I'd like to return the favor here.

Maybe some will think so what, she just offed an animal, but I could throw this silly bitch and her accomplice into a fiery pit with no remorse. I hope she gets a cell mate that's a 300 pound psychopathic cat lover.

Quote :

Authorities said the two girls fled the apartment because they didn't want to hear the dying cat's cries or desperate scratching at the oven door.

Link here

Ratzilla wrote:

Maybe some will think so what, she just offed an animal, but I could throw this silly bitch and her accomplice into a fiery pit with no remorse. I hope she gets a cell mate that's a 300 pound psychopathic cat lover.

"cat lover" = lesbian?

I suppose she could be. A sadistic one.

So if it were a badger or a sewer rat would you feel the same way?

Just shows what a sick society we are- that we would lock this gal up for killing a critter- when we kill thousands of equally intelligent critters (hogs, mostly) using (sometimes) equally brutal methods... but it's ok so long as we eat them. (FYI, there is ZERO sarcasm in the preceding run-on sentence)

This gal's only crime is that she didn't eat the critter once it was cooked. In other words, she wasted food and probably made a mess. It warrants nothing more than a stern talking-to, IMO. And she should be required to clean up the mess.

I mean seriously- nobody gives a rat's ass when I shoot a hog between the eyes with a .22, then cut its throat real quick just to make sure it won't get back up ('cause that's happened before). Nope... it's just fine so long as we're talking about a hog (which, incidentallly, is more intelligent than a cat). But somebody kills a cute & fuzzy critter, and Ratzilla wants to lynch them.

I take it the fluid mechanics course has reached completion.

Yes, and it went very well considering that the instructor basically didn't speak English. Thanks for asking.

Point 1.. This was someone's pet.

Point 2.. This was done for no purpose except to be cruel.

Point 3.. I have never roasted a hog or cow alive. I refuse to eat Lobster boiled alive for this very reason. I gain no amusement from roasting any animal alive, nor see any reason for it, be it a cat, a sewer rat, or badger just for some idiots entertainment.

point 4.. They were tresspassing and committing other crimes when this happened. It was not their cat to kill.

Point 5.. Torturing any animal for sport is a sign of either mental illness, or total lack of regard for other living things.

Point 6.. It was killed for revenge on another person.

Point 7.. The girls who did this are dumb bitches that have no place in society.

Ratzilla wrote:

Point 1.. This was someone's pet.

Don't care.

Quote :

Point 2.. This was done for no purpose except to be cruel.

Don't care.

Quote :

Point 3.. I have never roasted a hog or cow alive. I refuse to eat Lobster boiled alive for this very reason. I gain no amusement from roasting any animal alive, nor see any reason for it, be it a cat, a sewer rat, or badger just for some idiots entertainment.

Don't care.

Quote :

point 4.. They were tresspassing and committing other crimes when this happened. It was not their cat to kill.

Good point. I'd have no problem if the gal was charged with trespassing, theft, property destruction, etc. I just can't, in good concience, support such an excessive punishment for killing a critter. You know- seeings how it's perfectly acceptable to kill other equally sentient critters under other more socially acceptable circumstances. "Animal cruelty" amounts to nothing more than government enforcement of cultural norms and squeamishness.

Quote :

Point 5.. Torturing any animal for sport is a sign of either mental illness, or total lack of regard for other living things.

Yes, I would be concerned if this was my kid. This sort of thing might even warrant some sort of mandated treatment for mental illness. But not jail time.

Quote :

Point 6.. It was killed for revenge on another person.

Good point. See answer to point 4.

Quote :

Point 7.. The girls who did this are dumb bitches that have no place in society.

Don't care.

If you don't care that someone could act with such senseless cruelty and consider such activity acceptable, I only hope these girls move next door to you. And if you piss them off I hope you have a pet.

Had it been my pet, there'd be no discussion of jail time for them, only for me.

Ratzilla wrote:

If you don't care that someone could act with such senseless cruelty and consider such activity acceptable, I only hope these girls move next door to you. And if you piss them off I hope you have a pet.

Didn't say that I like it or that I find it socially acceptable. I just don't believe that laws should harshly enforce ARBITRARY social norms. And I reckon that, as far as the LAW is concerned, animals should be considered nothing more than property.

Quote :

Had it been my pet, there'd be no discussion of jail time for them, only for me.

If you're saying that you'd be willing to hurt little girls and risk prison time over a cat, then I have serious doubts about your priorities... and your sanity.

Bighead wrote:

And I reckon that, as far as the LAW is concerned, animals should be considered nothing more than property.

Congrats Bighead. You have just become a bonafide religious nut and honorary republican. Other than you I've never heard anyone other than a religious wacko or republican say animals are mere property and that man as created in the the image of God has more right to live than something else. Can you please elaborate why your life is more important than a cats without using religious reference?

And hateful little bitches that would torture a cat because some other little bitch screwed the guy they wanted to screw are not innocent little girls playing with barbie dolls.

You can argue all you want that it's an excessive penalty, but if these girls can do that to a cat and get a slap on the wrist they will most likely get worse. They obviously have no regard for life and the next time they could stuff the baby of the girl who outscrewed them in an oven.

