Marius the giraffe killed, butchered and fed to lions as children watch

[Chu]

Re: Marius the giraffe skinned and fed to lions as children look on

I think this is getting very emotional, perhaps what Gurdieff means by the horses running with the wagon. Let´s take a deep breath and look at it objectively, and remember the facts rather than adding more emotional language. I´ll try to explain:

You may have a point about the emotional/sensationalist language in the article, but I think that you are missing and twisting some things here.

First the headline: "Marius the giraffe skinned & fed to lions as kids look on"

As you can see in the pictures, the Giraffe (who I doubt were aware that it´s name was Marius) has not been skinned, the skin is still on (an awful waste of beautiful giraffe skin one might add, as I think the lions don´t eat the skin, at least not lions that are well fed with healthy young cows meat everyday)

the short and not very informative article repeats the word "skinned" and "children" 6 times, and the name Marius 12 times. (the word "young" 4 times and then adding "18 months old", and "killed when genes are not interesting enough" and "cute animal babies"and when they "grow up they are not as interesting anymore"

It kind of gives the picture of a little (human/giraffe) boy named Marius who is being skinned alive and feed to lions for the entertainment of the mob, because the evil zookeepers who only wants to make money and can´t see (as we all can from the picture) that little Marius is (as all giraffes) very very cute still, and this set´s the scene for the emotional horses (or should I say giraffes) to run amok.

There is a bit of nitpicking above. You took some details into account, but not the main facts about the story (see below)

I think we should stop here for a moment and try to find out what the problem, this "sick thing" really is:

Is it the killing of a healthy animal in order to avoid inbreeding?
Is it the killing of a domesticated young male animal in a limited territory in order to avoid that the alfa male kills it?
Is it the killing of a healthy animal in order to avoid overpopulation?
Is it the killing of a healthy animal in order to feed the lions?
Is it the killing by a shot to the head with a bolt pistol, instead of a lethal injection in order not to ruin the meat?
Is it the killing of a healthy giraffe instead of a healthy cow?
Is it the killing of an animal who some human has named Marius?
Is it the killing of an animal who we know the sex of and thus not refer to as "it"?
Is it the cutting of the meat of an animal (the killing was not done in public) in front of children for educational purposes, well announced before it happened so that all who were there knew what to expect?
Is it that some parents think that it is good for their children to understand where meat comes from, so they brought their children to this well announced event?
Is it the killing of a domesticated animal for food for other animals instead of humans?
Is it the not wanting to sell an animal that is a flock animal to a private rich person for that person to have it as a pet?
Is it not to want to sell an animal to zoos that don´t live up to certain standards of animal welfare, and avoidance of inbreeding?
Is it killing a domesticated animal of the species of a wild african animal, who is not endangered species, and who breeds well in captivity, instead of spending huge amounts of money and resources, not to add the stress of relocation for the animal, to try to teach the domesticated animal to be wild for a while before the wild lions kills it?
Is it allowing domesticated animals to breed and thus have a slightly more natural life than if they were sterilised and only have eating as diversion in their life, if it means that sometimes one will be killed (and used for food for other animals)?
Is it that when we kill a domesticated animals they don´t have the chance of running, because we trick it to think were nice, and it is safe, so that it is dead before realising the danger?
Is it that mother nature has not meant for giraffes to be food for lions, because cows are greater in number due to humans breeding them?

I think you are trying to be "objective" but the problem is that you are missing the fact that:
- this is not a situation where an animal was killed to feed another because it was necessary
- the giraffe was killed while there were people interested in paying a lot of money to save it, and the zoo refused.
- the giraffe's killing was made a show of. IF if had been done for educational purposes, it would have been done in another setting, when a real need was present, and without the circus around it.

See Sid's post above as well.

Killing to feed an animal or a human being, with respect and as a "sacrament" is one thing. Killing for fun, for a show, and when there are other options at hand, is another, very different and rather cruel thing to do.

