Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that Eastern Europeans were unique in their focus on gallows humor. I was simply stating that life is hard there, and thus they are more often exposed to the sort of conditions that cause gallows humor.

Phryxis wrote:I know nobody will accept this argument, but what this girl did is really not all that terrible or unusual in certain settings.

People who live around a lot of animals, particularly farming people, are a lot more "practical" when it comes to the life and death of animals. As the girl said, the puppies were sick, most likely nobody had the means to help them, so they were killed. It happens all the time in farming communities. A cat has a litter of kittens, there's nothing to do with them, you put them in a sack with a rock and chuck them in the river. I've heard stories about it.

People want to be very self-righteous about this sort of thing, but I'd urge caution against judging in ignorance.

You ask "how could somebody do such a terrible thing?"

Well, how about if they've already watch three times that many puppies die of parasites, getting eaten by wild dogs, etc?

If you're looking at a puppy, and your life experience tells you that this puppy is going to die, one way or another, is it really humane to let it die slowly?

It's easy to judge when we're happy first world sophisticates. Bosnian farmers don't have so many options.

Not condoning the actions in any way, as a dog lover I find this very upsetting.
It is not that long ago here in Britain where puppies or kittens were bundled into sacks and drowned. Probably still occurs.
Abandoned pets means the rescue homes are chock a block full.

Do you mean condemning?

Condone = to excuse

I do not approve of drowning puppies.
Nor do I wish to be judgmental as I don't know the circumstances. If it was a malicious act then yes of course I would condemn it.
If it was an act of destroying the puppies for economic reasons then it becomes more problematic. Especially as here in a so called nation of animal lovers there are still acts like this and animals get abandoned.
Here there are programs for speying and neutering to reduce the number of unwanted pets. Owners need to take more responsibility. In other countries those opportunities may not be available and people may not be able to afford to keep a litter of puppies.

Phryxis wrote:

I'm not really sure how to understand what you're saying.

That being poor is not a get out of jail free card for painfully drowning animals. They have access to other humane options but choose not to use them, either because they don't really care about the animal suffering vs quick and painless, or they dont want to have to deal with the literal responsability of blood on their hands or a botched kill as you explained.

People are not forced for any reason to drown animals, it is their choice out of a multitude of options usually because its out of mind, out of sight. The water kills them where they wont see the animals die, and the gravity of the act does not weigh as heavily.

As others have said, I am not pointing fingers and condeming the girl, if it was the only way she could think of getting rid of them then its not her fault, its the adults who told her to kill them.

That being poor is not a get out of jail free card for painfully drowning animals.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that poor people have a "free pass" so much as that poor farmers are going to very often be in a situation where:

a) They've got unwanted/sick/dying animals on their hands.
b) There is no authority that will assist the animal.

All of that adds up to the animal getting thrown into a body of water.

I think I understood that you weren't condemning the girl, but my point is that you probably shouldn't condemn the adults either. Those puppies getting thrown in the water is just how it's done in those situations.

While I also understand your point, that there are potentially more humane ways of doing it, I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect people to pursue those, and thus it's unfair to condemn them for not doing so.

Also, even if the people elect not to, say, decapitate the puppies, they'd be doing so out of an excess of empathy for the puppy, rather than a deficit. A cruel person would probably enjoy the "up close and personal" killing more, because they'd be involved. A "normal" person responds by trying to distance themselves from the killing, both my joking about it and by using a mechanism that is physically distant.

In short, this is normal human behavior, and really, normal llife on a farm.

I get you in full now Phryxis, thanks for the explanation

This brings us to another question:

Is it humane to expect people to subject themselves to trauma in order to spare others from trauma?

For example:

My immediate thought is that the act of chopping the head off of a puppy (yeah, I know, bear with me) that will otherwise die a horrible death to be supererogatory. In essence they have suffered themselves (assuming that they are suffering in the act, of course) in order to spare the puppy its suffering. I also would state that drowning the puppy is the right choice, though not necessarily one deserving of praise or youtube videos. Following from that, leaving the puppies in the forest would be the wrong choice in nearly every circumstance.