Let me put it to you this way. Have you "ever" known a girl aged 14 to 17 that could even remotely consider doing this that was worth saving? These girls are scum without remorse and I predict they will kill again and it won't be a cat.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:

And I reckon that, as far as the LAW is concerned, animals should be considered nothing more than property.

Congrats Bighead. You have just become a bonafide religious nut and honorary republican. Other than you I've never heard anyone other than a religious wacko or republican say animals are mere property and that man as created in the the image of God has more right to live than something else. Can you please elaborate why your life is more important than a cats without using religious reference?

Sure.

I'll give you a quick summary of my take on 'rights' (no doubt many will disagree here). IMO, rights are not endowed upon us from on high, nor are they some inherent quality of being human. A right is nothing more than a social agreement- a protection of sorts that will be enforced by said society. These 'rights' will change depending on who you are, where you are, and when you are. For instance, here in the U.S., I have the right to be an apostate, and to ridicule religious people as I see fit. And I can expect that in this country, nowadays, the legal system will back me up on this to some extent. But I no longer have that right if I go to Iran- they'd kick my ass. And I wouldn't have had that right 300 years ago.

One thing that we westerners agree on- pretty much univerally- is that we should all be equal under the law; in effect, that we should all have the same rights. Why is that? Why not just hand out rights arbitrarily, only to whom we see fit? I mean, here in Amerika, we demand that EVERYBODY should get a fair trial and legal representation. This is because ANY of us could find ourselves wrongly accused- so universal application of said right is to everybody's advantage.

A similar case can be made for pretty much any right that you want to name. We all want and need certain basic protections- and we don't want these handed out arbitrarily lest WE be denied our rights at some point. We don't demand universal application of rights out of some sense of altruism- it's about protecting our OWN ass. None of us would legalize murder- as that would make us ALL vulnerable. Thing is, there's absolutely no danger that I'll wake up one day and find that I am a cat. Doesn't matter what rights we give cats or what rights we deny them- it will never DIRECTLY affect me. Or you. Because we are not cats, and we never will be.

Therefore I see no reason to give human rights to cats.

Now, can you make a similarly concise and consistent case as to why certain rights should be given to cats- but not to hogs?

Quote :

And hateful little bitches that would torture a cat because some other little bitch screwed the guy they wanted to screw are not innocent little girls playing with barbie dolls.

Didn't say they were. I have no problem with these gals being prosecuted for destruction of property, burglary, and probably a few other things. I simply see no reason to imprison some gal- no matter how vile you think she is- over a goddamn cat. It's stupid.

Especially considering that nobody has a problem with me shooting a hog between the eyes and then slitting its throat. What if I kicked the hog between the gunshot and the throat-slitting? Would that be animal cruelty?

What if I didn't eat the hog? Would THAT make it animal cruelty?

What if these gals had shot the cat between the eyes, then slit its throat? Would that be ok? I mean... it's ok for hogs.

What if they ate the cat? Would that improve the situation?

This is fukcing ridiculous.

Quote :

You can argue all you want that it's an excessive penalty, but if these girls can do that to a cat and get a slap on the wrist they will most likely get worse. They obviously have no regard for life and the next time they could stuff the baby of the girl who outscrewed them in an oven.

So now we're prosecuting people based on what they MIGHT do in the future? You just made it clear in a previous post that you would hurt or kill any little girl that dared to similarly mistreat your critter. Reckon you ought to be preemptively prosecuted... 'cause you might hurt little girls?

Quote :

Let me put it to you this way. Have you "ever" known a girl aged 14 to 17 that could even remotely consider doing this that was worth saving? These girls are scum without remorse and I predict they will kill again and it won't be a cat.

Maybe so, but that goes back to the question about preemptive prosecution. I predict that you might hurt little girls- you said so yourself.

Like I said, I'd have no problem with a court-mandated mental health evaluation... even involuntary in-patient treatment if it's deemed necessary.

Oh yeah- and it's BULLSHIT that the older girl was charged as an adult. She isn't an adult.

Bighead wrote:

And I reckon that, as far as the LAW is concerned, animals should be considered nothing more than property.

Ok, first let's examine this. If these girls torched your car, would you say they just need a good talking to? Are you aware that some pets are worth more than a luxury car? I met two women once who raised prize winning dogs for competition. One multi-show champion was worth as much as the motorhome they traveled in.

Bighead wrote:

Doesn't matter what rights we give cats or what rights we deny them- it will never DIRECTLY affect me. Or you. Because we are not cats, and we never will be.

Therefore I see no reason to give human rights to cats.

Who said anything about that? I wanted to know where in natures scheme of things do you figure you have more value than any other living thing. I'm quite aware of rights and all the implications, and I'm also aware man has put himself on a pedestal. But someday man will be extinct and another life form will rule. So that said, where has science or anything else shown that a diesel mechanic is superior to a mouse catcher in natures plan?

Bighead wrote:

Now, can you make a similarly concise and consistent case as to why certain rights should be given to cats- but not to hogs?

Do you enter your neighbors property and slaughter his hogs just to be a prick? These psycho heifers didn't kill their own cat. They didn't kill a cat because they were hungry. They broke into another persons home and killed that persons cat just out of pure hatred. And they didn't shoot it in the head like a slaughter house, they baked it alive. Try asking all the hunters on this board if they'd like to roast their deer or pheasant alive and listen to it scream before they eat it.

