Girl Throws Puppies into River

[D3V]

I think I might cry.

I have rage towards this person that I don't even know, why?

I had been seeing some stuff about a girl throwing puppies into a river on youtube the past day or so, and finally stumbled accross the actual video.

Warning this slightly graphic

Z-zPJvFkZN0

It's weird, I have a harder time watching this than Faces of Death. Maybe beacuse they're defenseless animals.

Here is some information on the girl:

Name: Katja Puschnik
Age: 19
Place of puppy throwing: Mangfall
Address: Münchener Straße.16b, 85653 Aying, Germany
Language: Croatian
Height: 5ft 7inches

And who the fuck was video taping this bullshit? Was it even real? It looks real. The version with sound is even more disturbing but this is the only one via youtube I could find. It makes me sick. What do you think should be done?

[!King_Amazon!]

Is she hot?

[D3V]

She's croatian, so no.

[-Spector-]

Well, if they were kittens, all you'd have to do is post that video and information on /b/ and prepare for ultimate destruction.

[D3V]

true. I think an exception could be made, I might have to check out /b/..stupid work filters.


*edit* apparently through the help from Google, the hunt is already on, and she has already been found. I guess that's where the above info had come from.

here's another link including audio.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5626105/4chan-on-the-hunt-for-puppy+throwing-girl

[-Spector-]

Ah, nice. Well your link is broken now, but here's one, with sound included.

http://blubbaproductions.com/girl-throws-puppies-in-river.html

[D3V]

Ah wtf?! But okay. And PETA is offering a reward as well for her information.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2010/08/girl_throws_puppies_in_river.php

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5626105/4chan-on-the-hunt-for-puppy+throwing-girl

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/09/02/15221166.html

Then, on Thursday afternoon, a video surfaced on YouTube that used a single frame-grab from the original video with the text of an apology overlaid on it.

The apology read: "My name is Katja Puschnik and I would like to appologize [sic] for my behavior. The puppies belong to my grandma and she told me to get rid off them because they were only 3 days and they were ill. They had parasites from their mother. I didn't knew [sic] exactly what to do so I thrown [sic] them in the river because it was a short death. I did not want to make them suffer. I am really sorry for this :("

But its quick removal from YouTube and lack of additional information makes it difficult to tell if the apology is real or a hoax.

The video hit the Internet on Tuesday and immediately caused an international uproar. Less than a minute long, the video shows a young girl, likely a teenager, picking up puppies from a white bucket and hurling them into a roaring river. She can be heard to laugh or say "whee" as she does so.

Previous analysis of the video has found her to be speaking Croatian with a strong Bosnian accent.

I had noticed that earlier, it's back up now but it's only visible by 'friends' since it's marked as private. It's kind of interesting now. Shit. I think the apology is bullshit, it's not good enough. If you need to 'exterminate' the puppies then you do so. It happens. Don't film it and put it on Youtube as a damn joke. Her ass might end up getting thrown in a river.

get 'em /b/

[KagomJack]

Fuck PETA, man.

But I hope she gets what she deserves. That's just entirely fucked up.

[!King_Amazon!]

I really couldn't care less about someone throwing puppies into a river.

[D3V]

I really couldn't care less about someone throwing puppies into a river.

boviously. No sympathy? Would it make a difference if it were toddlers?

[!King_Amazon!]

I suppose it's sad, but it just isn't enough to get me upset in this day and age. Toddlers would probably upset me.

On the other hand, I generally avoid killing things if I can, even bugs, for personal reasons. I personally wouldn't do what she's doing.

The fact that I'm not getting upset about it only shows how fucked up (I think) our world is. By comparison, this is nothing.

[D3V]

Well no shit in comparison this going on isn't near as bad as people being beheaded, raped, pillaged, whatever in other 3rd world countries.

That's like saying you don't care about smaller genocides because Hitler really outdid everyone else by killing 11 million people, so anything less is just "meh".

[Wed-G]

in other 3rd world countries.

Since when did geographical location determine barbaric and depraved behavior?