If a family in the countryside had 2 cows named Bella and Sunflower, and a bull named Fernando, and Bella had a female calf named Rose, and Sunflower had a male calf named Marius, and the family also had a dog named Pluto, and all the family loved their animals, and gave them nice grass to eat, and scratched them behind the ear each day, but the dog and the humans ate meat, so when Marius was 18 months old, and Fernando started beating him up, he was one day while being scratched behind the ear given a shot to the head with a bolt gun, and thus killed before realizing he was in danger, and his meat cut up while the parents would teach the children what part of the body was the heart and the lungs and the liver etc., and some of the meat was fed to the dog while the children watched the dog eat it?

Both situations are not the same. What matters is the intent, the reason why things are done.

Should they have done everything in their power to find another place for Marius to live and instead buy meat for themselves and the dog, that comes from other young bulls (or could be cows, as they don´t know the name and sex of it, -"it" might not have had a name but a number tattooed somewhere instead) and have it cut and packed beforehand and tell their children that meat is something that grows in the freezer, so that they would´t seem like shameful barbarians who kill animals?
At what age should the children learn that what they ate their whole life was beings like Bella, Sunflower, and Fernando, and Marius who had moved away?

The situations are not the same. Therefore, I'm not sure it is necessary to answer your "questions".

Which scenario would teach the children to have buffers when it comes to thinking of animals as beings on one hand, and meat on the other, and which would teach them that death is a part of the circle of life, and to be kind and proud paleo eating animal lovers, who respect the life given for their dinner?

Again, you are comparing apples with oranges, I think. The killing of this giraffe didn't have much to do, if anything, with teaching anybody about the "circle of life".

 

[SeekinTruth]

Re: Marius the giraffe skinned and fed to lions as children look on

No, it is a callous, unthinking act - without mind or heart - which comes from an overall wrong attitude. It can't be compared to raising animals for food when that is done in the most respectful and caring way. The zoo has no problem expending resources to bring these animals into captivity, so why not allocate resources to reintroduce the young back into the wild to have a normal life it deserves when they know that it will be a problem to meet the "inbreeding prohibition" standards? If they had any respect and valued the life of this and all the other animals that's what they'd do.

Giraffes and all other animals - prey or predator - living in the wild, a natural life, is a whole other ball of wax. And each will be successful for a while either escaping or hunting. Prey animals get away more often than are caught and eaten. But anyway that is THEIR natural life and we have no business in interfering with that dynamic for our "kicks and thrills."

Again, we HAVE to eat. We don't HAVE to keep animals in cages for "entertainment" and then discard them like something useless because of whims. Ideally we'd all be hunter-gatherers, but realistically that's just not possible. Hunter-gatherer camps KNOW the value of life and respect it, including their children. But a proper animal raising operation could have similar outlooks and children participate in the raising and caring for the animals, and understand that they will be eaten at some point. We HAVE to eat, there's no way around it.

But we don't HAVE to be so uncaring and disrespectful of life....

ADDED: Just saw your post Chu. Good points.

 

[davey72]

Re: Marius the giraffe skinned and fed to lions as children look on

@Miss K.

The way I see it, mother nature has created a role for each and every creature on this planet. Yes, humans eat cows and there are plenty of them on this planet. Giraffes are not endangered but not quite the same number as cows and humans certainly don't eat them as far as I know. We put creatures like giraffe in zoos for our own entertainment, education and amazement. This automatically establishes a contract with that creature where in return of it's services we provide it with a fulfilling life, protection from predators, food and shelter. It's not much different from the relationship humans have with their pets. We give them names, an identity and refer to them as 'he' or 'she' rather than 'it'.

Killing and skinning a healthy giraffe in front of other humans makes it a de-humanising act and breaks the above said contract. It shows disrespect for the creature's life. This would apply to any creature be it a cow or giraffe.

As far as children go, they are too young to be learning where the meat in the supermarket is coming from and the publicised skinning is certainly not the way to do it.

