6th Grader Admits to killing ducks with pencil

[Gunslinger08]

I have no problem with him killing ducks. They're annoying and they poop a lot.. you know this if you own land with a pond that ducks frequent. Stab them all.

Why was he suspended? I never saw the rule in my middle school handbook about stabbing animals with classroom writing utensils.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Hear that whoooshing sound in the sky?

It is the point zooming far above your head.

So, since you've got a solid understanding of the point, please do explain so we can all understand.

Edit: I'll pose a hypothetical for you. If a duck wanders into your home are you going to kill it or pick it up and toss it out? If an insect wanders into your home, are you going to kill it or pick it up and toss it out?

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Hear that whoooshing sound in the sky?

It is the point zooming far above your head.

So, since you've got a solid understanding of the point, please do explain so we can all understand.

Several have tried explaining it to you already.

How about you just stick to your Captain Planet coloring book and your Duplo Blocks?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I have no problem with him killing ducks. They're annoying and they poop a lot.. you know this if you own land with a pond that ducks frequent. Stab them all.

Why was he suspended? I never saw the rule in my middle school handbook about stabbing animals with classroom writing utensils.

and why do you think that is? probably because 99.9% of the population knows you don't do sh!t like that.
um...he killed an animal (illegally and with a pencil to boot) on school grounds...

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
Hear that whoooshing sound in the sky?

It is the point zooming far above your head.

So, since you've got a solid understanding of the point, please do explain so we can all understand.

Several have tried explaining it to you already.

How about you just stick to your Captain Planet coloring book and your Duplo Blocks?

No one has explained anything. All they've said was that certain lives are more valuable than others. No reason given, it just is. That's pretty much the argument. The rest resort to the argument of, "if you don't get it, you must be helpless." Excellent explanations all in all.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: crt1530
Whether you can wrap your tiny little mind around it or not, there is a big difference between squashing a fly and stabbing a duck to death for no other reason than to watch it die.

So, please do explain to me how one life is more valuable than the other? Are we not arguing for the sanctity of life or are we arguing for the sanctity of pets?

If you try to pull that BS argument, you must put humans in there too.

Your argument holds no water. If you say all of life is the same, you must not kill bacteria either.

So, who arbitrarily draws the line? Big life forms are more worthwhile than smaller ones? Is that how it works?

No... i think its more like the line is drawn at the ability of the creature to be replaced in almost no time at all, and how much of a pest it is.

Theres a general census of animals/bugs and their extinguishability. You're playing the devils advocate or are just plain stupid.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: purbeast0

i never said they were class pets ... hence that keyword "virtually" i put infront of it.

and yes, you are helpless apparently.

I see, so since you can't explain the difference of why we value one over the other, you'll resort to belittling me to feel superior. Gotcha.

Oh man you got me ... :roll:

Apparently everyone else in this thread agrees with you too ... :roll:

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: crt1530
Whether you can wrap your tiny little mind around it or not, there is a big difference between squashing a fly and stabbing a duck to death for no other reason than to watch it die.

So, please do explain to me how one life is more valuable than the other? Are we not arguing for the sanctity of life or are we arguing for the sanctity of pets?

If you try to pull that BS argument, you must put humans in there too.

Your argument holds no water. If you say all of life is the same, you must not kill bacteria either.

So, who arbitrarily draws the line? Big life forms are more worthwhile than smaller ones? Is that how it works?

No... i think its more like the line is drawn at the ability of the creature to be replaced in almost no time at all, and how much of a pest it is.

Theres a general census of animals/bugs and their extinguishability. You're playing the devils advocate or are just plain stupid.

i think we found the kid's father

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: purbeast0

i never said they were class pets ... hence that keyword "virtually" i put infront of it.

and yes, you are helpless apparently.

I see, so since you can't explain the difference of why we value one over the other, you'll resort to belittling me to feel superior. Gotcha.

Oh man you got me ... :roll:

Apparently everyone else in this thread agrees with you too ... :roll:

Apparently not everyone agrees with you so what's your point?

