Home Politics & Debate

Woman who put cat in washing machine escapes jail

145791012

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I said some animals, not all animals.
    And you obviously think cats don't.

    Which shows you are quite clueless on that respect.


    If people draw the line at different places (and this is therefore a fairly arbitrary distinction) why are you getting so angry at somebody who disgarees at where tat line should be drawn? And demanding that people who disagree at your line be sent to prison?
    For the same reason I would get angry at someone who thought it was acceptable to rape women if he wanted sex with her and she said no.
    Fish too have been pets and companions of humans for tens of thousands of years...
    Then again fish are no mammals and don't have the same intelligence. Like others have said I don't particularly like fishing for sport but it is simply not in the same league as putting a cat through a washing machine wash- not by a million miles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Will you quit with the straw man arguments?

    Thanks.

    I believe i already had :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Eyes can deceive.

    I am suggesting that some animals are incapable of experiencing those things, yes.

    I'm trying to work out where people draw the line, why, and why they are so incensed that other people don't intuitively know where that line is.

    Why do you think that a cat is incapable of feeling a limited range of emotions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    But if flies don't feel emotions what is wrong with torturing them to death, if it gives pleasure to a human being?

    Wasn't my point that I DO NOT want an animal tortured?
    carlito wrote: »
    But thats not to do with the suffering of the animal, its to do with inflicting suffering on its owner (i.e. a human).

    Yes it does. :rolleyes: I don't really see how you figure that the animal's pain isn't the main concern in what I posted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Have you not considered that its an issue which has quite an emotional charge for a lot of people? So is therefore not out of perspective?

    This is exactly the point I'm trying to drive at. People consider the torture and killing of a cat to be a terrible crime because it has emotional resonance - cats express "emotion" (or sensitivity to the environment) in much the same way as humans, and have similar physical features. Thus people are upset if they are treated in a way they would consider unacceptable with humans. There isn't any logic or evidence to it...at least none presented so far.

    Personally I do draw the distinction, from purely scientific reasons (i.e. I have read extensive scientific comparisons between fish and complex mammals), and because I am an angler. This essentially means causing "distress" and "pain" to an animal - thus I need to have some kind of justification for where I draw the line in interaction with animals.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that everyone draws a line, based on different criteria. Its no good denouncing people who have drawn the line somewhere else and demanding they be sent to prison if you have not decided where and why you have drawn the line yourself, and given justification for this to others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    That shows that animals have sensitivity to their environment - not that they feel emotions. An jellyfish has sensitivity to its environment, so does a starfish, a salmon, a sparrow, an alligator, a cat, and a whale. Do they all feel "emotions"?

    Who knows? However I would wager that a whale does feel emotions and so does a cat. Emotions are part of survival mechanisms.

    carlito wrote: »
    I'm not trolling, I'm actually interested as to how people can get so angry at somebody expressing an opinion (for instance Toadborg making no distinction between a cat and a fly) when they have drawn an unexplained line somehwhere.

    Well a cat and a fly are different aren't they? As already pointed out (more than once), people don't tend to have emotional relationships with flies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    But if flies don't feel emotions what is wrong with torturing them to death, if it gives pleasure to a human being?


    Is something devoid of emotions capable of being tortured? Surely the act of torture requires some suffering, which requires some emotional capacity?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    If people draw the line at different places (and this is therefore a fairly arbitrary distinction) why are you getting so angry at somebody who disgarees at where tat line should be drawn? And demanding that people who disagree at your line be sent to prison?

    Because most people are capable of seeing that a cat can feel emotions and suffer.
    carlito wrote: »
    Fish too have been pets and companions of humans for tens of thousands of years...

    Do people tend to develop emotional relationships with fish?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Who knows? However I would wager that a whale does feel emotions and so does a cat. Emotions are part of survival mechanisms.

    And you are willing to imprison somebody on your arbitrary wager?
    Well a cat and a fly are different aren't they? As already pointed out (more than once), people don't tend to have emotional relationships with flies

    So its not about the animal's emotions, its about the human that has an amotional attachment to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Because most people are capable of seeing that a cat can feel emotions and suffer.

