winterbeater
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Royal Oak, Michigan
People who kill animals like that for no reason will do worse later on. The world would be better off without them. But you wouldn't be better off for having killed them.
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
world has turned into a sad place
- Thread starter Kejtar
- Start date
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
These guys are pretty growed up. 18-24. Chances are they already have killed or severely hurt someone.
muddyrocks
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Zebulon,NC
They will face adult time... 2 years? What a joke. The threats they communicated are worth that alone IMO. They are now tagged in the system, for what its worth, but the problem is they might live a long time: Escalation probably has occured, your right.
Freaky McPants
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Osan, South Korea
Ok! I've decided that I'm gonna be the Asshole in this thread. My question is, What is the moral difference between killing Dogs for Sport/Pleasure, and killing Cats for Sport/Pleasure? This question is not rhetorical, I really want to know the answer. It seems that I have heard way more conversations between individuals who are bragging, and swapping stories about killing Cats, than bragging about killing Dogs. I'm not just talking about straight up killing, I'm talking about stories of sadistic torture, and slow drawn out extermination of these Animals.
The reason I bring up this question, is because I have heard people on this Forum, and on the Glenn Beck Program, describe the guilty party as "Crazy" and "Insane". What makes a killer of Dogs, more crazy than a killer of Cats or other Animals? It just seems to me that killing Cats is more socially acceptable than killing Dogs. I just want to make it a point that I do not in any way condone the actions of these individuals, and I believe they should have been given a harsher punishment than what they recieved. This is just something I have been thinking about, and I think everyone should think about.
The reason I bring up this question, is because I have heard people on this Forum, and on the Glenn Beck Program, describe the guilty party as "Crazy" and "Insane". What makes a killer of Dogs, more crazy than a killer of Cats or other Animals? It just seems to me that killing Cats is more socially acceptable than killing Dogs. I just want to make it a point that I do not in any way condone the actions of these individuals, and I believe they should have been given a harsher punishment than what they recieved. This is just something I have been thinking about, and I think everyone should think about.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Allow me to play Devil's advocate in return:
[Devil's advocate]
Here we begin to wander into the field of "Moral Relativism." Quite a good subject for starting debates, I've noted...
It is probably to do with the fact that there are a great many more cats - particularly feral cats - in the world than dogs. You don't hear of the "crazy dog lady" with thirty-some-odd cats, do you?
And, cats are allowed to roam about at will far more often than dogs. Thus, the "feral cat" problem - quite a few more domestic dogs are "fixed" than domestic cats.
So, it becomes a population control issue. Most dog owners - particularly "in town" - probably have one or two dogs, but we run into a great many people who have several cats for no particular reason. These cats are allowed to roam about at will, where they get into things, can damage property, can dig up landscaping in pursuit of their "bodily functions," and cause other problems.
Dogs, in contrast, tend to be kept within their bounds (either a physical fence, an "invisible fence," or trained to stay with their human - in the case of a Canine Companion animal,) and therefore cause somewhat less trouble. Yes, you hear about the "fighting breeds" that can maul people - but those are, more often than not, traced back to their owners and not the direct responsibility of the animal itself. It's just a pity that only the animal is killed in those cases, methinks.
You hear more about the trouble caused by canines simply because it is inflicted directly upon people. Felines, on the other hand, tend to either cause trouble with property or just by overpopulation - and neither makes the news, with their stated maxim of "S*** Sells". Why do you think you so rarely hear of anything good happening in the news?
[/Devil's advocate]
How's that?
- Location
- Central Maine
fixed your post and Crazy dog lady FTW.....although she is three short of your set criteria....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28278301/
for all those who said they would shoot so easily, I'll tell you, when you are staring down your gun at someone, sometimes pulling the trigger isn't so easy
sometimes living and paying the price is worse, although probably not in this case
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
How novel - first I'd heard of it.
Compare this one instance, however, to the little factoid that (I'm almost willing to bet) somewhere around 1/2 to 3/4 of the people on this board have personal knowledge of a "crazy cat lady" with some unGodly number of cats running about - and typically running amok; leaving their pawprints all over everything, digging up mum's flowerbeds or gardens, getting into the shed, ...
