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
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
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).
And if the person did it for revenge on the horse's owner?
Did you know house spiders die when put outdoors?
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.
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.
If they die outdoors then how do they get into the house in the first place?
They can't handle the environment outside, so they die.
What do you do with them?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Preemptive justice it is then!
Very Minority Report.........
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.
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.
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.
Fishing for sport almost always means returning the fish alive.
What about a mouse?
I.e. curtailing the majority's emotional response.