PDA

View Full Version : Stfu, you dirty big rabbitfucker!



neocon58
07-05-2006, 04:38 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rabbit-mutilator-jailed/2006/07/03/1151778857609.html

Ahem...

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 05:48 AM
What's the big deal? We invented myxo and the calisi virus to kill all rabbits in the country ; and it works slowly and painfully. Why does this loser have to face court?

Sunny
07-05-2006, 06:01 AM
no amounts of meth are an excuse for that kind of shit; he sounds like a real charmer, i hope he gets his psycho ass pounded in jail like there's no tomorrow.

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 06:03 AM
I don't see that he has anything to excuse. He bought those rabbits. His country is attempting to kill all rabbits. Seriously, what's the problem?

Sunny
07-05-2006, 06:08 AM
there's a difference between killing and what he did.

we'll never agree on this, but i don't believe in the superiority of our species, or our "right" to own and do whatever we wish to other life forms.
in my opinion the life of the rabbit (a pest) is worth about as much as the life of this guy (also a pest). the only difference is that rabbits aren't psychotic. cruelty should be punished with cruelty towards the offender.

it is only a damn shame humans like him can't be bought and sold sometimes.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 06:21 AM
I didn't think I would agree with Justin on this. But he raises a good point. Australia is actively trying to eliminate all rabbits in the country, in a cruel way. This man just did it on a smaller scale. I don't believe in the superiority of species either (or well, I guess it comes down to preserving the natural order and not eliminating cornerstone species.)

What I find bizarre and funny, is that this guy is a head of a Financial firm. All shapes and sizes I guess.

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 06:21 AM
I don't believe in "rights" either, Mags. You've got me all wrong.

I do believe in might, however. And we're the ones with the opposable thumbs and the shotguns. Our lives mean a hell of a lot more than the lives of stinking rodent pests.

edit ; and as for what wheelie says, I've personally trapped and slit open infected rabbits. And I've seen what those fucking viruses do to them inside, up close and personal. And I can safely say, after seeing that horrible horrible shit, that I'd much rather be skinned alive and raped by some psychotic freak than have that shit happen to me.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 06:26 AM
I didn't think I would agree with Justin on this. But he raises a good point. Australia is actively trying to eliminate all rabbits in the country, in a cruel way. This man just did it on a smaller scale.

per, it's not "eliminating them on a smaller scale". the article says specifically "torture, mutilation and alleged sexual offences". i'm sure that when the state kills rabbits, it doesn't involve cutting off their parts and sodomy... does it?

i mean, the state also kills criminals, but doesn't skin and assfuck them first, right?

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 06:27 AM
Myxo and Calisi do far worse than what that man did.

Tizzalicious
07-05-2006, 06:36 AM
I agree with everything Sunny said. That's just sick.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 06:39 AM
Our lives mean a hell of a lot more than the lives of stinking rodent pests.


the more i interact with humans the more i'm inclined to disagree.

my understanding is that myxomatosis kills by causing bacterial infections, and while i'm sure it ain't too pretty, it sounds a lot better than what that guy did.

Nina
07-05-2006, 06:49 AM
I am sure I will regret asking this, but...how can you be sexual with a rabbit...at all? They are really small. I dont get it.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 06:50 AM
same way you can be sexual with a newborn, which usually results in internal damage and bleeding.

...

yeah, i know >_<

Nina
07-05-2006, 06:51 AM
:(

How can somebody ever feel the need to do that? That's not just a case of "fucking gross!!!"-ness, it's a lot worse than that. Just.....WHY?!

Dexter_H
07-05-2006, 06:56 AM
It's not that bad... I agree with "Sin Studly". Myxo and the Calici virus do pretty bad stuff to rabbits. Have you ever seen one that's been infected? The story has probably been sexed up anyway.

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 07:14 AM
I am sure I will regret asking this, but...how can you be sexual with a rabbit...at all? They are really small. I dont get it.

Read the other news stories, he used something other than his penis, and therefore dodged the bestiality charges.

