MetaChat - This makes me terribly, terribly sad.

Man, what a bummer. Gotta give Buster extra hugs when I get home tonight. Yorkies certainly test the patience, but the thought of ever hurting one, especially like that, is just sickening. That woman must be so ill.

It occurs to me I've never shared a picture of Buster with everyone here. Hopefully this will make the thread a little brighter.

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by SpiffyRob 23 October | 10:45

That helps, SpiffyRob. What a cutiepie.

posted by Specklet 23 October | 11:00

That's a cute pup! And who could hurt a cute pup? I just don't get it. You must have to be very ill to do such a thing.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 October | 11:07

'scuse me, I need to go find my jaw. It dropped and rolled under the desk.

posted by lysdexic 23 October | 11:08

You know, I can't help but think that Buster would look FABULOUS in a brown tweed sport coat, wool scarf, and driving cap.

posted by Atom Eyes 23 October | 11:26

I didn't read it. I saw the headline in Google news earlier, and scurried my eyes over it quickly so it wouldn't sink in, that small bit of information in the headline. Didn't work. It keeps popping into my head.

Buster is adorable, though, and he does help.

posted by taz 23 October | 11:29

Oh my! More!

For a while, we tried growing his hair out so he could have a show dog type cut. It was a major pain to keep him clean, and he looked kind of doofy.
≡ Click to see image ≡

Sticks are delicious.
≡ Click to see image ≡

Slurp!
≡ Click to see image ≡

Tired.
≡ Click to see image ≡

Waking up!
≡ Click to see image ≡

With his Aunt Pickle.
≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by SpiffyRob 23 October | 11:32

When he was still a pup, we got him a tiny little argyle sweater that was just tremendous. He's outgrown a lot of his clothes, so we need new ones, but he does have a new hoodie (pullover!) that's pretty dashing.

We're still on the fence about Halloween costumes, but "Dog Half-Consumed By Shark" is probably the frontrunner right now.

posted by SpiffyRob 23 October | 11:34

The horrible story/cutie dog contrast is hurting my heartbrain.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 11:34

i kinda wanna dress the Bees as a newsie now, though.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 11:35

What the fuck. Excuse my language. I find this incredibly shocking and heart-breaking.

(Right now, I am hoping, waiting, encouraging, my wee g-pig to eat, eat eat something after another costly dental procedure.)

Also that Buster looks like trouble! ;)

posted by typewriter 23 October | 11:38

Blegh, gag, quickly close tab after reading the first sentence. Some people fucking suck.

Buster is getting many, many virtual hugs and snoogles now, I'm sure!

posted by goo 23 October | 12:36

I don't know if this is an example of how bad people suck as much as it is an example of how horrible mental illness can be. (Then again, I'm one of the few people whose heart absolutely breaks for Andrea Yates.)

posted by jrossi4r 23 October | 12:52

I'd just like to say please blame the illness, not the person. I've seen absolutely lovely people do horrific things under psychotic episodes. On preview, thanks jross.

Buster sure knows how to pour it on thick.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 12:55

Yeah, I missed the bit about mental illness on first read. But if it was known by the woman's family that she had these tendencies, then I do blame them for letting her be alone around a dog.

posted by amro 23 October | 12:56

Good point. I didn't actually read the article, my visceral response got the better of me, so with that information please let me rephrase with what some people do sometimes fucking sucks.

posted by goo 23 October | 12:58

People beat me to it, but yeah, it says that the woman is mentally ill. I can't help but feel bad for both her and the dog.

SpiffyRob, that is an adorable dog. Are he and Pickle the same type of dog, and if so is he full grown? That's quite a difference in size!

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 13:22

Mental illness and violence/animal abuse to not go hand in hand.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 13:44

Of course not, eth, but the article says she's mentally ill.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 13:54

Yes, but more's the rarity, that it was a mentally ill person, as they're rarely involved with this type of violence and situation.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 13:58

Yup, but if the voices tell you your dog is possessed by Satan, you might feel it's your duty to free it from him. Or something. There are so many kinds of mental illness.

I feel terrible for Yates, too.

posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 14:07

I'm not sure what you're getting at, ethylene; are you trying to caution against a generalization that mentally ill people are a danger to animals and do things like this frequently, or are you trying to say that the woman being mentally ill had little or nothing to do with her burning a dog on a stove top?

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 14:08

It's a pointless avenue of speculation from one line in a horrible story. We have no idea what "mental illness" means here.