Bighead wrote:

I have no problem with these gals being prosecuted for destruction of property, burglary, and probably a few other things. I simply see no reason to imprison some gal- no matter how vile you think she is- over a goddamn cat. It's stupid.

You said yourself, the cat is property. If you can be imprisoned for intentionally destroying a persons car, you can for their cat too. To many pet owners their pets value far outweighs their cars value. Ask pet owners if they'd rather see their car burn, or their pet roasted alive and see what they say.

Bighead wrote:

Especially considering that nobody has a problem with me shooting a hog between the eyes and then slitting its throat. What if I kicked the hog between the gunshot and the throat-slitting? Would that be animal cruelty?

If it's not your hog and the owner doesn't want it killed, you are committing a criminal act against his property.

Bighead wrote:

What if these gals had shot the cat between the eyes, then slit its throat? Would that be ok? I mean... it's ok for hogs. What if they ate the cat? Would that improve the situation?

It wasn't their cat. It was another persons pet that they may have cared a great deal for. Is that too difficult to understand?

Bighead wrote:

This is fukcing ridiculous.

Yep, sure is.

Bighead wrote:

So now we're prosecuting people based on what they MIGHT do in the future? You just made it clear in a previous post that you would hurt or kill any little girl that dared to similarly mistreat your critter. Reckon you ought to be preemptively prosecuted... 'cause you might hurt little girls?

I never said to prosecute someone for a possible future crime. I said if you let them off easy on "this crime" they might think they can get away with it again or worse.

Bighead wrote:

I predict that you might hurt little girls- you said so yourself.

Wrong again. I never said I'd hurt little girls. Little girls don't break into homes and put animals in ovens. Psycopaths do and if psycopaths break into my home and I find them roasting my pet I'm going to bash their face in, I'm not going to say Oh well, kids do the darndest things.

Bighead wrote:

Like I said, I'd have no problem with a court-mandated mental health evaluation... even involuntary in-patient treatment if it's deemed necessary.

Oh yeah- and it's BULLSHIT that the older girl was charged as an adult. She isn't an adult.

I would agree with mental treatment and confinement of that nature. Now as to this constant "she isn't an adult she's a little girl" routine of yours. I remind you that just a few weeks ago you were saying a 13 year old should be able to seek out contraception and abortion without parental consent. So why then don't you think someone that's 17 is old enough to take responsibility for her criminal acts?

And one more very important point that you've seemed to completely leave out. You have so much sympathy for a sadistic 17 year old, but what about the girl who owned the kitten?

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:

And I reckon that, as far as the LAW is concerned, animals should be considered nothing more than property.

Ok, first let's examine this. If these girls torched your car, would you say they just need a good talking to? Are you aware that some pets are worth more than a luxury car? I met two women once who raised prize winning dogs for competition. One multi-show champion was worth as much as the motorhome they traveled in.

I already said that I have no problem with these gals being prosecuted for destruction of property among other things. I'll add that they ought to pay restitution. So, yeah- they deserve more than a good talkin' to, seeings how they didn't own the cat in question.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

Doesn't matter what rights we give cats or what rights we deny them- it will never DIRECTLY affect me. Or you. Because we are not cats, and we never will be.

Therefore I see no reason to give human rights to cats.

Who said anything about that? I wanted to know where in natures scheme of things do you figure you have more value than any other living thing. I'm quite aware of rights and all the implications, and I'm also aware man has put himself on a pedestal. But someday man will be extinct and another life form will rule. So that said, where has science or anything else shown that a diesel mechanic is superior to a mouse catcher in natures plan?

I never made any such claim about superiority, nature's plan, value, or anything of the sort. Those are straw-man claims coming from YOU. I don't believe anything of the sort. And I don't see any reason to make a case for some claim that I never made.

All I said is that in my opinion, animals should be considered nothing more than property as far as the law is concerned. And I gave a pretty damn consistent and pragmatic reason as to why I think the law ought to be structured that way. Sorry if it doesn't suit you. You're free to point out anywhere that you reckon I'm wrong.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

Now, can you make a similarly concise and consistent case as to why certain rights should be given to cats- but not to hogs?

Do you enter your neighbors property and slaughter his hogs just to be a prick? These psycho heifers didn't kill their own cat. They didn't kill a cat because they were hungry. They broke into another persons home and killed that persons cat just out of pure hatred. And they didn't shoot it in the head like a slaughter house, they baked it alive. Try asking all the hunters on this board if they'd like to roast their deer or pheasant alive and listen to it scream before they eat it.

As I said earlier- I've no problem with these gals being charged on several counts- my only gripe is with the 'cruelty to animals' nonsense. So the ownership of the cat in question isn't relevant to our discussion at this point.

Now, I don't particularly LIKE how they killed this kitty- I wouldn't have done it that way. But you have yet to make any attempt to explain why some rules apply to hogs and not kitties. Let me simplify this for you so that you MIGHT bother to give me a direct answer:

Let's say, hypothetically, that these two gals shot the kitty in the head, cut its throat while it's still kicking, then skinned it and ate it. Would they, in your opinion, be guilty of 'cruelty to animals'? If so, then why is my hog-killin' acceptable? If not, then you and I ain't so far apart after all.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

I have no problem with these gals being prosecuted for destruction of property, burglary, and probably a few other things. I simply see no reason to imprison some gal- no matter how vile you think she is- over a goddamn cat. It's stupid.

