If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You're an idiot.
I'm not a nutter. But I WOULD kill you ...
if you cant see the difference between a house full of rats and one cat,doing no harm, you need help
your comparisons are really quite silly
So you want me to guess at an ethical problem which I know cant happen?
Anyway, even if rats and mice didnt spread disease they would still be a pest, they are not clean and spoil more food than they actually eat.
If you can't see that the difference between exterminating rats to get rid of infestation/boiling lobsters and torturing a cat to get back at your boyfriend is the INTENT with which it is done then I'm not sure what more can be said. None are pleasant, but they are done with wildly different intent. So, what is to guarantee that next time a person - who is disposed to acting out anger or frustration on an animal - gets angry they will not wreak vengence on another defenceless being. An infant, perhaps? Of course it's not a given, I don't think anything of the sort. But I do think it would be deeply, deeply irresponsible if such a cruel streak wasn't at least addressed by a mental health professional.
I think you hold a morally bankrupt view on this, and if you seriously think that she doesn't need professional help then I am shocked. But each to their own.
Are you trying to argue a specieism position, a la Peter Singer? Yes, its a logical position, but people ain't primarily logical - we're emotional beings primarily.
maybe she does, but I do not think she should be forced by the state to recieve such help.
The issue s not whether this act was cruel, it certainly was. The issue is whether the woman should receive such a severe sanction by the state as imprisonment. I personally think that would be utterly dispropotionate and it isn't clear to me how many different things we take for granted such as the routine slaughter of animals on farms, or by exterminators, hunting etc etc etc are not cruel as well....
Like Blagsta suggets, you aren't taking a rational position, you are basing it on your emotions and the law should not be based on peoples emotions but on reason......
So you want the law to operate purely on logic? And not take any kind of humanity/emotional harm etc into account? And what has Disney got to do with anything?
The law is never based purely on reason. That's a stupid argument.
In my honest opinion, if you can do this to an animal such as a cat, you could equally torture a human.
She should be jailed and prevented from having contact with pets. We act in a similar manner to those who torture children don't we?
Toadborg, if you have any pets, I feel really sorry for the poor creatures. If you can't see the difference between slaughtering an animal for food to putting it in a washing machine because you are some sort of sick twisted bitch, then I am concerned for you.
Do you think it is the same someone kills a man holding hostage to if someone kills a man for kicks? I doubt it. There is a difference here too. One is necessity, the other is some sort of sick joke by a very twisted individual.
Indeed. There is a link. People with anti-social personality disorder often torture and kill animals and sometimes people.
Once again... the issue of intensive farming and extermination of "pests" is completely different, I do wish you'd stop labouring that point. If you could see past the actual act of ending an animal's [any animal!] life and accept that the intent is completely different then you'd see that is what indicates the fact that she is mentally ill.
I am not advocating a "severe sanction" by the state "such as imprisonment". Like I said before, as a society it would be irresponsible to let this woman walk away from an act of cruelty toward a relatively defenceless animal without first attempting to help her. Someone who has no qualms about harming or killing animals for kicks (or revenge) in this case is someone who is often considered to be more likely to graduate from the school of animal cruelty and move onto inflicting cruelty on humans (which she did in this case, in a roundabout way). Anyway, whether she knows what she did was wrong, or thinks [like you] that it's of no consequence -- she is in need of help either way. I do think the state needs to intervene here, for her own good and that of other animals and people.
If only we could all be as rational as you, seeing vermin control and killing pets to exact revenge as the self-same thing. If there was no place for feeling or emotion in the law then surely some murders would be justifiable.
I remember ages ago where it said that people who torture animals are far more likely to go on to harm vulnerable people.
Somebody so fucked up as to put an cat in a washing machine has a disturbed mind and is a potential danger to others.
Do you apply such 'logic' to all other aspects of life too? Should a person who steals one penny should receive the same sentence as somebody who steals 10 million Pounds?
But that doesn't give the two acts moral equivalence.
Do you all think that anglers should be locked up? Farmers who go out and shoot foxes?
It always amazes me how much shock and anger people have over something like a cat being put in a washing machine, when millions of innocent people around the world are being tortured and killed. Similarly the fact that billions of pounds are spent on pet food every year when a third of the worlds population survives on dahl alone. Get some perspective people.
If you guys had not spent the time you have moaning at Toadborg and calling him a monster for making a perfectly reasonable point and instead spent it writing letters for Amnesty International to send to torturous regimes, you might have actually saved a human being from being tortured and killed. Rather than crying over some barmy woman who has killed a cat. :eek2:
Well a rather pedantic point, but it could have fought back by biting and scratching her.
The article makes it pretty clear. She was suffering from depression and had had a heated argument with her boyfriend (whose cat it was). She obviously knew she could hurt him by killing his cat.
Did I say it did?
No. Not the same though is it? Intention and purpose.
Does one caring about one preclude caring about the other?
Yes. And?
You think that writing a letter to Amnesty is going to save someone's life? Are you for real? :eek:
I hope you're not peddling the old and absolute rubbish argument that we should not worry about the wellbeing of animals until all humans are sorted out first...
The more I think about it, the more incensed I get. Maybe she should not be sent to jail. Maybe she should be sent to an mental health institution instead. But she ought to be sent somewhere because what she did is fucking unspeakable and certainly deserving a lot more than a suspended sentence.
Exactly!
How do you know exactly how she did it? How do you know the nature of the cat? And if it did bite and scratch, I dont feel it would have stopped her...not exactly in the same league.
Oh and pedantic you say? Do explain how?
So someone who suffers with depression has thoughts of killing cats? :chin: I must remember to jot that one down for future reference.
I dont see that the article makes it clear what goes through her mind, by stating she has depression and had a row with a boyfriend does not explain her thoughts.
Well I do, and you do comment on it, but this is completely out of perspective.
No, I'm not, but there should be some sense of proportion. This thread was started less than three hours ago and already has four pages of hand wringing and calls to burn the woman at the stake. Looking down the list of topics on this forum I cannot see one thread about the many wars we are currently engaged in, murderous or torturous regimes our country supports, world poverty, etc.
But post a thread about a depressed woman killing a cat in wales and you have spontaneous collective hysteria.
Anglers and culling foxes is entirely different to torturing an animal for fun.
And we can debate about animal welfare if we like, it means a lot to some people...
Maybe you are the one to lead an example of how we should all live in a way which benefits those less fortunate than us?
I was saying my point was pedantic, not yours. I'm not saying I know how she did it, I'm saying its wrong to say there was no way it could have fought back.
Well of course I'm not saying all depressed people want to kill cats, just as I wouldn't say that all depressed people wouldn't want to self-harm, lie in bed all day, act violently to people close to them, or write poetry. But depression clearly does affect your actions and affect your actions and your moral compass.
The article might not explain her thoughts exactly (what document ever has explained anyones thoughts?!) gives some indication: shes depressed (i.e. mentally ill/not in a right state of mind) and told her boyfriend that she hated him. Obviously wanted to hurt him so she killed his cat.
Who dun dat den?
What was that about hysteria? :rolleyes:
Actually, some of Amnesty's letter writing campaigns have lead to the release of political prisoners. You write directly to them and whether they receive the letters or not it places pressure on the government to release them.