 

[Descartes]

glutenberg, can you at least stick to one argument rather than going on these tangents arguing these vague philisophical notions? The point has been articulated to you, in several different ways no less, ad nauseum. You can start another thread to find out why we create the distinction, but that's not the point.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12
No... i think its more like the line is drawn at the ability of the creature to be replaced in almost no time at all, and how much of a pest it is.

Theres a general census of animals/bugs and their extinguishability. You're playing the devils advocate or are just plain stupid.

I am playing devil's advocate to a degree because the line that's drawn is silly. Pigeons have high reproductive rates, a huge population, and are generally considered pests but we don't have people walking around killing them. The line is drawn from habituation and culture not because the kid doesn't value life (which is to be determined).

I love the argument that if you don't understand something that you must be stupid. Come on, give me a break, no one can even give an adequate explanation for the cultural norms other than, "it just is." At the very minimum, you gave an effort at pointing out the line.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: crt1530
Whether you can wrap your tiny little mind around it or not, there is a big difference between squashing a fly and stabbing a duck to death for no other reason than to watch it die.

So, please do explain to me how one life is more valuable than the other? Are we not arguing for the sanctity of life or are we arguing for the sanctity of pets?

wow if you really can't see the difference between a duck and her 2 ducklings that were virtually a class pet, and a fly that comes into your house when the door opens, then you are helpless.

They were not class pets. They were wild ducks who happened to nest on school grounds. The fact of the matter is that people have created an artificial definition for what is life worthy of notice and life not worthy of notice. The idea that you have the audacity to say one life form is better on the pure merit that people have been habituated to like one and not the other is pompous.

So if someone were to kill your mom you wouldn't see that as any different than squashing a cockroach?

I'm saying you either value all life or don't bother pretending that you're a sage who never kills animals. It's just a ridiculous claim.

By your logic we should not value *any* life then? We either value all life or no life? We can't value some life more than others? Why is that ridiculous? To me saying all life is equivalent is ridiculous.

The reason I value mammals/birds etc. over bugs is because a bug does not scream out in pain. Even when I killed bugs I usually say, "sorry" before I wrap it up in kleenex. It's all about empathy. Can I relate to it? If an animal screams out in pain or is frighten then I have empathy towards that animal. Insects don't do that -- so I think their brain is more primitive and I don't feel as bad when I have to kill one. Well, actually, I used to have a pet praying mantis which I cared about a lot. The way it looked at me, tilting it's head made me think it knew and trusted me.

The ducks were killed for no reason except for the enjoyment of the kill. That to me is disturbing. It wasn't used as food. It wasn't a pest or bothering anyone. It was killed by someone who wanted to see what it was like to kill something that would screamed out in pain and fright.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: crt1530
Whether you can wrap your tiny little mind around it or not, there is a big difference between squashing a fly and stabbing a duck to death for no other reason than to watch it die.

So, please do explain to me how one life is more valuable than the other? Are we not arguing for the sanctity of life or are we arguing for the sanctity of pets?

If you try to pull that BS argument, you must put humans in there too.

Your argument holds no water. If you say all of life is the same, you must not kill bacteria either.

So, who arbitrarily draws the line? Big life forms are more worthwhile than smaller ones? Is that how it works?

No... i think its more like the line is drawn at the ability of the creature to be replaced in almost no time at all, and how much of a pest it is.

Theres a general census of animals/bugs and their extinguishability. You're playing the devils advocate or are just plain stupid.

i think we found the kid's father

Then YOU give a description of how to draw the line, and be specific if you dont like my answer.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Descartes
glutenberg, can you at least stick to one argument rather than going on these tangents arguing these vague philisophical notions? The point has been articulated to you, in several different ways no less, ad nauseum. You can start another thread to find out why we create the distinction, but that's not the point.