You said yourself, the cat is property. If you can be imprisoned for intentionally destroying a persons car, you can for their cat too. To many pet owners their pets value far outweighs their cars value. Ask pet owners if they'd rather see their car burn, or their pet roasted alive and see what they say.

Yes, but property destruction isn't what we're arguing about. I've repeatedly stated that I'd have no problem with THAT charge. But this "cruelty to animals" is overly broad, poorly defined nonsense.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

Especially considering that nobody has a problem with me shooting a hog between the eyes and then slitting its throat. What if I kicked the hog between the gunshot and the throat-slitting? Would that be animal cruelty?

If it's not your hog and the owner doesn't want it killed, you are committing a criminal act against his property.

Ok, this is getting to be repettitive.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

What if these gals had shot the cat between the eyes, then slit its throat? Would that be ok? I mean... it's ok for hogs. What if they ate the cat? Would that improve the situation?

It wasn't their cat. It was another persons pet that they may have cared a great deal for. Is that too difficult to understand?

I understand it just fine. And I don't reckon that the law needs to be in the business of avenging hurt feelings. I reckon we should, as much as possible, limit our legal system to TANGIBLE things and tangible acts.

Are you suggesting that there should be a lesser penalty for roasting a stray cat?

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

This is fukcing ridiculous.

Yep, sure is.

Well at least you're not ENTIRELY wrong.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

So now we're prosecuting people based on what they MIGHT do in the future? You just made it clear in a previous post that you would hurt or kill any little girl that dared to similarly mistreat your critter. Reckon you ought to be preemptively prosecuted... 'cause you might hurt little girls?

I never said to prosecute someone for a possible future crime. I said if you let them off easy on "this crime" they might think they can get away with it again or worse.

Exactly- you're arguing that they should be punished based on what they MIGHT do. Like you MIGHT hurt a little girl if she messes with your kitty.

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

I predict that you might hurt little girls- you said so yourself.

Wrong again. I never said I'd hurt little girls. Little girls don't break into homes and put animals in ovens. Psycopaths do and if psycopaths break into my home and I find them roasting my pet I'm going to bash their face in, I'm not going to say Oh well, kids do the darndest things.

You can call the little girls whatever you want... and characterize them however you want... but if you hurt or kill a 14 year old girl and a 17 year old girl (regardless of what they did to your cat), then you're gonna get a LONG, HARD time in prison.

You've predicted that these gals will move on to bigger crimes- and I'd tend to agree with you. But I think it's a BAD idea to base proposed punishments on what somebody MIGHT do. 'Cause you MIGHT hurt little girls sometime- you've stated that you would under certain circumstances. Reckon you ought to be prosecuted for that?

Quote :

Bighead wrote:

Like I said, I'd have no problem with a court-mandated mental health evaluation... even involuntary in-patient treatment if it's deemed necessary.

Oh yeah- and it's BULLSHIT that the older girl was charged as an adult. She isn't an adult.

I would agree with mental treatment and confinement of that nature. Now as to this constant "she isn't an adult she's a little girl" routine of yours. I remind you that just a few weeks ago you were saying a 13 year old should be able to seek out contraception and abortion without parental consent. So why then don't you think someone that's 17 is old enough to take responsibility for her criminal acts?

Well, Ratzilla- that's because I believe in freedom... whereas you don't. I tend to ERR on the side of individual freedom (even for individuals who haven't yet met some arbitrary age requirement), whereas you tend to ERR on the side of CONTROL. But we already knew that.

We have juvenile law for a reason. It's supposed to be applied to juveniles. This gal is a juvenile. 'Nuf said.

Lemme twist your argument around just for the hell of it: Juveniles don't have LOTS of the same rights and freedoms under the law that we adults have. That's (ostensibly) because they aren't as mature and responsible as we adults are. But you want to hold this juvenile responsible as if she's an adult. You reckon she ought to have all the restrictions of childhood, but subject to the full reprocussions of acting as an adult.

Guess what that looks like to me: A desire to control.

Quote :

And one more very important point that you've seemed to completely leave out. You have so much sympathy for a sadistic 17 year old, but what about the girl who owned the kitten?

I feel bad for her. Doesn't have much to do with my opinion on what the law ought to be or how it ought to be applied, though.

What kind of kitty are we talking about here?

Is that big head composed of 99% bone?

I NEVER said to punish them for future crimes. You are fantasizing that I said that. A punishment for a present crime is intended as a lesson not to do it again. Got it?

Now try to understand this. THE CAT DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. They have absolutely NO right to kill that cat in any fashion or eat it because they broke into someone elses house and did it to someone elses cat. How god damn many times do you have to read the simple facts before you comprehend it?

And here's another simple fact. I already said if I caught them doing this to my animal I might very well bash their face in. The difference is I'd expect to be held responsible if a judge and jury said I did wrong. But that will never happen if they respect my property, don't break into my home, and leave my animals the hell alone will it? If they want to be treated like sweet little girls they damn well shouldn't break into homes and cook someone elses pets.

You wanna know why I say the 17 year old deserves treated as an adult? This is why....

