Woman Shows Off Brutally Abusing & Killing Dogs on Microblog

A dog before it's been tortured and killed.

From Sina Weibo:

@Happy张江: Global Manhunt for Dog Torturing Psycho. Weibo ID @sg00ll00, since last year, this person began posting all sorts of dog-abuse photos, the likes of which are too horrible to look at: digging out the internal organs and the eyeballs of the dogs while they are still alive, beheading dogs alive… Again and again this person challenges the moral bottom line of human beings, seeking pleasure in the process of torturing and killing dogs and showing it off to the netizens. [怒] This person’s personal information shows that he/she is in Shanghai Songjian district, graduated from Beijing Medical College. Please initiate human flesh search mode, and find this scumbag! [话筒]

WARNING: Images of dogs being tortured, abused, and killed were included with this microblog post that may be upsetting to certain viewers. Discretion advised.

Comments from Sina Weibo:


We should not only protect wild animals, but also those pets we keep in our homes. Because every life has its most basic right to live. We humans are above all earthly beings, but we shouldn’t dominate all of them. Strongly demand legislation! Seriously demand legislation! Legislation! Legislation! Legislation!


I don’t even dare to click to view the pictures… Fucking cunt!!


Find her through human flesh search and waste her. How can there be someone so sick? I had heard about her torturing and killing animals last year. And everyone had tried hard finding this person. But now, here I am, seeing this scene again…[怒] Can torturing and killing them really make you so happy? It wouldn’t be excessive even to punish you with all the most extreme tortures in Qing Dynasty.


You useless dog lovers can only fling abuses and wail. If you got what it takes, catch me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


Fuck your mother’s cunt. Just wait, you cunt, when someone fucking finds you, I’ll fucking kill you. I’ll hack off all your fucking limbs, dig out your fucking eyeballs. Fuck your mother.


In the future, when the something big happens that the ZF wants to cover up, they could just post dog or cat-abuse photos on Weibo and the problem will immediately change [attention will be diverted]. They can use this to maintain [our country’s] stability.


I can’t imagine how dark her heart is, she’s already reached the level of a psycho.


I don’t like dogs, one can even say I hate them, but a scumbag behavior such as torturing and killing dogs like this should be punished by the law. [怒][怒]


Fucking cunt. Why are you hiding? You have the guts to do it, but you don’t have the guts to face the consequences? Saying you’re a scumbag is even insults this word.


I am really so angry. I have just visited his Weibo. How can he still remain so calm? So shameless. Is this person crazy?


When humans are bitten and wounded by animals, there are laws to protect you. Then may I ask, when stupid cunts like this person hurts the animals, why are there no laws to protect these animals? It is said that all men are equal before the law, but some people are even lower than dogs, it’d be better if they exchange identities with dogs.


How come in China people can intentionally brag about their twisted tortures and killings in broad daylight? Do they have any humanity? Right, she’s not human. Why can’t the law do something about it?!! China is so unenlightened.


Use the power of the internet. What’s the name of this devil? It’d be cruel if someone gets dissected by her when seeing a doctor.


How twisted is her heart? Should we blame Chinese education for doing this to her? [怒][怒][怒]


With things like this… there indeed should be laws to restrain them… Those who enjoy torturing and killing have serious issues with both their mentality and personality. They will feel no pressure at all if one day they should kill someone or start a fire. Suggest forced psychotherapy. And like prisoners on probation, they should return for scheduled reexaminations in the following years after the forced psychotherapy. If their conditions are found to be incurable, they should be physically restrained. This is also a responsible behavior for both the society and the public.


Fuck, where the hell did she get so many cute dogs?


She has attacked animals, and we have attacked her. When she has done something like this, she is already wrong. But why should we be wrong like her? Behind the attacks is the release of hatred, which is not good/virtuous either. We should adopt the right methods, and the reasonable means to solve the problem, to really protect animals with actual action, instead of just abusing and condemning her, instead of thinking about how she is going to be retaliated against. If we do, we are turning into her in a certain kind of way.


Sina, why don’t you do something about this scumbag?! You only know to delete my posts and ban my account everyday. Can you do something moral?!


Dealing with this kind of people, if you curse her, she will be even more excited. Because she is a psycho, her mind is twisted. To them, we can only use a more brutal method in order to satisfy her morbid mentality: lock her up into a cage with vicious dogs. She’ll definitely be satisfied.


Sharing it one more time. Are you still human? The Canadian dismembered body case began with torturing and killing little animals. How twisted are you? In the future, who around you still dare to be with you??? Has she been found??? I really hope a relevant law is established. You SB.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Nick

    I haven’t even clicked for the pictures, I usually have a strong stomach but I just don’t want to ever even glimpse any of these images… What a horrible horrible individual. I wish nothing but bad for them.

    • letteranon

      I caught one glimpse and as soon as I saw red (blood) I closed the tab before it finished properly loading. Why anyone could do this is beyond comprehensible.

    • Observer

      Same with me. These people truly are sick and I find it difficult to believe that there’s a market for this kind activity (stomp/crushing fetishes).

    • The Enlightened One

      Yeah, it was probably best not to look at the pictures. They just made me really mad.

  • GermanExpat

    “In the future, when the something big happens that the ZF wants to cover up, they could just post dog or cat-abuse photos on Weibo and the problem will immediately change”

    He/she/it just figured out what really happened.

    • Guest

      what current news is the cn.gov trying to cover up?

  • This goes beyond just animal protection. For these kinds of people, it is a very short step to doing this to other people next.

    • Nick

      There have been a lot of studies that show a strong correlation from people starting out harming animals before going on to eventually becoming murderers/serial killers. Sooner or later they suspect that killing animals just isn’t “satisfying” enough and it escalates from there… I just really hope someone finds and stops this person soon.

      • mr.wiener

        Well, it the “human flesh search” is successful that will probably be very soon.
        Seriously , China needs some sort of legislation against this otherwise people will just resort to mob justice of this kind [however deserved it may be in this case].

        • markus peg

          vigilante justice.

          Next on China’s law agenda should be”
          -Child abuse [wife beating]
          -Domestic abuse

          -Animal cruelty

      • https://www.facebook.com/dinie.akhemu Gerhana

        and she will be a medical doctor soon, which mean she will have access to limitless number of human body. She must be a surgeon. One day she might be too curious and it might end someone’s life.

        • mr.wiener

          Hiya Gerhana, long time no post, how hangeth the hammer?

          • https://www.facebook.com/dinie.akhemu Gerhana

            Hey Mr Wiener. Yes a long time, a lot of things happened… and what about you I see that you are a moderator now. Since when?

          • mr.wiener

            Two weeks, some mistakes and a few regrets ago.

          • https://www.facebook.com/dinie.akhemu Gerhana

            Congratulation. Yes two weeks ago is when everything just explode. It must be a full moon with all the stars aligned and the devil came out to play. I was drained I couldnt participate in this blogsite for a while.

          • mr.wiener

            I hope your personal shite-storm has passed. You sound quite down there for a while mate.

          • https://www.facebook.com/dinie.akhemu Gerhana

            Why, thank you. How nice. However, nothing keeps me down for long. I’ll come back swinging and kicking.

          • Germandude

            Gerhana, the devil came out to play in a full moon night and he aligned the stars?
            My suggestion to you: don’t do drugs ;-)

          • mr.wiener

            “He said [to the devil] My name is Gerhana, and it may be a sin. I’ll take your bet ,you’re gonna regret because I’m the best there’s ever been”.
            Source: The Devil went down to Georgia.

          • http://500px.com/justinrjones whiskersthecat

            I can picture Gerhana wailing on a burning fiddle, hair flying in the wind. Fiddle literally burning his face off, but he doesn’t care. Until after he wins and has to stay in the burn ward for a while (which is why he was absent from ChinaSMACK)

          • https://www.facebook.com/dinie.akhemu Gerhana

            I will remind my street doctor of your diagnosis. They could learn a thing or two about German precision. They are too generous with their prescription.

  • mr.wiener

    Oh lord, here we go. People are still commenting on that “Kitten Crusher”, from 2 years ago.

  • Nari

    Thank you for not directly posting the pictures. Dog abuse is one thing my heart can’t handle. I hope this psycho feels firsthand the abuse she doles out.

