I just killed my Parakeet

[Lobstrich]

I think OP has had enough shit over him now, but I still agree with Lobstrich. It's probably time to close this thread before some sort of flame war starts or something.

I never said we should close it. Or are you agreeing, and then suggesting to close it?

 

[Bird]

I never said we should close it. Or are you agreeing, and then suggesting to close it?

He's agreeing with the sentiment that OP has had enough shit
and that the thread should probably be closed if he wishes to avoid that.

But he's also agreeing with you that it is truly horrible.
He doesn't want his opinion of this to go unnoticed.
He doesn't want people to mistake his compassion as
questionable morals.

 

[Lobstrich]

He's agreeing with the sentiment that OP has had enough shit
and that the thread should probably be closed if he wishes to avoid that.

But he's also agreeing with you that it is truly horrible.
He doesn't want his opinion of this to go unnoticed.
He doesn't want people to mistake his compassion as
questionable morals.

Hmm, why are you spelling it out like we're morons? Just curious =) I mean all you said after the little jump in the text is something anyone could have figured out. What I just wanted cleared up was if he agreed with me and wanted it closed. Or if he thought I was the one who wanted it closed and therefore agreed on my suggestion of closing it.

 

[Bird]

Hmm, why are you spelling it out like we're morons? Just curious =)

Because I wasn't sure why you had to ask.

 

[Lobstrich]

Because I wasn't sure why you had to ask.

Well, now you know!

 

[Bird]

Well, now you know!

Actually, I don't.
Are you implying you are a moron?

 

[Lobstrich]

Actually, I don't.
Are you implying you are a moron?

I am not. I am implying that you did not need to spell it out, as if we were morons. And by telling you that spelling it out was not needed, I am through that, also implying that I am not a moron.

 

[preilemus]

Not once did I excuse myself. Turning this into a catalyst for self-growth in no way negates what I felt, what the impact has been on my family, or the "wrongness" of any of it. I never said this is okay, that throwing around baby animals any time you're irritated is a perfectly agreeable reaction.

But just because it's not okay doesn't mean it can't happen, and in this case, it very much did. So, what then? I can't feel that this is a great benefit to me, and know that it's not something I want to do again both at the same time? It's either be a complete monster, or a tormented atoner?*I'm not put off because anyone is acting like it's a bad thing, it's because you act like it can't also be a good thing at the same time!

If there's something messed up about it, it's because everyone around me has made it so. It's messed up to go through life having killed an animal. It's messed up to go through life cheating on your spouse. Not everyone is messed up in the same ways, and we look at someone without our flaws and say "oh how I wish I were as pure as them!" without even recognising that they themselves are flawed in ways we are not. There is no such thing as a Paragon. What does this imply though? I don't know, but what I am NOT doing is allowing myself to revel in my flaws.

I am justifying my actions because of your flawed indictments. I haven't excused myself of anything because in my eyes no wrong has even been done in the first place. This experience's benefit's have far outweighed any of the dejected feelings it brought with it, but why can't I say that without implying that it's okay to do it again? Why can't a bad become a good without losing its inherent harmfulness? After all, everything is a poison in the right quantity, and in this case the overdose rests rightly on "one time." but if you could possibly dissect this instance of death, then you might find that somewhere along the road from zero to one there was a valuable experience.

It is a wrong thing to do, but in this case, is it a wrong thing to have done anymore? It's wrong to you because you don't want it to happen. Are you trying to fix me? Is it not fair that I've gotten off scot-free in the eyes of whatever moral institution you adhere to?

An action is an action, and it's not wrong until someone is there to say so. Do you understand? If I hadn't made this thread then not a single person would ever know I did this. I had already perfectly set everything up to make it look like natural causes; no one would have ever suspected anything.

...So then, are you my judge? Here to sentence me for my crime? I have already endured punishment of others. What do you think you are going to do?

 

[nemo]

Chill, preilemus. What happened, happened, and nothing we say will change that. I think most of us are just saying that it wouldn't be good to occur again.

I'm glad if you've gained something from the experience though, even if it was a bad one.

 

[Taniwha]

Well...

I don't think you should consider getting any more pets until you learn how to control your temper. Anger should never be taken out on animals regardless of how big or small they may be.

