Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Woman who put cat in washing machine escapes jail

16781012

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No, a lot of them (including many constitutional laws) were written and imposed by minorities.

    And most laws, ostensibly at least, are based on reason, and passed by representatives of the majority, not the majority itself. Which is why, for instance, we don't have the death penalty even though the majority of voters would want it.
    I very much doubt the death penalty would be voted in by the public despite what straw polls by the Mail and the S*n might claim. Though that's another issue.

    Fact remains, killing and torturing a cat is illegal and carries out a custodial sentence and it's a fucking outrage the woman didn't either get either that or get interned in a psychiatric hospital and get checked out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Precisely, which is why the 'I like cuddling my cat' and 'law isn't logical' arguments won't wash.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    Preemptive justice it is then!

    Very Minority Report.........
    Clearly the judge thought she was guilty of something. Otherwise she would have been found not guilty.

    The dissapointment here is the light sentence given.

    It's not that difficult to understand is it? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Fishing for sport almost always means returning the fish alive.

    What about a mouse?
    What about it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    Of course not!

    Laws come about for a variety of reasons, as carlito mentions the death penalty would get majority support but I know you vehemently oppose it (which makes your 'lock em up ands throw away the key, Daily mail ranting when it comes to cats all the more bizarre)
    Wanting a woman to be sent to prison for a few months at least (or instead to be sent to a mental hospital for an act that it is impossible to have been commited by a person of sound mind who is not a danger to others) is a far fucking cry from the death penalty don't you think?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    What about it?

    Would you want someone sent to prison (or sent to a pschyciatric hospital) for putting one in a washing machine?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Would you want someone sent to prison (or sent to a pschyciatric hospital) for putting one in a washing machine?

    you're getting silly now
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Would you want someone sent to prison (or sent to a pschyciatric hospital) for putting one in a washing machine?
    No I wouldn't. And before you utter the word 'why', do read what I have been saying many, many, many times over the thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote: »
    you're getting silly now

    No I'm not, I'm just trying to get him to come off the fence and say what animal he would draw the line at.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Littleali wrote: »
    you're getting silly now
    Isn't he just...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No I wouldn't. And before you utter the word 'why', do read what I have been saying many, many, many times over the thread.

    I've read it and responded to it, and like I've explained it isn't an acceptable position if you're demanding people be sent to prison for torturing some animals but not others.

    How about a weasel?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No I'm not, I'm just trying to get him to come off the fence and say what animal he would draw the line at.
    What would be the point? I'm going to tell you an animal, and then you're going to ask me what the difference is between that animal and another one?

    And that point has been explained here plenty of times (clue: it's a complex issue involving a mixture of human emotions, animal intelligence, bonds and interactivity between human and animal).

    There are so many fucking strawman arguments in this thread the world is running out of it.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I've read it and responded to it, and like I've explained it isn't an acceptable position if you're demanding people be sent to prison for torturing some animals but not others.
    Why not? It is acceptable for the immense majority of people, and indeed for the judges and the law of the land.

    If you have an issue with that create a political party or lobby group and campaign to change the law. It's nothing to do with me.

    FFS... :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Why not? It is acceptable for the immense majority of people, and indeed for the judges and the law of the land.

    If you have an issue with that create a political party or lobby group and campaign to change the law. It's nothing to do with me.

    :

    But it is, because you support it, vehemently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No I'm not, I'm just trying to get him to come off the fence and say what animal he would draw the line at.

    Why though? It's obvious to most of us that torturing and killing a cat is worse than swatting a fly. There isn't a line, like aladdin said. For example, murdering a horse outright with a shot to the head, is that worse or better than putting a cat in a washing machine? It comes down to judgement at the end of the day, that's how the legal process works. Unfortunately, sometimes it misses, and I think it has done in this case. Or else, it's sending out the message that animal abuse isn't that bad. Which is the wrong message to send out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    People keep pet tatantulas, snakes and yes, even fish. Ever hear of goldfish? These need to be maintained by daily feeding, neglect them and they die. Some sort of attachment must be there for people to care enough to feed them everyday and even play with them.

    I'm just playing devil's advocate here btw.

    Yes of course. However you're not seriously telling me that people have the same level of emotional engagement with snakes and fish as they do cats?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »

    What the cat-lovers here are confusing is suffering of a cat with suffering of a human. The reason they are concerned is not to do with the cat's pain, which they are (half) arguing, its to do with its impact on human observers. That would be a reasonable argument if stated explicitly, but they're confusing the two which is why their argument seems inconsistent and emotional.


    Dunno 'bout anyone else, but I ain't confusing shit. That's your projections mate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    for instance than a snake or a fish (although people form strong bonds to these too - something that Blagsta, Aladdin et al do not understand because they haven't experienced it, ironically something they are criticizing people for in respect to cats).

    Oh you'd be wrong there too - I've kept fish and my flatmate in Birmingham kept snakes - she however did not have the same emotional attachment to her snakes as she did does to her boyfriend's dog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Has anyone mentioned that psycopaths and sociopaths often attack animals before becoming more dangerous (so I remember from something)?