Wasn't that guy who was getting messages from his dog good to the dog? i almost don't want to know.

It's a horrible story. Trying to figure out what happened from here isn't really possible.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:13

i'm trying to say you have to be insane to do this to your dog but we have no idea what kind of insane this woman is or why this happened, and it's a misplaced launch into a discussion of mental illness.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:18

CF, Buster's a Yorkshire Terrier and Pickle is a Scottish Terrier-mix. Very similar breeds, but Scotties are typically small-medium (20-25 pounds) where Yorkies are toy-small (5-9 pounds.) Buster's about 7 pounds full grown, but was probably closer to 5 at the time that picture was taken.

posted by SpiffyRob 23 October | 14:27

Multiple personalities and schizophrenia. She had stopped taking her medication.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 14:41

i still see no point in speculating about it, whether she was trying to save its soul or torturing it for profit is immaterial. We don't know, she probably doesn't know, and a dog still died miserably.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:45

I'm not speculating about what her reasoning was behind it, I'm just saying she was probably psychotic at the time. That's all.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 14:49

not to put words in eth's mouth but I definitely agree. MY point is that to jump to conclusions / speculate / ostracise / rant / rave / fly off the handle / beat one's breast / and or generalise about some shallow headline after doing very little to no background research, reading or critical thought / review is to continue to pander to every bad human kneejerk reaction that the media (and our government) just loves to perpetuate.

go ahead and flame away, I feel rather button-pushy atm.

side note: man, I wish every-image-hosting-service-but-flickr wasn't blocked here at work. I'd dearly love to check out the Buster/Pickle duo.

posted by lonefrontranger 23 October | 14:52

Yes, but are we suppose to feel better or worse that it wasn't a preteen boy or a middle aged dog fighter?
i just don't see the sense. We don't know if she is a "poor mentally ill person" or a "psychotic junkie freak," and it doesn't really matter.
She's probably the least disturbed about the dog right now, because it does seem like a full break with reality.
But it doesn't follow that we are suppose to hate or pity someone when we hear about something like this just to do something with our feelings.

i hate that such a cute dog is trapped in such a dark story thread.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 14:53

I don't like the media's continued unspoken implications that we are "supposed" to feel ANYTHING - whatever happened to "just the facts, ma'am"? Granted, in discussion forums, there's a definite cultural pressure to feel the same way as the prevailing slant of the forum (no implied slander here folks, it's just kinda the way things work out), and to do anything but that risks contentiousness, ostracism and flamey trollsnark.

besides, I'm not the most educated naked ape on the planet, but I kinda vaguely remember learning something in high school about the journalistic directive being to present objective facts, not to provoke... O WAIT SRY I FORGOT...EYEBALLS...$$$... yea, nevermind.

and yes, I realise for the non-USians on the board that it ain't "our government", sorry about that, I tend to forget that stuff.

posted by lonefrontranger 23 October | 15:06

Bottom line is, that dog suffered and that really bums me out.

posted by amro 23 October | 15:08

It's not even that we're suppose to feel anything, this kind of story engenders a reaction that more people can understand rather than genocide in Not Here. But once you feel that disgust and horror, you have to put that emotion somewhere, you want something to blame. It's not an easy story to read and something sucky people should remember is that we probably would not have prospered and survived without our animal friends.
it's true. They picked us, too.

My kitty is insistent it is hugs time.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 15:13

Yes, but are we suppose to feel better or worse that it wasn't a preteen boy or a middle aged dog fighter?

If you're asking me, I don't know. I'm not telling anyone how to feel. I just said she probably wasn't in her right mind. Take from it what you will. This is how people talk about stories. I'm not kneejerking or flaming. If I'm wrong and she was having a perfectly fine day and very rationally decided to burn her dog, then I'll be the first to admit it.
And I never suggested hating or pitying anyone.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 15:15

Yes, but are we suppose to feel better or worse that it wasn't a preteen boy or a middle aged dog fighter?

What? I dunno, I'm not saying anything about how we're supposed to feel...

But it doesn't follow that we are suppose to hate or pity someone when we hear about something like this just to do something with our feelings.

All I'm saying is that the woman is mentally ill which likely played a large factor in what she did to the dog. I feel sorry for the dog, obviously, and I can't help but feel sorry for someone so unwell as to do such a terrible thing to a dog, and hope she gets the help she needs. That's all.

