The Kitten Killer of Hangzhou
Status: Real (unfortunately)
A series of pictures showing a woman crushing a kitten to death with her stiletto heels is causing an uproar over in China. The pictures first appeared on the internet and have recently been published by some Chinese newspapers. The woman in the photos has been dubbed the Kitten Killer of Hangzhou, because the background scene has been identified as Hangzhou. I've been able to locate four of the pictures in the series, but I think there are a few more (far more graphic) ones. Here are the ones I found (I don't have larger versions): |
 |
| Image 3 (possibly disturbing) |
Image 4 (possibly disturbing) |
The big question is: Who is this woman? One theory is that the images come from a Japanese shoe advertisement. Another theory identifies the kitten killer as a "37-year-old woman from Hubei province with the internet identity 'Gainmas.'" The London Telegraph elaborates:
She had registered a website in Hangzhou and - the ultimate evidence - had bought a pair of stilettoes on eBay last year. She was also registered with QQ, a popular Chinese message service, where she wrote of herself: "I furiously crush everything to do with you and me." Before her QQ address went dead, its owner had several conversations. In one, she is coy, saying "So what?" when asked if the pictures are of her, and then, when asked again, replying: "In theory." When confronted by a reporter, she became defensive, saying: "Suddenly hundreds of people are on my QQ and cursing me. What's the problem if I crush cats? It's a type of experience. You wouldn't understand."
The Telegraph goes on to note:
No one seems to have suggested the serious possibility that the photographs could be a hoax - created by picture-altering computer software. But in the face of tight control of self-expression, young Chinese are seeking wildly different forms of sensation or satire on the state of society.
Without having seen all the pictures (and better quality ones), it's hard to judge whether or not they're real. But it certainly seems like this has already become the Chinese version of Bonsai Kitten (with the added twist that it may be real... in which case it's definitely disgusting).
Update: A "Crush" video is circulating around (you can find links to it in the comments, if you're interested) that makes it pretty clear the woman really did step on a kitten. Also, an article in the Shanghai Daily reports that the lady, and the guy who produced the video, have been identified. The producer, who is a camera operator at a TV station, has apologized. However, the woman, who works as a nurse at a hospital, has disappeared, leading to concerns that kitten commandoes may have abducted her (or something along those lines).
Posted By: Alex | Date: Mon Mar 06, 2006 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 237
Category: Animals, Gross, Photos/Videos
Category: Animals, Gross, Photos/Videos
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 4 of 12 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »
Wow, three pages of comments and bad poetry, and still nobody has said it: Kitten Heels!
Sorry, but somebody has to make bad taste jokes around here and keep some sense of proportion.
Posted by Nightbringer in Perth, Western Australia on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:00 AM
Sorry, but somebody has to make bad taste jokes around here and keep some sense of proportion.
Well said, David. I guess many of us are guilty of passing judgement on others.
"Odd to draw a moral equivalence between killing a cat and killing human beings. I try not to kill anything unnecessarily -- even ants on a sidewalk -- but I wouldn't think to equate, say, the poultry industry with the Holocaust, or a mouse-trap with a man-trap."
I don't equate killing animals with killing humans. It's the mindset that it takes to torture a helpless animal to death for pleasure (and film the act) that I find repugnant.
Posted by Blondin on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:19 AM
"Odd to draw a moral equivalence between killing a cat and killing human beings. I try not to kill anything unnecessarily -- even ants on a sidewalk -- but I wouldn't think to equate, say, the poultry industry with the Holocaust, or a mouse-trap with a man-trap."
I don't equate killing animals with killing humans. It's the mindset that it takes to torture a helpless animal to death for pleasure (and film the act) that I find repugnant.
Too bad. She's kinda hot looking, I'd roll around a haystack with her.
Posted by Yar! on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 07:13 AM
This is exactly the same argument that comes up everytime these articles get posted. It was the same for the cat-purse lady, and even for the Send-me-a-buck-or-I'll-eat-the-bunny hoax. It's fascinating how it seems to flare anew up each time with no realization that it's all been said before. I guess every once in a while we need to vent our frustrations, then we can calm down for another six months or so until the next one.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:10 AM
Torturing any living thing is immoral. Killing any living thing for no reason is also immoral. I say for no reason because I enjoy steak, and chicken, and lots of other things that I could not enjoy had a living organism not been killed. I resent however killing by torture and without reason, and resent even more making a public display of it for no apparent reason other than disturb other people.
