Puppy vs Nephalim

[Lirpa]

I thought the thing was so bizarre and as if out of Simpson cartoon that I laughed as well, more in bafflement at the craziness of this world than at anything else.
Judging from the articles so far, the guy was out of his wits, maybe it was "lucky" for the puppy to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end ?

No offense Guardian, maybe it's me, but it seems that your reaction is a bit over the top, especially if the puppy wasn't hurt in the end (that does not make puppy throwing alright of course !!.)

I don't feel that "maybe it was 'lucky' for the puppy to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end?".

This statement to me is a bizarre line of thought and odd logic. Kind of like saying well the woman was lucky to just have been raped rather than raped and murdered.

I would have to agree with Guardian here. I don't feel that her reaction was over the top. Perhaps a different way to think of it is to imagine that it was a baby that was thrown instead of a puppy. With this new context, would it still be appropriate to say "oh well the baby was okay so no harm done and maybe it was lucky for the baby to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end ".

 

[Buddy]

Perhaps a different way to think of it is to imagine that it was a baby that was thrown instead of a puppy. With this new context, would it still be appropriate to say "oh well the baby was okay so no harm done and maybe it was lucky for the baby to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end ".

I liked that. Still another way of looking at it comes from something that occurred to me this evening as I was scratching behind the ears of 'sweetie-poo", one of our little chihuahuas. What about the possible evolutionary context that rolls 2D into 3D? Suppose today's "little puppy" becomes some tomorrow's "John Doe"? Suppose further that the Work has progressed to the point that "John Doe" can recapitulate a past life as "little puppy"? Suppose John Doe now remembers YOU, or ME or that mentally disturbed person that threw it. What would we like for "John" to remember about us? The affection, empathy and support shown to a domesticated, vulnerable and loving little puppy, right?

I wonder if that qualifies as one of the "Karmic and simple understandings" the C's mentioned?

 

[rrraven]

funny or unfunny?
what does your sense of humor say about you?
that deserves a whole thread by it self...I should get my act together and start one :)
but about the puppy story...how do we know its even true...it all sounds rather far feched

like you can ESCAPE any thing on a bulldozer!!!

to me the funny bit is that the dozer driver thought he could get away with telling the cops a BS story why he left his dozer on busy road and just went home causing a traffic jam.
you can't just steal a bulldozer...they are not like cars...only in the movies the hero can operate any type of heavy machinery that happens to stand conveniently around unattended and with the keys in the ignition
and you cant out run anything on a dozer

so this is the funny bit

imagine the scene a group of ugly huge bikers so stunned by the cuteness of the puppy that he can escape their stereotypical fury on something as slow as that...


and who did the(alleged) dog belong to?
the man who threw it ?
the bikies ?
a by stander?
as if you can just grab a puppy in the street
the whole bizarreness of it has a feel of artificial ,cliche , Hollywood, TV commercials, like he stitched together a story ,he is telling a whopper of a lie...but then speaking of stitching how trustworthy is the German news source and was this run as a human interest story or police report on the causes of the traffic jam?
did it all get lost in translation???any CCTV of this alleged puppy throwing incident??
Or is this the polices excuse why the road was blocked? ...getting the sheeple to passively accept road blocks
so it was the operator of the bulldozer....it was stolen because he drove it ''off site'' and the cops knew where to find him..at home not far from where he left it...
the rest sounds like tabloid hearsay
but it sure got a reaction out of ya
loosh is that the word?

get outraged about one (flash pic in mind) super cute puppy thrown to no uncertain fate (flash)
bikers (generic bad guys) well known to eat puppies and small children too

forget about the oil covert marine life PUPPY PUPPY PUPPY sooo much cuter than the ugly terradactyl looking pelican look at our smartly dressed BP exec sooo much cuter than those bikies
(flash more bikies you have seen on TV)

I seem to be rambling...sorry if I only added noise...ol'preditor keeps me from posting still way too much

see you on the SENSE OF HUMOR? thread

 

[Tigersoap]

I don't feel that "maybe it was 'lucky' for the puppy to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end?".
This statement to me is a bizarre line of thought and odd logic. Kind of like saying well the woman was lucky to just have been raped rather than raped and murdered.
I would have to agree with Guardian here. I don't feel that her reaction was over the top. Perhaps a different way to think of it is to imagine that it was a baby that was thrown instead of a puppy. With this new context, would it still be appropriate to say "oh well the baby was okay so no harm done and maybe it was lucky for the baby to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end ".