There's a reason why I've had to keep a squirtgun loaded with vinegar around most times... If I hadn't kept my foot put down over the last eight years, my MIL would have some horrific number of cats for no particular reason - but I'm not about to take care of them (and I know I'd end up having to.)
Freaky McPants
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Osan, South Korea
muddyrocks
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Zebulon,NC
When pressed the court will veiw both cases the same.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Next time, do please separate out what you're answering - the multi-quote feature is nice, and there's always the option ofcopypasta to get the quote opening string, and just typing "[/QUOTE]" to end the block. Sorry, but it does make it much easier to read.
And note that I "was playing at Devil's advocate" - just presenting an opposing viewpoint (as requested.) I don't like cats - can't stand them, in fact - but I don't go about killing them. I'd like to see an awful lot more of them get fixed, however.
And yes, I know there are feral versions of the domestic canine running about, I've seen a few. I've just seen far more instances of feral cats than feral dogs, which tells me that there isn't as much effort made to keep their numbers down as there are with dogs. And, fixed or no, I see a lot more cats roaming about at will than dogs. Nearly every municipality has a "leash law" for dogs, but nothing to control the roaming of cats. The perception is different, whether you think it is or not.
And yes, dogs can do far more damage that cats, given time and opportunity. See my previous point, however - while there are feral dogs and feral cats, there are far more feral cats than feral dogs, and what they lack in individual capacity they make up for in numbers.
Again, I don't condone wanton killing of animals. I've hunted (for food, not for trophies,) and I've run into trouble with keeping cats off of my vehicles and off of my property (thus, the squirtgun loaded with vinegar - it usually works fairly well, leaves no significant aftereffects, and does serve to teach the lesson.) In some cases I've had to go with something rather stronger - concentrated fox urine tends to work neatly - and, in rare cases, put the suppressed barrel on my old VM-68 and make "a cat of a different colour" (striking the ground near them and splashing the paint onto them seems to have a better effect - paintball paint tastes very bad, and they end up licking it all off of themselves. It probably takes a few more instances to get the point across than hitting them directly would, but it causes no damage my way.)
Were the situation reversed and Friend Luttrell had had a "Feline Companion," I'm inclined to think it would have been covered - but not as greatly. We, as a society, do have our priorities shifted out of whack - cf. the case of Leo the Dog (happened out here - in an incident of road rage, someone threw someone else's dog out into traffic. Greater rewards were posted for information in that case than for information in cases where road rage lead to battery, assault with intent, or homicide...)
Please note, for the record, that I am not condoning the actions in any way, and I comment Mr. Luttrell for his quite admirable restraint (despite justification, here's a man who has had his squad shot out from under him, he's personally be tortured, and if he had shot all of these "children" - of whatever age, they certainly weren't men - I am inclined to think it would have been put down to PTSD and quietly buried after about a fortnight.) And, my bringing up the "dogs vice cats" argument was an exercise in moral relativism, I'm fairly sure I've made my stance on the subject fairly plain.
Coastie
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Upper Peninsula, Michigan
I would have opened fire without a word.
Freaky McPants
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Osan, South Korea
I'm sorry if I came off as hostile in any way. I too was just trying to keep a friendly debate going.
fscrig75
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Burkburnett/Lawton
I think the biggest reason it is considered so horrible to kill a dog is that the majority of the population consider dogs members of their families.
Growing up my mom had a cat and a dog. The dog was always with us, my brother and I loved and played with the dog everyday, all day. We liked the cat but it wasn't there with us all the time. She would come and go, get her food, maybe sleep on top of the TV and then leave again. Sometimes she would be gone for days at a time. So while the cat was there she wasn't at the same time. Dogs are social animals that just want to be with a "type" of pack, cats like to be alone.
Is it wrong to kill a cat for no reason, yes. Do people get as upset over a cat getting killed as they would for a dog, no.
Very true!!
