6th Grader Admits to killing ducks with pencil

[DaWhim]

I am insensitive to animal feelings most of the time, does that make me serial killer too?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I am insensitive to animal feelings most of the time, does that make me serial killer too?

its been said at least once already in this thread - no one said he was or will be a serial killer. they said the potential is there...

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
We need tighter pencil control laws.

Then only the criminals will have pencils

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: thepd7
It is well documented that most serial killers started on animals (torture, random killing, etc).

It may be documented that serial killers start with animals but is it also documented if normal people never hurt animals? It may be that all humans senselessly hurt animals which makes the linking of it with serial killers void.

Why are you guys arguing against this? No one said HE WILL be a serial killer, we just said that he could potentially be a serial killer.

The fact that he killed these ducks with a pencil and didn't think it was wrong is a red flag that this kid needs help. Have you guys not realized he is in the 6th grade!?

Because I imagine there are many people who have killed many animals without a second thought. How many times do you think the average person kills an insect without any guilt? Does that mean they are potential serial killers?

You're comparing apples to battleships.

Killing a pest in your home is one thing. Killing a duck just because you see nothing wrong with it is in a whoooooole other league.

All you have done is label one animal a pest and one animal an innocent bystander. You've unconsciously placed a higher value on a duck's life than another animal's life. How is an insect in your home any different than a duck in your school? Would you not kill an insect that was in the school?

I haven't labeled anything as anything. Flies are a pest, fact of life. Ducks, unless they run around endlessly screaming AFLAC, are not and are often kept as pets. Killing a pest, be it a fly, a roach or Wilford Brimley, in your home, your school or in your anus is far different than killing a domesticated animal just because it seemed like the thing to do and you saw nothing wrong with it.

 

[crt1530]

My edit beat your post.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
We need tighter pencil control laws.

Obviously we need a waiting period and background screens before someone is allowed to purchase a pencil.

Pens are right out! Especially the automatic assault pens.

Mechanical pencils have been banned in my state for years.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. I have to go across state lines or to an indian reservation to buy them. They tell us it's for our safety, but I think it's part of a conspiracy by "big lumber" to sell more conventional pencils.

I know someone who can get you some sweet Mexican mechanical pencils. For the right price of course.

Talk to Pedro down the corner. He can hook you up.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[xtknight]

Yeah that's pretty weird, but honestly I bet we've all thought about doing some pretty crazy crap before. He just happened to be pushed into doing it somehow.

To the people who think it's *oh so horrible*: are you vegetarian? if not, then start being honest because you're just kidding yourself.

 

[zephyrprime]

Yeah, serial killer in the making.

 

[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.

 

[purbeast0]

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.

WHAT ABOUT THE TREES!!???!?

 

[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?

 

[purbeast0]

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.

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

and yes, you are helpless apparently.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
I haven't labeled anything as anything. Flies are a pest, fact of life. Ducks, unless they run around endlessly screaming AFLAC, are not and are often kept as pets. Killing a pest, be it a fly, a roach or Wilford Brimley, in your home, your school or in your anus is far different than killing a domesticated animal just because it seemed like the thing to do and you saw nothing wrong with it.

How was this duck domesticated?

 

[crt1530]

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?

That boy killed animals to which most of the other children had an emotional attachment. There is something wrong with him. Nobody mourns the death of a gnat. If you can't understand that there is a difference, there is most likely something wrong with you.

 

[jpeyton]

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.

I hope dogs and cats aren't 'sanctified' either, otherwise half the Chinese/Korean people on earth are 'serial killers'.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
I haven't labeled anything as anything. Flies are a pest, fact of life. Ducks, unless they run around endlessly screaming AFLAC, are not and are often kept as pets. Killing a pest, be it a fly, a roach or Wilford Brimley, in your home, your school or in your anus is far different than killing a domesticated animal just because it seemed like the thing to do and you saw nothing wrong with it.

How was this duck domesticated?

I wasn't specifically talking about these ducks. It could have been any ducks, or a dog, a cat, etc.....

 

[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.

 

[crt1530]

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.

MALIBOOO!

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Tipsy Turtle
I haven't labeled anything as anything. Flies are a pest, fact of life. Ducks, unless they run around endlessly screaming AFLAC, are not and are often kept as pets. Killing a pest, be it a fly, a roach or Wilford Brimley, in your home, your school or in your anus is far different than killing a domesticated animal just because it seemed like the thing to do and you saw nothing wrong with it.

How was this duck domesticated?

I wasn't specifically talking about these ducks. It could have been any ducks, or a dog, a cat, etc.....

What if it was a pigeon? They're generally considered pests and are nicknamed "flying rats." Would it be ok if he killed them since pests are ok to kill?

 

[Tipsy Turtle]

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.

Hear that whoooshing sound in the sky?

It is the point zooming far above your head.