Animal killer Kayla Bourque wants 'unescorted time' in community

[riffraff]

57 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

 

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?

 

 

Great third paragraph 

 

paragraph 4.)

If somebody born and raised in Canada (western world) told me they killed and ate a cat or dog, I would find that fairly alarming.  Less alarming if they simply killed it and ate it.  Id be completely freaked the &^@# out if they slowly tortured it and then ate it.  My feelings are based on our access to other food sources etc.

 

however if I was in Mexico, or Asia, etc.  La dee dah.  I'm sure I've had many a stray animal kebob in my time.  Obvious some cultures have different tastes.

 

i used to work along side four brothers from viet nam.  We were working in the construction of an apartment building here in Saskatoon.  At the end of the day they were giggling and smirking as they handed a box to me.

 

imside that box was a pigeon they caught on the roof.  They asked me over for a bbq. I declined.  Interestingly I had previously offered one of the guys a ham and cheese sandwich with keenes mustard and mayo.  He declined with a twisted face lol.

 

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

 

s

 

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?

 

 

 

Both sides of this argument are neither black or white, but shades of grey that can be debated forever.

As for the slaughterhouse workers. When you detailed the reasons for the turnover you described the work as dangerous and ethically difficult. Then made a pretty big leap to psychosis. Do you know the turnover is due to this "psychotic labour"? If so, how much? Surely not all 100%?

If Borque ate the cat and dog people would lose their minds, you know that. In reality though they'd be hypocrites. If a cat is killed and consumed there should be no more outrage than if a chicken, pig or cow were killed and consumed. As long as neither was tortured while being killed. A life is a life. A cat shouldn't be deemed more worthy to live than a chicken. Sadly for the chickens of the world  we've had it drilled into our heads that cats are cuddly and chickens are tasty.

There's hypocrisy everywhere. Take birds for example. It's morally OK to consume a chicken, turkey, hen, partridge, quale etc. But if you eat a parrot you're a sick bastard and might be going to jail. That makes no sense.

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Both sides of this argument are neither black or white, but shades of grey that can be debated forever.

As for the slaughterhouse workers. When you detailed the reasons for the turnover you described the work as dangerous and ethically difficult. Then made a pretty big leap to psychosis. Do you know the turnover is due to this "psychotic labour"? If so, how much? Surely not all 100%?

If Borque ate the cat and dog people would lose their minds, you know that. In reality though they'd be hypocrites. If a cat is killed and consumed there should be no more outrage than if a chicken, pig or cow were killed and consumed. As long as neither was tortured while being killed. A life is a life. A cat shouldn't be deemed more worthy to live than a chicken. Sadly for the chickens of the world  we've had it drilled into our heads that cats are cuddly and chickens are tasty.

There's hypocrisy everywhere. Take birds for example. It's morally OK to consume a chicken, turkey, hen, partridge, quale etc. But if you eat a parrot you're a sick bastard and might be going to jail. That makes no sense.

It does to a parrot.  

[nuckin_futz]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

It does to a parrot.  

[GLASSJAW]

55 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. 

 

of course it's an ideological perspective. what isn't? the point, or value, of ideology in my opinion is to challenge the already-established "power structures" that exist. feminism is an ideological response to patriarchy (ideology), for example. postmodernism proved that disproving rationality with rationality doesn't reaaaally work. there is something more to this, i think. my ideological perspective is that of compassion for the only party in this discussion that does not have a voice. (that sounds sorta lame)

your #2 scenario has a person preparing to eat meat knowing that it's meat, and then eat that meat (heh) from a perspective that requires no derived pleasure from the fact that he/she is eating something that lived, suffered, then died for that meal to exist. the person has to isolate pleasure from the reality of its properties and think about it totally abstractly in relation only to him/herself.

in other words, for #2 the pleasure being unrelated is ideological because you're saying that the consumer of meat has to adopt an isolated point of pleasure. where the pleasure of enjoying that meat is isolated from the knowledge of its source. how does the consumer become "unrelated" to the thing he's consuming? the consumer either has to be LITERALLY ignorant about the source of meat, or willfully ignorant in that he/she doesn't think or care about it. even if the consumer is unaware of the absolute, total dominance of factory farming in North America where suffering is the norm, the consumer has to be aware that meat is sourced from death.

again, it requires either sheer stupidity or cognitive dissonance - or irrationality - for someone to isolate a discomfort with an act that is required to create the enjoyed result of the action. the difference in your example is that #1 takes pleasure in the act, #2 takes pleasure in the result of the act, i get that. i already acknowledged as much on page 2. but the similarity is that the act (murder) exists, and continues to exist because of the enjoyment that falls on either side of that act. whether or not person #2 is negligent of the suffering does not matter. and whether or not they would prefer their animals to NOT suffer is also irrelevant to me, and not at all a generalization i'm willing to accept since the the vast, vast, vast majority of consumers choose products from corporate farm practices that are well-documented as being 'unethical'

that is the similarity, and the similarity overpowers the difference for me. that being ideological doesn't matter.

we HAVE to adopt an ideological perspective when discussing this issue. it's only a matter of which perspective we choose.

and speaking of ideology. the king of ideology, Zizek discusses this (sort of), and he closes on a sentiment and perspective i try to consider at all times.