Growing up my mom had a cat and a dog. The dog was always with us, my brother and I loved and played with the dog everyday, all day. We liked the cat but it wasn't there with us all the time. She would come and go, get her food, maybe sleep on top of the TV and then leave again. Sometimes she would be gone for days at a time. So while the cat was there she wasn't at the same time. Dogs are social animals that just want to be with a "type" of pack, cats like to be alone.
Is it wrong to kill a cat for no reason, yes. Do people get as upset over a cat getting killed as they would for a dog, no.
H8PVMT said:
Very true!!
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
Oh - you didn't! No worries.
I simply wanted to make clear the difference between the stance I was taking for the point of debate and the stance I take on a personal level. I've often had to do that after a debate in high school (I was often tasked with defending a position that was diametrically opposite to my own...) so I thought I'd make it clear before things went on much farther.
I do enjoy a good debate, I just thought it prudent that the separation (in this case) between "public view" and "private view" should be made before the debate goes on too far, that's all.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
A very good point. Cats set themselves aside by their own nature, while dogs tend to "make themselves at home" or become part of the family. Social animals in general can do that - my wife and I have kept rats for years, and we both tend to refer to them as "our kids." When one of us is laid up (or just laid out,) the other usually brings in one or two of our more mellow rodents to let them run about - invariably, we end up feeling better as a result (this was probably as important to my recovery as anything else a few years back, when I spent two months knitting most of my bones back together. Getting hit by a car has little to recommend it, FYI.)
As an example of how that changes your thinking, the last house we were in had a problem (the whole neighbourhood, not just us) with field mice. Everyone else called exterminators, paid hundreds, and didn't get anywhere. I went and bought a couple of Havahart traps, set up two "holding cages" for the mice we caught (and we caught plenty!) and I'd take them up into the hills and release them to take their chances in nature. Natch, they'd be sexed and segregated before put into "holding" down here, we already had enough of the little beggars running about.
Go figure, we had the least damage overall due to the mice (most of the people were calling in carpenters and drywall people - I just had to do a little patching) when we moved out. In the year before we moved out, I probably caught and released somewhere around 300 mice!
Nice thing about that?
- I'd catch mice and release them well up in the hills - probably a mile from anyone's house.
- Mice I'd catch would stop being a problem for everyone in the neighbourhood.
- Mice don't die behind things or in walls when you catch and release them, making it far easier to keep things cleaned up.
- The Havaharts and fuel I spent taking them out to release them cost much less than exterminator bills. Especially since I don't think I ever saw an exterminator's truck just once the whole time!
Granted, another part of the reason I'd have to catch them was simple - rats and mice are mutually antagonistic, and rats are much larger. I could always tell when a mouse got into one of the rats' cages - et viola!, dead mouse.
muddyrocks
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Zebulon,NC
Regardless of the family the animal came from, the OP's message seemed to point to out a lack of disipline in todays youth.
A social decree mandated by courts and expanded to include litigious child v parent has made child punishment improper until and unless courts become involved. Rights have been mangled to the point where if a child dosen't get it's way he/she simply need cry abuse and lawyer up.
There was a day when it was wrong to tell a parent how to raise their children. In part because we knew those parents and knew them to be good people, and a community in fact did raise the child; we were all alike in our struggles to survive and in our knowledge of right and good.
Now it is common to lack empathy, moreover, to hasten to condem those who earnestly and by conviction do what they believe to be correct, good, and right. These appear to be the new values we are to share. I agree, it is a sad world.
A social decree mandated by courts and expanded to include litigious child v parent has made child punishment improper until and unless courts become involved. Rights have been mangled to the point where if a child dosen't get it's way he/she simply need cry abuse and lawyer up.
There was a day when it was wrong to tell a parent how to raise their children. In part because we knew those parents and knew them to be good people, and a community in fact did raise the child; we were all alike in our struggles to survive and in our knowledge of right and good.
Now it is common to lack empathy, moreover, to hasten to condem those who earnestly and by conviction do what they believe to be correct, good, and right. These appear to be the new values we are to share. I agree, it is a sad world.