Posted by StarLizard in Quebec, Canada on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:45 AM
And Alex, thank you for removing those pictures. I'm glad I don't have to look at them every time I scroll down the page.
Posted by StarLizard in Quebec, Canada on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 09:49 AM
"Ah, but if they had killed other animals, they'd just be getting what's coming to them, right?"
So you're saying that people should be killed to, because we kill other animals to eat right? And some even hunt for fun.
"Is it the crushing of animals people are objecting to? Or just the fact that this animal is 'cute and fluffy', whereas that harmless house-spider they flattened last week was 'icky and horrible'?"
This I must agree, I am against the killings of ANY lifeforms that is uncalled for. That's why whenever i see spiders/bugs in my house, i always set them free =)
God I hate bullfights and animal testing. I think if the purpose of that experiment is to benefit humans, then we should use humans to begin with.
As for slaughterhouses, I am not against the purpose of it (food) but I am certainly against the killing methods.
Food animals need to be treated better!! IF they are going to DIE for us, the least we can do is make sure they live nicely and die a peaceful death.
Posted by Yushi on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 11:32 AM
So you're saying that people should be killed to, because we kill other animals to eat right? And some even hunt for fun.
"Is it the crushing of animals people are objecting to? Or just the fact that this animal is 'cute and fluffy', whereas that harmless house-spider they flattened last week was 'icky and horrible'?"
This I must agree, I am against the killings of ANY lifeforms that is uncalled for. That's why whenever i see spiders/bugs in my house, i always set them free =)
God I hate bullfights and animal testing. I think if the purpose of that experiment is to benefit humans, then we should use humans to begin with.
As for slaughterhouses, I am not against the purpose of it (food) but I am certainly against the killing methods.
Food animals need to be treated better!! IF they are going to DIE for us, the least we can do is make sure they live nicely and die a peaceful death.
I agree with the fellow fom Quebeck Canada on this page.......
Posted by Jenny Maurer in somehwere on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 05:37 PM
>Torturing any living thing is immoral. Killing any living thing for no reason is also immoral. I say for no reason because I enjoy steak, and chicken, and lots of other things that I could not enjoy had a living organism not been killed.
So your justification for killing these animals is so that you can enjoy yourself?!
O-o-okay...
Posted by David B. on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:18 AM
So your justification for killing these animals is so that you can enjoy yourself?!
O-o-okay...
Kill the babies! Save the whales! Let us abort our own children! Save the seals!
Todays word is "hypocrisy". Brought to you by the letters ACLU.
Posted by Get a clue on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:43 AM
Todays word is "hypocrisy". Brought to you by the letters ACLU.
>So you're saying that people should be killed to, because we kill other animals to eat right? And some even hunt for fun.
No, several posters have expressed a wish to do this woman harm, or that harm somehow comes upon her, and the justification has been that she would deserve her fate because of her actions. While you are quite right that a more consistent application of this rule would put a hell of a lot more people on God's 'do bad things to' list, I was actually extending their argument to other animals. If I mightn't approve of their actions is it okay to think they deserve their suffering?
>I think if the purpose of that experiment is to benefit humans, then we should use humans to begin with.
I think the number of volunteers for an LD50 test would be quite low unless people were forced to participate. We should use lawyers, that way no-one would mind any suffering.
>As for slaughterhouses, I am not against the purpose of it (food) but I am certainly against the killing methods.
I was a vegetarian (for dietary reasons; no meat, no fish, very occasional egg) for many years, and can quite attest to the fact that we don't need meat. That I'm not now is because it is very much easier to maintain a balanced diet if some meat is included in your diet.
I have also actually been round a slaughterhouse. Let's just say it is not a family day out. The actual killing was quick and (apparently) painless, but some animals were quite clearly distressed from the moment they entered the building up to the coo-de-gracey.
Imagine waking up one morning to find yourself tied to a chair. Suddenly a man with a revolver walks in, spins the barrel, points the gun at your head and... *click*. He walks out. Five minutes later he's back and does the same thing again. Then five minutes after that. Then five minutes after that. Soon he starts pulling the trigger twice, soon after three times, then *BANG*.
A bullet in the head is quick and painless. Thank God you didn't suffer.
