Animal killer Kayla Bourque wants 'unescorted time' in community

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, TimberWolf said:

 

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

Can you think of any kill plant where the animals waiting for slaughter are not aware of the smells and sounds of the slaughter that is going on?  All of Canada's kill plants torture the animals.  It's the nature of the plant.  These animals are prey.  They are instinctively going to react to the smell, and sounds of death with fright and wanting to run.  Yet, they are confined, forced to wait for the inevitable. They are called slaughter houses for a reason.

I eat meat.  I accept that I am a hypocrite - perhaps worse than most - because I know the horrific truth.   

 

[Chalky]

7 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

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.

 

I'd like to believe that she can be helped, but I'm not entirely convinced.  At a minimum I hope she can acknowledge her problems and have a desire to get better.

[CBH1926]

4 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I'd like to believe that she can be helped, but I'm not entirely convinced.  At a minimum I hope she can acknowledge her problems and have a desire to get better.

I sure hope that you are right, but I am sceptical as well.

Sometimes I feel that people have urges that they just can't control, which leads to these types of offences.

Hopefully she will be receiving treatment so that she does not re offend.

 

 

[Toews]

58 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

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? 

If The Wire can be believed no one cares about a serial killer killing the homeless.

[Aladeen]

10 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I'd like to believe that she can be helped, but I'm not entirely convinced.  At a minimum I hope she can acknowledge her problems and have a desire to get better.

I don't think so Chalky, certain synaptic pathways are formed during various developmental stages of brain growth that become fixed. To alter these would probably take some significant brain surgery/altering mechanism. Unfortunately I don't think our understanding of the brain is advanced enough to rewire someone like this.

I say this pessimistically because we only have the evidence of how people like this have progressed in the past and I don't think the outlook is good. Although there may be cases where someone like this never re-offends, my thought is that the fear of consequence over-rode the desire to do it vs. a real actual rehabilitation (hopefully that is enough)

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

If The Wire can be believed no one cares about a serial killer killing the homeless.

Well I care, though there is not much I can do about it I suppose. So inability to act can also seem like apathy too.

[nuckin_futz]

8 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I'd like to believe that she can be helped, but I'm not entirely convinced.  At a minimum I hope she can acknowledge her problems and have a desire to get better.

I am not convinced either. Nor are the authorities who argue she may require lifelong supervision. She's not someone who who acted rashly, but rather in a very calculated manner. Like her admission that she was taking forensic classes so she could "get away with something".

It's a pretty interesting case study. Usually people this sadistic are male. Doesn't seem to be much in her childhood that's public that would explain her behavior. Adopted from a Romanian orphanage at 8 months then grew up in PG. Then again maybe that's enough. 

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

I am not convinced either. Nor are the authorities who argue she may require lifelong supervision. She's not someone who who acted rashly, but rather in a very calculated manner. Like her admission that she was taking forensic classes so she could "get away with something".

It's a pretty interesting case study. Usually people this sadistic are male. Doesn't seem to be much in her childhood that's public that would explain her behavior. Adopted from a Romanian orphanage at 8 months then grew up in PG. Then again maybe that's enough. 

Considering the connection to animals, what do we do with animals that are a danger to society?  Hmmm.  

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

 

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

Firstly.  I think a lot of people, or

more and more people are considering the path of meat to the plate.

 

and.  99.9% of normal people are always going to react as they are here, to a crazy person like this.

 

2ndly.  If you do eat meat occasionally, do you really care in the end if anyone stops to think where their meat came from?

At the end of the day, maybe even today, you, I, and joeCDC are going to sit down to a steak at some point.  So the killing goes on and on the same for us all.