Hi April,

It was probably more a way for me to try to rationalize some crazy act, so out of anything any sane person would do, than anything else.
Still I don't think it was that dramatic, the first thing I thought was about if the puppy was ok and safe so...
It's in "Don't Panic! Lighten Up!" on the SOTT page as well.

I understand that for you it might be upsetting but I think your comparaison is manipulative and out of place.

 

[Lirpa]

I don't feel that "maybe it was 'lucky' for the puppy to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end?".
This statement to me is a bizarre line of thought and odd logic. Kind of like saying well the woman was lucky to just have been raped rather than raped and murdered.
I would have to agree with Guardian here. I don't feel that her reaction was over the top. Perhaps a different way to think of it is to imagine that it was a baby that was thrown instead of a puppy. With this new context, would it still be appropriate to say "oh well the baby was okay so no harm done and maybe it was lucky for the baby to be thrown at a motorcycle gang instead of some other less fortunate end ".

Hi April,

It was probably more a way for me to try to rationalize some crazy act, so out of anything any sane person would do, than anything else.
Still I don't think it was that dramatic, the first thing I thought was about if the puppy was ok and safe so...
It's in "Don't Panic! Lighten Up!" on the SOTT page as well.

I understand that for you it might be upsetting but I think your comparaison is manipulative and out of place.

I am glad to hear that you do not condone puppy throwing but your comments still have a flavor of critical correcting to them. It may be constructive to ponder deeply why you would want to rationalize some “crazy act as throwing a puppy“ and think that my comparison is manipulative and out of place. Are you reacting to babies being compared to puppies because you feel that the puppy was just an animal? Granted animals are 2D and babies are 3D thus both have different paths but 2D and 3D are both living beings and deserve the same level of consideration and care.

I recall the article in SOTT a few weeks back about the Asian woman who threw her baby down on the ground because she was upset at being accused of stealing a cell phone. That article indicated that the baby was not harmed yet the video of what occurred was horrifying to me same as if it would have been a puppy.

How would you have felt if the article about the Asian woman throwing her baby to the ground had been placed under “Don’t Panic! Lighten Up!”. Would that placement facilitate the same rationalization?

For what it is worth, I think the puppy throwing article was misfiled under “Don’t Panic! Lighten up!”.

 

[Avi]

All I know is if I ever see someone throw a puppy then I will be throwing them. That's a fact, not a threat.

Whether the story is true or not seems to me as unimportant. What I find interesting, in terms of learning, and disturbing as well, is why there is often such a response as laughing at the misfortune of others. We've all seen some youtube clip or other where out of the blue someone gets bonked on the head or a real good example is "Americas Funniest Videos" which are NOT funny 99% of the time, but often show people getting hurt, men getting hit in the gonads with a baseball or something stupid like that. And yet the response is laughter?!

Schadenfreude is the term in today's day. Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics coined the phrase, ἐπιχαιρεκακία or epikhairekakia, but whatever language the basic premise is deriving joy or pleasure in the misfortune of others.

Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

PS - FWIW last night had a strange dream and in it was a man who was huge, made me think of Nephalim upon waking. That is why I clicked on this thread and then of course upon reading it began questioning.

 

[Tigersoap]

I am glad to hear that you do not condone puppy throwing but your comments still have a flavor of critical correcting to them. It may be constructive to ponder deeply why you would want to rationalize some “crazy act as throwing a puppy“ and think that my comparison is manipulative and out of place.