[WetWired]

It does because there are a number of factors that alter the likelyhood. How much local law enforcement cares, how easy it is to remain unfound, is there a war going on, what the likely punishment will be if you are caught, if rotting in jail is worse than how you're living now. You are much more likely to be raped in Johannesburg than Seatle, for instance.

[!King_Amazon!]

I don't think that was his point. I think his point was that being raped in Johannesburg is no worse or better than being raped in Seattle (there are two Ts, dumbass.)

[D3V]

You guys all missed my point, but it's irregardless now what I said. But since you brought up the 3rd world point in a different context, i'd like to point out that this girl most likely lives in Bosnia. Why is this significant? Because in Bosnia the animal cruelty laws are not nearly as punishable as compared to ours here in the States. For example, they get a fine but no jail-time. As this may seem ludicrous to us who are accustomed to people going to jail for anything abusive to animals, in 3rd world countries their perception on everything is completely different, including how animals are viewed and treated.

[Kazilla]

You basically just defended her actions. You ever watch the show Taboo? That is essentially what happened in this video, im with KA though, its sad sure.. but it doesn't really bother me, idk why.

If it is socially acceptible(sp) to throw a puppy into the river in Bosnia, then this girl did nothing wrong, she did something we are not custom to, and so we see it as unlawful. She could slice their heads open and pick through their brains to find the noms, but wtf does it matter? She is doing whats right in her country, and fuck, who cares?

Glad to be an American, the saying goes?

[D3V]

You basically just defended her actions.

You basically didn't read anything, and made an assumption of what you thought I was saying, hence missing the point entirely, once again.

If it is socially acceptible(sp) to throw a puppy into the river in Bosnia, then this girl did nothing wrong, she did something we are not custom to, and so we see it as unlawful. She could slice their heads open and pick through their brains to find the noms, but wtf does it matter? She is doing whats right in her country, and fuck, who cares?

I never said it was socially acceptible, I said the laws weren't as harsh against it. Those are two completly different things. That's like me saying the laws for raping women in other countries are not as harsh and you coming along and saying "oh, well since you said it's socially acceptable to rape women in other countries then it must be okay? i'm a fucking retard" A lot of people care you insensitive reject. Just because you don't care about animal abuse, doesn't mean other people don't. Just because you fail at your life, doesn't mean everyone else fails at theirs.



Glad to be an American, the saying goes?

Actually, i'm pretty sure it's proud to be an American, but I wouldn't expect a fuckup like yourself that enlisted in the mililtary and still doesn't know jackshit to even come close.

[!King_Amazon!]

I never said it was socially acceptible, I said the laws weren't as harsh against it.


Actually, you pretty much said both.

i'd like to point out that this girl most likely lives in Bosnia. Why is this significant? Because in Bosnia the animal cruelty laws are not nearly as punishable as compared to ours here in the States. For example, they get a fine but no jail-time. As this may seem ludicrous to us who are accustomed to people going to jail for anything abusive to animals, in 3rd world countries their perception on everything is completely different, including how animals are viewed and treated.


Not to defend Kazilla. He's usually more of a dumbass than you, which is saying something.

[Kazilla]

u mad?>

I care about animal abuse, just not this animal abuse. If the laws are less strict in other countries, boviously it means its more socially acceptible.

[insert point and pause for effect here]
If you could rape someone in Europe, and get the death penalty.. then do the same crime in America, and get a slap on the wrist or 2-5 years in prison, its more socially acceptible to rape someone in America then in Europe.. comprende?

Does it mean its the norm, and everyone does it? No, it just means those crimes aren't frowned upon as much. Why don't you find some ancient tribe, and film their cannibalism. Then preach about how wrong it is. Again, who the fuck cares?

As far as being clueless about anything that some people care about, your right. The things you care about I probably could careless about. You're the one still sitting behind your fancy brown desk and red stapler though.

[D3V]

Actually, you pretty much said both.

Saying their perception on it being different does not = socially acceptable.


Not to defend Kazilla. He's usually more of a dumbass than you, which is saying something.
:hanged:

[!King_Amazon!]