LFR, I honestly don't know what you're on about. Are you talking about the article, or our response to the article? What's all this about ranting and raving and ostracizing and flamey trollsnark? Did I miss a few comments when I was distracted by the cute puppy photos? What's all this ranting about the media? Buh?

And on preview: what hellbient said.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 15:18

Yes, but are we suppose to feel better or worse that it wasn't a preteen boy or a middle aged dog fighter?

Yeah, that's rhetorical, i thought quite obviously.
i'm saying it's natural to feel something but "if it was known by the woman's family that she had these tendencies" and speculative statements about "how ill" someone is, is the beginning of a bad road going nowhere but a way to vent the negative feelings.
No one was being directly addressed, the speculation was.
i'm surprised your both taking it personally.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 15:27

Entering typo city. Contractions and vowels may shift while in motion.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 15:29

CF, I was appalled at the article. I read it, read the headlines, read the rest, went 'oh man, unmedicated psycho, what a shame that had to happen'...

and then I didn't say anything about that gut reaction in thread, because my opinion doesn't change anything. The poor animal suffered and died, and the net result is that (owing to the way this was reported), there's a strong chance that woman and potentially her family, will suffer some dire consequences as a result. While I concur she doesn't need a chance to do more harm, I also don't like the potential that is now there for random nutjobs to torch her house or something similarly horrible in response to their (shallow) interpretations of (shallow) media.

My point, I guess, (which is in no way obvious I agree) is that once the sentiments in-thread started to vaguely resemble a lynch mob, I spoke up. I'm very tired of the media catering to our baser instincts by framing these sorts of hot-button stories in a deliberately inflammatory way. It's not just lazy journalism, it reinforces people's negative and inflammatory kneejerk into this never-ending spiral of hate and oneupmanship and OMGMUSTDOSOMETHING!!!11one. Sometimes evil stuff happens and it's nobody's fault, necessarily, it just did. Assigning blame in these situations is counterproductive at best.

As far as the solution to the central theme: how do we prevent unmedicated mental patients from doing further harm to their pets/loved ones? um, I dunno. for that issue see: Fucked-up Healthcare State Of The Nation, which is a whole other can o worms.

I'm not so much taking this personally as I'm frankly, extremely pissed off at the media and the seemingly-steadily-increasing level of dumbassedness in the U.S. public these days, which affected my judgement in posting. And I'm doing a shitty job of explaining myself so I'll stop now.

posted by lonefrontranger 23 October | 15:45

Venting negative feelings? Not to speak for jrossi or hellbient, but I mentioned the mental illness not to "vent negative feelings" but in defense of the woman; she was unwell, and likely not herself or thinking logically.
Thus I saw comments on how much "people suck" to be not very appropriate in this situation.

And after I and others expressed these views, thats when talk of speculation and venting anger and ranting and raving and ostracizing came in, and I get the feeling like you and LFR are responding to comments that got deleted or that I keep missing.

I don't think we're all on the same page.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 15:47

i'm saying it's natural to feel something but "if it was known by the woman's family that she had these tendencies" and speculative statements about "how ill" someone is, is the beginning of a bad road going nowhere but a way to vent the negative feelings.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see that. I just see it as more information added to the story. No negative feelings, not venting, but I did feel bad for the little guy.
The only thing I was speculating on was that in my experience, a person in their right mind does not tie a dog to a phone book and throw it on the stove. Not sure why I'm not supposed to point that out, or why it's "flying off the handle."

Again, sorry if I'm projecting. On preview, CF and I seem to be saying the same thing.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 15:50

I had a visceral reaction to the story of a dog being tortured. There is NO WAY for that story to have been reported that would have caused me to react any less strongly. There was no way to frame it that would not have been inflammatory to animal lovers. You can't blame the media, unless you think that this story should not have been reported at all.

posted by amro 23 October | 15:54

The mental illness part may or may not be a red herring. It is possible to be evil and have the mental illness as a sideline. Ethelyne is right, most mentally ill people are not violent. In rare cases, unfortunately, sometimes the illness causes them to do awful things. But many times awful things are done by awful people who just happen to have a mental disorder on top of it. In any case, we have no way of knowing in what category that dog's owner falls.