  • Terrik

    I steeled myself and clicked on those pictures and…don’t. Just don’t. I let out a yelp myself at the last picture. I wish I hadn’t seen that.

    • Jackomacacko


  • Sebastian-Sascha Helfinger

    OMG, you shouldn’t click on the Pictures….

  • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

    Ah the boundlessness of human curiosity and sick minds. posting abuse of a commonly loved animal(pet/food) seems to suggest a call for attention and desire/boredom of some sort. There will be consequences for this sick pup.

  • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

    I wonder what the dog eaters and sellers would feel about this? Abuse makes bitter meat?

    • mr.wiener

      Actually I think they usually abuse the dog so it’s meat will be full of adrenline. That is my whole problem with the dog meat trade.

      • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

        Hmm…if adreneline means fresh live meat. They got the idea, just a very unthought out one like eating dingdongs to make ones own ‘stronger with vitality’ instead of questioning their health and searching deeper into human sexuality. Just the lazy man’s way to solve their problems :(.

        • Mighty曹

          Lazy person = tastes bad

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            I’m lazy :(.

            lazy person= bad taste

          • Mighty曹

            You’re saying ‘lazy person has bad taste’.

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            How about both?

      • Aleister Crowley

        that’s pretty sick. Like cannibals justifying hunting humans because of the fight or flight syndrome making the meat tastier, except in this case, the poor dog has less of a chance than human against human.

      • The Enlightened One

        Yeah, they do. But I have read some studies saying that traumatizing the animal before serving it cause actually cause a funny taste in the meat. I guess Chinese like it… but most people in other countries do not.

        Maybe it is just their excuse for taking out their anger out on a defenseless poor animal.

  • Mighty曹

    “You useless dog lovers can only fling abuses and wail. If you got what it takes, catch me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.”
    - Her taunt is enough to justify beheading her in public. -

    • mr.wiener

      They could dress her up as a rabbit and a giant woman made from the interlocked bodies of Chinese gymnasts could stomp her to death with high heeled boots the size of motor scooters.

      • Mighty曹

        Great idea and that creates a scene of Cirque du Soleil performance. Brilliant, Sir Wiener!

      • lonetrey / Dan

        I was thinking of that article too!

    • Atlas

      Challenge accepted

  • http://500px.com/justinrjones whiskersthecat

    I felt a slight bit of relief to see that Li Tianyi wasn’t involved in this and so it wasn’t another story about him/her.

    • markus peg

      In a way i regret saying “arent their any other stories other than Li Tianyi being talked about online in China?”

      but then again i dont regret it, because this cruel behavior needs to be exposed before it can be stopped. i only wish this kind of behavior didnt excist to begin with…

      • Mighty曹

        Good thinking!

    • Mighty曹

      On the other hand, I’d rather read more craps about Li Tianyi than anything related to animal cruelty.

      • markus peg

        I have mixed feelings as well, but exposure to this is for the greater good. How would a Chinese person try to add a new law “animal cruelty” In the west people would sign partitions but i don’t think that works here, despite a Chinese person saying people can use that method.

      • http://500px.com/justinrjones whiskersthecat

        Definitely true. I already chastised myself for finding any bit of relief in this.

        • Mighty曹

          You are pardoned so don’t be too harsh on yourself. haha…

          • http://500px.com/justinrjones whiskersthecat

            Thanks. Now I need to find some gauze to wrap my wrists.

  • markus peg

    Everyone at Chinasmack, i know we all think this is sick, how can we help stop this? Please as a community lets find a way to stop her and try to limit the amount of pointless animal torture and killings… Does anyone know what we can do!?!?

    This story hurts me! i feel helpless and in pain. Why does the law allow such things!?!? who knows this kind of behavior may lead to babies and humans.. they need to be dealt with!!!!

    BING the person who translated this, please allow us to contribute if someone posts anything that can help stop such actions from happening.

    • Germandude

      The abuser is finding an audience. That includes this audience on chinaSMACK which thinks it’s worth talking about. The abuser won.

      • markus peg

        if no one knows whats going on how would anyone stop them?
        it could go on for years without anyone knowing whats going on to these dogs…

        Now people know, even if that’s what they wanted and gets off on it, at least there is a chance to stop it with flesh searching.

    • Cervello

      Fight for Animal Cruelty Laws in China



  • Cervello

    WTF… those dogs always went to the corner, the torturing must be unbearable. How come the neighbor didn’t hear anything?
    The fact that she’s a medical student frightened me, I hope Chinese Netizen and Animal Abuse Organization can do something about it.

    • markus peg

      Even if anyone hears it, what can they do? call the police? their is no law against doing this to a pet or any animal that isn’t endangered.

      If i found out my next door neighbor was doing this in China id plot and come up with a way to stop it. If i cant come up with one id just lie and say the dogs mine and she stole it [tho that wouldnt explain why i would brake in]… even then the law wouldn’t be on my side if i said it was mine because you are allowed to steel a pet its not against the law here…

      • JamesGrattan

        The Big serial killers always torture animals before moving on to human victims ,if they dont do anything ,,,,,,its very bad one of these days i suspect,,,we will hear of this persons crimes ,this is not the end of this i think just the begining,in the mean time be very careful of medical students in china :O
        Ps if do run into a neighbour doing this make sure you post all there details online ,someone will do something about it,i have forwarded this to a group of hackers on the darknet ,they was also sickened n promised to try n track where these posts came from

      • Cervello

        Hehehe… don’t steal it, this kind of dog have certificate and tattoo on its ear to prove ownership. It’s not right to take the law into own hands.

        The fact it happened since last year proves that the neighbors do nothing about it. They can narrow down the search and/or put her picture online. Social punishment can drive people to do suicide. What can you do when no-one want to be your friend? No hospital want to hire you. No man want to marry you. Even her family may get affected.

        If her family have money to put her into medical school surely they can afford to send her to psychotherapy.

    • JamesGrattan

      what i felt ,it likely part of this killers plan to get a place as a doctor or something ,then kill n torture,My gut is telling me this person has already killed people just not posting images of it,needs to be found like LAST year ,Anyone knows anything TELL THE POLICE!

    • linette lee

      She has mental problem or she has an evil heart.

      Anyone enjoy torturing other living things is just pure evil from the bottom of their heart.

  • Aleister Crowley

    I don’t want to see any pictures, I might set up one browser like opera, great browser btw, to disable pics just for visiting chinasmack. What does someone hope to gain from posting up crap like this on their blog, truly vile!

    • markus peg

      The pictures didnt display for me untill i clicked the link that said “WARNING: Images of dogs being tortured, abused, and killed” [firefox user]
      Tho its sick, the story needs to be told in order for people to understand that it happens and needs to be stopped.

      • Aleister Crowley

        fair enough there, i still will set up opera not to load images

      • JamesGrattan

        so agree with you,this is likely a serial killer in the making(if not already just not posted any images of killing ppl) ,fact person is a medical student too,gives you some idea to this serial killlers plans,ie get a job as a doctor or worse,in this case i agree ,images should be shown there could be a some hint for someone ,colour of the carpet ETC,that could give this evil person away to this police

        • Saisyet

          She needs to be locked up before she can hurt people as a doctor. It’s frustrating that there are no laws against animal cruelty in China.

  • JamesGrattan

    Someone REALLY! needs to find this person ,i have read the worse Serial killers pretty much always start of killing n torturing little things like bugs,then moving on to animals,mice, then cats and dogs ,THEN ,,people If person is not already doing it just not posting any pictures my gut feeling is telling me this person has Killed already ,this is very likely a serial killer in china that no one has catched yet ,fact person is a medical student too,gives you some idea what this serial killer has in mind ,if you having treatment in china WATCH OUT ! Chinese police need to catch this person,this is a REAL Danger to the Public ppl in control of the great firewall etc of china must have the tech to find em quick,this person needs to be Locked up forever or Shot N Quick

  • YourSupremeCommander

    Not saying it is cool, but… don’t hunters do the same to deers, bears, cows and what not?

    • Mighty曹

      For survival. Not for enjoyment.

      • lonetrey / Dan

        Not always survival though. I mean, some hunters are just hunting for the sport of it, while some hunters are legitimately hunting for their next meal.