And yeah, those diseases are worse than anything that guy could have done. That fucking organ it creates is terrifying, I can't imagine the pain it would cause.

killer_queen
07-05-2006, 07:46 AM
I'm all with Sunny on this. But... there's a little problem with me.
Although I can't stand watching a cute rabbit getting tortured and raped I'd gladly watch a disgusting, huge bug being killed. Does this make me kinda hypocrite?

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 07:53 AM
Yes, like the rest of humanity. It doesn't matter.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 08:00 AM
Although I can't stand watching a cute rabbit getting tortured and raped I'd gladly watch a disgusting, huge bug being killed. Does this make me kinda hypocrite?

sure, but i'd say it's normal =p

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 08:50 AM
Sunny, are you ignoring the massive cruelty inflicted by these viruses? Because I assure you, they dwarf anything this guy did.

Seriously though, you do disgust me for thinking any crime should be responded to with cruelty. I'm a pretty extreme right-wing kinda guy when it comes to crime and punishment, but I don't think any crime should be dealt with by cruelty.

TheUnholyNightbringer
07-05-2006, 08:53 AM
I'm with Justin on this one. Reasons have already been said.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 08:57 AM
Seriously though, you do disgust me for thinking any crime should be responded to with cruelty. I'm a pretty extreme right-wing kinda guy when it comes to crime and punishment, but I don't think any crime should be dealt with by cruelty.

where exactly did i say "any crime"? i said "cruelty should be punished with cruelty towards the offender." we're talking about stuff like rape, abuse, child rape, torture, battery, and animal torture, crimes that result in/aim to cause prolonged suffering of the victim. not just any crime.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 09:38 AM
I think by any crime, he meant any crime at all.

Mota Boy
07-05-2006, 09:55 AM
i mean, the state also kills criminals, but doesn't skin and assfuck them first, right?
And yet, that's exactly what you're advocating.

Personally, I think that animals aren't property, but they also aren't people. Animal cruelty should be recognized as a real crime, and punished, because, to an extent, I think we should empathize with higher forms of life that can feel pain and perhaps even vague emotions.

Tortuting rabbits is fucked up, agreed. And it's not something that society can tolerate (especially leaving the carcasses around your office), but should you be sentenced to sixteen months in jail for it? And should you be physically punished? Do we value the life of rabbits so much that we're willing to harm a human being for no other reason than retribution? Personally, that always blows my mind - how some of the gentlest and self-professed peaceful people I know can wish to kill or torture another human being because of what they did to animals. There's no logic behind it, just a gut reaction that immediately categorizes cute animals as innocent, therefore people that harm them as evil (even non-human) and therefore worthy of horrible acts of torture. And laws shouldn't be based on gut reactions. If he'd tortured, say, toads there wouldn't be nearly the outcry.

I honestly think a large fine would do, maybe with some public service thrown in. Public condemnation alone is enough to prevent most of these crimes.

killer_queen - No, it's not really hypocritical. Rabbits have vastly more advanced nervous systems than bugs. A rabbit can feel pain and perhaps even know fear. Bugs feel neither.

And Per - as for the financeer aspect, when I read that in the article I thought of Patrick Bateman (the protagonist from American Psycho).

the_GoDdEsS
07-05-2006, 09:58 AM
As long as it's not my animal, I can't be bothered. Sure, it's sick. But if you were to worry about the fate of all living things, you'd live a life of sorrow. Therefore it's better to just remain practical about it.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 09:59 AM
However you feel about rabbits themselves, psychologists and suchlike have made a strong connection between animal torture and future criminal acts against humans. I'm under the impression it's for this reason that a lot of cruelty towards animals has been criminalized throughout the world.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 10:11 AM
And yet, that's exactly what you're advocating.

Personally, I think that animals aren't property, but they also aren't people. Animal cruelty should be recognized as a real crime, and punished, because, to an extent, I think we should empathize with higher forms of life that can feel pain and perhaps even vague emotions.