Yorkies are awesome little things. My former neighbor had four and she doted on them like children. They were fantastic little watchdogs, too.

posted by bunnyfire 23 October | 15:58

Posting a story you didn't read isn't a great idea and i'm not saying anyone did or did not feel anything they didn't say, but that someone feels the need to say anything in defense is just as pointless as wanting to blame them.
i understand that people were trying to point out the people suck part might be not people inherently sucking, but it still doesn't matter.
These stories are human interest because they elicit a reaction.
It makes sense to know if you live there, but as a floating internet story it just adds misery to the lot of humans.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 15:58

Yer, for me the fact that she does have diagnosed mental ill-health changes how I feel about her, not how I feel about what happened to the dog. As Hellbient said: I'd just like to say please blame the illness, not the person - the behaviour is the problem, not the person. What happened to the dog is fucking horrible, regardless, but if the perpetrator was experiencing a psychotic break when it occurred then she gets my pity and hope she can receive treatment, not my hatred.

posted by goo 23 October | 16:02

bunnyfire: He's a tremendous watchdog. Not at all "yappy", as dogs of his size are often described. He barks only when he hears noises that he associates with someone coming in the house, and only when at least one of us is home. We worried he was barking at every little noise when we were gone, but one time, when he broke out of his part of the house while we were away, we opened the front door, and there he was, no barking, just sitting on his bed.

LFR: Sorry, I finally joined the rest of the world by getting a digicam, but no Flickr account yet.

Eth: Don't worry. Buster will find his way into other threads, I'm sure. He's bred to climb through tunnels and find rats!

posted by SpiffyRob 23 October | 16:07

It also a sad coincidence that this is the harshest consequence of animal abuse i've heard of yet.

Maybe we need a happy animal thread.
The Bees insists on being right here, pissed both arms aren't immobile.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 16:13

Ethelyne is right, most mentally ill people are not violent.

I could be wrong, but I don't think eth was saying that. I think she was pointing out that it's rare that an animal cruelty case involves the mentally ill.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 16:20

Actually both.
Ya know, i thought what i wrote besides a few typos spoke for itself.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 16:28

Posting a story you didn't read isn't a great idea

I read the story, ethylene. I missed the mental illness reference, but I read the story.

posted by amro 23 October | 16:42

Oh, and by the way, it is my belief that anyone who burns a dog alive is mentally ill. I also believe that anyone who murders is mentally ill, which is why I am opposed to the death penalty.

posted by amro 23 October | 16:46

So, to be clear, it doesn't really matter that I missed that part of the story. Although I'll admit that the "sometimes people suck" thing probably wasn't the best idea.

posted by amro 23 October | 16:47

Ya know, i thought what i wrote besides a few typos spoke for itself.

Well, this is what I got out of what you said in your comment (the "typo city" one)

"I'm saying it's natural to have a reaction to the story, but saying things like "if it was known by the woman's family that she had these tendencies..." and talking about this woman's mental illness as mentioned by the articles will lead to an unproductive discussion about mental illness, and such discussion of (her) mental illness serves only to act as a way to vent your negative feelings about the woman/story.
I wasn't addressing anyone in the thread, I was addressing the talk about her mental illness.
I'm surprised you're both taking it personally."

You keep using the term "speculation," and that's part of why I'm confused; nobody is "speculating" anything, we're taking the logical step that since the woman is mentally ill, odds are very good that played a part in what she did to the dog. I don't see how mentioning her mental illness is speculation or saying anything negative about the woman, or how it serves as a way for us to "vent," and like hellbient I'm unsure of why we shouldn't mention that particular detail.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 16:55

Is suppostion a better word than speculation, because it's just boiling down to word choice again, whether we're talking about people suck beyond belief in contrast to That woman must be so ill to blame them for letting her be alone around a dog.

Hearing about a horrible crime leads the mind to wonder what's been done about it. The conclusion is that the person is caught and being prosecuted and they happen to have a history of mental illness, as opposed to random sick fuck to likes to torture animals, in an instance when the person is actually being charged significantly as opposed to the many instances of not being able to do anything but charge damage to property.