        • Mighty曹

          That’s ‘sports hunting’. To me a hunter roams the plains in loin cloths.

    • Raminess

      The difference is that a hunter typically wants to make a quick, clean kill, even if it’s for purposes of trophy hunting or sport. They don’t want to trap the rabbit or deer then stab out its eyes and prolong its suffering as long as possible before it finally dies. There’s a very big difference. The desire to intentionally inflict suffering and extreme pain for prolonged periods of time upon something trapped and helpless is the product of a very sick and sadistic mind. Nobody with a conscience thinks as they’re eating their chicken wings or meat loaf, “I hope this animal felt immense pain, terror, and hopelessness right until the moment it died.”

      • Bungalowbreezer

        See that’s where you’re wrong. I stopped eating meat because I wasn’t getting enough feedback on the amount of suffering it received en route to my colon. Everyone knows that a terrified chicken wing is the tastiest. Read your statement out loud to yourself, then take a shit into a bowl and dunk your fat stupid head in it.

        • YourSupremeCommander

          He got OWNED.

  • The Enlightened One

    Some occasions call for vigilante justice, and this is certainly one of them.

    We should get a pot going to pay off the local Triads in her area to give her the same “medical treatment” she gave these poor dogs… but leave her alive, blind, deaf and dumb.

    • Atlas

      I think shredding her face and amputating her hands would be enough.

  • Mighty曹

    I wouldn’t mind torturing these two dogs:

    • filabusta

      Thanks for the lol to start my day.

      • xiaode

        They should be raped, not tortured…

        • Mighty曹

          让他们的屁股开花 !

      • Mighty曹

        Glad it helped.
        Btw, did you see the floating officials at the ’3 left behind kids drowning’?

        • filabusta

          No but I did see three dead kids on that woman’s coffee table.

          • Mighty曹

            Scroll down to see the pic.

    • Ana Belen Ruiz

      Agree with xiaode

      • Mighty曹

        Don’t agree! Between animal cruelty or bestiality, I choose the former. LOL

    • linette lee

      hahahhaha…you are good!

      • Mighty曹

        Yeah… they all say that. LOL

  • The Enlightened One

    Most of those dogs look expensive. I doubt this person would pay for those dogs personally since her only intention is to hurt and kill them. It is possible she is snatching these dogs/may know or work with someone possibly in an animal shelter or dog pound.

    In fact, I believe she may be grabbing these dogs saying they are for medical testing purposes.

    Netizens that live in Shanghai and want to catch this bitch should look into missing dog reports (maybe she would be in that area still and lure her out)… or check into kennels or animal shelters that are missing expensive breeds. Or perhaps expensive breeds being used for “medical purposes”.

    If this bitch is buying them outright, then call up some pet shops and ask for these specific breeds sold within the past year or so. But I doubt it.

    She is targeting these more expensive and “cute” breeds to get a stronger rise out of the people. This person is truly sick but she did leave clues, so track her down!

    This person isn’t as smart as she thinks she is… I could catch her if I lived in Shanghai and put some hours into it.

  • Jackomacacko

    This is hilarious. I can’t tell you how many times I wanted to slash up an idiot dog that scratched or hurt me otherwise in the 2 dogs I’ve had the misfortune to live with. They are tasty food and nothing more. You people are mostly complete hypocrites – enjoy your chicken salad today. Fuck off.

    • The Enlightened One

      I think we caught her!

      We got you now bitch!

  • lonetrey / Dan

    While I do feel sorry for the dogs she tortures, I’m actually more surprised by the venomous reaction by the Chinese netizens as well as our fellow Chinasmack inhabitants!

    I didn’t actually check back on old articles, but why do I get the vague feeling that the comments for this article are a lot more passionate that other articles about people murdering other human beings and kidnappings and what-have-you? I’ve held off on commenting until there were 40/50+ comments here and it seems to be following that pattern…

    • Jackomacacko

      Exactly. People want to murder a human being for the death of a dog. Absolutely disgusting. is it possible she/he (nobody can verify the gender of this individual yet) may hurt people or have hurt them? Sure, but this could also all be a big farce. It’s not beyond the Chinese government to get people worked up over these stupid issues instead of focusing on the fleece pulled over their eyes. Many sheep on this thread are cut from the cloth pulled over them. Suckers.

      • Mighty曹

        You actually believe they’ll track this person down and kill her?

        • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

          This Jacko sounds like yesterday’s verbose rectum discharge with less story telling.

          • Mighty曹

            Hahaha… hope I can still eat my lunch later.

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            solution: If you eat something equally disgusting….you won’t feel a difference.:)

          • Mighty曹

            Thanks a lot! That really helps! I’ll report back later.

          • Jackomacacko

            Save the dogs! Kill the Chinese girls! This story is hilarious, and the fact that you people are ‘outraged’ over it is even funnier. I spend my life treating Chinese people for heavy metal poisoning, food poisoning, getting hit by a bus, and the like. You all comfortably wank about dog torture on your MacBooks. Give me a fucking break. You don’t give a shit about anything other than the self-righteous ego of armchair commentary on things too serious for you to even comprehend. Play along, children – with your de-boweled dogs. Jacko.

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            Dude, ::nom nom::
            Calm down. I don’t think I was outraged when Imy commented on this article. in fact I agree with you on your first comment because we have the same issues here in the US. However I got tired of people shouting about the real political issues here as if most CS articles are suppose to deal with that. You seem to be the one raging over a little insult. Thx for treating humans’ natural evilness. since you give soo much care about things that matter you needn’t be on this playground and give assumptions. I’ll go back to nom noms.

          • Cthulhu

            You see a lot of People who’ve intentionally had their eyes taken out by someone else? No? How about their bowels removed while still alive by some sick fuck whose doing it for pleasure? Didn’t think so. Chinese people get hit by buses because their shit at spacial awareness. They get heavy metal poisoning because their government would rather send people into space than ensure cleaning drinking water for its people. They get food poisoning because rampant corruption makes food safety regulations meaningless. None of those things are being done for pleasure, they just happen in an ignorant, uneducated, superstitious society that isn’t fully developed and run by greedy, selfish power hungry oligarchs.

            Get your degree changed to veterinary medicine and save lives that are worth saving. Or better yet send me your address so I can make you watch as I rape your spouse and children to death and then slowly peel your skiing off with a cheese grater you soulless piece of shit.

            Fuck off and die.

    • Mighty曹

      Yes, our comments are filled with passionate rage but I doubt anyone will actually carry out such act. This sicko is actually committing these heinous tortures and you’re surprised by the ‘venomous’ reaction? Get off your high horse.

      • lonetrey / Dan

        Relax, I’m not condemning you nor anyone else for your opinions! I’m sorry if my post seems like i disapprove, but I assure you I do not disapprove.

        In fact, I get where you guys are coming from as dog-lovers. If she had tortured kittens instead of puppeh dogs, then they’d have already arrested me for violent assault on this woman in China already!

        • Mighty曹

          Your condemnation lies in the description of ‘venomous’ to our comments. It’s human nature to express with extreme emotion. How many times a person who says, “I’m going to kill you!” out of anger, actually killed anyone?

          • lonetrey / Dan

            :/ “Venomous” is offensive/condemning? I always thought of it as “super passionate outburst that people might be shocked/surprised by”, without really thinking of it as “super passionate outburst that is unjustified”. The focus being on the [shock that people feel from hearing it], and not focused upon [moral disagreement].

            You know what I mean?

            I guess I can see why you thought I was looking down on people now, but I didn’t meant it that way. I guess I’ll edit it to a less misleading word.

          • Mighty曹

            Dan it! Just say ‘I screwed up and used the wrong word’ and you’ll be excused. There really is no defense for the definition of ‘venomous’.

          • lonetrey / Dan

            .__. I screwed up and used the wrong word!

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            Just don’t say you are sorry if you aren’t lol.

          • lonetrey / Dan

            I rather not argue over something so trivial.

            I feel like my use of the word venomous was acceptable, and Mighty felt like it wasn’t.

            Staying on the topic of the overwhelming response of anger rather than semantics is what matters more to me, so I’ll just say that I screwed up. I feel like I didn’t, but I also understand that in his eyes, I did.

          • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

            Danny boy, I think you are a nice kid and Im just sprouting crap bc its the internet and you can at any moment disregard anything I say.

            Its nice you avoid confrontation especially over trivial shit. My point is it is a sign of character not even principle. I told my lil bro this as well. If you act “tofu soft” in one area, you are more likely to trend towards avoidance even with more important concerns because you would be conditioning yourself this. The way I see it, you are likely to apologize to someone who you care about over trivial matter even when you don’t feel right about it. Thus creating an untrue relationship etc etc. you know what I mean jelly bean? The thing I am annoyed about thid is purely personal. I see my lil bro acting the same way to his gf. so yeah../ramble end..move along.

          • Mighty曹

            That’s right. Saying sorry for the sake of argument leads to a relationship built on a false foundation that will later collapse. People say ‘sorry’ but harbor resentment that is bound to be released. So saying ‘sorry’ sincerely and moving on is the best.

          • Mighty曹

            I was just messing with you like I always do with everyone. I didn’t know you’d take it so seriously. But let’s stay away from that word. *kiss kiss

            Yes I can be venomous at times.

          • Mighty曹

            You shouted.

    • ikoihil

      In my experience, it seems like people have more concern for animals than people because they have some belief that a person could have possibly avoided the situation, where an animal could not have done so. Its the old ‘blame the victim’ scenario.

  • The Enlightened One

    Oh wow,

    “Foreigner Among 2 Dead in Beijing Stabbings on Jul 17″

    Are we going to hear about this on ChinaSmack?


      I googled the story and it doesn’t seem the foreigner was specifically targeted. It was just a crazy guy who chose him at random. That said, since it involved a foreigner I’d bet we’ll probably see it on CSmack in a week or so. Chinese people are absolutely obsessed with foreigners, it’s pathetic.

      • donnachadh

        The embassy in Belgrade also wasn’t ‘specifically targeted’, but that didn’t stop the Chinese making an issue of it!

  • N0WBIE

    Ugh. The intestines and blood…

    • YourSupremeCommander

      I order you to throw that into a spicy hot pot and bring over a cold 6 pack.

  • videmus

    doggies ;_;

  • A J

    i wish to kill her now….

    • YourSupremeCommander

      Killing the killer makes you also a killer, just sayin.

      • http://www.sos-symphysiotomy.com/ redgirls

        A kneecapping then.

    • Marcellus Wallace

      Now that’s an irrational and emotionally driven response.

  • Pikachuu~

    Did anyone here dare opening the darn link? … btw the girl is truly sick.

  • Marcus Muller

    Hand her over to me and exempt me from international human rights laws for 24 hours.

    Justice will be done.

    • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

      Have you seen the movie, The Purge?

      • Kai

        With Ethan Hawke? Saw advertising for it before it was released during a visit to the States in May. Was a bit disappointed by the home invasion plot but really fascinated by the premise. Was it good? Do you recommend watching it?

        • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

          I enjoyed it but once you know the plot, everything else is predictable. I reccommend.

  • Travis

    Its funny how everyone who is so upset about the terrible torture the dogs went through dont protest the slaughter houses that rip open cows throats and pull out the inners of their throats while they are alive. I hate that the dogs were killed in painful ways as much as anyone else, but when you only give a shit about dogs because its the popular thing to do it makes me hate you people more than the scum that killed the dogs. No matter dogs,pigs,cows, or any other living thing they all feel the same level of pain when tortured and all should have the right to live.

    • mr.wiener

      Where do cows have their throats “ripped open” and the “inners of their throats ripped out while they are still alive”? This isn’t standard slaughter proceedure in the West, or in Eastern Halal butchery. Can you elaborate.?

      • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

        He should scorn to PETA.

        • YourSupremeCommander

          People Eating Tasty Animals

          • Mighty曹

            haha! Next time PETA stage a protest I want to see you holding your sign there.

      • Ningjing

        Shechita, parve as the men dressed as penguins prefer it.

    • http://500px.com/justinrjones whiskersthecat

      In what dystopian hellscape did you view this slaughterhouse?

  • Jer

    So the person is just mutilating dogs for fun? At least we kill cows, chicken, pig for food but not for fun. I guess hunting is the same way but usually they make stuffed versions of the deer/for food. This person has no remorse or emotion at all. You don’t need to dissect live animals to study anatomy. Sorry if I’m just rambling.

  • demboiz

    funny even the lady says catch me if u can in the comments.(fourth comment)

  • demboiz

    funny even he lady comments and says catch me if. you caan(4 comment) crazy

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/ MrT

    Well i clicked on the link but didn’t see any dog photos, might of been removed, but to the right of the page i clicked another link, wish i hadn’t. some you young girl with her throat cut and been raped.

  • 剑胆琴心

    we should not abuse animals with bones…

    but i do wanna burn all woms and bugs. fucking dirty and annoying….and super strange ugly…

    but at the same time, some people they love their dogs so much and do not mind make troubles to others because they feel dogs are human too, they really should be punished well.

    today i was eating in a very clean restaurant, a boy and his mom took a dog in then put dog on the seat, one man got mad, i got mad too, i told that boy to take it out,its food place. the mom came then said you already finished your food,why complain?i told her its not about just my time here,it’s restaurant…fuck, these people really should be abused with their annoying dogs.

    • linette lee

      You need insects to sustain our ecosystem. I do like spiders. I see a spider web outside my mom’s house and it’s so pretty. We don’t want to disturb it. I don’t really mind insects as long as they are not in my house. I am very scared of roaches though. If I see one in my house I must kill it with spray. Scare the shxt out of me and I won’t be able to sleep in peace. lol.

    • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

      I agree on the restaurant thing. People really should have some respect and etiquette when they take their animals inpublic. Imagine crusty dog butts since my guess is that these kind of people won’t be wiping after their dogs. To allow their dogs to sit in public restaurant seats is pretty gross and a shitty thing to do. Also it degrades the pack leadership for the dog I think. It drives me nuts when I see unfit dog owners. On one hand I’m glad you yelled at them…it’s pretty funny.

    • Mighty曹

      Then you understand perfectly if I burn you.

    • Mighty曹

      Oh, finally something I agree. I’m glad you spoke out at the restaurant.

    • donnachadh

      It’s up to the restaurant whether or not they allow dogs, or dogs on seats. You should have complained to a waiter/waitress, or the manager, and if they tell you that it is allowed then you can always stop going to that restaurant.

  • donnachadh

    There are no animal cruelty laws in China. Instead of threatening to find this person and dismember her etc. concerned netizens should start a campaign to have such laws passed. (Unless of course they are more interested in dismembering humans than stopping the dismemberment of animals.)

    • Kai

      There’s actually quite a bit of animal activists in China but they’re usually amongst the urban middle class or above and hence a rather small minority compared to the overall population. These are the people you’ve seen in past cS posts who are monitoring the trafficking of cats and dogs for meat, intercepting such trucks and resorting to buying the truck drivers off to rescue the animals.

      The main problem here is that there’s still so much human suffering in China that animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority. So on one hand, you have way more people complaining more about human issues like poverty, food safety, access to education and medical care, etc. than about animal abuse. On the other hand, you have government officials and leaders who are lazy and coasting or legitimately preoccupied with trying to do something about other “higher priority” issues, or a combination of both.

      People in the West sometimes envy how fast certain things can be done in China due to its more autocratic government. It’s only partially true. Overall though, this kinda boils down to the majority of the population caring more about human issues than animal issues. It was like this in the West too. You have to get enough people above a certain level of material comfort before enough of them will start caring more about animals. We’ve seen this time and time again throughout history.

      • donnachadh

        Animal cruelty legislation was first passed in the UK in 1822 (Ill Treatment of Horses and Cattle Bill). Also in 1822 New York courts ruled ‘wanton cruelty to animals’ to be a misdemeanor in common law. And the first animal cruelty legislation was passed in France in 1860. Are you claiming that China is less developed now than these countries were more than one hundred and fifty years ago?

        • Kai

          No, I’m saying there’s such a thing as a limited amount of attention and resources that influences what people in a society consider priorities.

          I’m also saying there is indeed a correlation between material comfort and having the time and interest to care about animals rights.