 

 

[GLASSJAW]

12 minutes ago, Chalky said:

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?

you can't just say "the ends justify the means" when it's the means that is the troubled moral act and the ends are unnecessary. in other words, how is your going out to hunt deer necessary for sustenance? it isn't. the act of hunting and the killing of the animal and the enjoyment of the animal are all part of the experience--in fact, i'll go so far as to say the enjoyment of the struggle in regards to killing the animal would probably lead you to enjoy its meat even more

in other OTHER words, instead of going to the store and just buying some non-meat food, you are going into the bush to kill an animal because you want to. those choices are all based purely on an appeal to emotions.

which profiles does my bias not fit? the Inuit who hunt seal for food? yeah, maybe. but that's different. they lack luxury. the people reading this do not. and for those who view the word 'bias' as being discrediting, please remember that this has been a philosophical problem since before Socrates (vegetarian). but instead of facing the weight of the problem, people create an emotional psychological response (cognitive dissonance). just because i have a bias doesn't mean my view is my own or skewed or anything.

Quote

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.

i hope you do. and in your ownership of your food, i hope you don't justify your actions by simply acknowledging that you need to eat. eating ≠ meat

in looking for a discussion on how those who mistreat animals can be rehabilitated, i think you're immediately faced with the problem of how animals are treated in an 'acceptable' manner in the first place. i do not think i have derailed anything, and you're more than welcome to stop replying to me,

[Chalky]

6 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

you can't just say "the ends justify the means" when it's the means that is the troubled moral act and the ends are unnecessary. in other words, how is your going out to hunt deer necessary for sustenance? it isn't. the act of hunting and the killing of the animal and the enjoyment of the animal are all part of the experience--in fact, i'll go so far as to say the enjoyment of the struggle in regards to killing the animal would probably lead you to enjoy its meat even more

in other OTHER words, instead of going to the store and just buying some non-meat food, you are going into the bush to kill an animal because you want to. those choices are all based purely on an appeal to emotions.

which profiles does my bias not fit? the Inuit who hunt seal for food? yeah, maybe. but that's different. they lack luxury. the people reading this do not. and for those who view the word 'bias' as being discrediting, please remember that this has been a philosophical problem since before Socrates (vegetarian). but instead of facing the weight of the problem, people create an emotional psychological response (cognitive dissonance). just because i have a bias doesn't mean my view is my own or skewed or anything.

i hope you do. and in your ownership of your food, i hope you don't justify your actions by simply acknowledging that you need to eat. eating ≠ meat

in looking for a discussion on how those who mistreat animals can be rehabilitated, i think you're immediately faced with the problem of how animals are treated in an 'acceptable' manner in the first place. i do not think i have derailed anything, and you're more than welcome to stop replying to me,

I'm not saying the ends justify the means Glassjaw, I'm saying there is no comparison between someone who hunts for food and someone who would torture and kill animals for enjoyment.  There is a definitely difference, even if not to the animal, although I doubt a Zebra cares whether it's a hunter or a Lion who kills them, they would prefer to live. I agree with the boldfaced text above in theory, but I don't hunt so, I can't say how it is.  I do fish and I can say firsthand that there is definitely a reward enjoyment (for lack of a better term) to eating a fish you caught.  I think we will continue to differ on the psychological effect killing and preparing the fish has on any given human.  I hate the feeling of taking it's life, others aren't bothered by it, and others may even enjoy the process.  I feel obliged to make myself experience that feeling if I am going to eat the meat.  It's not as far fetched or extreme as saaaaay...filming yourself torturing a dog or fantasizing about murdering homeless people.  Kayla Bourque is exhibiting some Pickton type behavioral $h1t. I refuse to universally apply that to meat eaters. 

I also agree there is a level of cognitive dissonance.  There must be for anyone that has ever seen one of the semi-trailers full of chickens.  However, there is also a cognitive dissonance for the homeless, for Syrian refugees, for the people in Brazilian Favelas and for anyone who supports Donald Trump.  It's still not the same as torturing animals for fun. 

As for my relationship with food, I don't feel the need to justify my actions, I believe I am well informed and I have made my choices.  There is a lot of information available on the subject of eating meat and I have had the opportunity to watch many a documentary, read many an article, listen many a pius Vegan and have had the pleasure to tour many a plant, specifically one that makes hotdogs. I'm not ill informed, I'm just not willing to generalize meat-eaters.  Also, live on Commercial...and that means something apparently.