Quote :

Animal cruelty keeps popping up in the news. Cheyenne Cherry, 17, was unrepentant after being convicted of stuffing a helpless kitten, Tiger Lily, into a 500-degree oven in May. She was sentenced to a year in prison. What is galling is the fact that she hissed angrily at animal rights activists yesterday as she left court. She said "it's dead, bitch," sticking her tongue out after her plea deal for animal cruelty and attempted burglary at the Bronx Supreme Court.

This is no frightened little girl. This is a hateful cold hearted waste of oxygen.

Oh and of course you had to throw in your control freak nonsense again. Yes there needs to be some control over what a minor deemed unable to make adult decisions does. I never said there shouldn't be. But you on the other hand support the idea that a kid should have absolutely no parental supervision and has the right to do anything they want. That's says that complete anarchy is your guide to life.

So you don't think baking an animal alive is cruelty? Then what the fuck is? Crap man you're nuts.

Quote :

Now try to understand this. THE CAT DID NOT BELONG TO THEM. They have absolutely NO right to kill that cat in any fashion or eat it because they broke into someone elses house and did it to someone elses cat. How god damn many times do you have to read the simple facts before you comprehend it?

I've acknowledged this point over and over. The gals should be prosecuted for fuking up others' property, burglary, probably a few other things. Our argument here is about animal cruelty- and as such, the ownership of the animal is irrelevant.

Lemme ask it again: Should the gals be given a lesser punishment if the cat had been a stray?

Lemme repeat my hypothetical for a third (or fourth?) time... maybe with enough qualifications this time that you MIGHT try and answer directly:

Let's say, hypothetically, that these gals found a STRAY cat. They shot it, cut its throat while it's still kicking, then ate it. Would you consider this animal cruelty? If so, then why would my hog killin' not be considered animal cruelty? If not, then you're a little smarter than I thought.

You can dance around the subject all you want. Had these girls been starving and needed to eat a stray cat it would more be like your hog and the older girl most likely would not be getting a year in the pen. But for the last god damn time this case was NOT like your hog. it was an act of senseless and extreme cruelty and you damn well know it.

Quote :

But for the last god damn time this case was NOT like your hog.

For the last goddamn time if this case bore NO similarity to hog-killin', then you'd be able to answer the questions and make a logical case as to WHY this constitutes "animal cruelty", whereas hog killin' doesn't. But you won't and can't because the notion of "animal cruelty" is based SOLELY on social norms and squeamishness. The vast majority of 'animal cruelty' cases are not fundamentally any more cruel than actions that we accept without question- this case included. And if you disagree... well, then try explaining it to the next hog whose throat I slit.

This issue here, IMO, is the situation SURROUNDING the cruelty... not the cruelty itself. Unless of course you're a vegetarian- and those are few and far between in Hays (though I've met a few).

If you can't understand there's a difference between killing an animal to survive and killing one just to be mean then the discussion is pointless.

Tell me this. Is it your intent to cause that hog to suffer, or is it just an unfortunate part of the process? And do you try to kill it as quick as possible with a bullet to the brain, or do you want to make the suffering last? If you try to kill it quick and limit it's suffering then you should know the answer to what the difference is between the two scenarios.

Or maybe we should just stop by your house and pop one of these in your oven and listen to it's howls of misery as the temp climbs so maybe you can understand where killing for survival ends and cruelty begins.

Oh, I understand the difference in intent. But killin' is killin'. From the critter's point of view, I don't see any substantial difference. The only difference I can see is whether or not we find a given act of cruelty socially acceptable.

And you know that this isn't about HOW the kitty died... or else you'd have no problem with the gal shooting, throat-cutting, and eating her own kitty.

But hey- keep confusing the issue and refusing to answer hypothetical questions directly if that's what floats your boat. But this discussion isn't going to get anywhere.

BTW- THOR would bite your face off.

LOL I had a vile tempered old tomcat once that'd have had Thor for lunch. I watched him kick every dogs butt that dared enter our yard.

This is all exactly about how the cat died. The girls wanted it to suffer, whereas the hog butchers I've know didn't want the hog to feel anything if possible. PETA members would consider anything done to the hog cruelty whether it knows what happened or not.

If some nut wants to eat their own cat or dog and puts a bullet in it's brain there is only a split second of awareness at most, but more likely it's done before the animal knows what hit them. So it may be disturbing to most Americans, but not necessarily cruel. But if they roast it alive just for the sole purpose of causing it to suffer, it's pretty obvious they are being cruel.

Old days slaughter houses used to just cut the animals throats. That's why shooting through the brain and stunners came to be. To attempt to avoid causing suffering. Is it nice? No, but there's sure a whole lot more cruelty going on when you put a live animal in a 500 degree oven.

Thor looks pretty innocent although I might be a bit concerned with those devilish eyes. I had an ex that had eyes like that. I would always wake up with nightmares thinking she was doing harm to me. I finally had enough and pawned her off on someone else.

Ratzilla wrote:

LOL I had a vile tempered old tomcat once that'd have had Thor for lunch. I watched him kick every dogs butt that dared enter our yard.

This is all exactly about how the cat died. The girls wanted it to suffer, whereas the hog butchers I've know didn't want the hog to feel anything if possible. PETA members would consider anything done to the hog cruelty whether it knows what happened or not.