I have been mulling this one over perhaps because of my own ponerization, but would have to agree. It reminds me of a time when i was young. Grade eight i think. I was in a summer work program for possible high school dropouts. I wanted to be a veterinarian, and so worked at one in the summer. I was horrified at how the animals were treated. I assumed that it was due to desensitisation, as i couldn't even fathom anyone without a conscience, or empathy getting into the field. One of the last things they made me do was to put down an irish setter that came in. I assumed, even though he looked healthy that there was something wrong with him. I was made to give him the needle that ended his life. It kind of bothered me, but i understood it was probably the best thing for him. This was until i asked what was wrong with him in the first place, and was told that his owners were moving to the States, and didn't want to bring him along. There was nothing wrong with him. Well, this "cured" me from wanting to be a vet, and i did drop out of high school shortly after going.

 

[Ocean]

I am in agreement with Keit. It's a very bad sign, and an important marker event. Truly Horrific!
The ongoing de-sensitization of the populace. Geez it was bad enough when we had Abu Ghraib and the terrible torture of the Iraqi prisoners was downgraded to 'abuse'

But this event in Denmark goes against all human instincts. As a mother I cannot imagine ever letting my children witness such a horrific act.

 

[Aoide]

I agree that it's a terrible thing what the zoo owners have done and how those parents were supporting it. All of them had a choice and they chose the worst. Truly a sign of the state of our reality. Most people don't care for other beings. But, you reap what you sow. Lessons are inevitable.

 

[John G]

I am in agreement with Keit. It's a very bad sign, and an important marker event. Truly Horrific!
The ongoing de-sensitization of the populace. Geez it was bad enough when we had Abu Ghraib and the terrible torture of the Iraqi prisoners was downgraded to 'abuse'

But this event in Denmark goes against all human instincts. As a mother I cannot imagine ever letting my children witness such a horrific act.

Yeah what happened and the wording of the article both were bad in a de-sensitizing sense. It's bad education and certainly not age appropriate. What us STS animals in 2D and 3D do even when natural or appropriate is often not appropriate in a 4D STO-like sense. If natural or appropriate in the not so deep sense, there's no need to overly criticize it but you certainly shouldn't make it a spectacle.

There's a reason eating meat for us should be a sacred thing; that's much better education.

What Julius Caesar had to do to his enemies was appropriate for us 3D STS beings. That doesn't mean Caesar should have rounded up his enemies, brought them into town, and let kids see the enemies get killed. That's the enemy view. Yes adults and even children need to see some bad things, but there are age appropriate not spectacle-like ways to do that.

 

[Thor]

I just saw this interview of the director of the Copenhagen Zoo who explains why the Zoo chose this particular practice and I think it gives a good perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuxgAC0dWK4

As I see it, the questions comes down to whether one should have Zoos in the first place. Personally, I find the whole idea of a Zoo pretty sick. But if we are not discussing whether or not we should have Zoos I think the points made by the director of the Zoo are very valid. I also think that many of the reactions from people around the world have been very emotional and if you hear the reasons behind the practice it makes a lot more sense.

 

[Miss.K]

As I see it, the questions comes down to whether one should have Zoos in the first place. Personally, I find the whole idea of a Zoo pretty sick.

I agree!

Though I have thought about that there is a positive function of Zoos as they play a part in saving endangered species.

-snip-

There is a bit of nitpicking above. You took some details into account, but not the main facts about the story (see below)
-snip-

I think you are trying to be "objective" but the problem is that you are missing the fact that:
- this is not a situation where an animal was killed to feed another because it was necessary
- the giraffe was killed while there were people interested in paying a lot of money to save it, and the zoo refused.
- the giraffe's killing was made a show of. IF if had been done for educational purposes, it would have been done in another setting, when a real need was present, and without the circus around it.
-snip-
Killing to feed an animal or a human being, with respect and as a "sacrament" is one thing. Killing for fun, for a show, and when there are other options at hand, is another, very different and rather cruel thing to do.