 

[Lobstrich]

Not once did I excuse myself. Turning this into a catalyst for self-growth in no way negates what I felt, what the impact has been on my family, or the "wrongness" of any of it. I never said this is okay, that throwing around baby animals any time you're irritated is a perfectly agreeable reaction.

But just because it's not okay doesn't mean it can't happen, and in this case, it very much did. So, what then? I can't feel that this is a great benefit to me, and know that it's not something I want to do again both at the same time? It's either be a complete monster, or a tormented atoner?*I'm not put off because anyone is acting like it's a bad thing, it's because you act like it can't also be a good thing at the same time!

If there's something messed up about it, it's because everyone around me has made it so. It's messed up to go through life having killed an animal. It's messed up to go through life cheating on your spouse. Not everyone is messed up in the same ways, and we look at someone without our flaws and say "oh how I wish I were as pure as them!" without even recognising that they themselves are flawed in ways we are not. There is no such thing as a Paragon. What does this imply though? I don't know, but what I am NOT doing is allowing myself to revel in my flaws.

I am justifying my actions because of your flawed indictments. I haven't excused myself of anything because in my eyes no wrong has even been done in the first place. This experience's benefit's have far outweighed any of the dejected feelings it brought with it, but why can't I say that without implying that it's okay to do it again? Why can't a bad become a good without losing its inherent harmfulness? After all, everything is a poison in the right quantity, and in this case the overdose rests rightly on "one time." but if you could possibly dissect this instance of death, then you might find that somewhere along the road from zero to one there was a valuable experience.

It is a wrong thing to do, but in this case, is it a wrong thing to have done anymore? It's wrong to you because you don't want it to happen. Are you trying to fix me? Is it not fair that I've gotten off scot-free in the eyes of whatever moral institution you adhere to?

An action is an action, and it's not wrong until someone is there to say so. Do you understand? If I hadn't made this thread then not a single person would ever know I did this. I had already perfectly set everything up to make it look like natural causes; no one would have ever suspected anything.

...So then, are you my judge? Here to sentence me for my crime? I have already endured punishment of others. What do you think you are going to do?

I do not think you actually read half of what I wrote. You keep going on about how I am saying that you can not take a bad thing and make it good, when did I ever say that? I even recall saying the exact opposite; that it is good that you now know yourself better!

But that still does not change the fact that what you did is wrong.. It is very simple even if you have actually gained alot more than what you have lost and that you will never do it again. It is still wrong what you did. Anyone remotely logical can see that. And frankly I am insulted that you think me so close-minded, that I think you cannot, and should not gain from this experience. EVERYTHING can teach you something, and everything should be used to learn. But that still does make what you did, a good thing.

And to clear it up comepletely. What I find messed up, Is that you think what you did is not a bad thing because you have learned from it. That you see no wrong in it. And not that you have learned from it, and accepted what this experience had to give (Which I would have done myself)

EDIT: "An action is an action, and it's not wrong until someone is there to say so. Do you understand? If I hadn't made this thread then not a single person would ever know I did this. I had already perfectly set everything up to make it look like natural causes; no one would have ever suspected anything." So again. If I kill a person, and nobody will ever find out, it is okay? Is it okay to chop down your neighbours trees because they are in the way? Is it okay for me break into a store and make sure I'll go unnoticed, to steal all that they have? Is it okay to dig up graves and play around with the remnants of other people? (if nobody notices, of course)

No, I am not your judge. I am only expressing my opinions. And no, I am not trying to fix you, why would I care about you? Do you want me to fix you? (I'm just asking dumb questions here, seems like the new trend) Which moral institution do I adhere to? I think 'common sense' is the most common name for it, no pun intended. If you insist that we should all be able to say "This is okay in my eyes, I am therefore allowed to do it" Then I could just do all that I have just mentioned even without worrying about getting caught because I think it is okay, so it is okay. Funny thing is that you start out saying that an action is and action if nobody, but you knows. And then leave off saying that we should be able to say what is right and wrong, with no 'borders' and act upon what we think is okay. Which is basically saying that it would not matter if your dad had seen you kill the parakreet.


Do you understand?

 

[preilemus]

I do not think you actually read half of what I wrote. You keep going on about how I am saying that you can not take a bad thing and make it good, when did I ever say that? I even recall saying the exact opposite; that it is good that you now know yourself better!

