Did they really kill swans for the Before the Frost episode?

It definitely worries me. I sometimes wonder if I'm just being unusually oversensitive, or if there really *is* a rather drastic uptick in the levels to which this kind of action is increasingly being greenlighted as 'acceptable' within an entertainment context.

I'm fairly certain that it isn't just me, and that there does appear to be a rather frightening trend in that direction. I know that I'm old enough to clearly recall a time when these kind of depictions were considered offensively shocking, an did seem to be less palatable to audiences, and 'entertainers' who trucked in it *much* more likely to be attacked for for its use than they seem to be nowadays.

Two points. Someone who is mentally (or emotionally) twisted, and wants to be violent knows that he would be in terrible trouble if he "killed" his little sister, but the neighbor's cat is fair game. He doesn't want to go to jail, or be punished in any way; he doesn't want the police to question him, or his father to withhold money, or his mother to withhold food, so he kills animals instead of family members.

Of course, we know that it is just a matter of time before that kind of sick nut moves on to humans; but he waits until he isn't dependent on his parents for life's necessities.

The other question raised is why we "don't care" about humans suffering. One reason is possibly because people have intelligence and options. We don't have an enemy species with guns, who can move against us, at random. We are victims because of basic evil, and we cannot always identify that before the "bad" person commits atrocities. Then, after a period of time and a process, we can lock that person up for a period of time (and, in very few cases, have them executed for their crimes).

The reason that many folks don't respond to "starving" or "sick" children (usually depicted in Africa or other third world countries) for the simple reason that starving children don't just pop out of the ground. They were conceived by a male and a female, acting in unison, and that man and that woman need to take care of that child. IF they are irresponsible, then the families of that man and that woman need to take care of the children. If the families are irresponsible, then local charities need to take care of the children. If the local charities are irresponsible, then the church needs to take care of the children. If the church is irresponsible, then the local government needs to take care of the children. If the local government is irresponsible, then the state government (or province) needs to take care of the children. If the state government is irresponsible, then the national government needs to take care of the children.

There is NO WAY in the world that folks of limited income in the USA, with our current level of taxation, and the threats of more to come through our current administration, should endanger their future, or their children's future, or coming needs of their own parents, or be made to feel guilty about children being born of lazy parents on the other side of the world. When we are in need, there isn't a single soul in Africa who will send us a nickel. There is a very real threat that everyone who is on a fixed income now is in danger of dying a pauper. Yet, these money-grubbing agencies have no shame in trying to make folks feel guilty for still possessing a dollar of their own! They are trying to ensure THEIR futures by destroying ours. It's time we wised up and stopped being patsies for the guilt brigade.