    So its about whether or not a human can recognise similar displays of emotions as humans do?
    Do people tend to develop emotional relationships with fish?

    Yes, many people do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    This is exactly the point I'm trying to drive at. People consider the torture and killing of a cat to be a terrible crime because it has emotional resonance - cats express "emotion" (or sensitivity to the environment) in much the same way as humans, and have similar physical features. Thus people are upset if they are treated in a way they would consider unacceptable with humans. There isn't any logic or evidence to it...at least none presented so far.
    There isn't any logic either about human feelings and actions either. So what?
    Personally I do draw the distinction, from purely scientific reasons (i.e. I have read extensive scientific comparisons between fish and complex mammals)
    For somebody who has read scientific material on animals you are surprisingly clueless about cats and whether they can experience feelings.
    and because I am an angler. This essentially means causing "distress" and "pain" to an animal - thus I need to have some kind of justification for where I draw the line in interaction with animals.
    Well if your moral compass is unable to tell you, you could use the law of the land as guidance. Torturing & killing a cat is illegal and can be punishable by custodial sentence. Good enough for you?
    The point I'm trying to make here is that everyone draws a line, based on different criteria. Its no good denouncing people who have drawn the line somewhere else and demanding they be sent to prison if you have not decided where and why you have drawn the line yourself, and given justification for this to others.
    I thought everybody had drawn the line clearly already. Torturing a cat is unnaceptable and should attract a custodial sentence. Torturing a fly (if such thing could be achieved is pointless and to be honest wrong but it's a billion times less serious so it shouldn't be illegal or attract any punishment.

    What's your confusion there? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    And you are willing to imprison somebody on your arbitrary wager?

    *sigh* Have you been close to a terrified animal in severe pain? Have you seen an animal that has been completely broken down due to physical abuse and/or negligence?
    You do know that Killer Whale play with their prey, don't you? Why would they waste their energy on that? It doesn't make sense.

    And remember, most human emotions are responses to the environment as well.
    carlito wrote: »
    So its not about the animal's emotions, its about the human that has an amotional attachment to it.

    It's about both. Wow, unbelieveable! :shocking:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    This is exactly the point I'm trying to drive at. People consider the torture and killing of a cat to be a terrible crime because it has emotional resonance - cats express "emotion" (or sensitivity to the environment) in much the same way as humans, and have similar physical features. Thus people are upset if they are treated in a way they would consider unacceptable with humans.

    No shit, Sherlock. I believe that one was settled in the first couple of pages of this thread.
    carlito wrote: »
    There isn't any logic or evidence to it...at least none presented so far.

    Yes, I dealt with this one too. Human beings are not wholly rational and ruled by reason - we are emotional beings. However an argument could be made that appeals to pure intellect - something to do with sentience, ability to experience limited emotions, social norms about keeping pets etc.
    carlito wrote: »
    Personally I do draw the distinction, from purely scientific reasons (i.e. I have read extensive scientific comparisons between fish and complex mammals), and because I am an angler. This essentially means causing "distress" and "pain" to an animal - thus I need to have some kind of justification for where I draw the line in interaction with animals.

    Bully for you.
    carlito wrote: »
    The point I'm trying to make here is that everyone draws a line, based on different criteria. Its no good denouncing people who have drawn the line somewhere else and demanding they be sent to prison if you have not decided where and why you have drawn the line yourself, and given justification for this to others.

    You're using reason to settle what is primarily an emotional argument. Basic category error. However, a lot of people on this thread have actually constructed an argument as to where and why they "draw a line" - you've just ignored it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    So its about whether or not a human can recognise similar displays of emotions as humans do?

    Partly, yes.
    carlito wrote: »
    Yes, many people do.

    No, they don't. Not in the same they do with cats. People don't cuddle their fish for example, or have their fish sleep on their bed or sit on their lap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    And you are willing to imprison somebody on your arbitrary wager?

    Who me personally? No as I don't think prisons do any good. However its certainly not arbitary as to how I came to the conclusion that cats can experience emotions.
    carlito wrote: »
    So its not about the animal's emotions, its about the human that has an amotional attachment to it.

