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
Fact remains, killing and torturing a cat is illegal and carries out a custodial sentence and it's a fucking outrage the woman didn't either get either that or get interned in a psychiatric hospital and get checked out.
The dissapointment here is the light sentence given.
It's not that difficult to understand is it?
Would you want someone sent to prison (or sent to a pschyciatric hospital) for putting one in a washing machine?
you're getting silly now
No I'm not, I'm just trying to get him to come off the fence and say what animal he would draw the line at.
I've read it and responded to it, and like I've explained it isn't an acceptable position if you're demanding people be sent to prison for torturing some animals but not others.
How about a weasel?
And that point has been explained here plenty of times (clue: it's a complex issue involving a mixture of human emotions, animal intelligence, bonds and interactivity between human and animal).
There are so many fucking strawman arguments in this thread the world is running out of it.
:rolleyes:
If you have an issue with that create a political party or lobby group and campaign to change the law. It's nothing to do with me.
FFS... :rolleyes:
But it is, because you support it, vehemently.
Why though? It's obvious to most of us that torturing and killing a cat is worse than swatting a fly. There isn't a line, like aladdin said. For example, murdering a horse outright with a shot to the head, is that worse or better than putting a cat in a washing machine? It comes down to judgement at the end of the day, that's how the legal process works. Unfortunately, sometimes it misses, and I think it has done in this case. Or else, it's sending out the message that animal abuse isn't that bad. Which is the wrong message to send out.
Yes of course. However you're not seriously telling me that people have the same level of emotional engagement with snakes and fish as they do cats?
Dunno 'bout anyone else, but I ain't confusing shit. That's your projections mate.
Oh you'd be wrong there too - I've kept fish and my flatmate in Birmingham kept snakes - she however did not have the same emotional attachment to her snakes as she did does to her boyfriend's dog.
Yep. Me.
It seems that we should be asking you why don't you think somebody who puts a cat through a washing machine should be sent to prison or to a mental institution?
And since you're so keen to get others off the fence, I would be most grateful if you would do likewise and tell us whether somebody who sticks a stick of dynamite up a horse's arse and explodes its intestines causing a excrutiating death for the purposes of revenge should go to jail. Because your original response was the dictionary definition of sitting on the fence.
We eat fish in this culture, we don't eat cats.
Of course humans have a capacity to kill and torture animals - we're predators after all. However I would guess that it being socially acceptable to fish (even if just for "sport"), but not to kill cats, is because we eat fish. See my comment earlier about eating dogs.
Bollocks. The law always takes into account emotion, hurt and distress.
Why? Real life isn't like that. It's not black & white. It's messy shades of grey, contingent on circumstance, opinion, culture, emotion etc.
I dunno. I can't speak for everyone. Personally, I'd have a closer bond with a pet fish than I would with a cat. I don't like cats.
Not really...if you want to send somebody to jail the onus is on you to explain why. I don't think she should be sent to jail because it doesn't help anybody and would likely make things worse.
I doubt that would cause an excruciating death, just a load of flesh and blood splattered over a wide area. But if somebody tortured someone else's horse to death for revenge (partially depending on the specific attributes of the case) I wouldn't advocate sending them to jail, for the same reasons as above, but I would advocate compulsory pschyciatric treatment, and if he became a repeat offender probably a term inside as a last resort. I'd also recommend he should be allowed close contact with animals and I'd expect the guy to be socially disapproved of and punished through informal social relations.
You'd cuddle a fish on your lap?
You freak.
I take "sleeping with the fishes" to the next level.
If someone manage to steal all your savings through an elaborate scam (no danger to society there, really) would you ask the judge not to send them to jail? The hell you wouldn't, methinks...
So since we're established sometimes it is justified to send someone to jail even if they are not thought to present a danger to society, what's the problem with sending somebody to jail for the horrific torture and killing of a cat?
Well that's nice. I'm glad you have such high regard for animals...
But why do you have to cuddle something or even have physical contact to have an emotional bond?
Anyway, there are people who have physical bonds with fish. For instance, quite a number of anglers become obsessed with a particular individual wild fish (usually biggies) and spend much of their time trying to catch it repeatedly. They form a relationship with it (many wild fish have names and people mourn them when they die or are killed) and that includes physical contact when they are caught (holding it, stroking it, nursing it back to strength in the water). So much so that that particular fish becomes a very strong part of that person's life, and a character in itself.
What you are doing is precisely what you are berating others for doing: denying that somebody can have an emotional attachment/relationship to a certain animal or species because you personally have never experienced it.