Hi April,

I don't think anyone condoned it anyway, it was clear from the start.

I tried to understand your reaction and see things from your side and Guardian's.
I constructed a different idea on the whole thing as I did not imagine the puppy as a small dog who was just born, like you probably did, and the "thrown" part meant "thrown into the arms" of the hell's angel (not that it is better of course.) and not necessarily in a violent manner (which is probably what he did.).

Hence it seemed less dramatic to me and more farcical because the context and the association of hell's angels/puppy/bulldozer is not one you see often.

I think that reading something is entirely different than seeing something or living it yourself for example. You can't expect everyone to feel or react the same way than you did. We all have blind spots, things we try to fend off with a laugh and things where need to pay closer attention, I sure do.

It's unecessary to lecture me using emotionally loaded comparaison with the woman who threw her baby on the ground, as if I was such a terrible person with no empathy at all toward living beings.
You're angry and it's only normal but I am not the one who threw the puppy here.

I was a vegetarian for many many years (I had to take the decision to eat meat again due to my blood type.) due to strong feelings about how unjustly they were treated so I would never rejoice about animals being mistreated. But you could not know that.

 

[anart]

Hi Tigersoap, it sounds like you are actually the one who is taking this rather personally. I don't think that April was attacking you or lecturing you, she was just using examples to help you understand her perception. Perhaps, is your view of yourself as someone who cares for animals being threatened, thus you feel threatened? I don't think it's that big an issue, but it does appear to have really triggered some emotional defensiveness on your part, as if you are being attacked here, which you are not, from what I can gather.

Hi April,

I don't think anyone condoned it anyway, it was clear from the start.

I tried to understand your reaction and see things from your side and Guardian's.
I constructed a different idea on the whole thing as I did not imagine the puppy as a small dog who was just born, like you probably did, and the "thrown" part meant "thrown into the arms" of the hell's angel (not that it is better of course.) and not necessarily in a violent manner (which is probably what he did.).

Hence it seemed less dramatic to me and more farcical because the context and the association of hell's angels/puppy/bulldozer is not one you see often.

I think that reading something is entirely different than seeing something or living it yourself for example. You can't expect everyone to feel or react the same way than you did. We all have blind spots, things we try to fend off with a laugh and things where need to pay closer attention, I sure do.

It's unecessary to lecture me using emotionally loaded comparaison with the woman who threw her baby on the ground, as if I was such a terrible person with no empathy at all toward living beings.
You're angry and it's only normal but I am not the one who threw the puppy here.

I was a vegetarian for many many years (I had to take the decision to eat meat again due to my blood type.) due to strong feelings about how unjustly they were treated so I would never rejoice about animals being mistreated. But you could not know that.

 

[Tigersoap]

Hi Tigersoap, it sounds like you are actually the one who is taking this rather personally. I don't think that April was attacking you or lecturing you, she was just using examples to help you understand her perception. Perhaps, is your view of yourself as someone who cares for animals being threatened, thus you feel threatened? I don't think it's that big an issue, but it does appear to have really triggered some emotional defensiveness on your part, as if you are being attacked here, which you are not, from what I can gather.

Hi Anart,

Well, as April quoted me I thought that I should respond but I see what you're saying, although I am not sure it's all just to show me examples but I can be wrong.
I don't like the feeling of being accused of something I did not think so I wanted to make it clear.

 

[Lirpa]

Anart is spot on in interpreting my intent. My posts were not made as an attack, a lecture nor done in anger. It appeared to me that thread had turned into a constructive discussion in regards to rationalizing humor when a living being was mistreated.

I should have made it more clear that I was not responding only to your comments but also comments made by others that had the same rationalization. Why I quoted you was that the others picked through their initial reactions and realized that they had rationalized it. I do realize that you may have already done that but it was not completely apparent in your posts as there was still a flavor of rationalization...or perhaps I misinterpreted that?

