lot of information for you.

God.. so well well well put. Goes for many threads on ETC ETC.
 

avalonlovelove

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
320
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Michael Vick is an asshole he deserves to rot in prison.If only he had to fight in a dogfight.TALK ABOUT KARMA!:tongue: :biggrin1: :rolleyes:
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Michael Vick is an asshole he deserves to rot in prison.If only he had to fight in a dogfight.TALK ABOUT KARMA!:tongue: :biggrin1: :rolleyes:

Agreed. But how should Vicky be put down afterwards? Electrocution? Hanging? Drowning? A bullet in the head? I kinda like his patented starvation method.

Too bad the Stottenberg incident happened after the Vick incident; Vick could have learned a lesson about how to react... and apologize.

Stallworth turned himself in to the authorities the day after the incident and offered restitution to the victim's families. I'm not sure if I buy the "light flashing" story, but at least he acted responsibly after the 'accident'.

~yeah, I know it's old~