    Yep. Me. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    But it is, because you support it, vehemently.
    Well I'm acting according to my conscince and the law of the land supports my stance to boot.

    It seems that we should be asking you why don't you think somebody who puts a cat through a washing machine should be sent to prison or to a mental institution?

    And since you're so keen to get others off the fence, I would be most grateful if you would do likewise and tell us whether somebody who sticks a stick of dynamite up a horse's arse and explodes its intestines causing a excrutiating death for the purposes of revenge should go to jail. Because your original response was the dictionary definition of sitting on the fence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    As an angler, I enjoy torturing and sometimes killing animals, sometimes up to 100 a day. As such, I think its part of my psyche to torture and sometimes kill animals, so I might want to do the same to different species of animals in the future. I want to know which ones its ok to. Well, clearly cats are off the menu: but what do you reckon would be acceptable? Is it simply anything that you don't feel any kind of emotional attachment to, or do you have some kind of scientific or logical criteria?

    We eat fish in this culture, we don't eat cats.

    Of course humans have a capacity to kill and torture animals - we're predators after all. However I would guess that it being socially acceptable to fish (even if just for "sport"), but not to kill cats, is because we eat fish. See my comment earlier about eating dogs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    And most laws, ostensibly at least, are based on reason,


    Bollocks. The law always takes into account emotion, hurt and distress.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No I'm not, I'm just trying to get him to come off the fence and say what animal he would draw the line at.

    Why? Real life isn't like that. It's not black & white. It's messy shades of grey, contingent on circumstance, opinion, culture, emotion etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Yes of course. However you're not seriously telling me that people have the same level of emotional engagement with snakes and fish as they do cats?

    I dunno. I can't speak for everyone. Personally, I'd have a closer bond with a pet fish than I would with a cat. I don't like cats.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well I'm acting according to my conscince and the law of the land supports my stance to boot.

    It seems that we should be asking you why don't you think somebody who puts a cat through a washing machine should be sent to prison or to a mental institution?

    Not really...if you want to send somebody to jail the onus is on you to explain why. I don't think she should be sent to jail because it doesn't help anybody and would likely make things worse.
    And since you're so keen to get others off the fence, I would be most grateful if you would do likewise and tell us whether somebody who sticks a stick of dynamite up a horse's arse and explodes its intestines causing a excrutiating death for the purposes of revenge should go to jail. Because your original response was the dictionary definition of sitting on the fence

    I doubt that would cause an excruciating death, just a load of flesh and blood splattered over a wide area. But if somebody tortured someone else's horse to death for revenge (partially depending on the specific attributes of the case) I wouldn't advocate sending them to jail, for the same reasons as above, but I would advocate compulsory pschyciatric treatment, and if he became a repeat offender probably a term inside as a last resort. I'd also recommend he should be allowed close contact with animals and I'd expect the guy to be socially disapproved of and punished through informal social relations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I dunno. I can't speak for everyone. Personally, I'd have a closer bond with a pet fish than I would with a cat. I don't like cats.

    You'd cuddle a fish on your lap?

    You freak. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    You'd cuddle a fish on your lap?

    You freak. :p

    I take "sleeping with the fishes" to the next level.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    brando_the_godfather.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Not really...if you want to send somebody to jail the onus is on you to explain why. I don't think she should be sent to jail because it doesn't help anybody and would likely make things worse.
    Doesn't that apply to every single crime where the offender is not deemed a danger to society?

    If someone manage to steal all your savings through an elaborate scam (no danger to society there, really) would you ask the judge not to send them to jail? The hell you wouldn't, methinks...

    So since we're established sometimes it is justified to send someone to jail even if they are not thought to present a danger to society, what's the problem with sending somebody to jail for the horrific torture and killing of a cat?


    I doubt that would cause an excruciating death, just a load of flesh and blood splattered over a wide area. But if somebody tortured someone else's horse to death for revenge (partially depending on the specific attributes of the case) I wouldn't advocate sending them to jail, for the same reasons as above, but I would advocate compulsory pschyciatric treatment, and if he became a repeat offender probably a term inside as a last resort. I'd also recommend he should be allowed close contact with animals and I'd expect the guy to be socially disapproved of and punished through informal social relations.
    Well that's nice. I'm glad you have such high regard for animals...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    You'd cuddle a fish on your lap?

    You freak. :p

    But why do you have to cuddle something or even have physical contact to have an emotional bond?

    Anyway, there are people who have physical bonds with fish. For instance, quite a number of anglers become obsessed with a particular individual wild fish (usually biggies) and spend much of their time trying to catch it repeatedly. They form a relationship with it (many wild fish have names and people mourn them when they die or are killed) and that includes physical contact when they are caught (holding it, stroking it, nursing it back to strength in the water). So much so that that particular fish becomes a very strong part of that person's life, and a character in itself.

    What you are doing is precisely what you are berating others for doing: denying that somebody can have an emotional attachment/relationship to a certain animal or species because you personally have never experienced it.
Sign In or Register to comment.