          Note that this is itself reinforced by the very people who proposed and fought for the legislation you’re citing, laws whose enforcement and wider social acceptance similarly expanded as the average member of those societies increased in material wealth and standing. Surely you don’t think the moment those laws were passed that they were widely embraced by their host societies?

          Now, are you claiming that what I said here is untrue?

          • donnachadh

            If you’re not claiming China now to be less developed than the UK in 1822 you need another explanation (other than development, or resources, or material comfort) as to why the UK in 1822 did have animal cruelty legislation whereas China today does not.

          • Kai

            Reread what you just wrote.

            If you’re not claiming China now to be less developed than the UK in 1822 you need another explanation (other than development, or resources, or material comfort)

            Everything I wrote is to be as clear and precise in communicating what I mean. For example, I’m saying the United States today isn’t “less developed” than the UK was in the mid-20th century just because it still has capital punishment.

            China obviously has less developed laws with regards to animal rights. I’m trying to discuss the likely reasons why, a discussion of politics and government, not just suggestively declare one nation less developed than another one two centuries ago. Was France 40 years less developed than the UK?

            Instead of taking the nuance out of what I’m saying, please just cite what I specifically wrote and explain your disagreement(s). If you’re going to insinuate that I said more than I did, I’m going to disagree with you and defend the integrity of what I said.

            Why is a comparison to the UK, France, or US necessary if not to turn the discussion into holding up one in order to put down the other? Have I ever said China is as developed as those countries, especially with regards to animal rights laws?

            Moreover, it’s not as if these countries didn’t have their own problems getting such legislation eventually passed. My whole point was to not take the laws we have for granted, that it more often than not takes a lot of effort working with various interests in order to get something passed. China struggles with that in some areas but not others (my last paragraph) just as other countries do. I feel like I’m trying to discuss the issues surrounding why something is the way it is, while you’re trying to focus the discussion on the superiority/inferiority of nations and people.

          • donnachadh

            I’ve reread what I wrote previously and see no problem with it.

            Nobody posited a law linking capital punishment (or the lack thereof) to levels of development. You, on the other hand, did posit a law linking ‘material comfort’ of the population with their concern (or lack thereof) for the suffering of animals:

            ‘It was like this in the West too. You have to get enough people above a certain level of material comfort before enough of them will start caring more about animals. We’ve seen this time and time again throughout history.’

            As you can see from the above quote, you are also the one who started comparing levels of development (or ‘material comfort’ by which I take it you mean something like ‘standard of living’) between countries.

            As regards Britain and France, the industrial revolution started in Britain in about 1760, but did not take off in France until the end of the Napoleonic wars (i.e. 1815). In other words, yes, France was at least 40 years behind Britain in terms of industrial development.

            This last fact is consistent with your law linking development (or ‘material comfort’) with concern for animal rights (i.e. France enacted its first animal rights legislation at a similar stage of industrial development as the UK had).

            My point is that the law you posited does not hold in the Chinese case – China now is more developed than the UK was in 1822 so the reason for China’s lack of animal cruelty legislation must be something other than China’s lack of development (or the people’s lack of ‘material comfort’). I hope this is clear.

          • Kai

            We’re not getting through to each other but I hope its a misunderstanding and nothing more than that.

            First, about rereading: You’re simultaneously saying I’m not claiming less development while saying I need another explanation “other than development”. Which is it?

            Second, nobody posited a law linking capital punishment to levels of development, I used it as an analogy in an effort to communicate my disagreement with your comments. I’m questioning the motive, the intended conclusion you want to impart on people, behind your response to my first comment.

            Third, I didn’t posit a “law” linking material comfort of a population with concern for the suffering of animals. I posited a historical “correlation”. Did I not? What are you communicating to me when you change “correlation” to “law” when characterizing my position? Aren’t you begging me to think you’re broadening my position to set up a straw man?

            Fourth, I’ve asked you if this historical correlation, if what I posited, is untrue. You haven’t answered me.

            Fifth. I never said I didn’t start comparing levels of development. Why would you say that? I have however said: “Everything I wrote is to be as clear and precise in communicating what I mean.” Therefore, “there’s such a thing as a limited amount of attention and resources that
            influences what people in a society consider priorities.”

            Sixth, so to reiterate my disagreement and hesitation with you, I feel you’re trying to oversimplify and broaden my comments to suggest a different conclusion, which I find evidenced by your stressing of “more than one hundred and fifty years ago”. Why is this necessary? It seems to me that you’re asking a leading question intended to get a specific answer because you’re unsatisfied with the ideas I’ve expressed. Do you disagree with anything specific that I said? Or do you just want me to say more? Do you want me to say more than I feel warranted?

            Seventh, I disagree with your point as you’ve now clearly stated precisely because of what I feared: It’s an oversimplification. “China obviously has less developed laws with regards to animal rights. I’m trying to discuss the likely reasons why, a discussion of politics and government, not just suggestively declare one nation less developed than another one two centuries ago.”

            My first comment was about the intersection of interest groups, limited resources, and interest groups dictating what government manages to do, such as passing legislation. You immediately dumbed this down into a discussion of a country’s overall development relative to other countries. You didn’t add to understanding why China doesn’t have animal rights laws, you subtracted from it, changing it from a discussion of the actual reasons into a penis comparison between China and other countries, into a comparison of superiority and inferiority. Why? Why is this important to you?

            China is more developed in CERTAIN WAYS than the UK was in 1822 but it is NOT in other ways. How is this not obvious? The United States is now MORE developed than the UK was half a century ago but how come it still has the death penalty? Obviously because dumbing it down into oversimplified generalized “development” is not specific and nuanced enough to do the question justice. It is about social priorities, interest groups, and limited resources (including time, attention, interest, etc.).

            I’m fearing that you’re now changing track from arguing level of development to arguing something even more oversimplified and vague like a people’s culture, inherent morals, inherent values, or god help me, level of enlightenment or evolution. This would be even more offensive.

            What is it about my first comment that you find insufficient? That I said there are certainly some Chinese people interested in animal protection laws in China? That they tend to be amongst the urban middle class, and thus a minority relative to the much larger and poorer general population who are more preoccupied with human suffering than animal suffering and thus shape the intensity of various social priorities that influence how a government will devote its limited resources to addressing?

            How is this explanation insufficient for you? Is it inaccurate? Is it untrue? Is it unpersuasive? Or is it because you just want a different, perhaps simpler explanation? Which is it?

          • donnachadh

            Okay, that’s quite long, I’ll try to address your main points.

            Firstly let me rephrase the passage where you think I contradicted myself in a way that will hopefully be more clear:

            The following propositions (A) ‘Countries will enact animal rights legislation upon reaching a certain level of development’, and (B) ‘China today is more developed than England was in 1822′, cannot both be true, because (C) England in 1822 had animal rights legislation; China today does not.

            In other words, if you are not claiming less development (i.e. if you are not rejecting (B)) then you must reject (A), and will therefore need another explanation (‘other than development’) to explain the current situation in China.

            So yes, you are not claiming less development, and (for this very reason) you need an explanation ‘other than development’. Both these are true. I don’t have to pick one and reject the other as they are not inconsistent claims. My whole point is that it is you who must choose between the inconsistent claims represented by propositions (A) and (B) above.

            This brings us on to whether you claimed a ‘correlation’ or a ‘law’. You saw that ‘The main problem here is that there’s still so much human suffering in China that animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority.’ You go on to link this human suffering and the people’s lack of ‘material comfort’. This is clearly claiming causation and not just correlation. It is claiming that people don’t think about animals because they are thinking about themselves, and they are thinking about themselves because they lack ‘material comfort’.

            You say nobody posited a law linking capital punishment to level of development. This is exactly what I said previously, when you claimed:

            ‘I’m saying the United States today isn’t “less developed” than the UK was in the mid-20th century just because it still has capital punishment.’

            What is the point in this statement when nobody has previously linked capital punishment (or lack thereof) with level of development? It is not an analogy to the case in point (where somebody – i.e. you – has linked animal rights with level of development).

            You want to know if what you are now calling the ‘historical correlation’ you posited is true or not. As I said before, it is partly true (incidentally, as I said before, you posited more than a correlation). It is consistent with the later passing of animal rights legislation in France compared to England which paralleled France’s later industrial development, but it is inconsistent with the Chinese case (the point I made in my first reply to you), China now being (much) more developed than England was in 1822, and yet still lacking animal rights legislation.

