- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reputation score
- 185
Idiots. If they had just kept on with allowing it, and even accepted it, they'd get whatYou must be registered to see the linksYou must be registered to see the linksYou must be registered to see the linksYou must be registered to see the linksYou must be registered to see the links, and their business likely would have benefited at least somewhat from it.
If anything, I'd expect a trollface in ANSI there at some point
You must be registered to see the links
Apparently the internet is killing off printed works.
You must be registered to see the links
You must be registered to see the links
Excuse me while I find a flight to Bosnia.
If you like puppies, you may only past the first bit without getting angry. If you don't like puppies, you may just feel outraged that someone would do this to something that helpless, and lastly if you're like the monstrous little shit in the video (May you be cursed with an incurable disease) you might laugh.
You must be registered to see the links
Excuse me while I find a flight to Bosnia.
If you like puppies, you may only past the first bit without getting angry. If you don't like puppies, you may just feel outraged that someone would do this to something that helpless, and lastly if you're like the monstrous little shit in the video (May you be cursed with an incurable disease) you might laugh.
There was a time when throwing a weighted sackful of newborn puppies in a river was common practice, because you couldn't take care of the full litter. I doubt that there just happened to be a person with a barrel of puppies and a second person willing to record these puppies being thrown into a river. Bosnia's a third world country, I doubt the residents have the time, resources, or inclination to do right by a litter of pups. That being said, I don't know why they'd need it recorded, why they'd upload it to youtube after, and why they didn't do something more discreet, like leaving them in a sack full of rocks.
There is probly a fuck ton of people here in North America that do the exact same thing.
Or, you know, you might realize that if she doesn't have a lot of money, she might not be able to keep them and she probably has better uses for the time and money it would take to take them to the vet to be killed(if that's even a realistic option). Granted, the manner in which she kills them could be more appropriate, but I'd bet it's easier to drown them than kill them with knife(even though latter would be, if done correctly, less painful for them). And it's not like she tortured them or anything.
Maybe she figured that if she has to get rid of them, it might be done with style?
Point taken, but I fail to see how that was particularly cruel or inhumane. Anyway, it's just possible that it was, in fact, a humane deed(despite all evidence to the contrary). Infection, birth defects, hereditary disease...