Animal killer Kayla Bourque wants 'unescorted time' in community

[\/ijay]

I'm more concerned she wants to step up her game to killing homeless. And once she does that what will she move on to next?

[Chalky]

29 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Go out and do two things before you fall off that high horse:  Go hunting or fishing and see if the animals enjoy the experience.  Then go to a local kill plant.  At the kill plant sit with the animals awaiting slaughter, and tell me then it's not torture for those in waiting.  The sounds and smells of death are horrific.  It's palpable the fear these animals go through.  Slitting your cat or dog's throat is actually a hell of a lot humane than having animals sit and wait their turn to die, while they are trapped in cages.  Animals that we eat are mostly prey animals, who instinctively run from death.  They are completely terrified!  

I eat meat, but accept that I am responsible for the torture of those animals I consume, because I have lived with those animals while they await death, and felt their fear and suffering.  YOU SHOULD TOO.  Listen to your wife, because she is CORRECT.

Talk about high horse. 

[Aladeen]

Just now, \/ijay said:

I'm more concerned she wants to step up her game to killing homeless. And once she does that what will she move on to next?

Well that's sort of the pinnacle isn't it? I mean Homeless people are Humans... so what next step could she move on to? Richer humans? 

[OptionalPants]

11 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

i didn't miss any bit of the point. according to her and the article, she did it for enjoyment. enjoyment is the same reason most people in the developed world have baby animals slaughtered for an expensive meal.

i'm not apologizing for the woman in question. obviously she seems crazy. that you're okay with being a hypocrite is fine with me. as you say, we all are in some way or another.

Edit: I misread your post, have to revise my reply

I was just saying that people were concerned because slaughtering animals in the way she did is associated with serial killers, while eating animals which are tortured just as badly is not associated with serial killers. (That's why I'm concerned about this at least) So you see, if this is the reason for people's concern (the fact she could move on to kill people), then I think you did miss the point a bit. (Unless of course I missed the point you were trying to make)

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Chalky said:

Talk about high horse. 

You can argue all you like, but until you experience the deaths of these animals first hand, your comments are based on ignorance.  This woman is clearly insane, but so are we all.

 

[chon derry]

55 minutes ago, Alflives said:

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You can argue all you like, but until you experience the deaths of these animals first hand, your comments are based on ignorance.  This woman is clearly insane, but so are we all.

 

shades of lorena bobbit

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, chon derry said:

 

Ha!  I never could look at a breakfast sausage quite the same after that Bobbit incident.

[Chalky]

27 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

its funny to me how if you remove "for enjoyment" from this sentence, your comment goes from being "problematic" to impossible to defend.

however, "Me not being Vegan is not comparable to a person who tortures and kills animals for enjoyment" is slightly different because of the malice involved. while you do not get ENJOYMENT out of the act of killing a pig directly, you get enjoyment out of that pig being killed. you are able to create the gap - it's literally cognitive dissonance: rejecting the act, yet wanting the benefits of that act committed. it's easy to vilify those who do heinous acts, but when we get pleasure from that act being committed behind closed doors, you do verge on hypocrisy.

so, essentially the only way we can differentiate this Kayla Borque moron from a meat eater is that she's on the wrong side of "enjoyment" - she gets pleasure out of the slaughter, while a meat eater gets pleasure out of enjoying the result of that slaughter. I OBVIOUSLY see the difference, I'm just not satisfied by it.

i don't think i'm generalizing all that much, and certainly not unfairly. if people are offended by the fact that they are reflecting on how they deal with and support a disgusting industry, that should rest on THEIR conscience. i have no responsibility to ease people into their nasty reality. 

i'm not a vegan, and i even made a disastrous thread about how we (often) create mental gaps and irrational decisions to justify eating how we do, wherein i state many times that i actually do eat meat sometimes. i think Borque's actions are horrible and offensive. but i'm also disturbingly well-aware of what i'm doing and supporting each time i have meat, too.

all i said in my post, or all i intended, is for people to reflect on their own relationship with animal slaughter when getting upset by some psycho f-ck like this