            Concerning comparative levels of development, you claim I ‘am trying to focus the discussion on the superiority/inferiority of nations and people’ etc. when I bring this issue up. I simply want to point out that you were the first to raise the issue of comparative levels of development in your reply to my original post (which did not compare levels of development). I am responding to the specific arguments you made, not trying to ‘focus the discussion’ on some hidden agenda you seem to think I have.

            You say you ‘disagree with [my] point as [I]‘ve now clearly stated’. My point was (and remains) that lack of development cannot explain China’s lack of animal cruelty legislation. Do you disagree with this point? If you think I have made some other point (or at some stage ‘changed tack’) you are mistaken.

            Your next few paragraphs seem to be accusing me of some secret racist agenda, which I can only say you have no good reason to suppose I harbour.

            Within these paragraphs you also misrepresent your ‘first comment’ as a wide-ranging discussion of interacting elements leading to China’s lack of animal cruelty legislation when you in fact clearly state in your ‘first comment’ that ‘The main problem here is that there’s still so much human suffering in China that animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority.’ This (as I mentioned before) is explaining lack of animal cruelty legislation as primarily the result of underdevelopment. And this (once again) is what I disagree with in your first comment.

          • Kai

            First, those two propositions can certainly both be true. The problem is in how you’re defining certain words or notions (development) in your head relative to other people (me).

            I had assumed you could understand this issue from everything I’ve written throughout this, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Perhaps we should discuss and agree upon how we’re using “development” in the context of our statements before proceeding?

            There’s a difference between saying one aspect of a society is less developed and saying one country is less developed than another. The former is specific and nuanced. The latter is not and in this case, appears to be used to broaden my comments. Do you recognize this?

            I am not asking a rhetorical question here. I need you to answer me if I’m to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

            Second, I definitely claimed a correlation rather than a law. I explicitly said “correlation” in my second comment here before you ever suggested what I was saying to be a “law”. Reading that I said “correlation” and then trying to characterize what I said as a “law” is dishonest, man.

            This should be obvious but it seems I need to spell this out. Being preoccupied with, for example, your own hunger, does “cause” a lot of people to care less about an animal’s hunger. When this is aggregated in a larger social context, it does “cause” animal rights to be of a lower priority to that society. This influences what government may focus on, but doesn’t necessarily dictate it. Hence why Martin managed to pass his law despite the apathy and ridicule of his peers, and why China can pursue a space program despite its many other problems. Knowing this, “there is indeed a correlation between material comfort and having the time and interest to care about animals rights.”

            The facts before our eyes, the ones I assume you see just as well as I do, show that there is no “law”, only correlation. We know poor people can care about animals too, so the idea of causation on an aggregate scale is inherently preposterous. On an individual scale? That one person’s hunger can cause them to care less about an animal’s hunger? Sure. But this has been about society overall, about aggregate priorities as expressed by society as a whole, and how that interplays with government action. Correlation is the name of the game. I explicitly said so, so why are you twisting my words?

            Third, you said “nobody posited a law linking capital punishment to level of development” and I replied in agreement by repeating what you said. You’re right, nobody did. I sure didn’t. I did exactly as I said I did: “I used it as an analogy in an effort to communicate my disagreement with your comments.”

            I felt you were linking the existence of animal rights laws with a society’s level of development. My response was to clarify that a society can have differing levels of parity with another. It might be more developed, as developed, or less developed in different areas. With regards to animal welfare laws, China is behind the UK two centuries ago, but I wouldn’t make the comment you made, because it looks suspiciously suggestive of more than what I am saying.

            Likewise, if someone were to say the US is less developed than the UK half a century ago, in response to a discussion of why the US hasn’t passed legislation outlawing the death penalty, I would also say that looks suspiciously suggestive, of trying to broaden the other person’s comments.

            How is this not an analogy to the case in point?

            Fourth, what you have said here does not substantiate your claim that you answered my question with “partly true”. Please quote and refute as untrue or only partly true the statements I made in my first comment. You may want to start with:

            Overall though, this kinda boils down to the majority of the population caring more about human issues than animal issues. It was like this in the West too. You have to get enough people above a certain level of material comfort before enough of them will start caring more about animals. We’ve seen this time and time again throughout history.

            How is this only partly true? Please dissect my sentence construction. Does this not reflect the how the most ardent Chinese animal rights activists usually belong to the urban middle class or above? Does this not reflect the level of material comfort Martin grew up in and enjoyed? How is this only a “partly true” historical correlation?

            Fifth, yes, I am claiming you are trying to focus the discussion on the superiority/inferiorit of nations and people when you responded to my comment by oversimplifying it into a juxtaposition of China versus the UK two centuries ago, then subsequently refusing to accept my disagreement with it as an oversimplification. When you try to force a broadened conclusion and position on me, you give me cause to believe you have a dishonest agenda.


            I disagree with your point as you’ve now clearly stated precisely because of what I feared: It’s an oversimplification.

            I made my point very clear in my first comment: What influences priorities and how priorities influence government action. You articulated what you now claim to be your point all along in your FOURTH comment. Your first comment was suggesting by way of question if I was saying something broader than what I said. Your second and third comments attempt to justify your broadening of my position instead of addressing whether my first comment was untrue, a question I asked you in my second comment.

            Do you disagree with my contention that your first reply to me broadened the comments I made in my first comment? Please answer me. If you don’t disagree, then our argument here is resolved. I disagree with you broadening my comments, you admit to have done so, whether intentionally or not, and we’re now in agreement. I don’t want mischaracterizing my position by broadening what I said. That’s why I’m arguing with you, because you’re unpersuasively insisting you aren’t. Do you understand the crux of this argument now?

            Instead of taking the nuance out of what I’m saying [in the first comment], please just cite what I specifically wrote and explain your disagreement(s). If you’re going to insinuate that I said more than I did, I’m going to disagree with you and defend the integrity of what I said.

            Why is a comparison to the UK, France, or US necessary if not to turn the discussion into holding up one in order to put down the other? Have I ever said China is as developed as those countries, especially with regards to animal rights laws?

            You say I have no good reason to suppose you harbor a secret racist agenda when you are in the process of giving me one. I’ve repeatedly tried to give you the benefit of the doubt (“We’re not getting through to each other but I hope its a misunderstanding and nothing more than that.”). You say now there must be a reason other than the ones I’ve given in my first comment for why China doesn’t have animal protection laws because the UK had them two centuries ago. Okay, what do you think that reason is?

            And why didn’t you share it with us in your first reply to me like I shared my reasons in my first reply to you? I feel you were asking a leading question, not contributing to an intelligent discussion of the reasons. Here’s your chance to fix that misunderstanding.

            Finally, I’m not persuaded that I misrepresented my first comment when I said:

            I’m trying to discuss the likely reasons why, a discussion of politics and government, not just suggestively declare one nation less developed than another one two centuries ago.

            My first comment was about the intersection of interest groups, limited resources, and interest groups dictating what government manages to do, such as passing legislation.

            Please show me how this was a misrepresentation.

            What you cite as the basis for your disagreement is the product of cherry-picking. That’s dishonest. I believe the abundance of human suffering in China is indeed a “main” reason why animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority. I didn’t say “only”. Hence, what I said isn’t positing a “law”, and it is only part of my overall position on reasons why there isn’t animal protection laws in China. Does the abundance of human suffering not affect the aggregate social and government priority given to animal suffering in China?

            Read the rest of my first comment for the rest of my position.

            Before I sign off here, I’m again going to draw your attention back to what is the crux of our disagreement. I believe your first reply to me broadened what I said in my first comment. Does it not? If you can acknowledge that it does, then we’re pretty much done here. I said what I said. I don’t want you saying I said more than that. If you disagree with something I said (without cherry-picking it out of context), argue against what I said exactly instead of arguing against a strawman you’ve created through broadening.

            If you want to argue that your broadening wasn’t intentional, that you were just misunderstood, then go ahead and contribute intelligently to the discussion with what you feel is the reason why China doesn’t have animal protection laws despite being as or more developed in a general sense than the UK was in 1822 that is fundamentally different from what I’ve already said. You may have a very good, plausible, even persuasive reason that will enlighten me further on this topic. I just haven’t seen it yet. I hope it isn’t something preposterous like “Unless of course they are more interested in dismembering humans than stopping the dismemberment of animals.”