Posted by David B. on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:49 AM
No, several posters have expressed a wish to do this woman harm, or that harm somehow comes upon her, and the justification has been that she would deserve her fate because of her actions. While you are quite right that a more consistent application of this rule would put a hell of a lot more people on God's 'do bad things to' list, I was actually extending their argument to other animals. If I mightn't approve of their actions is it okay to think they deserve their suffering?
>I think if the purpose of that experiment is to benefit humans, then we should use humans to begin with.
I think the number of volunteers for an LD50 test would be quite low unless people were forced to participate. We should use lawyers, that way no-one would mind any suffering.
>As for slaughterhouses, I am not against the purpose of it (food) but I am certainly against the killing methods.
I was a vegetarian (for dietary reasons; no meat, no fish, very occasional egg) for many years, and can quite attest to the fact that we don't need meat. That I'm not now is because it is very much easier to maintain a balanced diet if some meat is included in your diet.
I have also actually been round a slaughterhouse. Let's just say it is not a family day out. The actual killing was quick and (apparently) painless, but some animals were quite clearly distressed from the moment they entered the building up to the coo-de-gracey.
Imagine waking up one morning to find yourself tied to a chair. Suddenly a man with a revolver walks in, spins the barrel, points the gun at your head and... *click*. He walks out. Five minutes later he's back and does the same thing again. Then five minutes after that. Then five minutes after that. Soon he starts pulling the trigger twice, soon after three times, then *BANG*.
A bullet in the head is quick and painless. Thank God you didn't suffer.
>Kill the babies! Save the whales! Let us abort our own children! Save the seals! Todays word is "hypocrisy". Brought to you by the letters ACLU.
The ACLU campaign to stop whale-hunting? Why?
Posted by David B. on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 04:53 AM
The ACLU campaign to stop whale-hunting? Why?
Because the whale's civil rights are being violated, David. Duh.
Posted by Charybdis in Hell on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:37 AM
David B., what I'm saying is that I am not opposed to the killing of animals (or plants, for that matter...) if the intention is to eat and survive. It is the nature of things, and even animals kill other animals to survive. Yes, I have a choice, I could be a vegetarian, but I am not. What I'm trying to say is that I'm against the torture, and I'm against killing for no reason. Don't kill more than you can eat.
The only reason we're even having this argument is that our civilization can afford to treat and view animals like pets and friends. Do a little traveling and you will soon notice that animals in many countries are viewed and treated as tools, food and money. They are sometimes malnourished, badly treated and slaughtered in ways that would make your gun story look like a fairytale. We feel for the kitten because we might have one as a pet, a friend. To someone who can hardly feed their children, the kitten means nothing but one more mouth to feed. Is it ok to torture it? Of course not.
But if you're going to twist my argument to say that it's ok to kill animals so I can enjoy myself, I'll tell you that yes, I enjoy meat, I don't force myself to eat it and cry the whole time for the cow that was killed; mostly I am greatful for its life and the food it has provided, and I ensure it doesn't go to waste in the fridge.
Posted by StarLizard in Quebec, Canada on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 07:46 AM
The only reason we're even having this argument is that our civilization can afford to treat and view animals like pets and friends. Do a little traveling and you will soon notice that animals in many countries are viewed and treated as tools, food and money. They are sometimes malnourished, badly treated and slaughtered in ways that would make your gun story look like a fairytale. We feel for the kitten because we might have one as a pet, a friend. To someone who can hardly feed their children, the kitten means nothing but one more mouth to feed. Is it ok to torture it? Of course not.
But if you're going to twist my argument to say that it's ok to kill animals so I can enjoy myself, I'll tell you that yes, I enjoy meat, I don't force myself to eat it and cry the whole time for the cow that was killed; mostly I am greatful for its life and the food it has provided, and I ensure it doesn't go to waste in the fridge.
THIS IS the MOST DISGUSTING THING I VE EVER SEEN...and I ve really thought that I have seen it all. I feel an irresistible urge to puke on my laptop.
Question: did she sedate the cat before stepping on it? I mean: it doesn t seem to try to run away. Might it be possible that the cat wasn t alive (I don t see any movements of the cat that could not also have happened after it s death). The meeeeowww could be dubbed.
Anyway: I hope the kitten was dead before she stepped on it.
AEIOU
BTW: there was the story of that chinese guy eating a roasted baby, some time ago. A friend of mine, an artist from Berlin, was in China for 2 years in some kind of exchange program and showed me photos showing him on an exhibition where that "artist" exhibited dead babies and dead bodies. He said they definetly were real, not fake, and police came an hour after the opening of the "art show" to close that joint down ... nobody was arrested, though, as the laws don t explicitly forbid actions like this. I think there re strange things going on in china.
