No More Gothic Kittens

[BayConRong]

Remember that lady who was selling "Gothic Kittens"?

Comcast news article on Gothic Kittens Seller

 

[Sage]

So we’re actively encouraged to chop up their private parts, but can’t put holes anywhere else? Wow, that makes perfect sense.

(And that’s totally aside from the fact that I think animal cruelty shouldn’t ever be a crime. Sometimes reprehensible, but not a crime.)

 

[mafia_boy]

I think images are the best response for this article.

 

[Der Alta]

So we’re actively encouraged to chop up their private parts, but can’t put holes anywhere else? Wow, that makes perfect sense.

(And that’s totally aside from the fact that I think animal cruelty shouldn’t ever be a crime. Sometimes reprehensible, but not a crime.)

I'm staggered by this statement, and can only hope I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

I've seen incredible cases of animal cruelty, that bring serious thoughts of hurting people to mind. I've met Lola in person. I have animals in my home that have suffered cruelty at that hands of people. One Parrot, lived in a closet for two years because the owner couldn't stand his noise.

As for Neutering cats, there are an estimated 60-100 million feral cats living in the US. Do you think that there might be a problem with that? TNR is a new approach to curbing this growth. Trap, Neuter, Return. I could go on for hours, but it's 5am and I've got to get ready for the day.

 

[Diego440]

(And that’s totally aside from the fact that I think animal cruelty shouldn’t ever be a crime. Sometimes reprehensible, but not a crime.)

No no no no NO! Animal cruelty is a crime and should be punished accordingly. In fact, animaly cruelty laws should be hardened to a point where the person has to suffer the same maltreatment that the animal has suffered under their care.

I'm all for neutering cats and dogs, as long as you can keep the population under control and no pups become a nuisance.

Putting a piercing on a cat or dog should be under some sort of idiocy rule. Is it equally moral to have a 5 year old kid with a pierced tongue? Because I've seen those too. And 7-year-old girls with G-string bikinis, on a public beach.

 

[niky]

What's more or less moral? Piercing a 5-year old's tongue, or piercing a one-year old's ears? Just because one practice is older than the other (in our current society), doesn't make it right (for reference, we're not piercing our girl's ears. It's her own decision to make when she's older). Same goes with G-strings versus two piece swimsuits on kids. Of course, I personally feel that G-strings should be banned in public... period. I don't go to the beach to see other people's flabby behinds. I can look at my own in the mirror, thank you.

Strange that you can be prosecuted for piercing a cat, but not for tagging a cow or a pig in the ear, or piercing cattle through the nose... ...this is what I think Sage was getting at... oh, and the small matter of genital mutilation.

Piercing itself can be cruelty or not, depending on how it's done and whether it endangers the animal's life. I'm not familiar with the type of piercing done on the animals, but if done properly, it's probably less traumatizing than neutering. Neutering itself is not without risk, and doesn't add anything to the quality of life of the individual animal neutered, though it's probably a necessity, given some owners' inability to control their pets' sexual activities... or is it? Do they make canine chastity belts?

 

[Danoff]

No no no no NO! Animal cruelty is a crime and should be punished accordingly. In fact, animaly cruelty laws should be hardened to a point where the person has to suffer the same maltreatment that the animal has suffered under their care.

This would suggest that animal rights and human rights are on a level playing field - which they are not, because of the way rights are derived.

The question is whether animals (as opposed to humans) have rights, and if so, what rights do they have. While I think it's probable that many animals do have a limited set of rights, including the right not to be tortured, they do not have equal footing with human rights.

As long as these cats aren't intentionally put in extreme pain (ie: steps were taken to avoid pain - as is the case with neutering) there's no problem. Piercing is not torture.

 

[Flerbizky]

(And that’s totally aside from the fact that I think animal cruelty shouldn’t ever be a crime. Sometimes reprehensible, but not a crime.)

That's not a very likeable thing to say...

Invisible Minus reps for that one Sage :-/

 

[Diego440]

Truth is we could spend years arguing about what is and what is not cruel to an animal. Hell, I think even dressing dogs up is very questionable (I'm looking at you Cracker!).

But making animals feel pain for no other subject than personal amusement is the lowest form of entertainment. Piercing an animal is stupid, and I pretty much doubts it helps him/her. There are other surgeries aside from neutering which could also be considered helpful for the animal, yet are completely out o the question for some people. Removing cats' nails so they won't tear up teh fabric in people's homes or dogs' vocal chords so they won't bark or howl are examples.