-It is nescessary for lions to eat meat. Had they not been fed with this giraffe on that day, a cow would have been fed to them.
-The Zoo refused to sell the giraffe to a private person. We don't know who that private person is, Or how the life of the giraffe would be if sold to that private person. Giraffes don't like to be on their own, they are "flock animals" (I don't know if this is the right expression) so if kept alone they will be very lonely, and I can understand that the Zoo refuse that.
-The killing was not in public, the cutting up of the body and the feeding to the lions were. The feeding of lions in public with cow meat is done everyday. So it is the cutting the body of a dead giraffe that is unusual. And as it is unusual the Zoo announced that this could be seen. And they explained about the anatomy of giraffes (Like they have a really big heart because their neck is so long that it takes a lot to pump the blood all the way up to their brain) The "circus" happened because of all the emotional headlines, by other sources than the Zoo. Parts of the giraffe was given to scientists to study for further knowledge of giraffes.
-The killing was not for fun. It was to avoid inbreeding. The giraffe could not stay where it was as the alfa male started to beat it up. This is normal behaviour for giraffes that young males have to leave the flock, and search for a new flock were they will challenge another alfa male. This is the time where in nature many of them will be eaten by lions, or killed by another alfa male.
There wasn't any other Zoos with high standarts of animal welfare/strickt politics on inbreeding cabable of taking in the giraffe.

@Miss K.

The way I see it, mother nature has created a role for each and every creature on this planet. Yes, humans eat cows and there are plenty of them on this planet. Giraffes are not endangered but not quite the same number as cows and humans certainly don't eat them as far as I know. We put creatures like giraffe in zoos for our own entertainment, education and amazement. This automatically establishes a contract with that creature where in return of it's services we provide it with a fulfilling life, protection from predators, food and shelter. It's not much different from the relationship humans have with their pets. We give them names, an identity and refer to them as 'he' or 'she' rather than 'it'.

Killing and skinning a healthy giraffe in front of other humans makes it a de-humanising act and breaks the above said contract. It shows disrespect for the creature's life. This would apply to any creature be it a cow or giraffe.

As far as children go, they are too young to be learning where the meat in the supermarket is coming from and the publicised skinning is certainly not the way to do it.

If mother nature is taken into the picture, I think mother nature has meant for giraffes to partly play the role as food for lions, which was what this giraffe ended up as. As for the naming of an animal eaten, and the children knowing about it, as the reason why it should be wrong, is why I wrote this:

If a family in the countryside had 2 cows named Bella and Sunflower, and a bull named Fernando, and Bella had a female calf named Rose, and Sunflower had a male calf named Marius, and the family also had a dog named Pluto, and all the family loved their animals, and gave them nice grass to eat, and scratched them behind the ear each day, but the dog and the humans ate meat, so when Marius was 18 months old, and Fernando started beating him up, he was one day while being scratched behind the ear given a shot to the head with a bolt gun, and thus killed before realizing he was in danger, and his meat cut up while the parents would teach the children what part of the body was the heart and the lungs and the liver etc., and some of the meat was fed to the dog while the children watched the dog eat it?

Would that family be shameful barbarians?

Should they have done everything in their power to find another place for Marius to live and instead buy meat for themselves and the dog, that comes from other young bulls (or could be cows, as they don´t know the name and sex of it, -"it" might not have had a name but a number tattooed somewhere instead) and have it cut and packed beforehand and tell their children that meat is something that grows in the freezer, so that they would´t seem like shameful barbarians who kill animals?
At what age should the children learn that what they ate their whole life was beings like Bella, Sunflower, and Fernando, and Marius who had moved away?

Which scenario would teach the children to have buffers when it comes to thinking of animals as beings on one hand, and meat on the other, and which would teach them that death is a part of the circle of life, and to be kind and proud paleo eating animal lovers, who respect the life given for their dinner?

No, it is a callous, unthinking act - without mind or heart - which comes from an overall wrong attitude. It can't be compared to raising animals for food when that is done in the most respectful and caring way. The zoo has no problem expending resources to bring these animals into captivity, so why not allocate resources to reintroduce the young back into the wild to have a normal life it deserves when they know that it will be a problem to meet the "inbreeding prohibition" standards? If they had any respect and valued the life of this and all the other animals that's what they'd do.