If some nut wants to eat their own cat or dog and puts a bullet in it's brain there is only a split second of awareness at most, but more likely it's done before the animal knows what hit them. So it may be disturbing to most Americans, but not necessarily cruel. But if they roast it alive just for the sole purpose of causing it to suffer, it's pretty obvious they are being cruel.

Old days slaughter houses used to just cut the animals throats. That's why shooting through the brain and stunners came to be. To attempt to avoid causing suffering. Is it nice? No, but there's sure a whole lot more cruelty going on when you put a live animal in a 500 degree oven.

We're just arguing in circles here- and we're clearly BOTH getting bored. Just remember: If I agreed with you, then we'd both be wrong.

Quote :

Thor looks pretty innocent

Yeah, well this is a picture of THOR as a puppy. He's much more imposing nowadays, and much bigger- mostly 'around'.

So a cat, probably a stray, wandered onto the field during the Royals' game last night. The grounds crew spend a good 5 minutes chasing it around before Willie Bloomquist, the KC right fielder, got down and looked at it and called it to him. They finally got it to go into the bullpen and they shut the door. Now Bighead, since this cat was most likely homeless, would they have been justified in pulling a gun and shooting it? After all, that would have caused a lot less inconvenience for the players, the staff and the 15 or 20 fans who were there.

"Justified" isn't relevant to this discussion.

A more appropriate question would be: "should the guy who shoots the stray cat be prosecuted for the ill-conceived crime of 'animal cruelty'?"

And my answer is no- for reasons that I've explained already.

Although, for equally obvious reasons- that course of action (shooting the cat) would be A LOT more trouble than it's worth.

Now I'll ask you, EP- seeings how Ratzilla won't answer simple questions:

What if I were to go buy a cute, fuzzy little kitten... then shoot the little bastard between the eyes, cut its throat while still kicking, and proceed to eat Hello Kitty. Do you reckon I ought to be prosecuted for animal cruelty in that case? And if so, then why am I not ALREADY guilty of the same crime, seeings how that's how I've slaughtered hogs more than once?

Bighead wrote:

What if I were to go buy a cute, fuzzy little kitten... then shoot the little bastard between the eyes, cut its throat while still kicking, and proceed to eat Hello Kitty. Do you reckon I ought to be prosecuted for animal cruelty in that case? And if so, then why am I not ALREADY guilty of the same crime, seeings how that's how I've slaughtered hogs more than once?

There are people who would outlaw slaughtering hogs. There are also people who draw a distinction between food animals and others. I don't know. If you're hungry enough and stupid enough to eat a cat, then go ahead and do it, I guess. What's the difference between that and the "humane" society giving them a lethal injection? Not much. There are already societies where eating cats and dogs is the norm.

Hell cats are good eatin. Personally i love to make cat kabobs.

Bighead wrote:

We're just arguing in circles here- and we're clearly BOTH getting bored. Just remember: If I agreed with you, then I wouldn't have so much fun being an obnoxious troll.

I think what this is really all about is that Bighead=cat hater and you wouldn't care if they were all baked alive. Your opening statement of "It's just a Fu**ing cat" says it all. Bet you'd call it cruelty if they tossed Thor in the oven and you came home to find dog for supper.

Dog doesn't taste very good, for some reason the meat is rubbery tasting. That could be just the breed that I had which was a small shitzu.

Degeneration X wrote:

Hell cats are good eatin. Personally i love to make cat kabobs.

Sounds like county fair food...cat-on-a-stick.

Oh my flippin' gosh!!!!!!!


*****most animals are worth WAY more than most humans-PEOPLE F'N SUCK!!!!

wilkykav2 wrote:

*****most animals are worth WAY more than most humans

Decent burger is going for about $2.29 a pound right now. How much are they charging for human meat?

Humans......The other pink meat!!!!!!

wilkykav2 wrote:

Oh my flippin' gosh!!!!!!!


*****most animals are worth WAY more than most humans-PEOPLE F'N SUCK!!!!

As a human, I represent that statement.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:

We're just arguing in circles here- and we're clearly BOTH getting bored. Just remember: If I agreed with you, then I wouldn't have so much fun being an obnoxious troll.

I think what this is really all about is that Bighead=cat hater and you wouldn't care if they were all baked alive. Your opening statement of "It's just a Fu**ing cat" says it all. Bet you'd call it cruelty if they tossed Thor in the oven and you came home to find dog for supper.

Actually, I like cats. I don't shoot strays- hell, I feed them once in a while. Even the cranky ones are pretty amusing. What's really funny is when the inlaws' cat pounces on THOR from up high, then runs off before THOR can get a hold of him. You don't know what indignation IS until you've seen a wiener dog denied his vengeance.

This might be hard for you to grasp, Ratz... seeings how your socialization, personal preferences, and fickle emotions apparently drive your opinion on a given matter. But my take on 'animal cruelty' is based on two fairly abstract points:

1. I DO value humans more than critters. That's a whole other discussion, but I touched on some of it earlier in this thread.

2. In a society like ours where critters are routinely and brutally slaughtered, packaged and cooked up... I just can't come up with ANY consistent standard to protect critters from the sort of 'animal cruelty' in this story, while still allowing me to slaughter hogs. The ONLY difference here is intent and social norms. But our laws on this matter aren't even base on something as difficult to define and prove as intent- otherwise it'd be perfectly legal for me to slaughter cats the same way I slaugher hogs. It's complete and utter nonsense.