Tortuting rabbits is fucked up, agreed. And it's not something that society can tolerate (especially leaving the carcasses around your office), but should you be sentenced to sixteen months in jail for it? And should you be physically punished? Do we value the life of rabbits so much that we're willing to harm a human being for no other reason than retribution? Personally, that always blows my mind - how some of the gentlest and self-professed peaceful people I know can wish to kill or torture another human being because of what they did to animals. There's no logic behind it, just a gut reaction that immediately categorizes cute animals as innocent, therefore people that harm them as evil (even non-human) and therefore worthy of horrible acts of torture. And laws shouldn't be based on gut reactions. If he'd tortured, say, toads there wouldn't be nearly the outcry.


mota, it's nothing BUT a gut reaction, and i don't expect or even want laws to be based on it. my reaction is as subjective as things can get. it's not so much about the cuteness of the animal, though, at least not in my case; it's about an more evolved and allegedly intelligent being using its advantages to torture and kill defenceless creatures solely for his own entertainment.



Do we value the life of rabbits so much that we're willing to harm a human being for no other reason than retribution?

do we, as society? no, we don't. do i? well, personally, a person who tortures the defenceless for the sheer joy of it- be it toads, baby bunnies or human children - doesn't even seem worthy of compassion to me. if you're willing to act totally inhumane, your rights as a human being... well.. are hard for me to acknowledge.

it's certainly hypocritical of me to oppose cruelty towards animals and advocate it towards certain criminals. i know. i'm not attempting to exhibit brilliant logic here.
i'm obviously very biased - dealing with animals (dogs, mostly) that were burned, beaten and traumatized by their "rightful owners"... and seeing the psychical and psychological effects of abuse has made me pretty fucking bitter and hateful towards anyone who has ever harmed an animal.
admittedly, i don't know what i would do if i ever had to face the previous "owner" of my dog.

so there you go. i'm not proposing a new law or even offering a solution, just offering a perspective of someone whose blood literally boils when faced with shit like that.

edit: 1565 said what i forgot to add, thank you.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 10:45 AM
However you feel about rabbits themselves, psychologists and suchlike have made a strong connection between animal torture and future criminal acts against humans. I'm under the impression it's for this reason that a lot of cruelty towards animals has been criminalized throughout the world.
And masturbation and rape, hash and heroin, global warming and pirates.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 11:09 AM
And masturbation and rape, hash and heroin, global warming and pirates.

...how are masturbation and rape in the same breath here?

Additionally, global warming is not a crime.

Sunny
07-05-2006, 11:09 AM
i think robert k. ressler, a fbi serial killer profiler (who also coined the actual term), knows what he's talking about.

*shrugs*

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 11:22 AM
...how are masturbation and rape in the same breath here?

Additionally, global warming is not a crime.
Because it's very easy to link two unrelated things. The studies you mention I believe link child abuse of animals to future adult abuse of people. Not easily applicable to a story of an adult bunny-raper either. Not to mention something that I think is bullshit. The child abuse of animals and adult abuse of people seem to be symptomatic of people who do not know right or wrong. Every child has to learn so that is nothing spectacular. And every child has partaken in cruel things, true the degree of which varies. It does not relate to the actions of the same adult who should've picked up a social concept of morality down the line at some point.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Because it's very easy to link two unrelated things. The studies you mention I believe link child abuse of animals to future adult abuse of people. Not easily applicable to a story of an adult bunny-raper either. Not to mention something that I think is bullshit. The child abuse of animals and adult abuse of people seem to be symptomatic of people who do not know right or wrong. Every child has to learn so that is nothing spectacular. And every child has partaken in cruel things, true the degree of which varies. It does not relate to the actions of the same adult who should've picked up a social concept of morality down the line at some point.

No, actually, it links animal cruelty to serial killing, not child abuse--Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy are two of the most famous who fit that profile. And if a person picked up a social concept of morality that should keep them from committing crimes, then why did/are they torture/torturing animals?

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 01:50 PM
No, actually, it links animal cruelty to serial killing, not child abuse

Per wasn't talking about child abuse, he was talking about the abuse of animals by children. And he's right when he says that all children are cruel to some extent, because they haven't learned our morality yet. Also, in mentioning global warming and whatever else he was pointing out that statistics can be creatively shown to link anything.

Tizzalicious
07-05-2006, 01:57 PM
Because it's very easy to link two unrelated things. The studies you mention I believe link child abuse of animals to future adult abuse of people. Not easily applicable to a story of an adult bunny-raper either. Not to mention something that I think is bullshit. The child abuse of animals and adult abuse of people seem to be symptomatic of people who do not know right or wrong. Every child has to learn so that is nothing spectacular. And every child has partaken in cruel things, true the degree of which varies. It does not relate to the actions of the same adult who should've picked up a social concept of morality down the line at some point.