    Partly, yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There isn't any logic either about human feelings and actions either. So what?

    But there is...whether or not it is the dominant drive for human actions is a different matter. Humans are the only organisms we know of that are able to communicate logic.
    For somebody who has read scientific material on animals you are surprisingly clueless about cats and whether they can experience feelings.

    But I never denied that they do - not that any human could ever "know:" its a matter of probability, and what probablity of sentience you are willing to draw the line at in interaction with animals.
    Well if your moral compass is unable to tell you, you could use the law of the land as guidance. Torturing & killing a cat is illegal and can be punishable by custodial sentence. Good enough for you?

    In a rational debate I don't consider that as any kind of argument: there are plenty of examples of social norms or accepted opinion that I disagree entirely with, and laws I disagree with, as I'm sure you do too.
    I thought everybody had drawn the line clearly already. Torturing a cat is unnaceptable and should attract a custodial sentence. Torturing a fly (if such thing could be achieved is pointless and to be honest wrong but it's a billion times less serious so it shouldn't be illegal or attract any punishment.

    What's your confusion there? :confused:

    The range of animals between a cat and a fly. Which animal you would say torturing is "wrong" and which animal you would say torturing deserves a prison sentence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    But there is...whether or not it is the dominant drive for human actions is a different matter. Humans are the only organisms we know of that are able to communicate logic.

    If you think that human behaviour is dictated by logic, you got a lot to learn about people!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jaloux wrote: »
    *sigh* Have you been close to a terrified animal in severe pain? Have you seen an animal that has been completely broken down due to physical abuse and/or negligence?

    Yes, but I don't really see how its relevant.
    You do know that Killer Whale play with their prey, don't you? Why would they waste their energy on that? It doesn't make sense.

    Well, one explanation is that it serves as exercise or training, and allows them to learn about the beahaviour of their prey when it is in distress/attempting to escape.

    But that in itself raises an interesting question. If you think they do it for fun, should we be stopping killer whales torturing other animals for fun? Should there be a killer whale cull, or should we put them all in prison? After all, since humans are animals as well, it would be unfair to stop them from torturing other animals for fun whilst allowing other animals get away with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    If you think that human behaviour is dictated by logic, you got a lot to learn about people!

    Of course I don't think it always is; that much is evident from this thread alone.

    However I do think that as far as possible human actions and laws should be based on logic and rationality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Yes, but I don't really see how its relevant.


    You don't? :eek:
    carlito wrote: »
    Well, one explanation is that it serves as exercise or training, and allows them to learn about the beahaviour of their prey when it is in distress/attempting to escape.

    Surely the term "distress" implies some kind of emotion?
    carlito wrote: »
    But that in itself raises an interesting question. If you think they do it for fun, should we be stopping killer whales torturing other animals for fun? Should there be a killer whale cull, or should we put them all in prison? After all, since humans are animals as well, it would be unfair to stop them from torturing other animals for fun whilst allowing other animals get away with it.

    Well that's an easy one - morals are human inventions, so judging other animals by human concepts is a category error.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Of course I don't think it always is; that much is evident from this thread alone.

    However I do think that as far as possible human actions and laws should be based on logic and rationality.

    This point has been dealt with too - the law is not based purely on reason for reasons gone into. Try reading the thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    But there is...whether or not it is the dominant drive for human actions is a different matter. Humans are the only organisms we know of that are able to communicate logic.
    Like Blagsta has said, humans are not exactly ruled by logic. And nor are the laws we create to govern ourselves.


    But I never denied that they do - not that any human could ever "know:" its a matter of probability, and what probablity of sentience you are willing to draw the line at in interaction with animals.
    You have suggested several times that cats don't have feelings when it has been put forward to you that animals having feelings is a pretty good rule when establishing how to treat them.


    In a rational debate I don't consider that as any kind of argument: there are plenty of examples of social norms or accepted opinion that I disagree entirely with, and laws I disagree with, as I'm sure you do too.
    Some laws I disagree with, yes. I was suggesting you check them out because you seem to be unable to work out the difference between mistreating a fly and mistreating a cat.