And yes, I'm aware of your argument that hog slaughtering and the like is designed to minimize pain and suffering- in theory that's true. But we ALL know that shit goes on at some of these packing plants that'd make you puke. Hell, there's even some pretty damn disgusting (and illegal, BTW) things going on at your local feedlots. Now, I ain't gonna directly accuse anybody around Hayce of doing anything illegal- ain't gonna go down that road. But hypothetically speaking, let's say you were a brilliant and ruggedly handsome hillbilly working on a tub grinder... replacing a bearing. And in the process of cutting twine off from around the main shaft of the hammer mill, you find a VERTEBRAE. What would that tell you?

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

What if I were to go buy a cute, fuzzy little kitten... then shoot the little bastard between the eyes, cut its throat while still kicking, and proceed to eat Hello Kitty. Do you reckon I ought to be prosecuted for animal cruelty in that case? And if so, then why am I not ALREADY guilty of the same crime, seeings how that's how I've slaughtered hogs more than once?

There are people who would outlaw slaughtering hogs. There are also people who draw a distinction between food animals and others. I don't know. If you're hungry enough and stupid enough to eat a cat, then go ahead and do it, I guess. What's the difference between that and the "humane" society giving them a lethal injection? Not much. There are already societies where eating cats and dogs is the norm.

See, Ratzilla- even EP is smarter than you.

Degeneration X wrote:

Dog doesn't taste very good, for some reason the meat is rubbery tasting. That could be just the breed that I had which was a small shitzu.

Well, I've never tried either dog or cat meat- at least not that I was aware of (though I have eaten at quite a few different chinese places). But my Clone tried some dog meat over in Korea- said it wasn't too bad. Kinda like greasy beef. I'd have no problem with trying it myself (or cat, or horse), but I don't think the Supreme Commandress would ever forgive me.

Go to France,they eat a lot of horses there.

Bighead, try to stop lying for a change. I did answer your question.

Ratzilla wrote:

If some nut wants to eat their own cat or dog and puts a bullet in it's brain there is only a split second of awareness at most, but more likely it's done before the animal knows what hit them. So it may be disturbing to most Americans, but not necessarily cruel. But if they roast it alive just for the sole purpose of causing it to suffer, it's pretty obvious they are being cruel.

You and you alone are trying to evade the facts. Killing a pig, cat, dog, or monkey for the dinner table are all acceptable in one culture or another. It is one animal (man) killing another for the purpose of survival. Animal cruelty is neglecting, or otherwise causing harm to an animal for no justifiable reason. And don't friggin try to tell me that putting someone elses pet in an oven for revenge is justifiable.

I am very aware of all the cultural differences of opinion on what animals are usable on the dinner table, and quite aware that there's a wide range of opinions on how to do the job and it doesn't always come out neatly.

Why can't you answer a simple question? Try to tell me why you think intentionally torturing an animal and prolonging it's suffering is no more cruel than attempting to end it's life quickly.

Oh, and I'd like to ask a question about this past thread..

https://67601.forummotion.com/general-discussion-f1/more-police-abuse-of-the-system-t2752.htm

Bighead wrote:

Good fuking god. He shot a WIENER DOG.

Bighead wrote:

I hope the Supreme Commandress doesn't see this. That won't be fun for anybody.

If a cop shoots a weiner dog, is he commiting a cruel act? Your shock at the news in that thread makes it seem you'd say yes. You were so upset you even said god.

Why didn't you come to that cops defense and say it was no worse than you shooting a hog? I'd say a dumb sadistic cop shooting a helpless Weiner dog is pretty much equal to some dumb sadistic bitch putting a cat in an oven.

By the way, I'd be equally pissed if those girls did it to a weiner dog. In my opinion wilky has a point to a degree. Both the weiner dog the cop shot and the kitten the girls baked were probably worth far more than the scum that killed them.

Quote :

Bighead, try to stop lying for a change. I did answer your question.

Ratzilla wrote:
If some nut wants to eat their own cat or dog and puts a bullet in it's brain there is only a split second of awareness at most, but more likely it's done before the animal knows what hit them. So it may be disturbing to most Americans, but not necessarily cruel. But if they roast it alive just for the sole purpose of causing it to suffer, it's pretty obvious they are being cruel.


You and you alone are trying to evade the facts. Killing a pig, cat, dog, or monkey for the dinner table are all acceptable in one culture or another. It is one animal (man) killing another for the purpose of survival. Animal cruelty is neglecting, or otherwise causing harm to an animal for no justifiable reason. And don't friggin try to tell me that putting someone elses pet in an oven for revenge is justifiable.

I am very aware of all the cultural differences of opinion on what animals are usable on the dinner table, and quite aware that there's a wide range of opinions on how to do the job and it doesn't always come out neatly.

Why can't you answer a simple question? Try to tell me why you think intentionally torturing an animal and prolonging it's suffering is no more cruel than attempting to end it's life quickly.

Hmmm- sorry 'bout that. Must've missed that particular response. It still doesn't address the FACT that if I were to shoot, throat-cut, and eat my own cat here in the U.S., I'd be prosecuted.