Quote

My next example is Animal rights. I mean I am not becoming a Pete Singer, don’t be afraid of that. But nonetheless, I read recently this book by Derrida, and it has a nice point. Namely, to what extent our everyday life is based on this fetishist disavowal: “Je sais bien mais quand meme” (I know well, but anyway). We know what we are doing to animals, and I don’t even like these stories of laboratories because these are the exception. Because everyday, you know how chicken are grown, you know how pigs are grown. It’s a nightmare, but how do we survive? We know it, but we act as if we do not know. And Derrida has here a wonderful description in his book, “This Animal that I am”, of this kind of primordial scene when a wounded animal looks at you – this is the primordial gaze of the other. And here he makes a wonderful stab at Levinas – Levinas explicitly excludes animals from the gaze of the other. And here I’m a little bit sentimental in the sense that I remember years ago I saw a photo of a cat, immediately after this cat was submitted to some unpleasant experiment. This experiment was under the pretext of testing how a living organism, how much pressure and hits can it endure. It’s not immediately clear to me how this would help people. This cat was put in a centrifuge and it turned like crazy. What you then see was a cat with broken limbs, and most shocking to me most of its hair was gone. But it was still alive and just looking into the camera. And here I would like to ask the Hegelian question – what did the cat see in us. What kind of a monster. Not what the cat is for us, but what we were for the cat at this point. This monstrosity is something to think about. So again, another ignored violence.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, nuckin_futz said:

I can sure see why your positive reputation is 70% of your total posts.  You are the best!  Thanks again.

[GLASSJAW]

15 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Both sides of this argument are neither black or white, but shades of grey that can be debated forever.

As for the slaughterhouse workers. When you detailed the reasons for the turnover you described the work as dangerous and ethically difficult. Then made a pretty big leap to psychosis. Do you know the turnover is due to this "psychotic labour"? If so, how much? Surely not all 100%?

I

 

no, not 100% - pretty much every account i can find online suggests that a big chunk of the factory farm workplace is made up of illegal immigrants, uninsured workers, and people who work there because they have no other choice. between injuries, deportation, psychological trauma, etc. i'm sure it would be pretty difficult to source the turn over rate to one specific thing

but if you believe the research (books by Foer, Eisinitz, etc.) then the psychological damage caused by those conditions is nothing to scoff at

[unknown33429]

Challenging issue for courts. Tough to say how much of her statements are bravado because most psychopaths/sociopaths tend to be clever. She confessed to killing animals and confessed what she planned before she harmed a human.

[Blackberries]

1 hour ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

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

Stupid eh

[Down by the River]

27 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

 

of course it's an ideological perspective. what isn't? the point, or value, of ideology in my opinion is to challenge the already-established "power structures" that exist. feminism is an ideological response to patriarchy (ideology), for example. postmodernism proved that disproving rationality with rationality doesn't reaaaally work. there is something more to this, i think. my ideological perspective is that of compassion for the only party in this discussion that does not have a voice. (that sounds sorta lame)

we HAVE to adopt an ideological perspective when discussing this issue. it's only a matter of which perspective we choose.

 

I'm not arguing against a particular ideology and I agree that any perspective is essentially and ideology. I am just saying that your attempt to draw comparisons in this instance was poorly executed.

[GLASSJAW]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

I'm not arguing against a particular ideology and I agree that any perspective is essentially and ideology. I am just saying that your attempt to draw comparisons in this instance was poorly executed.

well, i obviously disagree and wasn't swayed off my poorly executed path

frankly, i'm too exhausted to even care now. i'll let the conversation fall back on track

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

7 hours ago, babych said:

If you really can't see a difference between killing an animal for sustenance and torturing and killing an animal and not harvesting it then you're simply being obtuse.

Slaughtering a cow, pig, etc is not torturing them. You have every right to feel that it is inhumane, immoral and/or unethical to eat meat but killing doesn't equate to torture.

 

Sadly the point GJ has made is lost on most. Have you seen how a pig is raised then slaughtered for it's meat ?   Chickens or cows ?

I am totally a hypocrite and cannot deny it. I eat chicken/fish mostly and sometimes beef. Watch one of the many documentaries on how animals are genetically modified raised and killed without seeing the sun, ever.   To suggest it is not torture for the animal is pure folly.

When a mother pig is fattened to the point she is so large that she cannot stand on its own legs it is torture. When it is literally caged to the ground while her young suckle her dry only to be fattened up to be butchered for human consumption/enjoyment it is torture.