Saying their perception on it being different does not = socially acceptable.

Good point.

[D3V]

It's still sad IMO. I've been trying to find an article or something about this girl to see if anything further has been done, but as of right now I haven't found anything, I'll probably check again after the Labor Day weekend and see if anything has changed.

[Skurai]

Is she hot?

*Unfathomable amounts of loathing and hate.*

[Wed-G]

I don't think that was his point. I think his point was that being raped in Johannesburg is no worse or better than being raped in Seattle (there are two Ts, dumbass.)

This.

[kyeruu]

I don't get why you're all raging about this.

The animal is dead, things die daily, be it naturally or by the hand of others.

Get your religiously-induced-morally-repugnant-bullshit elsewhere, this ain't soccer mom valley.

It's zelaron.

On the side note.

that video is such bullshit, you expect me to believe a girl with THAT arm position threw that puppy so far away? Lol that was obviously fucking shooped

[Skurai]

religiously-induced

Permission to make kyeruu look like a dick, because he doesn't know anything?

[Kazilla]

granted

[kyeruu]

Right or wrong=morals.

Morals come from two places.

either your opinion, or religion, which is also an opinion.

therefor, i have the right to say, it's all bullshit.

[!King_Amazon!]

You could use that very same argument to justify murder. In other words, you're a moron.

[Skurai]

I'll shorten it right the fuck up.
The easiest way to use animals in most religions is as sacrifice or symbolism. Most overly retarded "chrisitans" hate snakes, dragons, and see animals as slaves(In other words, most dumb/heartless people don't apply their religious morals to animals). Of course, that's only because they don't know how to be kind kings.
I would continue, but I won't because you haven't checked my doubles.

[D3V]

The animal is dead, things die daily, be it naturally or by the hand of others

And to think, you were only one swallow away from gracing us with your presence.

[Skurai]

I can honestly say kyeruu is they only person on Zelaron to actually make me want him to leave.

[!King_Amazon!]

Kyeruu is funnier than you are and less annoying.

[D3V]

Kyeruu is funnier than you are and less annoying.

Agreed.

[Skurai]

funnier

I do not find humer in his bad spelling and grammer.

[!King_Amazon!]

1.
funniercomparative of fun·ny (Adjective)
1. Causing laughter or amusement; humorous.
2. Expressing a speaker's objection to another's laughter or mockery: "She started to laugh. “What's so funny?” he asked". More »
Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary



Just stop talking.

[-Spector-]

I do not find humer in his bad spelling and grammer.


Humor*

[Wed-G]

Humor*

Probably satirical. Especially since most browsers have spell check.

[Kazilla]

I wonder if spector noticed grammar is spelt wrong as well...

[Lenny]

Humor*

Humour*

[!King_Amazon!]

Humour*
troll

[Hayduke]

No human life is worth more than any animal. I could never kill a puppy that didn't need it, I could easily toss a bunch of adults in a river. With plenty of justification at that.

[Skurai]

1.
funniercomparative of fun·ny (Adjective)
1. Causing laughter or amusement; humorous.
2. Expressing a speaker's objection to another's laughter or mockery: "She started to laugh. “What's so funny?” he asked". More »
Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary



Just stop talking.

I wasn't talking about the word funnier, itself, but more the fact he was implying that the other person is funnier than I, which is a rediculous claim. Nobody is more silly than I, as I have been voted best comedian twice in middle school.

[D3V]

No human life is worth more than any animal. I could never kill a puppy that didn't need it, I could easily toss a bunch of adults in a river. With plenty of justification at that.

I can agree with this, as long as there is justification.

[Kazilla]

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy.

Your both r'tard's.

[-Spector-]

I didn't notice that actually, had I noticed both words were spelled wrong I would of caught the satire. /facepalm

[D3V]

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy.

Your both r'tard's.

The point he was portraying was that of innocence vs an adult human (more than likely immoral/detrimental towards society). I say I could agree with that stance as long as there is justification, and that makes me a retard?

Riiiiiiiight.

