Home Politics & Debate

Woman who put cat in washing machine escapes jail

16791112

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it was like that, it would be perfectly OK to shoot a stray cat when no one can see you and hide the corpse. And it's not.

    Why not? Stray cats are a nuisance and a pest. Thats the logic other people have been giving for killing rats, mice, foxes, etc - in many cases with more cruel and drawn out methods than shooting (e.g. rat poison).
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    carlito wrote: »
    Why not? Stray cats are a nuisance and a pest. Thats the logic other people have been giving for killing rats, mice, foxes, etc - in many cases with more cruel and drawn out methods than shooting (e.g. rat poison).
    So, are you going to argue that people like cats for a different reason than they think, or that strays are pests? Two different subjects, and you can't use the one as an argument in the other. Make a decision.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "Prejudices" :lol::D

    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.
    I'm not sure why you don't like cats or dogs, but if you think it is "revolting" that a human should be happy about their cat being friendly and loving to them, you have some bizarre issues there...
    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.
    And if the person did it for revenge on the horse's owner?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    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.
    As I said to you and others several times before:

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "Prejudices" :lol::D

    I like animals, I won't kill a small spider in my room. I'll put it in a glass and out it out,

    Did you know house spiders die when put outdoors?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you don't like cats or dogs, but if you think it is "revolting" that a human should be happy about their cat being friendly and loving to them, you have some bizarre issues there...

    It's not bizarre. It's my personal opinion on cats. I don't like the look of them, the way they act, couldn't even imagine them licking me. I've had pet hamsters before and loved carressing them.
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And if the person did it for revenge on the horse's owner?

    Not up to me, it depends on the circumstance and the psychological condition of the perpetrator when he carried the act out. I'm not a judge.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Did you know house spiders die when put outdoors?

    If they die outdoors then how do they get into the house in the first place?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They're house spiders. They spend their entire lives indoors, the species has adapted to it.

    They can't handle the environment outside, so they die.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    They're house spiders. They spend their entire lives indoors, the species has adapted to it.

    They can't handle the environment outside, so they die.

    What do you do with them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Me personally? I kill them outright, but I don't like spiders.
  • 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.
    not true at all

    for a lot of people it's both

    for me personally it is JUST about the pain and suffering the cat went through prior to dying

    and you dont have to be a "cat lover" as you call "us" to think that cruelty to animals should result in a prison sentence, most people with an ounce of empathy/morals/feelings would agree
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Has anyone mentioned that psycopaths and sociopaths often attack animals before becoming more dangerous (so I remember from something)?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Not up to me, it depends on the circumstance and the psychological condition of the perpetrator when he carried the act out. I'm not a judge.
    That surely hasn't stopped you in the past from disagreeing with a judge's findings has it? Or are you telling me you have never in your life commented or disagreed with a court veredict?
  • 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 that's true. And I've said before on this thread that anyone capable of putting a cat through a washing machine cycle (and it doesn't really matter three ounces of a shit if it was for revenge or other reason, Carlito, Yerascrote et al) is truly fucked up in the head and is very likely to be a danger to others if left unchecked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    That surely hasn't stopped you in the past from disagreeing with a judge's findings has it? Or are you telling me you have never in your life commented or disagreed with a court veredict?

    I have but I find it very hard to believe there's room for scandal and corruption in a case involving the killing of a horse. Anyway this is getting silly.

    I don't know what side you think I'm on aladin. I said I was playing the Devil's Advocate early on toady. If you look back at my original posts I said the woman deserves psychological treatment. Of course she does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    As I said to you and others several times before:


    Thats not good enough though. Pointing to two extremes and saying they are obviously different doesn't help me understand the logic of what is and is not accpetable behaviour, or even what acceptable behaviour is (by the way a cat isn't an extreme, a chimp or a whale might be - for that matter nor is a fly, that extreme would probably be a jellyfish or a sponge).

    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?

    Simply saying "its hard to draw a line but it has to be done" isn't enough: because you are advocating imprisoning a human being, thats a serious matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I have but I find it very hard to believe there's room for scandal and corruption in a case involving the killing of a horse. Anyway this is getting silly.

    I don't know what side you think I'm on aladin. I said I was playing the Devil's Advocate early on toady. If you look back at my original posts I said the woman deserves psychological treatment. Of course she does.
    Yes I noticed you were playing the devil's advocate but then you appear to fall into the same trap Carlito has fallen into regarding which animals a person deserves going to jail for and which don't.

    The answer is that such answers are not based on science. They are based on human behaviour, emotions and feelings as much as the actual suffering of the animal. It ain't a perfect world. But that's the way it is. I believe the immense majority of people believe torturing and killing a cat should be deserving of a jail sentence. I'm sure a few people disagree. Well, that's tough luck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yes I noticed you were playing the devil's advocate but then you appear to fall into the same trap Carlito has fallen into regarding which animals a person deserves going to jail for and which don't.

    The answer is that such answers are not based on science. They are based on human behaviour, emotions and feelings as much as the actual suffering of the animal. It ain't a perfect world. But that's the way it is. I believe the immense majority of people believe torturing and killing a cat should be deserving of a jail sentence. I'm sure a few people disagree. Well, that's tough luck.

    So you think it should be decided on purely majority verdict, guided by the majority's emotions?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yes I noticed you were playing the devil's advocate but then you appear to fall into the same trap Carlito has fallen into regarding which animals a person deserves going to jail for and which don't.