My point has been the same throughout. The only tangents I've had are using different examples for the discussion. The problem is that the point has not been articulated. Each argument ends with, if you don't get it, you're helpless or some variation of that.

So, what is the point of this thread? It's an article about a kid killing a duck. Should the discussion be limited to bashing the kid and predicting when he may or may not become a serial killer?

 

[Canai]

Wow.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: StormRider
By your logic we should not value *any* life then? We either value all life or no life? We can't value some life more than others? Why is that ridiculous? To me saying all life is equivalent is ridiculous.

The reason I value mammals/birds etc. over bugs is because a bug does not scream out in pain. Even when I killed bugs I usually say, "sorry" before I wrap it up in kleenex. It's all about empathy. Can I relate to it? If an animal screams out in pain or is frighten then I have empathy towards that animal. Insects don't do that -- so I think their brain is more primitive and I don't feel as bad when I have to kill one. Well, actually, I used to have a pet praying mantis which I cared about a lot. The way it looked at me, tilting it's head made me think it knew and trusted me.

The ducks were killed for no reason except for the enjoyment of the kill. That to me is disturbing. It wasn't used as food. It wasn't a pest or bothering anyone. It was killed by someone who wanted to see what it was like to kill something that would screamed out in pain and fright.

All I'm trying to show is that people determine what is worthy of life and what isn't purely based on their emotional basis for the animal. Lobsters scream when you boil them. Insects writhe in pain when you torture them. I mean, by your own example, if your mantis escaped its cage and wandered into my home would you not feel sad if I killed it since it was your pet? I assume you would but because it's an insect and since it doesn't scream, should we not feel bad because of their primitive minds?

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: StormRider
By your logic we should not value *any* life then? We either value all life or no life? We can't value some life more than others? Why is that ridiculous? To me saying all life is equivalent is ridiculous.

The reason I value mammals/birds etc. over bugs is because a bug does not scream out in pain. Even when I killed bugs I usually say, "sorry" before I wrap it up in kleenex. It's all about empathy. Can I relate to it? If an animal screams out in pain or is frighten then I have empathy towards that animal. Insects don't do that -- so I think their brain is more primitive and I don't feel as bad when I have to kill one. Well, actually, I used to have a pet praying mantis which I cared about a lot. The way it looked at me, tilting it's head made me think it knew and trusted me.

The ducks were killed for no reason except for the enjoyment of the kill. That to me is disturbing. It wasn't used as food. It wasn't a pest or bothering anyone. It was killed by someone who wanted to see what it was like to kill something that would screamed out in pain and fright.

All I'm trying to show is that people determine what is worthy of life and what isn't purely based on their emotional basis for the animal. Lobsters scream when you boil them. Insects writhe in pain when you torture them. I mean, by your own example, if your mantis escaped its cage and wandered into my home would you not feel sad if I killed it since it was your pet? I assume you would but because it's an insect and since it doesn't scream, should we not feel bad because of their primitive minds?

lobsters dont scream, thats a myth. its vapor escaping their body.

Lobsters don?t have vocal cords?they use pheromones to communicate. Wallace dispels the myth that lobsters scream when they are boiled alive, saying, ?The sound is really vented steam from the layer of seawater between the lobster?s flesh and its carapace ?? He notes that ?the myth?s very persistent?which might, once again, point to a low-level cultural unease about the boiling thing.?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12


Then YOU give a description of how to draw the line, and be specific if you dont like my answer.

I liked your answer and I appreciate all answers outside of the, "if you don't get it, you're stupid." I, personally, will never be able to draw the line because there isn't a line. The line shifts with cultural norms all the time. Some cultures value a certain group of animals, some other cultures value others. I'm just saying that claiming the kid to be twisted because he took a harmless life is hypocritical because most, if not all, people have taken an animal's life and the guilt involved is based purely on what they have deemed worthy of living or not worthy of living.

 

[jdoggg12]

You're right, it was a bad comment, and unjustified. I apologize

I'll avoid personal attacks.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: StormRider
By your logic we should not value *any* life then? We either value all life or no life? We can't value some life more than others? Why is that ridiculous? To me saying all life is equivalent is ridiculous.