[!King_Amazon!]

That isn't what makes you a retard, no.

[Kazilla]

Innocense Vs Adult.

Knowing no one is born innocent, and everyone is born through sin. Animal's may as well be born with the same burden. We should cleanse the world and kill everybody. It makes perfect sense, because it is justified.

[!King_Amazon!]

You're wrong.

[Skurai]

I don't think animals can have sin, since they didn't eat the fruit of knowledge, and are all pre-programed with instincts. Just to clarify with my belief...

Anyways, I have to agree with D3V(and K_A's, lol)'s last post. At the same time, everyone should have the choice to make up for what they've done - as they might truely regret it. Remember that bald guy who was getting death penalty? I dunno, he just suddenly came to mind.

[Hayduke]

So, murder > murder? What if there was justification for killing a puppy? Your justification for a human would be that this person is a nuisance to society. He has killed before, and will kill again. Could you use that justification to kill a puppy? What if a young pitbull was playing to rough with a child that wasn't being supervised? He has tasted blood, and has killed before and will kill again. Therfore, we should kill the puppy.

Your both r'tard's.

Justification for killing a puppy? What could there possibly be? Besides putting it out of it's own misery, because due to humans, it was born horribly disfigured.
Pit bull's are just like any other dog. The aggressiveness is due to the owners. Secondly why would you leave an unsupervised child around an aggressive pit bull. Sounds like the herd needs to be culled anyways.
Are you ready for the river Kazilla? It will only be cold for a minute.

Animals do not "sin". They are following the evolutionary path that got us as far as we have come, but have been straying from for so long.

[Skurai]

why would you leave an unsupervised child around an aggressive pit bull. Sounds like the herd needs to be culled anyways.

"Oh no! My dog ate food!? Who would have guessed!?"
lol

[Kazilla]

Moron's leave their child with their pets unsurpervised all the time. "My dog would never hurt a fly". Until that one day you come home to a bloody fucking mess.


I don't think animals can have sin, since they didn't eat the fruit of knowledge, and are all pre-programed with instincts. Just to clarify with my belief...


Animals do not "sin". They are following the evolutionary path that got us as far as we have come, but have been straying from for so long.



Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit. I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

[Skurai]

Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit. I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

Idk about you, but I don't ever remember being a monkey and suddenly evolving.
(Nice try, but same concept)

[Kazilla]

You kinda proved my point there sparky.

[Skurai]

Not sure how. As far as I know
Evolution: evolving into humans happened a long time ago.
Fruit of eden: eating the fruit happened a long time ago.

No matter which is right, neither of us was there, but we still have the sid-- ohhhhhhh~

[D3V]

Innocense Vs Adult.

Knowing no one is born innocent, and everyone is born through sin. Animal's may as well be born with the same burden. We should cleanse the world and kill everybody. It makes perfect sense, because it is justified.

You're joking, right? I would call you out for how stupid you are, but boviously it isn't needed.

[Hayduke]

Moron's leave their child with their pets unsurpervised all the time. "My dog would never hurt a fly". Until that one day you come home to a bloody fucking mess.
Hence the reason they should left to their own devices. Let them and their children die. That much less bad gene's floating around our world.



Idk about you, but I don't remember eating any forbidden fruit.
The tree of knowledge is a metaphor. The forbidden fruit was meant for the "gods" so that they may have the knowledge to decided what animals live and die on a day to day basis. When "Adam"(Man) ate from the tree he got the wrong idea and figured since he possessed the knowledge that the gods have he can and shall decided what is right/wrong good/evil life/death.

Animals follow the laws of nature. They do no deviate, therefore they cannot be good and evil. It's kind of like the laws of gravity and aeronautics. They are just that, laws.

I've just been following the evolutionary path that has come before me.

Does that make what you are doing right? Your culture and everyone around you is killing the very LAND BASE you live on. So just keep on following.

[!King_Amazon!]

Right and wrong are ideas created and defined by humans. Nature has no sense of right and wrong.

[Hayduke]

"Whatever I can justify doing is good, and whatever I cannot justify doing is evil."