You didn't make it obvious, you were making comparisons of someone who took pleasure in killing an animal for no end, with someone who eats meat.  I saw disparity and I spoke on it.  I stand by it.  If I go and kill a deer for food, the end result is sustenance.  If I kill a deer for the thrill of ending it's life, the end result is an emotion. It's not comparable.  You're attempting to make the psychology work to support your bias.  Does your example fit certain profiles? Absolutely.  But you are generalizing whether you admit it or not. I own my relationship with food, it's just not comparable with a documented psychopath who kills animals for fun and fantasizes about killing homeless people.  You totally hijacked this thread by the way, I was looking for a discussion on the rehabilitation of mentally ill criminals and whether people trust or believe it is possible.

[Chalky]

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You can argue all you like, but until you experience the deaths of these animals first hand, your comments are based on ignorance.  This woman is clearly insane, but so are we all.

 

You presume to know a lot about me.  I'm not having this debate with you, I own my relationship with animals and food.

[TimberWolf]

There is a huge difference to people that light a cat on fire or something to eating a steak from a cow that was quickly killed with a hilti-gun

Where this thread has gone reminds me of those that throw lobsters in the pacific ocean

[babych]

49 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

it's you who is being obtuse, as you continue to hint at a point without providing one. and now saying the murder of an animal, while being the ultimate form of abuse, is not technically torture. coooome on. killing a cow may not be torture, but killing a cow is killing a cow. that people justify this action by saying the animal did not suffer for the individual to enjoy that meal--because the ability for that animal has to suffer was ended before the suffering began--is ridiculous to me

unfortunately, that comment is true. but, again, only technically. you can pretend that your pork wasn't in distress as it died, but you'll never really know. but what you do know is that the meat industry, the industry you support with that pork meal, REQUIRES billions (upon billions) of animals being forced into extremely stressful, extremely violent situations that will lead to death for the unnecessary and totally needless meal (what you refer to as 'sustenance') that millions will eat because they choose to. a choice based on enjoyment or tradition is not a choice that i personally care about, and it's one that leads to hypocrisy in this conversation

My point is that there is a difference between someone that tortures animals for pleasure and someone that eats meat. A point that you yourself have finally agreed to, so I'm not sure how you can claim to have missed it more than once.

Here's another point: eating is a biological necessity in order to live, torturing animals isn't.

I don't disagree with you at all the big meat industry is terrible in many respects. However, one can choose to purchase meat from farms that raise their livestock in good conditions and, when it's time to slaughter the animals, it is done quickly so that the animal doesn't experience distress.

Just because I "enjoy" eating (which again, I need to do in order to survive) doesn't make me a hypocrite for being against animal torture.

I see where you're coming from GJ, I really do. But this topic really isn't the place to voice your opinion against the meat industry by making comparisons that you yourself admit were incorrect.

This will be my last comment regarding this as continuing to argue with you in this topic would, in fact, make me a hypocrite considering my above statement.

[Alflives]

12 minutes ago, Chalky said:

You presume to know a lot about me.  I'm not having this debate with you, I own my relationship with animals and food.

It's not a debate.  A debate has two sides. This, in my view, has only one side - the animals' side.  

[Aladeen]

3 minutes ago, Chalky said:

You didn't make it obvious, you were making comparisons of someone who took pleasure in killing an animal for no end, with someone who eats meat.  I saw disparity and I spoke on it.  I stand by it.  If I go and kill a deer for food, the end result is sustenance.  If I kill a deer for the thrill of ending it's life, the end result is an emotion. It's not comparable.  You're attempting to make the psychology work to support your bias.  Does your example fit certain profiles? Absolutely.  But you are generalizing whether you admit it or not. I own my relationship with food, it's just not comparable with a documented psychopath who kills animals for fun and fantasizes about killing homeless people.  You totally hijacked this thread by the way, I was looking for a discussion on the rehabilitation of mentally ill criminals and whether people trust or believe it is possible.

This should really end the discussion altogether!

The death process is an inevitable part of life the why is what separates the ethics. Behind the why also changes the how as well. 