The story is "Horrible thing happened to dog. Dog dies." without much mention of the person, but if it matters to you what happened to the dog, you wonder about the person who did it.
If someone commits a crime you find criminal, you want the person to be punished. It's not hard see the story as "Mentally Ill Person Kills Dog" which is why people felt the need to point this out and defend it. Because if it wasn't a consciously malicious act, where does the horror and indignation at knowledge of the act go? Possibly to pitying the person.
It's speculation and supposition because we don't know what happened. Person did bad thing. Person was caught. Dog was horribly tortured. Dog is dead.
The story has an end. The players are apparently accounted for. Everything else is arrived at by means other than the facts presented.
If it didn't say the person was caught or ill, it would be easy to just be outraged, but we don't have to worry about a dog torturer at large.
Amro didn't notice the line about the person at first, perhaps so overwhelmed by her reaction to the poor dog.
Reading into it, it could look like she's says something about the mentally ill. She is in fact not. Still not a great place for people to air their feelings about mental illness.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 17:29

i ended up reading that story repeatedly to see where people were coming from, and that sucks.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 17:31

Thank you for teh kyoot puppeh antidote SpiffyRob.

posted by gomichild 23 October | 17:49

Hearing about a horrible crime leads the mind to wonder what's been done about it

And the answer, apparently, is to lock in the local jail a schizophrenic who's off her meds. That doesn't seem like an optimal solution for anyone involved.

posted by small_ruminant 23 October | 18:20

Sounds like you're doing a lot of speculating yourself, eth.
Without any pity, anger or flamage, I was pointing out that, despite whatever the actual story is here, when a mentally ill person does something horrible during a psychotic episode, it's beyond that person's control. I was pointing that out because some people were expressing anger (which is totally natural and fine by me, btw). I wasn't defending anyone, but merely pointing out that they're might be something to the mentally ill thing.

You're right that I don't know exactly what happened in this case, but call it women's intuition. If I'm wrong, so be it.

Because if it wasn't a consciously malicious act, where does the horror and indignation at knowledge of the act go? Possibly to pitying the person.

This assumes that there has to be horror, indignation, pity and feelings, etc. Some stuff happened, I was talking about it. I was not attaching any emotions to it.

Still not a great place for people to air their feelings about mental illness.

Again, I never mentioned anything about feelings, other than feeling bad for the dog.

That said, I understand you'd rather see this thread as more of tribute to the dog (yes, I'm speculating here), which I totally appreciate.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 18:21

It's speculation and supposition because we don't know what happened.
But what is speculation or supposition? Us discussing the facts of the story? Again, I'm lost.

Everything else is arrived at by means other than the facts presented.
What is this "everything else" you're referring to? Us discussing the facts of the story?

Reading into it, it could look like she's says something about the mentally ill. She is in fact not.
Who? Amro??

Still not a great place for people to air their feelings about mental illness.
Who was doing that?

Once more I find myself confused as to who or what you're responding to, and feel like I'm not seeing the same discussion as you. It seems like you're basically not a fan of us discussing the story as a whole, or at least mentioning the fact that she's mentally ill, which is most likely the reason this unfortunate event occurred.

At this point, however, I don't think I'm going to understand.

And once more, on preview: What hellbient said. Heh.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 18:35

No, what the posted story is is the end of a story for a community that has donated money in its concern for the welfare of this dog. It is of great interest to the people there who have been pulling for this dog.
i don't know about anyone else but i didn't hear about this dog until i saw this post, and i didn't really want to read a horrible dog torture story. The story is about a dog that is widely describe by what happened to it. The story of the person we don't actually know at all. You introduced it, but it just adds to what people want to think about what happened, and it's generally denigrating to the whole complexity of what "mental illness" might mean, in this case as well as in general, by supposing it "just a psychotic break" or "voices" or "OCD frenzy" or "meth" or anything because we don't know and it seems like people using the terminology don't know exactly what it means in the first place.
Going to immediately excusing the person isn't as bad as immediately damning the person, but they're both opinions being arrived at depending on what the person wants to think depending on what the person thinks they know.

Throw a dog torture story at someone that end with a dead dog and people usually aren't happy about it. These people wanted to know about this story, that with the wire fondness for animal stories gets spread around as a human interest story.
It's being pointed out this isn't a nascent serial killer, per usual when you hear animal torture. Still gets people worked up.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 18:45

Why can't the story be about a dog and a person?
That's what it is to me.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 18:56

i'm not saying don't mention mental illness, i'm saying you don't know how it's being defined here. Just because it says someone is schizophrenic doesn't mean you know what of many different things that could mean or if this person s properly diagnosed or what the hell is going on in this instance, and neither article does much to explain it, but it's not involving anyone else at this point except that person and the justice system.
If you've witnessed or experience a psychotic episode, it doesn't mean you know what this particular person or situation was like, and assuming you do is frankly ignorant.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 18:57

Personally, i think it's clear this person was clearly not legally sane, but we don't know why or what happened, and there is no point in assuming it was meth induced bet any more than that the dog was telling her to do it. It's all so pop psych it's meaningless unless it makes you feel better or you want to write a really bad soap.
Schizophrenia has enough problems without people throwing darts at schizophrenics with pin the tail on the thing i heard about somewhere.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:04

there is no point in assuming it was meth induced bet any more than that the dog was telling her to do it.
What? Who the heck assumed either of those?