          • donnachadh

            First, in answer to your non-rhetorical question, I am using the word ‘development’ in its accepted sense in reference to countries, i.e. in the sense that allows us to talk of ‘developed’ countries, ‘developing’ countries and ‘least developed’ countries. You originally talked about getting ‘enough people above a certain level of material comfort before enough of them will start caring more about animals’. ‘Getting enough people above a certain level of material comfort’ is equivalent to getting the country to a certain level of development in the accepted sense of the term ‘development’ I have referred to above.

            I am not ‘broadening’ your meaning. Your meaning is clearly stated in your first post. By now using the term ‘development’ in some general non-specific sense you are both denying your original claim and sabotaging our ability to communicate.

            Second, you seem unclear of the difference between correlation and causation. You claim that underdevelopment (or a large proportion of the population not having enough to eat which constitutes underdevelopment) causes animal rights to be of low priority in a society and furthermore that this ‘influences’ what the government may focus on.

            This is claiming causation; you say you can see how one thing leads to the other. In a case where there is correlation without (or without our knowing of any) causation we cannot say how (or whether) one thing leads to the other. For example, having a moustache and being a dictator correlate but one does not cause the other (as far as we know at least).

            Third, and once again, you are the one who linked animal rights to a country’s level of development (‘getting enough people above a certain level of material comfort’) in your original post (although you are now denying what we can both read in black and white if we return to that post). I questioned this link by presenting counterexamples.

            You now seem to be claiming presence or absence of animal rights legislation to be one kind of development, and presence or absence of capital punishment another. This makes the term ‘development’ meaningless. As I said the term has an accepted meaning in reference to countries. I suggest that you are fully aware of this accepted meaning and fully understand my use of it, yet insist on your own idiosyncratic use of the word in an attempt to obfuscate a discussion in which your original claims are clearly lacking.

            Fourth, our entire discussion, and your ‘correlation’ (as you insist on calling it) is primarily about countries, not individual people (like Martin). And this ‘correlation’, as I said, is only partly true. You talk about a lack of animal rights in a country ‘boil[ing] down to the majority of the population caring more about human issues than animal issues’ and link this with enough of the population not being ‘above a certain level of material comfort’.

            As I said this explains England compared to France, but not China compared to England and France (China now being more developed than England in 1822, etc.) This is why I use the term ‘partly true’.

            Sixth, yes you made your point very clear in your first comment (that lack of animal rights legislation is the result of lack of development), the problem is that you are now denying you made this point. The point you now claim to have been making all along is something along the lines of ‘it’s complicated why things are the way they are’ which is a point that would hardly have been worth making.

            If you now want to know whether I believe this latter point to be true or not, then yes I believe it to be true, but it hardly advances the discussion, or adds anything of interest to it.

            At this point I am exasperated (to say the least) at how you persistently misrepresent what I write (not to mention what you have previously written yourself). Nobody with half a brain would claim China today to be less developed than England in 1822. And as such there must be an explanation other than development (your explanation) as to why China today does not have animal cruelty legislation whereas England in 1822 did. I am hardly responsible for your inability to join the dots here. My original claim, my claim now, and my claim throughout this argument remains the same.

            And, yes, I strongly disagree with your contention about my ‘broadening the argument’. I have already said what I maintain your original claim was, and that I believe you remain fully aware that you made this claim. You now however deny having made such a claim and have replaced it with something more or less meaningless. In other words, I do not believe you to be arguing in good faith.

            You think I’m a racist based on what? That I pointed out a counterexample to the claim you made about the link between a country’s animal rights legislation (or lack thereof) and its level of development? That is absurd.

            Or do you think I must have some other reason in mind for China’s lack of animal rights legislation if I do not believe it can be explained by lack of development, and furthermore that this reason must be racist. Why must I have some other reason in mind (and even if I did why would you presume it to be racist)?

            If I say I wasn’t the one who tortured the dogs (in the above post) and put the pictures online and so somebody else must have done so, would you demand I tell who did torture them (or say I must have somebody in mind)?

            Seventh, I have already stated how you are misrepresenting your first post. To summarise, you are characterising it as a wide-ranging discussion of interacting variables when it was in fact a clear cause and effect claim, e.g:

            ‘The main problem here is that there’s still so much human suffering in China that animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority.’

            ‘Overall though, this kinda boils down to the majority of the population caring more about human issues than animal issues.’

            I never said you claimed underdevelopment to be the ‘only’ reason, but not claiming something to be the only reason does not mean you are not claiming causation (or a law). And as you (bizarrely) admit yourself you did claim it to be the ‘main’ reason.

            Furthermore, I never claimed that human suffering was not a factor in there not being animal rights legislation in China (as you seem to be implying I did). I simply pointed out that given the counterexamples of England in 1822 and France in 1860 that it is not a sufficient explanation.

            In relation to your final comment:

            I hope it isn’t something preposterous like “Unless of course they are more interested in dismembering humans than stopping the dismemberment of animals.”

            This, if you would care to read it in context, was a reference to the abundant posts threatening to get some gory revenge on the person who tortured the dogs. It’s a bit of a leap of the imagination on your part to think it could be my explanation of why there are no animal cruelty laws in China.

            Anyway, I presume you are not going to admit that your original claim was in fact as I have characterised it in this post, and this correspondence is taking up too much of my (and no doubt your) time without getting us anywhere so this will be my last post on the topic. Feel free to make a final post yourself which if you do I will read but not respond to.

          • Kai

            First, you have just confirmed that the definition you had in mind when using the word “development” ever since your first reply asking if I was “claiming that China is less developed now than [the UK, US, France] were more than one hundred and fifty years ago” is precisely the one I believed you were using and which I consider to be too oversimplified as to be constructive to an intelligent discussion of why China doesn’t have animal protection laws.

            China is a country where certain aspects are as developed as the countries you compared it to, as they are now and at points in the past. Other aspects are less developed. Still others may even be more developed.

            With regards to animal protection laws, China is less developed than the UK was two centuries ago. I explicitly said this in my comment four days ago. That we’re still having this argument demonstrates that you are unsatisfied with this statement of fact and want me to say something else, something I believe to be not useful and thus am unwilling to say.

            What I refuse to say is: “China is less developed now than [the UK, US, France] were more than one hundred and fifty years ago”. That is what you asked if I was “claiming”. I said “no” and reiterated what I was specifically claiming. I refuse to say that because it is a claim that lacks the specifics and nuance required to be justifiable.

            Much of your argument throughout this has been to characterize parts of my statements in my first comment as “equivalent” to your definition of “development” as used in “China is less developed now than [the UK, US, France] were more than one hundred and fifty years ago”.

            No, the parts of my statements in my first comment are at best equivalent to “China is less developed now than the UK, US, France] were more than one hundred and fifty years ago when it comes to getting animal protection laws passed.” Such a claim is justifiable in my opinion. It is, frankly, obvious. We know China is less developed in that regard. The only reason I can imagine someone going on to emphasize “more than one hundred and fifty years ago” after laying out when those countries had their first animal protection laws STRONGLY suggests a desire to establish and express superiority and inferiority between countries and people.

            I don’t see the fruit in that.

            My meaning was indeed “clearly stated” in my first post, so I don’t understand why you substituted my specific claims with a broadened, generalized, vaguer claim. What is your purpose in doing so? This is not a rhetorical question.

            Second, an individual not having enough to eat can cause him to care less about an animal’s treatment. That’s causation, if it is true. A group of people who place a higher priority on human suffering correlates to that group placing a lower priority on animal suffering. A population with a higher expressed priority on human suffering correlates with a government that places less priority on animal suffering. A country where material comfort hasn’t reached a certain level correlates with a country where animal protection legislation isn’t a high priority.

            Please distinguish when I’m using causation and when I’m using correlation in my statements.

            Third, since you keep trying to make parts of my statements equivalent to “development”, I’m going to try to slam this home because it is important in this discussion: The “level of material comfort” can be part of, but not equivalent to, “a country’s level of development”. “Development”, as you define it, is a broader term so it says more than what I said. Because I don’t believe more is justifiable, I refuse to say it.