But that still does not change the fact that what you did is wrong.. It is very simple even if you have actually gained alot more than what you have lost and that you will never do it again. It is still wrong what you did. Anyone remotely logical can see that. And frankly I am insulted that you think me so close-minded, that I think you cannot, and should not gain from this experience. EVERYTHING can teach you something, and everything should be used to learn. But that still does make what you did, a good thing.

Indeed my last message was addressed mainly to you, but with regards to that particular complaint I had lumped all the negative responses together (you included, regrettably) and I guess that was more of a general backlash, though maybe no one even thinks that in the first place. I'm sorry for being unclear.

So again. If I kill a person, and nobody will ever find out, it is okay? Is it okay to chop down your neighbours trees because they are in the way? Is it okay for me break into a store and make sure I'll go unnoticed, to steal all that they have? Is it okay to dig up graves and play around with the remnants of other people? (if nobody notices, of course)

I would have to say yes to all of those except for cutting down your neighbor's trees. I'm sure you can figure out what is different in that situation.

If you insist that we should all be able to say "This is okay in my eyes, I am therefore allowed to do it" Then I could just do all that I have just mentioned even without worrying about getting caught because I think it is okay, so it is okay. Funny thing is that you start out saying that an action is and action if nobody, but you knows. And then leave off saying that we should be able to say what is right and wrong, with no 'borders' and act upon what we think is okay. Which is basically saying that it would not matter if your dad had seen you kill the parakreet.

We should all be able to say it; we are all capable. I know of course that very few people actually will though. I have no interest in changing the world; of finding that perfect code to enable all to prosper. My goal is to explore the landscape of human capability, and by necessity I can't willfully obstruct myself from anywhere, or I would be rather lousy at what I claim to pursue.

It would clearly matter if he had seen it. He lives in a world of right & wrong. To him that was wrong, and I would have immediately had to pay for my transgression. I may not acknowledge the validity of right & wrong, but I still live in a world which clings to them. To be ignorant of that would be certain downfall. But private acts aren't part of the world at large. each one is kept to the one who witnessed it, and is subject to their own, personal estimation. If murder is okay by you, and you manage to keep it private, then it is therefore okay.

Do you understand?

There is a fundamental difference between the way we look at things, and I wanted to avoid it. In many ways I think I failed at what I was trying to do here, and my distress culminated yesterday, but I'm okay with everything now.

I see no wrong, but you do.

 

[Lobstrich]

You cannot keep murder private. As it always involves someone else.

 

[preilemus]

Quite the contrary. It's death which cannot be hidden (disregarding cases of missing persons. And even still, perhaps their demise is unconfirmed, but the fact of their removal is perhaps impossible to conceal).

And the deceased's opinion ceases to be of substance the moment they die, so I find that disregardable.

 

[Lobstrich]

Quite the contrary. It's death which cannot be hidden (disregarding cases of missing persons. And even still, perhaps their demise is unconfirmed, but the fact of their removal is perhaps impossible to conceal).

And the deceased's opinion ceases to be of substance the moment they die, so I find that disregardable.

I disagree. I still think it's impossible to keep things private when it includes others.
Though, I do agree on your second point.

 

[echoplex]

I think it's possible that the problem people had with the "it's good because good came of it, even if the act itself was bad" assertion is that they can imagine how someone, in a moment of weakness/anger/whatever involving an animal/human, might use that idea as justification for violent behavior they would otherwise not engage in. That's the supposed danger with such thinking, that it provides an avenue in which things can be 'okay' even if one chooses to indulge in their violent impulses.

That doesn't mean the OP is wrong though.

 

[Lobstrich]

I think it's possible that the problem people had with the "it's good because good came of it, even if the act itself was bad" assertion is that they can imagine how someone, in a moment of weakness/anger/whatever involving an animal/human, might use that idea as justification for violent behavior they would otherwise not engage in. That's the supposed danger with such thinking, that it provides an avenue in which things can be 'okay' even if one chooses to indulge in their violent impulses.

That doesn't mean the OP is wrong though.

I don't get this post? Is it a summary of me and Preil's debate? Seems like it to me.

 

[Methuselah]

It's surprising how easily things can die. Sometimes when I wrestle with my fiance, I have to stop because I have this horrible thought, "Holy shit, what if I accidentally killed him?!" One bad fall, one mild car accident, one too-heavy bench press and it can all be over.