I am happy to keep up the conversation BTW, you haven't shown me any disrespect and you clearly have a belief and are sticking to your convictions. I respect that, but I do disagree with the assertion that eating meat is comparable to psychopathic behavior.  I'm not entirely sure we are going to ever see eye to eye on this one. 

As for rehabilitating those who mistreat animals, I have the same opinion as above.  I hope they can, but I am a skeptic.  I think it is affected by how much empathy you have.  I have a lot, so I really dislike hearing about the death of anything innocent...even when it's sustenance hunting or a Cheetah eating an Antelope. 

[riffraff]

3 hours 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.

 

I'm not insane.

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, riffraff said:

I'm not insane.

wait are you the woman or part of the we all?

[riffraff]

9 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

wait are you the woman or part of the we all?

 

9 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

wait are you the woman or part of the we all?

Dunno bout you but this has all got my appetite worked up.

 

why don't "we all" go for some ribs.

[Chalky]

2 minutes ago, riffraff said:

 

Dunno bout you but this has all got my appetite worked up.

 

why don't "we all" go for some ribs.

mmmmmmmmm, Ribs.

[riffraff]

1 minute ago, Chalky said:

mmmmmmmmm, Ribs.

Years ago we had a fire going at long beach and buddy brought yves veggie wieners....in like 20 seconds they blistered up resembling a melting Barbie doll.  At least that's what we referred to it as.

 

but you can imagine us all standing there pointing and laughing at this guy.

 

good times.

[Down by the River]

4 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

no, they are not completely different. the point is that it's animal death for human enjoyment. that you, somehow, are able to view animal slaughter as not being torturous is a leap you're willing and able to make, not me. i see no problem in equating them, and you are not presenting one

yes, it is hypocritical to be outraged about animal torture while fully supporting an industry that REQUIRES the torture of animals to survive

Dude you are a smart guy but are seemingly allowing ideological perspective to overwhelm rational argument.

There is a difference between (1) torturing an animal for the purposes of enjoyment and (2) being negligent about how the animal you're about to eat likely suffered. One difference would be that #1's pleasure from the torture of an animal is direct, whereas for #2, the pleasure is unrelated. Want to know how? #2 would enjoy their meal MORE if they knew that their animal was killed in the most humane way possible. For #1, it would be a detriment to their experience. 

The biggest difference: the latter is not at risk of escalating to killing or harming other people, the former is. 

[riffraff]

4 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Dude you are a smart guy but are seemingly allowing ideological perspective to overwhelm rational argument.

There is a difference between (1) torturing an animal for the purposes of enjoyment and (2) being negligent about how the animal you're about to eat likely suffered. One difference would be that #1's pleasure from the torture of an animal is direct, whereas for #2, the pleasure is unrelated. Want to know how? #2 would enjoy their meal MORE if they knew that their animal was killed in the most humane way possible. For #1, it would be a detriment to their experience. 

The biggest difference: the latter is not at risk of escalating to killing or harming other people, the former is. 

Kinda cuts down the angles the way I see it River.  Well put.

[GLASSJAW]

25 minutes ago, Chalky said:

I'm not saying the ends justify the means Glassjaw, I'm saying there is no comparison between someone who hunts for food and someone who would torture and kill animals for enjoyment.  There is a definitely difference, even if not to the animal, although I doubt a Zebra cares whether it's a hunter or a Lion who kills them, they would prefer to live. I agree with the boldfaced text above in theory, but I don't hunt so, I can't say how it is.  I do fish and I can say firsthand that there is definitely a reward enjoyment (for lack of a better term) to eating a fish you caught.  I think we will continue to differ on the psychological effect killing and preparing the fish has on any given human.  I hate the feeling of taking it's life, others aren't bothered by it, and others may even enjoy the process.  I feel obliged to make myself experience that feeling if I am going to eat the meat.  It's not as far fetched or extreme as saaaaay...filming yourself torturing a dog or fantasizing about murdering homeless people.  Kayla Bourque is exhibiting some Pickton type behavioral $h1t. I refuse to universally apply that to meat eaters. 