[Skurai]

Right and wrong are ideas created and defined by humans. Nature has no sense of right and wrong.

I have to disagree. Let's take a look at (Phoenix W)right and wrong. Using the above post by Hayduke as an easier was to define the words we mean. Right being "Good" and Wrong being "Evil". (I will not be going by any religious ideals, unless I come by them and they become a need. Considering the concept of "Good" and "Evil" must come from a far more original source, religion has nothing to do with this, in nature.)


1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
Let's go with these first two.
and...

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.


Looking through definitions, we could see that virtuous is the same thing as righteousness, which obviously takes it root in the word "right" - thus "good" and "right" can be taken as the same word, making any arguement with "good" parts of the post invalid. Righteous mentions "morality" in its definition, so lets look at "morality".

conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

"comformity"? Let's see this word, real fast...

1. action in accord with prevailing social standards, attitudes, practices, etc.
2. correspondence in form, nature, or character; agreement, congruity, or accordance.
3. compliance or acquiescence; obedience.
*social standards
*Nature
*compliances? acquiescence? I'm going to check these definitions, though I won't post them for tl;dr purposes. (...) They seem to be submissive obedience. Interesting. Let's see the next word in "good"... pious.

1. having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for god or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations.
2. characterized by a hypocritical concern with virtue or religious devotion; sanctimonious.
So, "good" appears to be "willingly serving god(s)". But how would the concept of "good" and "evil" gods appear, if it was not here since the beginning? Such defines would be impossible. More likely, if we made them up, they would be "success" and "failure" not "good" and "evil". But I digress. I don't want religion involved in this any more than the definitions. Good also seems to mention "success" in short. So, I guess it's possible "virtue" and "success" are one and the same?

Evil time.
Morally wrong/immoral. Easy enough, that's simply "opposite of virtue" to put it short. But also, wicked. Malicious and Malevolent seem to be fancy words use to define wicked. Malevolent seems to be defined with "harmful" and malicious seems the same, but "spiteful" comes up. Malicious, malevolent, and malice come up. Malice is

1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy. which seems to be an "emotional" but also a bit of "overly defensive" idea. By "overly defensive", there must be emotion involved, so "malice" is clearly some form of emotion. A cruel and hateful one...
"Harmful", "Injurous", and "Evil Laws" come up, next. "Evil laws" implying that they must be obeyed, even if they hard people. Thus, laws the people dislike, or are harmful can be called evil by definition. "Characterized by misfortune or suffering" - in otherwords, "failure". I totally fucking called that. (scroll up, if you don't believe me)

So, right and wrong translated into "Good and Evil", retranslates into "Success and Failure", which are parts of progress. We fail, and our failures help us progress... our past evils help our new goods... our wrongs allow us to make rights. Now, let's take a look at "progress"...

1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.

...Evolution...

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Both progress (which might as well be a giant Yin-Yang symbol) and evolution are basically saying "getting better".
Animals moving in packs, eating other animals, surviving and evolving. They both harm other animals intentively, along with each other for the sake of being "top dog", which can easily be defined as malevolent or malicious. But they also protect each other (usually) and retreat, when they know others will die, if they do not - and undoubtly get food. This is slight virtue(protection and retreating for such protection) and satisfaction(successfully getting a meal). They also usually follow the pact leader - one could say they even conform and if one doesn't like the way a leader rolls, they either dislike the laws or dislike the leader themself or think they could do better. Dislike for the laws shows that there is something "unwanted" by at least one of them. Or... "Evil Laws". Getting rid of "Evil Laws" would be disposing over "evil" and, the only way to get rid of darkness in a room, is to turn on lights. To put it simply, destroying the wolf who runs things with "Evil Laws" is a "Good" thing to do. At the same time, simply killing him because you dislike him would easily be considered "Malice", and thinking you could do better is "Pride", which is commonly know as one of the "Seven sins". "Evil" things.