 

[Lobstrich]

It's surprising how easily things can die. Sometimes when I wrestle with my fiance, I have to stop because I have this horrible thought, "Holy shit, what if I accidentally killed him?!" One bad fall, one mild car accident, one too-heavy bench press and it can all be over.

Are you serious?

 

[Limitless]

I know this thread is ancient but I just needed to vent. You are a stupid waste of space, OP. You killed an innocent living thing that was dependent on you for survival. Had you actually allowed the baby to grow up, he would've loved you unconditionally. You are a sociopathic loser and I hope somebody returns the favor to you one day.

 

[Coolydudey]

I know this thread is ancient but I just needed to vent. You are a stupid waste of space, OP. You killed an innocent living thing that was dependent on you for survival. Had you actually allowed the baby to grow up, he would've loved you unconditionally. You are a sociopathic loser and I hope somebody returns the favor to you one day.

I was about to get real emotional over this response, but that would defeat its purpose. "you are a sociopathic loser": do you even know what a sociopath is? In the given case, the OP acted the way he did out of frustration and was (consciously) unaware of the consequences of his actions, and at their conclusion, felt (albeit not a lot) remorse/regret/sorrow. This clearly shows he is not a sociopath, and furthermore, given the choice wasn't really a conscious one, isn't fully responsible for his actions. However, our morals do dictate that we should be in control of our negative emotions, to prevent such situations, and actions such as these are punished. The way your argument is structured shows that you were completely unaware that it wasn't a conscious choice, and attack his actions with incorrect assumptions, leading to an ultimately false argument and conclusion.

 

[Limitless]

You are sick. You remind me of a guy I knew who tried to intellectually justify molesting very young kids because they wouldn't remember anyway and thus there would be no conscious victim. Intellectual drivel can justify any heinous action if you try hard enough.

 

[Coolydudey]

If you don't defend that then you will just be seen as someone who can't really win an argument and starts throwing around labels in a last-ditch attempt to defend himself (unless they agree with you). Just letting you know.

 

[Limitless]

If you don't defend that then you will just be seen as someone who can't really win an argument and starts throwing around labels in a last-ditch attempt to defend himself (unless they agree with you). Just letting you know.

I 'm not in a position to defend anything. I made a statement. I seek nobody's approval of said statement. I don't even know you anyway.

EDIT: I edited typos, not the content of my message.

 

[Coolydudey]

You are sick. You remind of a guy I knew who tried to intellectually justify molesting very young kids because they wouldn't remember anyway and thus there would be no conscious victim. Intellectual drivel can justify any heinous action if you try hard enough.

I'm a nihilist so I don't believe it is "right" or "wrong" to molest a kid anyway, not that I would ever think or want to do so, or approve of such an action.

In any case, me reminding you of someone doesn't mean I'm wrong. As an aside, although we can conjecture molesting very young kids is ok because they can't remember it, molesting them can only have "bad" effects on their psychology, and should therefore be avoided until 2500 if by that stage we have definitely proven this conjecture.

 

[Jennywocky]

You are sick. You remind me of a guy I knew who tried to intellectually justify molesting very young kids because they wouldn't remember anyway and thus there would be no conscious victim. Intellectual drivel can justify any heinous action if you try hard enough.

wth? And these are your first three posts?

You a sock puppet or what?

---

When I was younger, my cat knocked a bunch of my stuff over late at night, and when I tried to grab him, he ran away / scratched me. I was really mad. It was back at that time of my development when I would stuff a lot of my emotions. So it just flared up. He hissed at me. I whacked him on the head. It bounced him off the grate on the floor, and he broke one of his incisors. It just broke... one of his teeth.

i was mortified and ended up crying about it. I was also scared someone would find out and think me a pretty awful person, but I hadn't meant to do it. It was a huge wakeup call to me to deal with my anger in life before i ended up doing unplanned stupid things if I got "triggered" again at some point. Anger that escapes, even for a second, can do some pretty terrible things. it needs to be processed, not just stuffed or ignored.

-----

My current roommate has a parrot. For some reason, it likes me, a lot. But he has a wicked sharp beak -- he bit me twice, and it really hurt. (But he's only drawn blood on others. Normally at most he'll just gently squeeze my finger with his beak and then coo at me.) Anyway, if you're not used to dealing with birds, they can get pretty agitated over things you might not expect, and lash out... and they are very fragile creatures. one needs to be prepared, and also keep a good grip, on how they might respond to something, to avoid stupid stupid things like this from happening.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'm a nihilist so I don't believe it is "right" or "wrong" to molest a kid anyway, not that I would ever think or want to do so, or approve of such an action.