Posted by aeiou in Rio de Janeiro on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 09:57 AM
Question: did she sedate the cat before stepping on it? I mean: it doesn t seem to try to run away. Might it be possible that the cat wasn t alive (I don t see any movements of the cat that could not also have happened after it s death). The meeeeowww could be dubbed.
Anyway: I hope the kitten was dead before she stepped on it.
AEIOU
BTW: there was the story of that chinese guy eating a roasted baby, some time ago. A friend of mine, an artist from Berlin, was in China for 2 years in some kind of exchange program and showed me photos showing him on an exhibition where that "artist" exhibited dead babies and dead bodies. He said they definetly were real, not fake, and police came an hour after the opening of the "art show" to close that joint down ... nobody was arrested, though, as the laws don t explicitly forbid actions like this. I think there re strange things going on in china.
Stilettowned 
Posted by wow on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 10:41 AM
>what I'm saying is that I am not opposed to the killing of animals [...] if the intention is to eat and survive.
You do not need to eat meat to survive, you choose to do so. Hence the 'reason' that makes killing animals moral (as in "killing any living thing for no reason is also immoral", remember) is so that you may eat them if you so choose. As you point out, there's a fair amount of cultural relativism (ack, I hate that phrase) going on here; like the eating of dogs and horses, some people cannot believe it is right even when they themselves eat cows and sheep.
You've picked a weak argument. The actual reasons to eat meat are slight, but we strongly desire to do so and accept the deaths of animals as a necessary part of the process. In essence, we are killing animals merely for our enjoyment, we just bury the resultant dissonance under the supersized side-order of fries and carry on. Do you really think people's reactions would have been different if this woman had skinned the kitten, pan-fried it with fresh shallots and eaten it with a chinese leaf salad?
Posted by David B. on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 02:36 PM
You do not need to eat meat to survive, you choose to do so. Hence the 'reason' that makes killing animals moral (as in "killing any living thing for no reason is also immoral", remember) is so that you may eat them if you so choose. As you point out, there's a fair amount of cultural relativism (ack, I hate that phrase) going on here; like the eating of dogs and horses, some people cannot believe it is right even when they themselves eat cows and sheep.
You've picked a weak argument. The actual reasons to eat meat are slight, but we strongly desire to do so and accept the deaths of animals as a necessary part of the process. In essence, we are killing animals merely for our enjoyment, we just bury the resultant dissonance under the supersized side-order of fries and carry on. Do you really think people's reactions would have been different if this woman had skinned the kitten, pan-fried it with fresh shallots and eaten it with a chinese leaf salad?
I hate vegans. You need protein to survive, and so that your muscles don't stop working. The reason people can talk about not killing animals is becuase they live in abundance, and because science provides them with fake protein. Bottom line, you need meat to survive, genius.
Posted by Fly on Thu Mar 09, 2006 at 06:11 PM
After a brief skim read of the thread most people in my opinion are missing the point things die everyday, right now things (animals, humans, plants) are dying, when you read this things are dying. The point, I think (IF it is real) is the cruelty. But regardless of if it is real or not to much stuff like this does happen everyday, People tortured, animals used for sport, etc. Cruelty for entertainment is WRONG!.
Posted by Iridium in Middlesbrough on Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 12:46 AM
Um...ok, so did it ever occur to you that the reason we strongly desire to eat meat is that it is natural for us to do so? The proteins we need to live a healthy life are found naturally in meat, and humans have been eating it since before they even understood the reason of its benefits. Nature intended for us to enjoy it, because we need it to survive.
Vegans choose not to eat meat and replace the much needed proteins with other things, but you'll have to agree that this process is much more complicated and thus not the natural way of doing things. I respect their choice and admire them for standing by their convictions; this doesn't mean however that I feel bad for not choosing to do the same thing.
I don't think my argument is weak, I think we both agree that we do not enjoy the torture of any animal, human or plant, and that we have different ideas on the moral issue of killing 'for a reason'.
Oh, and as for your last idea, if she had humanely killed the kitten before grilling it, I would not have been nearly as opposed to what she did as I am now.
Page 4 of 12 pages « First < 2 3 4 5 6 > Last »
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.