            I am at a loss for where you ever presented counterexamples to the statements in my first comment. The animal protection legislation passed in the UK, US, and France that you cite (apparently as counterexamples) were initiated and fought for by “enough people above a certain level of material comfort”. Your very examples corroborated and validated my statements.

            You think China, in some general sense, is at least as developed as those countries were two centuries ago and thus should have animal protection laws. You think that because China doesn’t, there must be some other reasons, right?

            I’m telling you, China isn’t as developed as those countries in SPECIFIC senses that are relevant to SPECIFICALLY animal protection laws. Yes, some parts of China are as developed or more so than the UK, US, and France were two centuries ago, but not where it is relevant to animal registration laws.

            When things don’t make sense from far away, look closer.

            You do understand that “development” doesn’t follow the same track and schedule for every country, right? That one aspect of development may develop faster in one country but not another country for any number of factors? For example, that the US can be considered “as developed” as the UK overall but not when it comes to specifics like sentiments on capital punishment? For example, that the Soviet Union can be “more developed” than the US when it came to space exploration but not when it came to economic stability? That China can be “more developed” in X number of things than the UK was two centuries ago but not when it comes to enough people enjoying enough material comfort to make animal protection laws a higher priority in overall society and government than human suffering?

            You’re exasperated and I’m exasperated. I feel like I’ve been saying the same thing each time but in different ways hoping you’ll finally realize what I dearly hope to be a misunderstanding. What I’ve written here should put the matter to rest.

            I am claiming that China is less developed when it comes to animal protection laws. Yes, less developed than the UK, US, and France were as much as two centuries ago, when it comes to animal protection laws and the social factors that give rise to them. The reasons, as I believe them to be, are as stated in my first comment. I don’t want you or anyone omitting the italicized nuance because it risks making me sound like I am saying more than I am. If a journalist quoted me and did that, I’d be fucking pissed. That risks changing what I am commenting on in the mind of the reader. That is “broadening”. Whether you intended to or not, that act is the definition of the word “broadening”.

            I genuinely believe you are an intelligent person despite our failure to interpret each other exactly the same way and exactly the same moment. We’ve both been as exasperated as we have been patient with each other. I hope you can understand my rejection of your characterization of my first comment with your first reply to me and come to understand why it meets the definition of “broadening”. I trust you already understand why “broadening” someone’s comments is not appreciated by them.

          • ikoihil

            Go to China and travel within the country. You will understand what Kai is saying, even based on that limited amount of exposure to the population and economy.

          • donnachadh

            Why, will travelling in China impair my ability to reason?

          • ikoihil

            Actually, it would do the opposite. It might not take you two hours to comprehend “The main problem here is that there’s still so much human suffering in China that animal suffering isn’t regarded as a high priority.” as stated by Kai in his first response to you.

          • donnachadh

            I have already responded to this. England (for example) at an earlier stage of development than China is at now, and with huge amounts of human suffering (e.g. people working for 70 hours per week in miserable factory conditions) did have animal cruelty legislation. If human suffering means people (and legislators) ignore animal suffering how was this the case?

          • Ningjing

            Society is simultaneously processing multiple priorities, and so is the parliament/general assembly/whatever system of government. The chinese lawmakers are not going to disregard traffic legislation until labour laws have been somehow completed. Laws will never be perfect and as technology and culture develops so does legislation.

            Beijing is no way too busy with alleviating human suffering to write an animal protection act. In fact, much of human suffering is connected to animal rights: Not only the aforementioned connection of sadists and serial killers starting with animal cruelty, but also food safety and zoonoses like SARS are directly connected to animal treatment. Even the sanlu-case might have been caused by animal neglect. Well-fed and healthy cows will produce milk with decent protein-content and there is no need to fake it with chemicals. Also, a more cost-effective, animal and customer friendly plan for dairy production is good hygiene and a decent breeding program that eliminates the antibiotic- and hormone-shots bs. Better farming practices could decrease both animal and human suffering.

          • ikoihil


  • http://www.facebook.com/nicola.collina Nicola Collina

    again……. regular this happen. Ok is statistic… But this time there is something different: allt hese dogs are quite expensive. a Samoyedo go up to 3000 at least..Husky same or more. In the past other women do only for “pleasure” some fetish.. I’m sure some make for business as for example the group of girls 2 years a go. In the movie they sometiems say somehting in english and i am sure they make money on that.. But this “woman” use expensive dogs and put pictures on weibo.. is quite surprising…

  • The most evil country has to be China: mass executions, forced abortion, forced organ harvesting, genocide, xenophobia, child labour…

    The most immoral has to be any country that supports Chinese industry and buys Chinese goods endorsing the atrocities and funding the communist barbarity.

    China is a depraved and immoral nation who worships money. Why the
    natural resources are getting depleted? What is the best way to solve

    China is one of the great question marks on the world stage as we approach the third millennium. Many ignorant people say the 21st century will be the “Chinese Century.” However, it could be the century of humiliation to China.

    • donnachadh

      You can’t blame the entire Chinese population for the actions of the country’s rulers. Less than ten percent of the population are party members, and only the elite within the party have any real power. The remainder of the Chinese people are the ones who suffer most at the hands of the party (forced abortions etc.)

      Unfortunately many Chinese people have been brainwashed into identifying criticism of their rulers with criticism of the entire Chinese people and nation. It is necessary to make the Chinese people aware of the difference between nation and ruler if democratic reform is to take place.

  • mark

    What’s your problem people?

    The woman has not violated any law in China.

    What she did and probably keeps on doing is totally within the legal boundaries of the beautiful middle kingdom.

    I wish her and the wise lawmakers all the best and may she live a happy life.

  • Kochigachi

    Was dog Japanese origin?

  • laduzi

    But like child abuse the abuse of the animals (and the killing of) in China is not illegal and so even if the woman is found what will be the result? Many people care of course but most do not and have a “so what, who cares” attitude about the loss of human life much less a dog being killed. These animal torture videos have been going on since I arrived in China almost ten years ago. Somewhere there a some Chinese guy wanking to this stuff and thinking about his mother blowing him.

  • Kaitlyn

    Disgusting bitch. Lets put her in a cage with starving bears and see how she deals with animals who arent quite so helpless. I pray she can die a slow painful death the same as she did to the helpless puppies.

  • Jennifer Ko

    I agree with everything except the mother part. She probably hits her mom too.

  • lol123

    typical fucking chinks
    this is no surprise seeing as they all eat dog
    they themselves are animals

  • Jade

    The entire world looks on and considers Chinese people to be lower than savages to do this kind of cruelty. China = Nation of ignorant savages

    • Dr Sun

      never happens in your country does it ?

  • Olrik

    well, I tell u this chinamen, that the usa may be an economic basket case, but they still have lots of big big bombs and you may all still get what’s comining to you…

  • NyaKairi


  • http://www.BeautyCastleS.com/ Jolie Chen

    So brutal and cruel

    – K&J Fashion)

  • The sg00ll00-Killer

    She doesn’t have the guts or strength to deal with someone her own size. She was probably raped and tortured by her father and mother a lot, so she takes out her angers on tiny little animals.

  • http://simplydesigned.tumblr.com/ maybeabanana

    Stole this one: some places walk their dogs. In china, they wok their dogs.

  • europhobic

    Something is deeply wrong with the Chinese. I say what she is doing is much worse than raping and/or killing someone. Death penalty should apply.

  • Me

    This ugly cunt deserves to have 10 times worst done to her than she’s done to these precious dogs. All I can say is she’s lucky I don’t know her, and I don’t live near her or in the same town she’s even in. She deserves to be brutally tortured and raped, and have THEM put the video up online, raping her ugly ass, then she can feel what these precious dogs felt, on top of being destroyed and humiliated. Cunts that torture, abuse, and kill animals deserve to have the worst done to them, and it should be legal for just anyone to take care of their sorry asses, they had wished they’d never touch an animal in the first place after they are shown the fear and pain that animal they put through felt. I’ll never ever understand how and why people hurt animals, these kind of sick cunts need to be shipped to an island with no living beings on it, no animals or even plants, no food, let them abuse each other.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»