And I never said that roastig a kitty isn't cruel. It is. I just see no rational distinction between that and the pain & suffering that we routinely put other critters through. As most, it's a matter of degree- and I'm not even convinced that that's the case. Hell, you've probably seen the videos at packing plants of the shit that they do to get downer cattle to walk. You don't think that that was an isolated incident? Do you?

Quote :

Oh, and I'd like to ask a question about this past thread..

https://67601.forummotion.com/general-discussion-f1/more-police-abuse-of-the-system-t2752.htm

Bighead wrote:
Good fuking god. He shot a WIENER DOG.


Bighead wrote:
I hope the Supreme Commandress doesn't see this. That won't be fun for anybody.

If a cop shoots a weiner dog, is he commiting a cruel act? Your shock at the news in that thread makes it seem you'd say yes. You were so upset you even said god.

Why didn't you come to that cops defense and say it was no worse than you shooting a hog? I'd say a dumb sadistic cop shooting a helpless Weiner dog is pretty much equal to some dumb sadistic bitch putting a cat in an oven.

By the way, I'd be equally pissed if those girls did it to a weiner dog. In my opinion wilky has a point to a degree. Both the weiner dog the cop shot and the kitten the girls baked were probably worth far more than the scum that killed them.

You didn't see me call for that cop to be charged with animal cruelty, nor make such a case... now did you? Although I'd be pleased as punch if he WAS prosecuted for pretty much ANYTHING. I think the reasons are obvious... and we all know that it ain't gonna happen.

So you think this was animal cruelty? What if he had owned the wiener dog? Would that still be cruelty? I mean... it's no different from the wiener dog's perspective. What if he then proceeded to eat the wiener dog? Would that make it ok?

And if not... then how does that differ from hog-killin'?

Since when did I say the laws are always fair? I said the girls who put a cat in an oven were guilty of animal cruelty and criminal behavior. I do think the cop should have faced some kind of punishment, but in the two cases the cop can at least claim he was overpowered by cowardice.

I've heard of cops with small penises shooting harmless dogs for sport before. I'd like to see them at least lose their jobs and pay some sort of restitution. And I'm not thrilled with how animals are treated in slaughter houses at times either. But I know a guy who was often troubled by his working in one when an animal died hard, and there lies the difference.

Intent comes into play in alot of laws. And it should. If your dog made a mess and you slapped it on the nose with a newspaper it'd be alot different than if you hit it with a hammer. If a cop saw a doberman racing towards a kid and shot it, it's alot different than if he just sees one in a fenced yard and shoots it out of spite. Intent must be a determining factor for a law to be fair.

Oh, a couple more things Bighead. I've never heard of any law forbidding you to raise cats or dogs to eat. You just can't sell it and it's unwise to invite the neighbors.

You know you can be charged with animal cruelty for mistreating any kind of livestock including pigs. And since they now consider sex with animals cruelty you need to remember not to pork those hogs you seem so obsessed with.

WHHHEEEEEEEAAE!!!!!

Nice Bighead. Your senior picture?

No, that's not me. That's my clone. He's posted around here in the past as Marfark.

Matter of fact, he's back in the states at the moment. We went through your fair city of Hayce the other day. Maybe he'll grace ya'll with his presence before he heads out for Crapistan.

I don't know if you can call this a fair city. Hace has its up and downs but mainly downs now.

I thought Marfark was one of these handsome gentlemen.

Yes, he's the one on the right. I was just funnin' you with the Deliverance thing. You like it when I'm funnin' you deliverance-style.


See, Marfark hasn't yet learned just how effective a haircut and a clean shirt can be if you want to impress the ladies.

Bighead wrote:

Yes, he's the one on the right. I was just funnin' you with the Deliverance thing. You like it when I'm funnin' you deliverance-style.


See, Marfark hasn't yet learned just how effective a haircut and a clean shirt can be if you want to impress the ladies.

Nice picture. I didn't know you two were members of Congress.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

What if I were to go buy a cute, fuzzy little kitten... then shoot the little bastard between the eyes, cut its throat while still kicking, and proceed to eat Hello Kitty. Do you reckon I ought to be prosecuted for animal cruelty in that case? And if so, then why am I not ALREADY guilty of the same crime, seeings how that's how I've slaughtered hogs more than once?

There are people who would outlaw slaughtering hogs. There are also people who draw a distinction between food animals and others. I don't know. If you're hungry enough and stupid enough to eat a cat, then go ahead and do it, I guess. What's the difference between that and the "humane" society giving them a lethal injection? Not much. There are already societies where eating cats and dogs is the norm.

see how you don't even think about the things you say? If i'm hungry enuff the "norm" doesn't seem so stupid... but if i belong to a culture that has been forced or otherwise accepted that as a "norm" we are stupid... wonder what the carbon footprint from eating cats as opposed to cows is... we do have a plethora running wild...

what people would outlaw the slaughtering of hogs?

Rog wrote:

see how you don't even think about the things you say? If i'm hungry enuff the "norm" doesn't seem so stupid... but if i belong to a culture that has been forced or otherwise accepted that as a "norm" we are stupid... wonder what the carbon footprint from eating cats as opposed to cows is... we do have a plethora running wild...

I know exactly what I was saying. Everyone understood except you. Guess it's you who's stupid. And who gives an intercourse about the carbon footprint?

Rog wrote:

what people would outlaw the slaughtering of hogs?

Apparently you've never heard of PETA.