Giraffes and all other animals - prey or predator - living in the wild, a natural life, is a whole other ball of wax. And each will be successful for a while either escaping or hunting. Prey animals get away more often than are caught and eaten. But anyway that is THEIR natural life and we have no business in interfering with that dynamic for our "kicks and thrills."

Again, we HAVE to eat. We don't HAVE to keep animals in cages for "entertainment" and then discard them like something useless because of whims. Ideally we'd all be hunter-gatherers, but realistically that's just not possible. Hunter-gatherer camps KNOW the value of life and respect it, including their children. But a proper animal raising operation could have similar outlooks and children participate in the raising and caring for the animals, and understand that they will be eaten at some point. We HAVE to eat, there's no way around it.

But we don't HAVE to be so uncaring and disrespectful of life....

ADDED: Just saw your post Chu. Good points.

This giraffe was born in captivity, just as the cows and pigs we eat who were once wild animals, but are now called domestic animals.
It was well cared for, and wasn't discarded because of a whim, unless it is a whim to avoid inbreeding and feed lions. Lions too have to eat, just like us.

Giraffes, like cows and sheep adapt well to domestic life, and thus have as many babys as in nature, and with no natural predators will grow too much in numbers unless eaten by us (or our dogs, and in this case lions)

I don't see it as being disrespectful and uncaring, whether it is a cow, a sheep, or a giraffe.

 

[Laura]

I just saw this interview of the director of the Copenhagen Zoo who explains why the Zoo chose this particular practice and I think it gives a good perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuxgAC0dWK4

As I see it, the questions comes down to whether one should have Zoos in the first place. Personally, I find the whole idea of a Zoo pretty sick. But if we are not discussing whether or not we should have Zoos I think the points made by the director of the Zoo are very valid. I also think that many of the reactions from people around the world have been very emotional and if you hear the reasons behind the practice it makes a lot more sense.

Sorry, doesn't compute for me. It's sick and slick pathological reasoning.

What Sid said:

@Miss K.

The way I see it, mother nature has created a role for each and every creature on this planet. Yes, humans eat cows and there are plenty of them on this planet. Giraffes are not endangered but not quite the same number as cows and humans certainly don't eat them as far as I know. We put creatures like giraffe in zoos for our own entertainment, education and amazement. This automatically establishes a contract with that creature where in return of it's services we provide it with a fulfilling life, protection from predators, food and shelter. It's not much different from the relationship humans have with their pets. We give them names, an identity and refer to them as 'he' or 'she' rather than 'it'.

Killing and skinning a healthy giraffe in front of other humans makes it a de-humanising act and breaks the above said contract. It shows disrespect for the creature's life. This would apply to any creature be it a cow or giraffe.

As far as children go, they are too young to be learning where the meat in the supermarket is coming from and the publicised skinning is certainly not the way to do it.

 

[Vic]

Sorry, doesn't compute for me. It's sick and slick pathological reasoning.

Yes, sick and slick pathological reasoning. And I am observing how after the Lisa G manifestation, pathological reasoning, often slick, but always sick to those that see, is attempting to breech this community. Broken Piano, Miss. K and others before them - some clever, some not so clever, present needed opportunities to refresh this community and sharpen its skills in spotting and exposing pathologicals. I sense that it is roll up your sleeves time.

And if this is the case it is also time to keep centred, remain conscious of emotional programs, but remember what's actually at stake.

FWIW.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Miss K you appear to be "critically correcting" here - similar to what people often do with psychopaths to avoid facing the cold reality of their actions. Instead of looking at the situation as it is within its own context, you're coming up with a bunch of "what if's" that do not apply to this situation. It's like witnessing a murder and saying "What if the killing was an act of self defense? What if he was a terrorist? What if it was an accident?" when there is no evidence for any of this. We attempt to come up with "plausible" ways that a seemingly heartless and brutal event can be "ok" if we just tweak a few parameters. But this "tweaking" is exactly the opposite of objectivity - it's a way to substitute reality with our imagination as a form of self-calming so we can sleep soundly at night. Taken together, the facts of this matter show a heartless act - towards the animal, and by traumatizing kids and turning this into a spectacle.