In any case, me reminding you of someone doesn't mean I'm wrong. As an aside, although we can conjecture molesting very young kids is ok because they can't remember it, molesting them can only have "bad" effects on their psychology, and should therefore be avoided until 2500 if by that stage we have definitely proven this conjecture.

bottom paragraph contradicts the former. Just saying ^^


I must admit, this thread was quite a shock to the system when I initially read it. It's an unfortunate and saddening event that took place. One that I don't wish to read again any time soon.

Limitless' anger is justified, although not necessarily needed.

 

[Coolydudey]

bottom paragraph contradicts the former. Just saying ^^


I must admit, this thread was quite a shock to the system when I initially read it. It's an unfortunate and saddening event that took place. One that I don't wish to read again any time soon.

Limitless' anger is justified, although not necessarily needed.

I know the latter contradicts the former, but what you didn't realise is that in the latter I took up the standpoint of someone who does believe in morals, completely covering the argument, but do notice that I put bad in quotations.

 

[Hawkeye]

I know the latter contradicts the former, but what you didn't realise is that in the latter I took up the standpoint of someone who does believe in morals, completely covering the argument, but do notice that I put bad in quotations.

You also applied quotations in your first paragraph. You didn't explicitly state that you were using a case subject to support the argument. With this in mind, using the word "should" in an argument implies that you are using your own opinion to further enforce it.

The fact you wouldn't approve child molesting shows you have some system of morality. Unless you simply don't believe there is an objective "right" and "wrong".

 

[Coolydudey]

You also applied quotations in your first paragraph. You didn't explicitly state that you were using a case subject to support the argument. With this in mind, using the word "should" in an argument implies that you are using your own opinion to further enforce it.

The fact you wouldn't approve child molesting shows you have some system of morality. Unless you simply don't believe there is an objective "right" and "wrong".

It is true that the phrasing was not clear enough, this is beside the point. Even though I may not approve of it, does not mean I disapprove of it.

 

[Hawkeye]

It is true that the phrasing was not clear enough, this is beside the point. Even though I may not approve of it, does not mean I disapprove of it.

Then why did you mention approval at all?

 

[Coolydudey]

It gets the point across more easily, stops misconceptions.

 

[Hawkeye]

It gets the point across more easily, stops misconceptions.

Clearly, it has only enforced them.

 

[Coolydudey]

Why has it enforced them? The more information I give about being a nihilist (or about anything), the more accurately someone knows what that state is like, therefore my nugget of information about approval of such actions, while not complete, actually did stop misconceptions, given that they have a more accurate picture of the state. Furthermore, it can be inferred from what I said that I do not disapprove of such an action either (to a nihilist, disapproving or approving of something boil down to nothing-there is no reason to support approving or disapproving).

 

[Hawkeye]

Why has it enforced them? The more information I give about being a nihilist (or about anything), the more accurately someone knows what that state is like, therefore my nugget of information about approval of such actions, while not complete, actually did stop misconceptions, given that they have a more accurate picture of the state. Furthermore, it can be inferred from what I said that I do not disapprove of such an action either (to a nihilist, disapproving or approving of something boil down to nothing-there is no reason to support approving or disapproving).

To say that it can be inferred that you "do not disapprove" is pushing it a bit, as the structure of your justification consists purely of negation - I would not think of, I would not want to, I do not approve of.

There was no need for you to add whether you approved or not, unless you were reflecting your own moralistic opinion on the matter.

The definitions of approval and disapproval are the beliefs that something is either good or bad.

These terms are irrelevant to a nihilist and should not be used in supporting statements...

 

[Coolydudey]

To say that it can be inferred that you "do not disapprove" is pushing it a bit, as the structure of your justification consists purely of negation - I would not think of, I would not want to, I do not approve of.

There was no need for you to add whether you approved or not, unless you were reflecting your own moralistic opinion on the matter.

The definitions of approval and disapproval are the beliefs that something is either good or bad.

These terms are irrelevant to a nihilist and should not be used in supporting statements...

