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.
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
Cats, dogs, horses, sheep .. i.e. animals ... spiders are not animals.
Well, if you feel so strongly about spiders, petition the government instead of being beligerant on a point you know you cannot win on ...
But if you still feel spider owners are hard done by you could start your own pressure group of course.
Why not try reading the thread eh?
Who are they then?
You're trying to rationalise what is ultimately an emotional argument. People do not emotionally relate to spiders in the same way that they relate to cats and dogs etc. It may not be rational, but hey, that's life. It's partly a cultural thing - we think its horrific to eat dogs, other cultures don't. Hey ho, again, that's life. All part of life's rich tapestry (as me old man used to say).
Ho hum.
I don't see the whole "emotion" debate. Cats can feel pain, they don't like to be hurt. Many people believe that human emotions function the same as that of a cat, that we feel attachment because of selfish needs, not love.
I think if anybody thinks it's Ok to harm a cat because mentally they lack the emotional intelligence (if any as some claim) of a human, then surely it is Ok to hurt a human with learning disabilities? Based on the idea of which has a greater capacity to suffer.
I suspect at least 2000 of your posts have involved making the above statement.....
You don't think there are some people that like spiders? I am certain there are, why don't they count?
Maybe you should heed the advice then.
Show me these people who have emotional relationships with spiders. That cuddle them, buy toys for them at Xmas, insure them, spend lots of money at the vets on them when they are ill, have them sleep on their bed and sit on their lap. Show me these people and I might take your argument seriously.
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.
point taken but how many people keep house spiders as pets?
besides, i hardly know anyone who kills spiders anyway...i certainly dont, they're supposed to be your ancestors reincarnated
My friend used to have a snake and it was quite cute really would curl up round your arm and give you a little lick from time to time.
Obviously i love my cat to death and i too would kill anyone who hurt him.
Bit hypocritical?
It has been even proven that stroking a cat is beneficial to human health. Even cat purr can be beneficial to humans. There is an undeniable bond between human and cat that goes well beyond anything between humans and reptiles or arachnids.
Surely you would feel the same about any member of your own family though.
Got some evidence for that? I've always found cats to be sly, greedy animals.
Wyerty-The relation you have with your cat is never comparable to the relation you have with your family. The cat is merely an emotional bond, a family bond is much more, it's blood.
But if you know of any snakes that meet you at the door every day, making the snake's equivalent to purring due to their happiness to see you, lick your hands or your face, jump on your bed and cuddle up next to you, play with you, demand to be let into the room you're in if the door is closed or happily sit on your chest purring away, let me know as I'd like to get one.
My cat is quite evil - he bites me all the time and only wants me for food - if i dont' do as he wants he attacks me - however oddly I do still love him. I've never been much up for blood bonding though -but you never know...
And that makes human's happy? Sounds revolting to me.
Surely everything said here about cats is just opinion based on subjective experience. What the woman did was not on and she's a cunt for doing it but you can't pick and choose what animals deserve more attention or are worse to kill. Yes there are guidlines, a fly is obviously not that big a deal to swat, neither is a small bug. After that then it's all speculation.
Well it's still another species. You can't talk, share your experiences, have those reciprocated, make love (unless you're a weirdo) to a cat. You can to a human. A cat is all it's good for and nothing else. I don't see how people can make a bond to one and I don't see how it's more "important" than other pets.
Are you admitting to incest?
Read my next sentence. I said "human" not "family."
But isn't that exactly how every single human conduct, and indeed law, is created? Nothing is absolute. Everything is subjective. At which point touching someone becomes an assault? Theoretically even the faintest intentional touch to a perfectly innocuous part of the body (say the forearm) with the the tip of one's finger should qualify as assault, should it not? And yet we are able to apply the law subjectively.
Well, that's life. That's what humans are and do. There is no perfect formule or magic sand in the line.
Many people have bonds with them because they exhibit similar behaviour to humans, and are essentially social animals, which interact with humans in ways which we can understand and relate to. They have fairly human-like faces, and they also communicate "sufferring" in similar means to humans (screeching, etc). They thus have a strong anthropomorphic element to them, more so, 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).
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.
"Prejudices"
I like animals, I won't kill a small spider in my room. I'll put it in a glass and out it out, I don't like cats or dogs though. But it just proves my point, there's no way in telling whether any animal deserves more attention. As for the horse, seeing as the person did it for "a laugh" and not revenge on another person, then a sentence may be in order.
Which is why you need to clarify which animals people should be able to torture to death without recieving a prison sentence. You can't just say "all law is fuzzy and has subjective boundaries" if you're going to be so equiviocal about one particular case, based on personal emotions and sentiments.
I think a good old electric shock treatment should do the trick.