The reason I value mammals/birds etc. over bugs is because a bug does not scream out in pain. Even when I killed bugs I usually say, "sorry" before I wrap it up in kleenex. It's all about empathy. Can I relate to it? If an animal screams out in pain or is frighten then I have empathy towards that animal. Insects don't do that -- so I think their brain is more primitive and I don't feel as bad when I have to kill one. Well, actually, I used to have a pet praying mantis which I cared about a lot. The way it looked at me, tilting it's head made me think it knew and trusted me.

The ducks were killed for no reason except for the enjoyment of the kill. That to me is disturbing. It wasn't used as food. It wasn't a pest or bothering anyone. It was killed by someone who wanted to see what it was like to kill something that would screamed out in pain and fright.

All I'm trying to show is that people determine what is worthy of life and what isn't purely based on their emotional basis for the animal. Lobsters scream when you boil them. Insects writhe in pain when you torture them. I mean, by your own example, if your mantis escaped its cage and wandered into my home would you not feel sad if I killed it since it was your pet? I assume you would but because it's an insect and since it doesn't scream, should we not feel bad because of their primitive minds?

lobsters dont scream, thats a myth. its vapor escaping their body.

Lobsters don?t have vocal cords?they use pheromones to communicate. Wallace dispels the myth that lobsters scream when they are boiled alive, saying, ?The sound is really vented steam from the layer of seawater between the lobster?s flesh and its carapace ?? He notes that ?the myth?s very persistent?which might, once again, point to a low-level cultural unease about the boiling thing.?

Even if they don't scream, which is besides the point because it's the emotional reaction you get from hearing that noise that creates the empathy for it, they still try to escape the pot with all their might. It's not like lobsters don't have pain receptors. They will claw at the top of the pot and try to knock it off and generally you can hear them doing this.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: jdoggg12


Then YOU give a description of how to draw the line, and be specific if you dont like my answer.

I liked your answer and I appreciate all answers outside of the, "if you don't get it, you're stupid." I, personally, will never be able to draw the line because there isn't a line. The line shifts with cultural norms all the time. Some cultures value a certain group of animals, some other cultures value others. I'm just saying that claiming the kid to be twisted because he took a harmless life is hypocritical because most, if not all, people have taken an animal's life and the guilt involved is based purely on what they have deemed worthy of living or not worthy of living.

that may be, but most don't do it with a ****** pencil and NOT when they are in 6th grade, and i would venture to guess that most people who did it, did it for food and not just for the hell of it.

 

[Luthien]

I would bet just about anything that the parents are abusive in some way to their kid.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: jdoggg12


Then YOU give a description of how to draw the line, and be specific if you dont like my answer.

I liked your answer and I appreciate all answers outside of the, "if you don't get it, you're stupid." I, personally, will never be able to draw the line because there isn't a line. The line shifts with cultural norms all the time. Some cultures value a certain group of animals, some other cultures value others. I'm just saying that claiming the kid to be twisted because he took a harmless life is hypocritical because most, if not all, people have taken an animal's life and the guilt involved is based purely on what they have deemed worthy of living or not worthy of living.

that may be, but most don't do it with a ****** pencil and NOT when they are in 6th grade, and i would venture to guess that most people who did it, did it for food and not just for the hell of it.

I'd bet there's a large sum of elementary school kids who have messed around with magnifying glasses and live animals (generally ants). At least within my elementary school, you would see it all the time. But of course, that just leads back to the argument of whether an insect is worthy of protection and we've exhausted that argument. Also, if anything, I think during elementary and junior high school, kids are probably the most prone to experimenting with life and generally grow out of it or grow more respect for animals as they go along.

 

[NaOH]

insects are not sentient beings

/thread

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: NaOH
insects are not sentient beings

/thread

good point - sentience is huge versus just being pre-programmed.