Of course it relates, if someone doesn't know what's right or wrong (which the animal abuse shows they don't), there is a bigger chance of them eventually being a murderer//abuser when they are older, or just later in time. Makes perfect sense.

Not to say all people who abuse animals will abuse people, or that all people who abuse people abused animals in the past, but there is definitely a higher risk when they did. Because they don't know what's wrong or right.

Edit: And Richard, if a child doesn't know that it's wrong to abuse an animal, something definitely went wrong in their upbringing. Every kid should know that.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 02:20 PM
Per wasn't talking about child abuse, he was talking about the abuse of animals by children..

That'd be all well and good except that the rabbit fucker is an ADULT.

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 02:28 PM
Edit: And Richard, if a child doesn't know that it's wrong to abuse an animal, something definitely went wrong in their upbringing. Every kid should know that.

Every kid should know that, but at what age? If a 15 year old kid is abusing an animal, sure, you can say something went wrong in their upbringing. But if a five year old is doing it, can you really condemn them or their parents for that? It takes time. It takes time to fully learn our morality, and it takes time to fully develop compassion and empathy. Also, it depends on the severity of the abuse. Neglect is a form of abuse, yet most kids I know have neglected their pets. Fortunately parents are often willing to step in and take over. But the child wasn't trying to hurt the animal, they just forgot, or got bored, and didn't understand that the animal was different from a toy. I think that is the most important point. Young children often see animals as no different than anything else they play with. They haven't learned yet that animals have feelings. Possibly can't even fully differentiate yet between things which are alive and things which are not. Especially when it comes to creatures that in no way resemble us. When I was a boy I did horrible things to insects, as did every other boy I knew. It wasn't an attempt at cruelty, we just didn't see any difference between pulling bits off of bugs and pulling bits off our toy cars. In time I learned the difference. When it came to cute fluffly animals I never did anything worse than tail-pulling, because I could understand that they were alive and had some rights. But I wouldn't immedaitely condemn a kid that hadn't learned that yet.

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 02:38 PM
That'd be all well and good except that the rabbit fucker is an ADULT.

Yes, but I think Per's point wasn't directly related to adult rabbit-fuckers. It was a side point about children abusing animals later becoming serial killers, and statistics in general.

I expect everyone could agree that an adult abusing animals, intentionally and especially sexually, indicates severe psychological problems. Even Justin would probably admit this rabbit-fucker is totally fucked up. He's just questioning how you can punish the guy for doing essentially the same thing as the government is doing. But he's ignoring the differing motivations of the government and the rabbit fucker, and the fact that the government is always allowed to do things that individuals cannot. In countries with the death penalty governments can kill people, but we as individuals cannot. Just saying "the government does it" is not a valid defense.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 03:40 PM
Oh. My point wasn't about children at all, though, so I dunno how that entered the argument...

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 03:47 PM
However you feel about rabbits themselves, psychologists and suchlike have made a strong connection between animal torture and future criminal acts against humans.

I think it started here. Although you didn't mention children, that's the way it would likely be taken. But anyway, that side point has probably been given enough attention now.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 04:03 PM
Of course it relates, if someone doesn't know what's right or wrong (which the animal abuse shows they don't), there is a bigger chance of them eventually being a murderer//abuser when they are older, or just later in time. Makes perfect sense.

Not to say all people who abuse animals will abuse people, or that all people who abuse people abused animals in the past, but there is definitely a higher risk when they did. Because they don't know what's wrong or right.

Edit: And Richard, if a child doesn't know that it's wrong to abuse an animal, something definitely went wrong in their upbringing. Every kid should know that.
Richard took the words right out of my mouth. So I'll just try to supplement his arguments. Essentially my point was that the actions of the child, should have no bearing on his judgements as a man. He did not know right or wrong as a young person, this probably will change. It does not increase the likelihood that he won't learn it, if he is young. Because we *all* have to learn it.