There is a reason we don't kill and eat our household pets. There's a reason we personify animals, we give them names, and we love them. Living creatures are not just "pieces of meat". And even without personification, there's a reason that hunter-gatherer tribes respect all life and kill only when necessary, without fanfare or "fun" and without parading a carcass in front of people.

And it is not irrelevant that the giraffe had a name. It is also not irrelevant that giraffes are so universally loved by people and children, that they are fascinating and beautiful creatures, and to expose kids to such a traumatizing event, which will undoubtedly affect them for the rest of their lives, is horrific. It does not teach them about life - it teaches them that nothing is sacred, that animals cannot be appreciated and loved, and that they're all just pieces of meat. This is also how people are desensitized to the murder of people as well - by dehumanizing the victims, like Israelis do to the Palestinians or Americans do to anyone in the middle east right now. It is easy to bring the whole of nature, ourselves included, down to nothing but "food", remove the soul out of everything. Hell, if you want to take it to the extreme, why not say that everything is just a collection of molecules and energy, and claim that you're being "objective" when you say that breaking a rock is no different than killing someone, because both are just a group of atoms changing their shape!

This actually reminds me of an incident that happened here on the forum a few years ago, I can't remember who was involved, but it left a mark on me. A few members got together and were fooling around, and I distinctly remember them recording a video, part of which included stacking very respected books (Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, Laura's books, etc) and letting them fall like domino's. Now, objectively, they're just books, they're just youngins having silly fun, who cares right? But symbolically, they were showing a distinct lack of respect for the material, and as such, the knowledge therein, and the forum at large. I know this is different, but I guess my point here is that there's more to life and the universe than just the physical "stuff" of things - and love and respect for nature, for other people, and for the universe at large, is a real and important thing, and you can't just remove the soul from everything without losing the very meaning of who we are and why we're here, osit.

 

[sid]

Thank you everyone for their feedback.
@Miss K., I had been pondering over what to write in response to your queries but SAO has kind of hit the spot with well worded explanation. I will, however, answer this question to the best of my understanding and knowledge -

At what age should the children learn that what they ate their whole life was beings like Bella, Sunflower, and Fernando, and Marius who had moved away?

This is dependent on the individual's brain capacity to handle trauma without getting psychologically damaged. For children, this is a stepped process. They can be told around a fairly young age that, yes the meat comes from the animals and that's that. They don't have to see the slaughter as it happens or the various internal organs in such gory detail. When they grow past their teen years and have a more developed mind full of positive experiences, they can choose to visit the local butcher to see the slaughter. Again, only if they really wish to go and see it. Watching a live animal killed and cut up is a sickening experience even for a meat eating adult. Bigger the animal, longer the process and worse it becomes for the mind to take it all in. This is a natural reaction of a normal functioning mind.
The true knowledge about mother nature, planet Earth, the animal kingdom, healthy eating and role of humans in food chain takes time to accumulate in our mind. And this is what gives us the internal strength to handle the trauma and come out of it unharmed. It creates an in-borne respect for the creature. It converts the killing into a sacrifice for the greater good which is to feed us and not a murder. And this is all that the animal kingdom desires from it's chief predator.
In the case of your example, the children should definitely learn that they have eaten Bella, Sunflower and Fernando but the process needs to be managed by their parents properly. The detail is in the process and not the outcomes.

 

[paralleloscope]

Paddyjohn, to me it seems unfair and a bit trigger-happy to bunch Miss. K together with known pathologicals, yes Miss. K presents a case of blurring the lines of the situations pathology but that may not be consistent with her character as a whole.

I've been on the fence about this one; saw the article as it came out (in Copenhagen) and the discussion about it, but shied away from wanting to fully read or consider it. This initial emotional reaction of ignoring was (luckily) perturbed by this thread and its condemnations (have a buffer towards what 'it' considers overly emotional judgement) and initially wanted to go along with Miss. K's reasoning, but then Sid made the succinct point about established bonds and contracts. But it was still a bit too theoretical in me, how could this be objectively weighed with all the layers of human entitlement and predation relating to animals?