SAO dissected his reaction thoroughly so I did not feel it was necessary to address his comments. Also, I am challenged with the technical task of how to quote more than one person when I create a post. It was a challenge just to do the quotes in this post.

I would like to point out though that Perceval quoted you and disagreed with you but it appears that you emotionally reacted to only my post.

Hi April,
I don't think anyone condoned it anyway, it was clear from the start.

I agree that no one condoned it and I was not accusing you of this. The point I was addressing was that Guardian’s input was labeled as being “dramatic” and “a bit over the top” and this label was supported by rationalization that the puppy was “okay“.

I tried to understand your reaction and see things from your side and Guardian's.

There is no side, mine or yours, the crux of the matter was that a puppy was thrown and whether it was a human baby, a human teenager, a human adult, a newborn puppy, older puppy or even adult dog is a mute point. A living being was thrown. The article indicated that the puppy did not sustain any visible injuries but that does not rule out that it did not experience pain, anxiety and distress both physically and emotionally. Truthseeker made very good reference to this effect in her response.

I constructed a different idea on the whole thing as I did not imagine the puppy as a small dog who was just born, like you probably did, and the "thrown" part meant "thrown into the arms" of the hell's angel (not that it is better of course.) and not necessarily in a violent manner (which is probably what he did.).


Hence it seemed less dramatic to me and more farcical because the context and the association of hell's angels/puppy/bulldozer is not one you see often.

I understand what you are saying. I was addressing Guardian’s input being labeled as being “dramatic”.

I think that reading something is entirely different than seeing something or living it yourself for example. You can't expect everyone to feel or react the same way than you did. We all have blind spots, things we try to fend off with a laugh and things where need to pay closer attention, I sure do.

I agree, I have blind spots too most especially when I find myself not having empathy for some humans. I have to pull back and say to myself why did I think that was funny when that human was suffering.

It's unecessary to lecture me using emotionally loaded comparaison with the woman who threw her baby on the ground, as if I was such a terrible person with no empathy at all toward living beings.
You're angry and it's only normal but I am not the one who threw the puppy here.

Again, the comparisons I made are not emotionally laden. They are valid and objective comparisons and they were not done to lecture you. I know you “are not a terrible person with no empathy at all toward living beings“. I know you did not throw the puppy and I am not angry. The dismissal of Guardian’s input is the point I am making.

I was a vegetarian for many many years (I had to take the decision to eat meat again due to my blood type.) due to strong feelings about how unjustly they were treated so I would never rejoice about animals being mistreated. But you could not know that.

I do know that you “were a vegetarian for many many years” as I have always valued Mrs. Tigersoap’s and your posts here on the forum. I have read your posts over the past few years and your caring was indicated in your previous posts. I know that you would not rejoice about animals being mistreated.


On a side not...OMG I cannot believe that I did all of the quotes correctly in my post! First time I have done multiple quotes in one post!

*modified for clarity*

 

[obyvatel]