This kind of thing happens all the time in wolf packs, and likely have been happening since as long as they exist - and yet - here they are. So, "evolution" has made its way.


tl;dr version
Evolution and nature do not conflict with "Good and Evil" in any way, shape, or form by definition. Pop culture (and people who are trying to make it appear as if they conflict) has only made it seem that way. The girl was being malicious to the puppy, clearly wishing to do harm, and made no progress. Thus, the act was "wrong" by all standards.

[Hayduke]

Right and wrong are ideas created and defined by humans. Nature has no sense of right and wrong.

I have to disagree.

Your in agreement. You just have to understand Skurai that without humans there would be no right or wrong. None of the animals do anything that could be construed as right or wrong. They just exist.

Unless... If you look at from a universal standpoint. Perhaps the evolutionary path is the "good" "right thing". Evolving seems to be good because it's always for the better. Living in a state of being in which you can constantly better yourself, while having non detrimental impact on your land base. Win win.

[Skurai]

Considering out planet is about to die, I'd say we've had plenty impact, and have only our progress to blame.
Edit: From what I've been able to put together, evoltion is result of Success and Failure's enternal cycle. The giant Yin-Yang spinning the silk we call existence, constantly changing colors. Infact, I agree we may be the only to understand Good and Evil (oddly, this matches Biblical reasoning, and I didn't even intend that much), and honestly, if that happened - it would make perfect sense as to how we've progressed more than other creatures. The moment we started to comprehend is the moment we start spinning silk faster than all others.

[Hayduke]

Considering out planet is about to die, I'd say we've had plenty impact, and have only our progress to blame.
Unfortunately yes. My previous post was simply stating that WOULD be the "correct" way to live. Not that we HAVE.
I'm sure you have heard of Cain and Able correct Skurai?
The Fertile Crescent - "The region is often considered the cradle of civilization, saw the development of many of the earliest human civilizations, and is the birthplace of writing and the wheel."
This is where it all went wrong. The people in the fertile crescent are the ones that metaphorically ate from the "tree of knowledge". Assuming the way that they live life is best for humanity (because humans are the end all be all of the universe right?). They systematically spread agricultural throughout the world. The Semites and their way of life being destroyed to make room for more cultivation.

[D3V]

conversing with yourself?

[kyeruu]

You could use that very same argument to justify murder. In other words, you're a moron.

Agreed, how does that make me a moron?

It works. And it's the truth.

Murder is "right or wrong" is purely an opinion.

How ever, is murder beneficial or not?

THAT requires logic. Not morals.

[Skurai]

Correction:
Tree of knowledge of good and evil.
U mad?

[kyeruu]

I have to disagree. Let's take a look at (Phoenix W)right and wrong. Using the above post by Hayduke as an easier was to define the words we mean. Right being "Good" and Wrong being "Evil". (I will not be going by any religious ideals, unless I come by them and they become a need. Considering the concept of "Good" and "Evil" must come from a far more original source, religion has nothing to do with this, in nature.)

Let's go with these first two.
and...


Looking through definitions, we could see that virtuous is the same thing as righteousness, which obviously takes it root in the word "right" - thus "good" and "right" can be taken as the same word, making any arguement with "good" parts of the post invalid. Righteous mentions "morality" in its definition, so lets look at "morality".

"comformity"? Let's see this word, real fast...

*social standards
*Nature
*compliances? acquiescence? I'm going to check these definitions, though I won't post them for tl;dr purposes. (...) They seem to be submissive obedience. Interesting. Let's see the next word in "good"... pious.

So, "good" appears to be "willingly serving god(s)". But how would the concept of "good" and "evil" gods appear, if it was not here since the beginning? Such defines would be impossible. More likely, if we made them up, they would be "success" and "failure" not "good" and "evil". But I digress. I don't want religion involved in this any more than the definitions. Good also seems to mention "success" in short. So, I guess it's possible "virtue" and "success" are one and the same?