Little Miss 1565- You were talking about the Adult Rabbit Fucker, yet the adult Rabbit Fucker as far as we know, has not tortured or murdered, or whatever, a living person. So I am not quite sure what the relevance is yet.

Nina
07-05-2006, 04:14 PM
Richard, I am not trying to be annoying but it seems like you are mixing up some stuff. a five year old, as you mentioned yourself, SHOULD indeed understand that he is not supposed to hurt others, or an animal, even unintentionally. But the "little kids" you were talking about arent older than two, or well, three. Yeah, it's just by two years but it makes a major difference at this age. A five year old almost goes to school, interacts with people a LOT (different to kindergarden).
I dunno if that made sense to anyone. I am tired. But I agree with Tizz. "Small" children (even babies) know all about harm/pain, too. Even if it's just an animal which they might consider a toy.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 04:18 PM
They know about pain, but can they relate it to other animals. It's not of matter of when they *should* know right or wrong. It's a matter of when they do. And it can of course for some young people take a long time.

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 04:18 PM
"Small" children (even babies) know all about harm/pain, too. Even if it's just an animal which they might consider a toy.

But toys don't feel pain. So if a child considers an animal to be a toy, they aren't necessarily going to realize at first that it can feel pain etc.

But anyway, I understand people will have differing opinions when it comes to this, so I'll leave it at that.

Nina
07-05-2006, 04:21 PM
They know about pain, but can they relate it to other animals.

Yes they will!!!!
They have no feeling for morality, but they understand the concept of "right and wrong" of the adults, and dont want to get in trouble, so they try to behave like them.
I have no idea how to explain it otherwise.

And since when are children rational? When a little girl accidentally kicks her doll she'll probably say "ooohh sorry!". Haha aw.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Yes they will!!!!
They have no feeling for morality, but they understand the concept of "right and wrong" of the adults, and dont want to get in trouble, so they try to behave like them.
I have no idea how to explain it otherwise.

And since when are children rational? When a little girl accidentally kicks her doll she'll probably say "ooohh sorry!". Haha aw.
Children's behavior *is* irrational. And they don't want to get in trouble. But when a child tortures a cat, it's not because he's deeply fucked up. It's because he's never learned right or wrong.

It's of course not good when children torture cats for example. However this does not make them horrible and evil. This simply means that they haven't got a fully developed sense of right or wrong. Sure most 5 year olds will have learned this by now. But not all. This does not mean they won't learn it though. It depends on the nature of their upbringing. And I think a huge factor is peer pressure. There is a higher tendency for children to do rather cruel things when they are encouraging each other to do this.

Nina
07-05-2006, 04:28 PM
Yes, but I think it was Richard who said that the parents cant be blamed (or maybe it was you). Thats what I was refering you and why I agreed with Tizz. Yes they can be blamed. Because there was something they did wrong in their education.
Yeah, there are children who naturally have a tendency for being "crueler" than others, but there's always an exception to everything and I dont think it's always so discussable.

nieh
07-05-2006, 04:32 PM
Yes they will!!!!
They have no feeling for morality, but they understand the concept of "right and wrong" of the adults, and dont want to get in trouble, so they try to behave like them.
I have no idea how to explain it otherwise.

And since when are children rational? When a little girl accidentally kicks her doll she'll probably say "ooohh sorry!". Haha aw.

They will eventually. As Richard said, most kids consider animals nothing more than toys. A child might do horrible things to an animal, not with the intention of causing it pain, but so they can hear that funny sound the dog makes when he twists its leg. Or they throw a cat up into to the air making it do flips and end up missing it on the way down so it falls on the floor. The children think since they're having fun the animal obviously is too. A lot of kids don't realize that this is hurting the animal until the animal bites them or worse, stops breathing. Once they have this little revelation most of them never do things like that again but a lot of children need to experience something like that before it becomes imbedded in their mind that it's wrong because telling them "it's wrong because I said so and you'll be punished" doesn't always have as strong of an effect as the kid finding out first hand why it's wrong.

Paint_It_Black
07-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Yes, but I think it was Richard who said that the parents cant be blamed (or maybe it was you).

