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.
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
Bang! It took a whole 6 pages before you resorted to the usual non-post, non-opinion, inflammatory personal abuse!
Personal best? Not even.
Oh look, you're only contribution to the thread is to have a pop at me.
Hypocritical, non?
Its "your" not "you're" by the way
I'm pretty sure my curt non-posts are limited to this thread. You've got serious form!
Losing the argument are you?
It's all you seem to post at the moment - along with completely ignoring the points I make. Well done!
Ok, it wasn't clear.
I mean in the sense that the person is likely to commit that crime again if free.
As this woman has been banned from owning a pet, and given the publicity, will find it hard to find people who would trust her with their animals then there seems very little chance of this woman commiting the same crime again, so why should she be in prison?
Weak retort. 2/10 - Please keep to the truth in future; see me after class.
You could have at least spliced that post with some hard-hitting personal insults! Condesending twat or pompous dick-head perhaps?
:eek: Chill out mate, no need to be so defensive all the time. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.
I've already admitted I've "lost the argument," in that I didn't have a right to go "off topic" and bring up other issues unrelated to animal cruelty.
(having said that, it wouldn't have been you who "won it," it was the people who pointed it out politely and logically, not resorting to simply insulting me)
Dude, Blagsta does one-line curt non-posts, personal insults, and wind-ups - that's his repertoire. I heard he used to debate rationally, but he seems to have gone off doing that.
Well yeah, I take your point, but - unlike yourself - some of us don't really see it as a light-hearted issue so "lightening things up" isn't all that appropriate.
Being banned from owning pets in the future just isn't good enough, in my view. If she so wished to exact vengence again by causing suffering to an animal then no such ban would stop her from doing just that. Going one step further, what's to stop her knocking the stuffing out of one of her [ex?] boyfriend's kids next time he seemingly chooses them over her or infuriates her in another way. There's no skirting around the fact that she needs help, it is NOT normal or acceptable to get pissed off at someone and decide to torture their cat as a roundabout way (with far softer recriminations) of hurting them.
I think it's downright rude and not in the spirit of these boards to dismiss people's feelings for animals (and toward those who believe they have rights -- at least to live safe lives) as being borne of hysteria, and solely the mindset people who care more for animals than their fellow human beings. Bollocks, and then some.
ETA:Oh and the last time I seen letters ever having an affect on society was in that film "Miracle on 34th Street".
Who has said otherwise?
Just because it's not as bad as killing a human doesn't mean it's alright, sure it's all relative but just because something else is worse doesn't make that okay. People who can kill an animal in cold-blood or in a fit of pique have the killer instinct, who's to say where that kind of capability could lead ..?
Just because we can't really justify having a cat-killer taking up one of our precious prison beds doesn't mean she's not absolutely due punishment and/or professional help.
Ah ok. Actually, I can see where you are coming from. A breakthrough!!!
But I'm afraid, I kinda still don't agree.
The trauma animal went through including the loss of fur due to scalding, was severe enough to give it a heart attack. It surely would have taken some time to die.
A lesser attack on the cat might have evoked some sympathy from me if she had received a jail sentence but in this particular case, she should have gone down. In my humble opinion.
Erm did I say she didn't need professional help?
I was just saying why she wasn't imprisoned.
If you have nothing to add to this thread, please refrain from posting on it.
Thanks
Careful, you'll have someone's eye out with that.
If you have nothing to add, please refrain from posting.
Thanks
She wasn't imprisoned because the magistrate who sentenced her is a nobhead. There's no other explanation. A court just up the road jailed a 72-year-old for not paying £70 council tax, so balls to that.
Someone who rapes a child is more deserving of prison than someone who mows a child down in a car because he was pissed and driving a defective vehicle. But the latter should still be doing some serious time. So what's your point?
Of course people who torture animals should be put in prison, for the abuse to the animal and also for the abuse to the people whom it belongs to. I could understand the argument if Toadborg and carlito were trying to argue that a quick killing is morally and legally equal to prolonged torture and death, but they are not (and that would also contradict carlito in the rape thread). But killing a cow humanely for tea is completely different to torturing a cow for hours first- and, for the record, farmers and abbatoir staff who don't treat their animals humanely should be put in prison too.
Are you trying to say the killing or raping of a human is comparable to the killing of a cat?
Cos that's the impression I'm getting from the above statement.
I didn't read it like that ...
There aren't many people who you wouldn't put in prison.
Anglers?
No, I was simply saying that killing (or torturing) an animal is not equivalent to killing or torturing a human.
Actually, it wouldn't, because we were not discussing the rape of animals.
("All you'd have to do is call that chicken a slut and they'd get off...")
a suspended sentence should be for minor crimes, not abuse, of any creature
The frightening issue isn't what she killed, though of course it's awful to kill a cat... it is the intent with which it was done. Someone who has it in them to maliciously kill an animal with the sole intention of hurting their signifigant other is someone who needs help, and yes who possibly does need to be removed from society in the shorter term. I don't actually think that is debatable. [This is why your endless harping about anglers is a moot point, carlito, their intent is wholly different and I'm amazed you can't/won't see that].
I don't think prison is the right place for someone of that mindset, at all, but better that than walking free without a care in the world. That isn't the right decision even for this woman's sake, and it certainly isn't just.
No, you have not directly suggested it. My point was that the horror expressed by so many people on this thread while they stay silent on other issues relating to humans suggests a lack of proportion.
I don't see how it is a matter of intent. Or is it? If I beat my dog about the head because it barked at a little girl in the park is that the same as beating it around the head because I'm angry? If I whip a horse because I'm angry, is that the same as whipping it to make it run faster or work harder?
Hitler's intent in initiating the Holocaust was to save Germany and the world from the threat of insidious Jewish domination and treachery - does that make it any less evil? I don't see why intent comes into it.
Especially in the case of anglers. Anglers torture fish for the intent of having fun. That is the end, its not the means to an end. Their intent is to have fun by torturing an animal, no?
Who stays silent on other issues?
Godwin's Law. You lose.
Then you're being a moron.
Of course its not comparable. But one being awful doesn't preclude something else from being above the threshold for a custodial sentence.
carlito, you don't see where intent comes into it. That's a shame, because intent is a cornerstone of the English criminal law.
So she deserves prison or psychological help?
Everyone who posted before about 15:00 today. No other post was made on any other thread, but 4 pages on this.
I don't accept the legitimacy of Godwin's law. At any rate, you didn't respond to the other points.
Oh, please! Get off your high horse. People can join in with discussions that they feel the need to voice their opinion about, you're sure as hell not going to shoehorn me into debating the issues that YOU deem important and worthwhile. Thanks to the lovely concept of free will, people can join in any discussion they please to agree with what others have said. They can choose to stay out of topics on which they aren't well-informed. They can read the topics and possibly become better informed, yet still not feel in a position to reply.
They just might read, understand and join in such discussions at a later date.
However, do you reckon that's likely when the Politics board is patrolled by people like yourself who throw down judgemental gauntlets and have the audacity to tell people that the issues they feel strongly about are unimportant and that they should go and debate something else. That they have their priorities wrong. That stinks, no wonder so many people on these boards wouldn't dream of visiting the politics & debate board.
Oh, and I'm utterly bewildered that you can't see how all of these cases pivot on the issue of intent. It's not a complex theory.