Underneath the desensitization, I've had slightly suppressed mixed emotions with going back to a meat diet (4 years now); I recognize the need for humans to eat animal fat (each layer of ecology having a natural feeding pool) if we are to gain any real traction with growth of knowledge. But the distance from animal contact, as a city dweller, buying free range meat at a butcher (which is still factory farmed to a degree), is still tricky for me integrate, especially when I rarely remember natures sacrifice as I eat. I'm thinking that the lack of contact, as in thought/prayer or bond with the once alive animal, is a breach of contract when we take its life.

So I lost some sleep over being unsettled on Marius's death, especially after having seen the zoo directors very sanitized account. Finally read the article and it hit me how protocol-like the killing was, in accordance to these dogmatic zoo keeper rules, that pay lip service to the well-being of the animal but have no understanding of a larger context beyond the idea of (in a vacuum) human governance; sure they can observe behavior in the pen, balance genetic pros and cons on a spreadsheet, and they probably also have some sort of bond with the animal but there seems a complete lack of real care and respect for the individual, flock or species of these animals in a greater sense. The guise that the public slaughter is very educational for learning about the insides of living (now dead) beings, corresponds to the materialistic scientific dogma which rules society, with its focus on the parts and never the whole, entropy over creation.

 

[mabar]

I got close encounters feelings because my mind was agreeing at a certain point with what Miss K posted, then I read what posted SAO, one/I learn to see things in a different way.

It reminds me from a situation that I have been seeing this years (going to kid's birthday from children friends). When I was a kid, piñatas "a container often made of papier-mâché, pottery, or cloth; it is decorated, and filled with small toys or candy" _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi%C3%B1ata, were usually made of stars forms, nowadays, they are make too from children TV/movies characters and parents in their "love" to their kid, buy those instead of the star typical one, and I had observed how the little 2-5 years old kids do not want to broke/hit it, of course!!! NOT, they love the princess/cars and even the (stupid-from my POV) sponge bob, they -the children- do not want to see violence and hurt, in most cases the children ended up crying.

 

[Vic]

Paddyjohn, to me it seems unfair and a bit trigger-happy to bunch Miss. K together with known pathologicals, yes Miss. K presents a case of blurring the lines of the situations pathology but that may not be consistent with her character as a whole.

I don't agree, Parallel. Unfair is what happened to the Giraffe, and by extension to the watching children, and by further extension in the advance of the ponerisation of society. 'Trigger-happy' is a ridiculously inappropriate term to use.The Giraffe was shot in the head. I hope your use of said term was not in some way related to that. I don't believe it was - not on a conscious level anyway. Either way I think you may be bringing this up because:

I've been on the fence about this one; saw the article as it came out (in Copenhagen) and the discussion about it, but shied away from wanting to fully read or consider it.

You also say that you:

...initially wanted to go along with Miss. K's reasoning, but then Sid made the succinct point about established bonds and contracts.

But what is your own view on it? Might it be that you are using something similar to the 'critical correcting' that SAO described - "Miss K you appear to be "critically correcting" here - similar to what people often do with psychopaths to avoid facing the cold reality of their actions" - are you criticising my observation regarding Miss K because you want to avoid the fact that you thought the same as her, or 'wanted' to? Is highlighting my words a way of deflecting from the real situation - one that you have had difficulty dealing with?

Bearing in mind the numbers of forum members that admitted, after the Lisa G affair, to not voicing their concerns and observations because of fear of censure, shouldn't we all be free to voice our concerns? It's not as if alarm bells weren't already ringing with others in this thread. I just put words to it.

You say that your actual concern lies with the fact that I bunched Miss K with known pathologicals. They weren't known until people started raising the alarm. And in the worst case they weren't known until serious damage had been done.

Miss K has demonstrated thinking that shows the possibility of a pathological trait. I hope Miss K will respond in such a way to prove my suspicion unfounded.