It's all so pop psych it's meaningless unless it makes you feel better or you want to write a really bad soap.
Schizophrenia has enough problems without people throwing darts at schizophrenics with pin the tail on the thing i heard about somewhere.

You and I aren't reading the same discussion, Eth, and I'm going to leave it at that.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 19:12

Sorry eth, I don't recall anyone claiming it must be meth induced psychosis. The way I read the whole discussion was this:

1. bad thing happened, that's so sad
2. person who did bad thing happens to have mental illness
3. maybe that explains why bad thing happened?
4. Let's not judge the person, as we can't tell what caused her to do bad thing.

I didn't read judgment or any attempt to define said mental illness in the discussion, just an attempt to come to terms with the terrible event.

posted by jonathanstrange 23 October | 19:16

Who the heck said they assume it was meth-induced?

And who said they know what this person's situation was?

Anyway. Sometimes, when an issue strikes a chord in someone because they have (or think they have) personal experience with it, they take things others say about it more to heart than they would otherwise, or perhaps react almost as though these things are being said to or about them personally. I know I've done that. I've also felt a responsibility to try to clear up misconceptions when they involve something with which I have had experience. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, because I don't know. But it's my guess.

posted by amro 23 October | 19:17

CF, if you haven't caught on, i was talking more directly to hellbient because trying to attend to your detail oriented confusion art the time wasn't possible. If you step back and read the parts you find unclear and find them still unclear, i'll get back to you. When i stop dropping d's and rest some.

I'm the one who mentioned meth because it's as logical as any other conclusion someone wants to jump to without knowing any more than those two articles, again, the main one about a dog who died with its bills well paid, the other a brief attempt to explain the circumstances as could be known.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:22

at the time, but confusion art is funny.

Again, i'm not saying it was meth, i'm saying jumping to conclusions makes that as rational an answer as any other.
There is no rational jumping to conclusions on hypothesizing here except in the looses terms.

i don't see why dog torture story is such a great topic in the first place.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:26

Anyway. Sometimes, when an issue strikes a chord in someone because they have (or think they have) personal experience with it, they take things others say about it more to heart than they would otherwise, or perhaps react almost as though these things are being said to or about them personally. I know I've done that. I've also felt a responsibility to try to clear up misconceptions when they involve something with which I have had experience. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, because I don't know. But it's my guess.

Who else has been in a community when an animal torture story breaks open?
It's ugly and inflammatory and people are often incited to action by the local media, it's a flame that doesn't need much fanning. i've wanted to look up the name and address in the paper. Provocative animal stories are the bread and butter of papers. This one's more complicated, somewhat thankfully, but it's too easy to label the human perpetrator simply to end a story.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:38

Why can't the story be about a dog and a person?

Because we only know about the dog.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:42

Who else has been in a community when an animal torture story breaks open?

I was referring to the mental illness aspect of the story and ensuing discussion.

posted by amro 23 October | 19:47

Yes, and i was saying, "What's the point of going DEAD DOG STORY! in the first place?"

"DEAD DOG! SAD! BAD PEOPLE!"
"Dead dog? SAD."
"Sad."
"SAD! DEAD DOG! BAD PEOPLE!"
"Sad. People not bad. People sick."
"SAD!"
"Sad people! Dead dog SAD!"
"DEAD DOG! SICK PEOPLE BAD!"
"Sick people sick."
"Sad."
"Um, that's a sad story but you don't know anything about this person, sick or bad, both, neither. Horrible story, though."
"Wha?"
"You might as well say the devil made her do it for all you know."
"Muh?"

posted by ethylene 23 October | 19:54

i don't see why dog torture story is such a great topic in the first place.

Due respect, eth, the thread, like all threads here, was avoidable. It was clear from amro's title that it wasn't going to be a happy-go-fun-fun story.

A lot of people here (myself included) occasionally post links to horrific stories. Part of the urge to do that, I think, is to prove that others find it horrific as well. When you spend the morning thinking the world and its inhabitants are of little worth, sometimes it's good to know that there are other folks out there who care and who feel like you do.