An interesting Gurdjieff quote on laughter (emphases mine)
[quote author=ISOTM]
"Laughter is also directly connected with accumulators. But laughter is the opposite function to yawning. It is not pumping in, but pumping out, that is, the pumping out and the discarding of superfluous energy collected in the accumulators. Laughter does not exist in all centers, but only in centers divided into two halves—positive and negative. If I have not yet spoken of this in detail, I shall do so when we come to a more detailed study of the centers. At present we shall take only the intellectual center. There can be impressions which fall at once on two halves of the center and produce at once a sharp 'yes' and 'no.' Such a simultaneous 'yes' and 'no' produces a kind of convulsion in the center and, being unable to harmonize and digest these two opposite impressions of one fact, the center begins to throw out in the form of laughter the energy which flows into it from the accumulator whose turn it is to supply it. In another instance it happens that in the accumulator there has collected too much energy which the center cannot manage to use up. Then every, the most ordinary, impression can be received as double, that is, it may fall at once on the two halves of the center and produce laughter, that is, the discarding of energy.
"You must understand that I am only giving you an outline. You must remember that both yawning and laughter are very contagious. This shows that they are essentially functions of the instinctive and the moving centers."
"Why is laughter so pleasant?" asked someone.
"Because," G. answered, "laughter relieves us of superfluous energy, which, if it remained unused, might become negative, that is, poison. We always have plenty of this poison in us. Laughter is the antidote. But this antidote is necessary only so long as we are unable to use all the energy for useful work.
[/quote]
G's explanation of laughter may go some way in understanding the case of the inappropriately perceived humor for normal human beings. We are routinely exposed to shocking and disturbing images and stories and the emotional center is the one which gets numbed. In the absence of a properly working emotional center which could have sorted out the emotional reality of the situation confronting us, the incoming energy of the bizarre or shocking impression may be dealt with through laughter. If this incoming energy/impression cannot be properly digested (identified and interpreted), it may become "poison" in G's terms and in that sense laughter may be a sort of unconscious defense mechanism to get rid of this poison.

 

[Tigersoap]

Anart is spot on in interpreting my intent. My posts were not made as an attack, a lecture nor done in anger. It appeared to me that thread had turned into a constructive discussion in regards to rationalizing humor when a living being was mistreated.

Hi April,

Thank you for taking your time explaining. I apologize if I misinterpreted your posts.
I think that most of all the comparaisons you used shocked me because I found them quite difficult to associate with the way I think although I am far from being perfect, if that makes sense.

You're a qualified quote master now ;)

 

[Gonzo]

Hi obyvatel,
I too was thinking about G's quote on laughter, particular, the yes/no.

I have always been interested in humour, and how subjective it can be. When my children were young and were trying to understand what makes a joke funny, after trying to combine various parts of different jokes they had heard, but were ultimately unsuccessful in achieving the allusive level of funny, I put some serious thought into what makes things funny.

I finally distilled in to the notion that humour involves the recognition of a reversal from the norm but presented either as the norm or fitting within the norm. It is, essentially, a form of contradiction which creates a form of competing energies in the mind, the yes and the no.

Upon reading G's take on things, I was thrilled at how well he filled in the gaps in my understanding, putting it all in a much deeper context.

With respect to puppy pitching and bulldozer escape vehicles, it is therefore natural that some might see the obvious contradictions and react through laughter, although, depending on their level of simultaneous horror, the laughter might have a level of nervousness to it.

I believe there has been a concerted effort to numb society from sensitivity, so they only see a degree of humour, without the horror. This era of finding pleasure in another's suffering certainly is part of it.

I, For one was repulsed at the thought of throwing anything living, especially something as helpless as a puppy, but also saw the humour of using a bulldozer as a getaway vehicle as well as the notion of ugly, mean bikers versus cute puppy. However, my horror was much stronger than my perception of humour.

For those who laughed, but not in the sense of nervous laughter, I can only imagine they have been well trained to be oblivious (in varying degrees) to certain forms of suffering of and risk to living creatures.

Gonzo

 

[the_hammer]

I tend to agree with rrraven. This story does seem to be a distraction from what's really going on. Also I would have like to have seen the responses had it been a 10 foot snake or a terantula.. Some of the responses seems a bit over the top to me too.

 

[Lirpa]

I tend to agree with rrraven. This story does seem to be a distraction from what's really going on. Also I would have like to have seen the responses had it been a 10 foot snake or a terantula.. Some of the responses seems a bit over the top to me too.

I would imagine that the puppy toss at the biker would have been much like the puppy toss at about 4:52 in this video featured on SOTT.

After watching the puppy being tossed and hearing its cries of distress do you still feel that some of the responses seems a bit over the top?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210795-Disturbing-Footage-The-US-Army-Doesn-t-Want-You-To-See-This-