Point 1:whatever, not even important, although perhaps you are right. You could certainly look up what a nihilist is.
2:there is no need for anything. Nor is there a reason to support us doing anything. That is my nihilistic POV to answer your question.
3:I know
4:"should" is also an irrelevant term to a nihilist. The irrelevance would be highlighted by clearly stating that I do not approve OR disapprove.
5:can we stop derailing this now?

 

[Hawkeye]

Point 1:whatever, not even important, although perhaps you are right. You could certainly look up what a nihilist is.

I know all too well what it is, as there was a time in my life when I studied it deeply. In my opinion, whilst nihilism may be the most accurate, it is by far the most boring... I simply left it in the back of my mind.
I am merely pointing out that the way you have worded your statements implies "morality". Or to put it another way - non-nihilistic.

2:there is no need for anything. Nor is there a reason to support us doing anything. That is my nihilistic POV to answer your question.

This was my point... the way you worded it was justifying/supporting a negation.

3:I know

Then your reason for using one of the terms was a mistake. Both are irrelevant as you said, so to mention one without the other is an imbalance or favouritism. What you should have done is not mentioned either, or at the very least, said is "nor do I approve or disapprove." But you didn't.

4:"should" is also an irrelevant term to a nihilist. The irrelevance would be highlighted by clearly stating that I do not approve OR disapprove.

The whole "should" business arose when you decided to apply moralistic views (apparently not your own) without explicitly stating that they weren't yours... This has been addressed in an earlier post.

Your wording heavily implies that you do not approve. It does not however imply that you do not disapprove (again, I mentioned this earlier which you seem to agree with in your first point.)

5:can we stop derailing this now?

Why? There is no need to stop

And you call yourself a nihilist... You wouldn't even be replying to my posts because it's pointless...


All this as taught me is that you are not a nihilist. Although, you may have some nihilistic views.

Never-the-less, I shall cease.



However, the topic should not be put back on track as it will lead back to a serious "hate train"

 

[Coolydudey]

I thought you would conclude with me not being a nihilist. In answer to point 5 however, I will say that while everything is pointless, human nature (emotions mainly, then others such as instincts) makes us act in a certain way. Furthermore, it is as pointless not to do anything as it is to do anything, so really, it doesn't matter what you do. Case closed.

Point 4 (why am I going backwards?): my wording does not imply that I do not approve, it states it. The moralistic views were my own, just that I don't advocate them.

Point 3:I had no true reason, other than my human nature telling me to do stuff to satisfy (x,y,z). Again, you use "should" which is irrelevant to a nihilist.

Point 1:A nihilist can still have a sense of morality, even though he doesn't believe in it, and apply it in whatever situation he wishes to come up with a morally biased judgement.

Point 0: can we stop arguing over a post I worded hastily before going to bed?what do you think of my avatar?

 

[Hawkeye]

what do you think of my avatar?

I think it's very blue. The clouds in the background remind me of the Challenger II explosion flipped 90 degrees clockwise.

I get the feeling of a stairway rather than a long pier. Those bocks of bevelled cobblestone are huge.

The figure at the end has an odd stance. It looks like they have their left hand in their pocket and the right hand is suspending a yo-yo. I suppose it's a cool place to yo-yo though.

 

[Coolydudey]

It's supposed to be a stairway to heaven.

 

[Hawkeye]

It's supposed to be a stairway to heaven.

I know...

I'm not one for stating the obvious.

 

[Coolydudey]

Is it that obvious? I guess it is if you think about it, especially if you are at least somewhat inducted into popular or religious (less so) culture

 

[Hawkeye]

Is it that obvious? I guess it is if you think about it, especially if you are at least somewhat inducted into popular or religious (less so) culture

Yes it is that obvious.

Stairway to heaven is hardly an unknown concept. I mean... It's one of Led Zeppelin's most popular songs, not to mention it is often considered to be the "best rock song ever written" by many people and polls...

For example: how many people on this forum have never heard of it? Practically none.

Don't be so naïve.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's supposed to be a stairway to heaven.

Is it that obvious?

I thought it was a temple, but I didn't really pay attention. I can see it now though.

 

[redbaron]

What is with people being so lacking in self-control as to hurt living creatures out of sheer anger?

Also I have to laugh at the way people use the argument that it wasn't intentional.

Guy threw a baby bird at the ground. How angry/stupid do you need to be to not foresee the end result?