It's not a great "topic." But in the end, that's really kind of the point.

It'd be easy enough to question 50% of the posts here. I mean, do we really need to see another picture of a bunny? No, but so what? "Need" doesn't really come into it.

posted by mudpuppie 23 October | 20:01

Oh, and I'll add a :) , because I'm not trying to contribute to whatever contention is in here.

posted by mudpuppie 23 October | 20:02

Yes, yes, but the comments sucked me in, then it turned out to be a "I found a dead dog story!" "Missed that part. Doesn't matter."
And while people tried to head off the "SICK BAD" part, it still isn't germaine. Yet i ended up reading dead dog story over and over. Yick.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 20:08

It sounds to me like you think I'm so disturbed by this story that I have to label it and move on, for my own piece of mind. That's absolutely not the case. What I said I gleaned from the article itself, fwiw. You're right that it doesn't matter what I think, because the truth will hopefully come out at some point. I never denied that, and of course welcome it. I never said she should be declared innocent immediately and no trial, grab your pitchfork, etc., whatever. But honestly, if and when it comes out that it was done under a psychotic episode, all the article will say is that indeed she was under a psychotic episode, probably not much more. Will that be good enough for you?

It hurts a little that you think I'm throwing darts at schizophrenics. I have lived and worked with several and I have nothing but the greatest respect for them. It's an incredible disease to go through, and takes tremendous courage. I didn't pretend to know everything about mental illness, so your dismissal of "pop psych" comes across as rather condescending. And you're right that I don't know what a psychotic episode means. Unless you've had one, no one does.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 21:35

i'm really surprised you are taking anything i've said to be personally questioning you and your motives and opinions.

i have issue with emotionally manipulative stories of this nature that get passed around as just human interest animal stories, and in the worst tabloid way are misunderstood as tabloid fodder.

i should have stopped looking at the puppies.

posted by ethylene 23 October | 21:46

Maybe you just know how to push my buttons.
; )
It is difficult to tell what is getting directed at whom. If I'm wrong for picking that up, then good. I'll see you in the cute-off thread.

posted by Hellbient 23 October | 22:00

Yeah, that's rhetorical, i thought quite obviously.
Ya know, i thought what i wrote besides a few typos spoke for itself.
i'm surprised your both taking it personally.
i'm really surprised you are taking anything i've said to be personally questioning you and your motives and opinions.

Ethylene, I don't think what you're trying to say is coming across as clearly as you want it to.

posted by CitrusFreak12 23 October | 23:21

CitrusFreak12, the world is all shiny and new and full of puppies.
Isn't it an exciting time to be alive?

posted by ethylene 23 October | 23:43

ethylene I need you to comment on my face.

posted by CitrusFreak12 24 October | 00:30

There's always a problem when addressing the general you (as in not me) especially when people are trying to ask specific questions when someone (me) is trying to address the larger issues illustrated by the presence and reactions to what seems like the usual human interest horror story.
i had no intention to cast aspersions on anyone else's motives and opinions (except i don't know s_r well enough to know how much she was being wickedly funny or painfully uninformed, and frankly, i didn't have the energy to go there, nor did i want to go on about the sadly not well known and prominent history of "mental illness" as a social issue, health issue and terminology.) i was way too exhausted to want to think about how the level of discourse was so poor because of the widespread lack of basic knowledge and education on the issues, because i wasn't at the time willing to make the properly annotated lecture.

None of that matters as i don't question the motives of people present in this thread as having an agenda other than the ones stated. That doesn't extend to why this story is out on the wire.
For all i know it will help pass propositions for Animal Cruelty Bans, which on the face of it i would be for, but it also could be to propagate other agendas as it has the opportunity to touch on so many. It's a simple piece on a more complicated situation, and right now it's pretty impossible not to wonder about the motives behind everything.

Yay, animal cruelty bans except i don't know what that really means as i'm not voting on one as far as i know. Is it attached to something else? Is it being forwarded for yet another less fluffy family friendly agenda? i don't know, but i have to wonder.
One person's animal cruelty story is another person's mental health issue is another person's legal issue is another person's community concern. One person's overlooked fact is another person's grievous oversight is another person's continuing misinformation.
It's not the "liberal media" people need to worry about, it's the liberal interpretation and specious arguments.

posted by ethylene 24 October | 07:50

23 October 2008