    The range of animals between a cat and a fly. Which animal you would say torturing is "wrong" and which animal you would say torturing deserves a prison sentence.
    I would say torturing any animal is wrong. And I would say torturing mammals kept as pets by humans is deserving of a prison sentence.

    Before you start drawing out a list of other creatures and try to find a magic point between prison sentence-deserving or not, I shall have to explain to you that there is no such magic point. Just as there is no magic point between many other things (for instance if someone pokes your back with their finger, should it be considered assault?). Life doesn't work like that. Sorry. But what we know is that some extremes are deeply wrong and should be punished by law. Torturing a cat is such an extreme act, killing a fly is not. Just as punching someone in the back with all your might is rather different from poking them with your finger.

    Frankly I can't believe we're having to spell it out to such degrees...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    admitted causing unnecessary suffering
    I find it odd that its called unnecessary suffering.. does this mean there is such a thing as necessary suffering??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Magic.Emma wrote: »
    I find it odd that its called unnecessary suffering.. does this mean there is such a thing as necessary suffering??

    Can you use the quote button? Makes it easier to see the context of what you quote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its from the BBC news page link at the beginning of the thread
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK.

    Well, necessary suffering would be killing an animal for a purpose I guess. As food, pest control, for clothing etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »


    Cats do have feelings. I can assure you of that.


    :lol:

    C'mon that wasn't a serious comment, please tell me it isn't so!

    The whole 'law isn't dealt with reason' bullshit simply begs the question why should your 'feelings' that this woman be punished go ahead of my 'feelings' that she should not?

    You seem to imply simply that because people like cats more than other animals (and because they have feelings :rolleyes: ) then torturing them should be protected by law but not other animals.

    Well maybe I have a pet spider, I care for that spider and I want cruelty against spiders eliminated, if you squish one then you go to jail. Seeing as the law isn't rational then why shouldn't I get my way?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    :lol:

    C'mon that wasn't a serious comment, please tell me it isn't so!
    If you actually believe cats don't experience some feelings (we're not talking melancholy or something really deep and meaningful but happiness, sadness, despair, anger and even depression) then you are really clueless on the subject.

    I suggest you research the matter a little bit before you say anything else that might embarrass you later...
    The whole 'law isn't dealt with reason' bullshit simply begs the question why should your 'feelings' that this woman be punished go ahead of my 'feelings' that she should not?
    For the same reason that the feelings of people who think a racist thug should be punished for a racially motivated assault should take precedence over the feelings of fellow racists who feel he should not.
    You seem to imply simply that because people like cats more than other animals (and because they have feelings :rolleyes: ) then torturing them should be protected by law but not other animals.
    What other animals? :confused:
    Well maybe I have a pet spider, I care for that spider and I want cruelty against spiders eliminated, if you squish one then you go to jail. Seeing as the law isn't rational then why shouldn't I get my way?

    I'll repeat to you what I said to Carlito last night, for you seem to be having the same comprehension problems as him:

    Before you start drawing out a list of other creatures and try to find a magic point between prison sentence-deserving or not, I shall have to explain to you that there is no such magic point. Just as there is no magic point between many other things (for instance if someone pokes your back with their finger, should it be considered assault?). Life doesn't work like that. Sorry. But what we know is that some extremes are deeply wrong and should be punished by law. Torturing a cat is such an extreme act, killing a fly is not. Just as punching someone in the back with all your might is rather different from poking them with your finger.

    Frankly I can't believe we're having to spell it out to such degrees...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No no no

    You are sayng that cruelty to cats should be punishable by imprisonment, one of the most serious things the state can do to its citizens, expressly because some people have deep personal feelings towards cats.

    I am saying that why do people who care deeply about cruelty towards spiders, and may therefore wish to have such cruelty similarly punished, not get there wishes recognised in law.

    Why are cat lovers more important than spider lovers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    Why are cat lovers more important than spider lovers?

    More votes?
Sign In or Register to comment.