I said you can blame them, possibly, if an older child is fucked up. I think I set 15 as an example. But I don't believe it is ALWAYS the parents fault if a child turns out fucked up.

wheelchairman
07-05-2006, 04:37 PM
It's entirely blameable on the parents. I just wouldn't blame the parents, there are always variables involved and extenuating circumstances. Richard might have mentioned(can't remember) that it was due to neglect as parents that children might become abusive in this way. Perhaps they are working full time or something, I don't know.

However society should also teach kids right or wrong. Just like you mentioned, when they go to kindergarten and interract. They eventually learn something about it. Especially as they get older.

Whoa I thought I pressed post.

Little_Miss_1565
07-05-2006, 06:56 PM
Little Miss 1565- You were talking about the Adult Rabbit Fucker, yet the adult Rabbit Fucker as far as we know, has not tortured or murdered, or whatever, a living person. So I am not quite sure what the relevance is yet.

I did say a strong connection to FUTURE criminal acts against humans, yes?

Sin Studly
07-05-2006, 09:46 PM
1565's point is valid, I'm not saying the rabbit-fucker should be ignored. But jailing him is ridiculous.

Tizzalicious
07-05-2006, 11:51 PM
I did say a strong connection to FUTURE criminal acts against humans, yes?

He is still not gonna agree, I had that discussion with him before ;)

Nian is absolutely right, a 5 year old should know that, he he doesn't, something is wrong. Sure he might learn it, but there will be a bigger chance someone like that (or someone who does it when he//she is like 10 years old), will turn into a murderer or whatever than someone who knew what was wrong from a young age. And that was the whole point of the argument.

Mota Boy
07-06-2006, 12:34 AM
personally, a person who tortures the defenceless for the sheer joy of it- be it toads, baby bunnies or human children - doesn't even seem worthy of compassion to me. if you're willing to act totally inhumane, your rights as a human being... well.. are hard for me to acknowledge.
Then how do you come about those rights in the first place, if they're apparently not inherent but earned? And on what basis do animals also have them? If it's just based on the fact that they're alive and feel pain, then those rights should never be taken away from any individual. And I know (now, anyway) that this is just your personal opinion, I just find it fascinating that people elevate animals to the level of humans, and are then willing to advocate harming or killing the latter to avenge the former.

Little_Miss_1565
07-06-2006, 08:27 AM
He is still not gonna agree, I had that discussion with him before ;)

I care less about him agreeing than about him being able to support counterargument on the basis of what I actually said.

wheelchairman
07-06-2006, 10:45 AM
I still don't see the relevance of the argument. The guy is not on trial for crimes against people. He is on trial for crimes against bunnies. And he should never be judged for potential crimes, or the fact that certain studies have shown he might have a higher potential of hurting people.

Little_Miss_1565
07-06-2006, 01:32 PM
I still don't see the relevance of the argument. The guy is not on trial for crimes against people. He is on trial for crimes against bunnies. And he should never be judged for potential crimes, or the fact that certain studies have shown he might have a higher potential of hurting people.

What people should and should not be tried for is outside what I said, though--All I said was that those psychological studies are why, as far as I understand, animal torture is against the law in many countries.

Besides, people are judged for potential crimes all the time--would any school put a convicted rapist in charge of a grade school classroom?

wheelchairman
07-06-2006, 03:09 PM
What people should and should not be tried for is outside what I said, though--All I said was that those psychological studies are why, as far as I understand, animal torture is against the law in many countries.

Besides, people are judged for potential crimes all the time--would any school put a convicted rapist in charge of a grade school classroom?
No of course not, I'm talking about judged as in a court of law. Not as in hiring procedures and personal condemnation.

Animal torture has been against the law in countries for ages. The first instance ever of child protection in the United States happened I think in the late 1790's or close to it. A boy was being burned by his parents. Burned. To get the boy taken out of his home and given to a new one. The sheriff of the town told the judge that it was a pet dog being burned. Because there were animal protection laws, but the field of family matters was kept private.

Around the world it's different. In India it's almost exclusively for religious reasons (in the Hindu part).

Animal laws have existed before psychological laws. There are probably several reasons for it. First and foremost they were necessary to the economy of the time. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by many countries. Many western countries? Or just many countries all over the world?