Food - Sustenance, the ability to preserve/prolong other life. Although the food aspect may be enjoyed most people aren't sitting down to their steak thinking gee I hope that my cow suffered so I could eat this now. One can enjoy the food or take pleasure in eating without enjoying the death process. Here we strive to make it more of a humane process as we move forward. Have things been handled poorly or maybe still are? of course but that's more because of corporations vs. human desire. 

Skill - This is a level that hasn't been talked about too much and I would put under this level Big Game Hunters. Although IMO not quite as bad as the third level, these people are doing what they do for one simple reason to see if they can. The problem here is they enjoy the process of death, but most likely aren't there to torture the animal and in their own way I suppose they respect the animal as a challenge at the very least. Here the how generally comes down to killing the animal as fast as possible, (Shot to the heart/Head etc) 

Pleasure - When you prolong the suffering of an animal just for the soul purpose of watching it suffer, there are some wires crossed in the brain, things aren't quite right. Here someone enjoys the death process so much they want to prolong it as much as possible. They aren't doing for food or to test their skills against a respected opponent they are doing for one reason and that is the inflict pain and enjoy the process. Here the how comes down to a full on enjoyment of prolonging the suffering. 

 

If someone can't see that the difference lies in the process vs just the end result, I don't know how else to put it because it really is just a given.

[Alflives]

13 minutes ago, TimberWolf said:

There is a huge difference to people that light a cat on fire or something to eating a steak from a cow that was quickly killed with a hilti-gun

Where this thread has gone reminds me of those that throw lobsters in the pacific ocean

It's not the death of that cow, it's the others waiting their turn where the issue of torture lies.  

[nuckin_futz]

With regards to the debate raging here. To me there are both differences and similarities.

The differences are Borque kills to inflict maximum pain on her victim, the more they suffer the more she enjoys. That is not the goal of the meat industry. The legally mandated goal of the meat industry is to slaughter as quickly and "humanely" as possible. Also Borque's victims are left to rot. Obviously that's not the case with the meat industry. I doubt any meat eater would enjoy their steak more knowing the cow was tortured for hours on end.

The similarities are it's hard to argue the animals raised for meat do not suffer prior to execution. Look at the life of a chicken raised for meat. It's entire short life is spent in a small cage until it's head is chopped off en-route to the supermarket. It's probably largely the same for pigs and cows. As Alf pointed out when a cow is being lead to slaughter they are distressed and fearful, that's certainly torture.

It ultimately comes down to the length of torture and for what purpose the animal was killed. Some can reconcile that, some can't. Hence the debate rages on.

[CBH1926]

I am not going to debate about meat industry, but this women seems to heading down the wrong track.

We can only hope that after torturing animals she does not "graduate" to torturing people.

 

[TimberWolf]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It's not the death of that cow, it's the others waiting their turn where the issue of torture lies.  

 

If you know of a facility that torture beef cattle then report them. Canada takes that crap seriously.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

With regards to the debate raging here. To me there are both differences and similarities.

The differences are Borque kills to inflict maximum pain on her victim, the more they suffer the more she enjoys. That is not the goal of the meat industry. The legally mandated goal of the meat industry is to slaughter as quickly and "humanely" as possible. Also Borque's victims are left to rot. Obviously that's not the case with the meat industry. I doubt any meat eater would enjoy their steak more knowing the cow was tortured for hours on end.

The similarities are it's hard to argue the animals raised for meat do not suffer prior to execution. Look at the life of a chicken raised for meat. It's entire short life is spent in a small cage until it's head is chopped off en-route to the supermarket. It's probably largely the same for pigs and cows. As Alf pointed out when a cow is being lead to slaughter they are distressed and fearful, that's certainly torture.

It ultimately comes down to the length of torture and for what purpose the animal was killed. Some can reconcile that, some can't. Hence the debate rages on.

You are one wise jug of Cool-aid. 

[nuckin_futz]

Just now, Alflives said:

You are one wise jug of Cool-aid. 

Oh Yeah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chalky]

20 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It's not a debate.  A debate has two sides. This, in my view, has only one side - the animals' side.  

Which is why we have no more to say....wait, Jen? is that you?