Evil time.
Morally wrong/immoral. Easy enough, that's simply "opposite of virtue" to put it short. But also, wicked. Malicious and Malevolent seem to be fancy words use to define wicked. Malevolent seems to be defined with "harmful" and malicious seems the same, but "spiteful" comes up. Malicious, malevolent, and malice come up. Malice is
which seems to be an "emotional" but also a bit of "overly defensive" idea. By "overly defensive", there must be emotion involved, so "malice" is clearly some form of emotion. A cruel and hateful one...
"Harmful", "Injurous", and "Evil Laws" come up, next. "Evil laws" implying that they must be obeyed, even if they hard people. Thus, laws the people dislike, or are harmful can be called evil by definition. "Characterized by misfortune or suffering" - in otherwords, "failure". I totally fucking called that. (scroll up, if you don't believe me)

So, right and wrong translated into "Good and Evil", retranslates into "Success and Failure", which are parts of progress. We fail, and our failures help us progress... our past evils help our new goods... our wrongs allow us to make rights. Now, let's take a look at "progress"...


...Evolution...


Both progress (which might as well be a giant Yin-Yang symbol) and evolution are basically saying "getting better".
Animals moving in packs, eating other animals, surviving and evolving. They both harm other animals intentively, along with each other for the sake of being "top dog", which can easily be defined as malevolent or malicious. But they also protect each other (usually) and retreat, when they know others will die, if they do not - and undoubtly get food. This is slight virtue(protection and retreating for such protection) and satisfaction(successfully getting a meal). They also usually follow the pact leader - one could say they even conform and if one doesn't like the way a leader rolls, they either dislike the laws or dislike the leader themself or think they could do better. Dislike for the laws shows that there is something "unwanted" by at least one of them. Or... "Evil Laws". Getting rid of "Evil Laws" would be disposing over "evil" and, the only way to get rid of darkness in a room, is to turn on lights. To put it simply, destroying the wolf who runs things with "Evil Laws" is a "Good" thing to do. At the same time, simply killing him because you dislike him would easily be considered "Malice", and thinking you could do better is "Pride", which is commonly know as one of the "Seven sins". "Evil" things.

This kind of thing happens all the time in wolf packs, and likely have been happening since as long as they exist - and yet - here they are. So, "evolution" has made its way.


tl;dr version
Evolution and nature do not conflict with "Good and Evil" in any way, shape, or form by definition. Pop culture (and people who are trying to make it appear as if they conflict) has only made it seem that way. The girl was being malicious to the puppy, clearly wishing to do harm, and made no progress. Thus, the act was "wrong" by all standards.

I can call bullshit on all of this with one simple sentence.

The human mind=variable.

and variables=unknown

Therefor, it does not matter that by definition, personal opinion, point of view, etc, etc, etc.

Is "wrong"

right and wrong are, and will always be ideas set in by the human mind to define what they enjoy and do not enjoy.

So long story short?

No skurai, that's bullshi

[Skurai]

I can call bullshit on all of this with one simple sentence.

The human mind=variable.

and variables=unknown

Therefor, it does not matter that by definition, personal opinion, point of view, etc, etc, etc.

Is "wrong"

right and wrong are, and will always be ideas set in by the human mind to define what they enjoy and do not enjoy.

So long story short?

No skurai, that's bullshi

Implying you know how to read.

[Kazilla]

I love when people random quote someone's text 5 different times in one message. It's like they think by breaking down their paragraph sentence by sentence, they are superior...

that is all

[!King_Amazon!]

There are times where breaking someones post up and replying to parts individually makes more sense and is easier. It allows you to address specific points.

I don't see how doing that would imply that you think you are superior to anyone else.

[Kazilla]

Comes across as elitist, and insulting.

[Skurai]

What is the exact polar opposite of being an elitist, real fast?

[!King_Amazon!]

Comes across as elitist, and insulting.

You've already stated as much, you need to elaborate on WHY or else you are just taking it wrong. I don't see what is elitist about replying to multiple parts of a person's post. It promotes clarity in the conversation, and it isn't much harder than quoting the whole post once. Perhaps u mad?

[Hayduke]

conversing with yourself?

What are you talking about?

[Skurai]

Perhaps u mad?

I wish I had my own html thingy.