>>38517718>>38517718Uh literally retarded. Growing up to not abuse animals has very little to do with how you’re raised, because in humans genetic v. environment has an influence on human behaviour around 80-20% or rather, environmental effects are always present, but they only explain 20% of the difference in a persons behaviour, which is predictively valid, not to mention our twin studies. It also sounds like a lot but isn’t if you look at things like height, which is only being affected more by the environment than your inheritance if you’re malnourished or otherwise suffering from an obvious adverse condition or in the case of mental qualities, abuse.
Secondly, while it’s true children are more susceptible to influence and their environment at a young age, with genetics not explaining or predicting much about their behaviour and less the younger they are, there’s no reason to believe she was abused. Even according to your own clown world logic, there’s really no reason to say her having parents that didn’t teach her to respect animals would lead to her abusing them as a child. Your logic totally fucks up your own conclusion dude.
To reiterate, it’s obvious some children aren’t taught to respect animals and DO. There are lots of young children who adore, love and respect animals, and they don’t need to be taught to. It’s obviously not random, but even if it was taught by parents, in her case, it would still be true that her parents not teaching her to respect animals, doesn’t mean they taught her to disrespect or abuse them. If that’s what she did without any particular influence one way or the other that’s weird.
Thirdly, speaking of weird, she was a child or possibly a teen at the time, but either way, it is abusive, and it’s something no young adult or child normally does, especially to dogs. Normal humans can bond to dogs, specifically dogs neuro chemically in a way that is similar to how parents bond neuro chemically to their newborn children. So even if she was a child, a child doing something that will very obviously hurt the dog, is worrying, because it isn’t totally dissimilar to a child deciding to hurt and injure their sibling or parent on a whim. Young children are capable of forming bonds that disclude harmful behaviour with their family, and so not bonding with a dog in a similar way is a sure sign of a potential serial killer.
Anyways, there should be no ‘learning’ experience because it shouldn’t happen to begin with. I’ve seen young kids take random swipes at work animals before and never do it again because of the backlash, but keep in mind, that even then, those are almost always the kids with some kind of behavioural condition. Like one kid who tried to kick a working dog, and missed, he never abused an animal again after that but had very mild behavioural issues with neurological roots that became more obvious as he aged. So definitely not normal. Abusing animals is always a sign of a maladapted child either behaviourally and unlikely to repeat, or psychologically and likely to repeat in a pattern. In ghost girl we see the latter not the former, and I would argue shoving chopsticks up a dogs ass is no simple spur of the moment swipe with a foot caused by the onset of behavioural conditions and maladapted thought processes. Yeah?