When cattle are caged and cannot move on a giant circular conveyor to simulate walking while it is sucked dry by milk machines it is torture.

When a cow is forced into a kosher kill cage and it's throat is slit while it bleeds out it is torture.

Have you seen a salmon farm and how it operates ? What it does to the fish never mind what the cages with hundreds of thousands of salmon feces does to the seas floor ?  Frakking disgusting.

I am disgusted with myself right now : (

 

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

tradition mixed with excess has created our meat-hungry system today, it wasn't a need for sustenance or a philosophical revelation.

I agree with that.  I would add that contemporary portions are also out of control excessive.  And I would also add that what we call "organic meat" was just called "meat" in the not too distant past.

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

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 question the sanity of anyone who desired to work in a slaughterhouse, like you said, it's a very high turnover rate.  I have separated the issue in my head.  In one thought, I won't argue food production and the ethics surrounding it are fraught with hypocrisy, misdirection and outright lies.  In the other thought, social conditioning can help repress an emotional response to the way animals are treated.  That is how, I believe, people can work in slaughter houses....I'm sure some are also crazy...like the soldier that signs up to kill.  In my opinion Bourque is considered crazy because she wants to kill pets for enjoyment, a slaughterhouse worker is doing it as a job.

1 hour ago, GLASSJAW said:

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

If Bourque raised cats in her backyard specifically for food, I would think her less crazy than filming herself torturing and killing pets.  It doesn't morally horrify me that people eat dogs in China, but it disgusts me a little.  For me it depends on the intent.  Why is she killing animals.

[unknown33429]

Nowadays, most people who eat meat don't have what it takes to kill animals.

Even people who kill animals usually do it with some degree of respect.

Those that don't still don't torture animals for pleasure. They may treat animals in a way akin to torture them for profit.

All of this is very different than what this individual is accused of doing. If you kill and torture for the pleasure of killing and torturing, you are pretty disturbed.

[nuckin_futz]

27 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

 

no, not 100% - pretty much every account i can find online suggests that a big chunk of the factory farm workplace is made up of illegal immigrants, uninsured workers, and people who work there because they have no other choice. between injuries, deportation, psychological trauma, etc. i'm sure it would be pretty difficult to source the turn over rate to one specific thing

but if you believe the research (books by Foer, Eisinitz, etc.) then the psychological damage caused by those conditions is nothing to scoff at

I find it hard to accept a high percentage of these workers suffer from psychosis or psychotic episodes.

I can totally accept that a high percentage could suffer from depression as a result of their occupation.

[Cerridwen]

This topic is so far off-topic now that it should be re-titled.

[KFBR392]

She should be forced to live with a pack of gorillas for a few years. See who tortures who. 

 

 

[canuktravella]

i have a moral dilemma with eating meat half of the time i think its so brutal and unfair other half of time im like il have 2 orders of wings and a delish steak  sadly my addiction to meat will probably never end even tho i should be opposed to it. The day a chemist makes synthetic meat that is identical, organic and has no bad toxins/hormones il switch to that its a fair compromise. No animals die and your bbq spare ribs are yummy and heathy it will happen in next 10 yrs hopefully.  As for hunting its outdated and unneeded  people that say they have a right to hunt just use it as an excuse to legally kill something that is almost as bad as this crazy chick. i shot and ate a grouse when i was 12 it was good to eat but i still feel like a douche for killing it  hense no more hunting for me. As for big game hunters they should have to kill a lion with a bow and arrow they make them selfs no high powered rifles with scopes at a mile away if they survive close quarters bow and arrow hunting of lions then dam you have big balls and il buy you a beer 

[AppleJack]

I am sitting here with my cat reading this whole debacle and I am disgusted some have taken this so off topic. Should animals slaughtered for food be treated better, yes probably. Is this important yes it but this isn't the place for this topic.

 This is about a disturbed women who should be locked up for the rest of her life. She is a danger to society and I will be shocked if she did not re-offend. 

What some people are forgetting is that Pets are part of your family, you love and care for them.  You worry about them, they bring you comfort and joy and you grieve them when they go over the rainbow bridge. So for this girl to not only kill but torture her own pets is very disturbing. It shows a coldness, an evilness, it shows disregard for life. It shows that she is capable of really anything.
 
she took the life of an animal she should have been emotionally tied to, something she should have loved. Why this doesn't bother anyone else and scares the crap out of them I do not know.

 Do you really want this chick walking around alone in your neighbour hood?

she is disturbed and will hurt someone. It may be just killing someone's pet, but that pet is a valued member of someone's family. Not to mention she wants to kill a human being. Why is she out? Do you think given a chance she won't? Then what? She stops just at that? No, it's not Very likely.

 

[Dral]

Every now and then I come across a Vegetarian who isn't crazy, who is actually down to earth and reasonably logical and intelligent... whenever this happens I'm always SHOCKED... and this thread is exactly why