I also agree there is a level of cognitive dissonance.  There must be for anyone that has ever seen one of the semi-trailers full of chickens.  However, there is also a cognitive dissonance for the homeless, for Syrian refugees, for the people in Brazilian Favelas and for anyone who supports Donald Trump.  It's still not the same as torturing animals for fun. 

As for my relationship with food, I don't feel the need to justify my actions, I believe I am well informed and I have made my choices.  There is a lot of information available on the subject of eating meat and I have had the opportunity to watch many a documentary, read many an article, listen many a pius Vegan and have had the pleasure to tour many a plant, specifically one that makes hotdogs. I'm not ill informed, I'm just not willing to generalize meat-eaters.  Also, live on Commercial...and that means something apparently.

I am happy to keep up the conversation BTW, you haven't shown me any disrespect and you clearly have a belief and are sticking to your convictions. I respect that, but I do disagree with the assertion that eating meat is comparable to psychopathic behavior.  I'm not entirely sure we are going to ever see eye to eye on this one. 

As for rehabilitating those who mistreat animals, I have the same opinion as above.  I hope they can, but I am a skeptic.  I think it is affected by how much empathy you have.  I have a lot, so I really dislike hearing about the death of anything innocent...even when it's sustenance hunting or a Cheetah eating an Antelope. 

 

second bold: i admit, my first post was very vague, but i was not saying that those who eat meat display psychotic behaviour. i said, or meant to say, that in order for an individual to take offense to the murder of a cat or dog, while eating steak for dinner, will have to establish a psychological bridge in order to morally justify the murder of one and not the other. you seem to agree (bold 1). i am saying that bridge often reeks of hypocrisy and self righteousness. something we are all guilty of, but should probably become more aware of at the same time.

i am saying (the above) because the murder of an animal for fun is the murder of an animal for fun. the difference here is that one person has fun with the animal as it suffers (psycho), the other person has fun with the animal after it has suffered (most meat eaters)

the difference in terms of "being a psycho" is that one is traditionally acceptable, the other is not. what she is doing is not inherently psychotic anymore than killing a pig for bacon is. her psychosis in this regard is defined by a traditional, cultural standard. an individual being able to kill/skin a dog and clubbing or bolting a pig to death, in my opinion, are direct displays of a lack of compassion that often leads to speciesism, like that documentary "Earthlings" argues.

anyway, no i'm not saying my mom--who is probably eating chicken as we speak--is crazy or a potential Pickton type. because "society" has told her what she's doing is not only acceptable. but also because we've created a system wherein the colossal surplus of animals (billions upon billions of animals are literally suffering as we type) makes people believe the surplus justifies the demand. or that meat fills a role in our lives. i do not think it does any of this. rather the meat industry has created a self-perpetuating system that people are hooked in, or don't care about. tradition mixed with excess has created our meat-hungry system today, it wasn't a need for sustenance or a philosophical revelation.

the fact that the girl is considered so crazy because she kills pets is interesting to me. why don't we consider people crazy for wanting to work at a slaughter house to kill pigs - an abnormally intelligent creature?

i would find it very interesting to hear from someone who has more intensive psychological training on this issue, because to me it sounds like she's determined to be crazy NOT solely because she's killing things, but because of her lack of remorse over killing things. is remorse the operative word when we discuss the 'sanity' of someone who kills another person? or an animal? in Jonathan Foer's book "Eating Animals" he basically says the factory farm industry in America has a 100% turnover rate. and it sure isn't because of promotion. it's because the work is dangerous and ethically difficult, seemingly impossible, to sustain. and yet despite the work being so damaging, people are eating more meat than ever seemingly without the trauma. so what's going on here? a person cannot work in a slaughterhouse without losing his or her mind, a girl kills animals for fun and she's literally considered a lost mind - and here we are eating the fruits of that psychotic labour. what does that say about us?

as an aside: if Borque ATE the cats and dogs after she killed them, would people be morally horrified by what she did?

 

 

[Tortorella's Rant]

Christ. Four pages of whether it's valid to equate omnivorous humans to those who torture and abuse animals for fun.