    No, I made my point quite clear. It's circumstance and the psychological condition of the perpatrator.

    The prisons here are full and the woman done it in revenge on her boyfriend. That's not the same as having empty prisons and some woman just putting a cat into a washing machine. She needs professional help, counselling so this sort of thing doesn't happen again, not locked behind bars.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with you on that scrotey. Psycological assessment would probably be more constructive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Thats not good enough though. Pointing to two extremes and saying they are obviously different doesn't help me understand the logic of what is and is not accpetable behaviour, or even what acceptable behaviour is (by the way a cat isn't an extreme, a chimp or a whale might be - for that matter nor is a fly, that extreme would probably be a jellyfish or a sponge).
    Oh believe me- there is a whole universe of extremes between killing a cat and killing a fly; even if those two are not at the actual ends of the organic life scale.
    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?
    Like I said before if your moral compass doesn't tell you when it's right and when it's wrong you should perhaps adhere to what the law says. At the moment I believe the law says angling is not even illegal, let alone deserving of jail. So what exactly is your problem there? :confused:

    Simply saying "its hard to draw a line but it has to be done" isn't enough: because you are advocating imprisoning a human being, thats a serious matter.
    Clearly is enough for most of us, and indeed it has been enough for countless judges who have given custodial sentences to people who have tortured and killed cats in the past.

    As it has been said many, many times already on this thread, human behaviour and human laws are not ruled by absolutes or mathematical equations but by subjective feelings and beliefs.

    If you really have such a problem with that concept, a concept which incidentally applies to every single law in existence not just those regarding the treatment of animals, you should reject all laws and authority, become a pure libertarian and join the Klintock/seeker school of thought. At least they're consistent in their beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh believe me- there is a whole universe of extremes between killing a cat and killing a fly; even if those two are not at the actual ends of the organic life scale.

    Like I said before if your moral compass doesn't tell you when it's right and when it's wrong you should perhaps adhere to what the law says. At the moment I believe the law says angling is not even illegal, let alone deserving of jail. So what exactly is your problem there? :confused:


    Clearly is enough for most of us, and indeed it has been enough for countless judges who have given custodial sentences to people who have tortured and killed cats in the past.

    As it has been said many, many times already on this thread, human behaviour and human laws are not ruled by absolutes or mathematical equations but by subjective feelings and beliefs.

    If you really have such a problem with that concept, a concept which incidentally applies to every single law in existence not just those regarding the treatment of animals, you should reject all laws and authority, become a pure libertarian and join the Klintock/seeker school of thought. At least they're consistent in their beliefs.

    Ok, so you think majority opinion is what counts, which is fair enough since we live in a democracy (although capital punishment has majority support).

    But I would be interested to know your personal opinion on the matter, instead of sitting on the fence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    So you think it should be decided on purely majority verdict, guided by the majority's emotions?
    Isn't that how every single one of our laws were created in the first place?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    No, I made my point quite clear. It's circumstance and the psychological condition of the perpatrator.

    The prisons here are full and the woman done it in revenge on her boyfriend. That's not the same as having empty prisons and some woman just putting a cat into a washing machine. She needs professional help, counselling so this sort of thing doesn't happen again, not locked behind bars.
    I don't necessarily disagree with that, and I have said several times that if not jail she should at least be sent to a mental hospital and receive help.

    But I don't think discussing which animals' deaths are more deserving of a custodial sentence or the reasons why the woman killed the cat are relevant to the discussion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yep that's true. And I've said before on this thread that anyone capable of putting a cat through a washing machine cycle (and it doesn't really matter three ounces of a shit if it was for revenge or other reason, Carlito, Yerascrote et al) is truly fucked up in the head and is very likely to be a danger to others if left unchecked.

    Preemptive justice it is then!

    Very Minority Report.........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Isn't that how every single one of our laws were created in the first place?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Ok, so you think majority opinion is what counts, which is fair enough since we live in a democracy (although capital punishment has majority support).

    But I would be interested to know your personal opinion on the matter, instead of sitting on the fence.
    I disagree with angling for sport (i.e. if the fish is not to be eaten) as I disagree with killing any animals for sport. If the fish is immediately returned to the water alive I don't have that much of a problem with it.

    If there was to be a vote tomorrow on whether to make angling illegal... to be honest I don't know how I would vote. I would have to think things over and look carefully at both sides of the argument. What I know is that I would never advocate sending someone to jail for angling if it had been made illegal. I however don't have any problem with someone being sent to jail for torturing and killing a cat. Or for illegally hunting endangered species. As far as I'm concerned anyone who kills a rhino for its horn, an elephant for its tusks or a tiger because it gives them a hard on or because they'd like its skin as a rug is a twisted cunt who should rot in jail for a considerable amount of time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Isn't that how every single one of our laws were created in the first place?

    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)


    The reason we don't have the death penalty is to do with stuff like human rights and notions of justice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I disagree with angling for sport (i.e. if the fish is not to be eaten) as I disagree with killing any animals for sport. If the fish is immediately returned to the water alive I don't have that much of a problem with it.

    If there was to be a vote tomorrow on whether to make angling illegal... to be honest I don't know how I would vote. What I know is that I would never advocate sending someone to jail for angling if it had been made illegal. I however don't have any problem with someone being sent to jail for torturing and killing a cat.

    Fishing for sport almost always means returning the fish alive.

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

    The reason we don't have the death penalty is to do with stuff like human rights and notions of justice.

    I.e. curtailing the majority's emotional response.
Sign In or Register to comment.