 

[Scaff]

Strange that you can be prosecuted for piercing a cat, but not for tagging a cow or a pig in the ear, or piercing cattle through the nose... ...this is what I think Sage was getting at... oh, and the small matter of genital mutilation.

Whats with this whole mutilation thing? Its not as if people are neutering pets with a meat cleaver and a pair of garden sheers. A comparison between a procedure carried out by a trained vet and home piercing of an animal is not valid at all, two totally different things.

Piercing itself can be cruelty or not, depending on how it's done and whether it endangers the animal's life. I'm not familiar with the type of piercing done on the animals, but if done properly, it's probably less traumatizing than neutering. Neutering itself is not without risk, and doesn't add anything to the quality of life of the individual animal neutered, though it's probably a necessity, given some owners' inability to control their pets' sexual activities... or is it? Do they make canine chastity belts?

Not quite true, cats that give birth to multiple litters at a very young age can have a seriously shorter life span, male cats that have been neutered are less agressive and therefore less likely to get involved in fights with other cats (which can result in seriously unpleasent injuries) and are less likely to roam which in a built up area can result in an increased chance of being involved in an accident with a car.

Overal the benefits of spaying/neutering massively outway any risks involved.


Piercing a cat on the other hand has no advantages at all (simply being an extention of the owners vanity) and can pose risks. Let me ask have you ever had to put a medical corrar on a cat and seen it try and get it off? I'd hazard a good change that any form of piercing is going to get similar treatment, and a collar isn't attached physically to the cat.

A cat tearing a piercing out is going to cause injury, and thats without the chances of it getting snagged on branches, etc when its climbing or the risk piercings have of getting infected.

As long as these cats aren't intentionally put in extreme pain (ie: steps were taken to avoid pain - as is the case with neutering) there's no problem. Piercing is not torture.

No but the resulting risks of associated injury are so high as to make it (in my opinion) unacceptable.



Regards

Scaff

 

[Famine]

That's not a very likeable thing to say...

Invisible Minus reps for that one Sage :-/

Well... really, think about it for a minute.

First, Sage did say it can be considered reprehensible to injure animals deliberately...

Secondly, what is a crime? Why do we define things as "crimes"?

 

[Flerbizky]

Well... really, think about it for a minute.

First, Sage did say it can be considered reprehensible to injure animals deliberately...

Secondly, what is a crime? Why do we define things as "crimes"?

What's there to think about -

And that’s totally aside from the fact that I think animal cruelty shouldn’t ever be a crime.

Here in DK we had a case only a few weeks ago with some ****** up kids (16-21 I believe) pouring lighter fluid on a hamster - laughing, then lighting the poor thing on fire - Watching for a while, then killing it with a golf club..

And being stupid enough to record the session on video with a phone..

If the above should be a crime, .....

Think about it, really....

 

[Nicknamealguem]

Secondly, what is a crime? Why do we define things as "crimes"?

crime (krīm) n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

If someone finds that some act highly immoral (I find cruelty in animals has being immoral, unjust and senseless), I think it can be considerate a crime.

 

[Danoff]

If animals have a right not to be tortured - which I think is most-likely the case (I haven't spent much time thinking about it), then torturing animals should be a crime.

The just function of law is to protect rights. If animals have rights, the law should protect them.

I can't see cats having any rights except the right not to be tortured. I don't see cats having a right to life, or a right to liberty. I don't see cats having a right to government representation, or property. But a right against torture makes a lot of sense.

So the question remains whether piercings constitute torture - which I don't think is the case. If it's not done for the purpose of inflicting pain on the animal (ie: because you think hoops are pretty) and it's not done with complete disregard to any pain the animal might experience, I can't classify it as torture.

I still think it's irresponsible, but not torture - and so not justly protected.

If someone finds that some act highly immoral... I think it can be considerate a crime.

Some people find homosexuality highly immoral...

 

[Bram Turismo]

I too think animal cruelty is a crime. Three years ago I knew somebody who went out with his shotgun during his spare time to practice shooting on cats. I'm not joking, he literally said to me: "I like to hunt cats with my shotgun, I hate them so much that I can easily shoot multiple times at one". This in my eyes, is a pure inhumane act, and is a huge crime.

 

[Danoff]

I too think animal cruelty is a crime. Three years ago I knew somebody who went out with his shotgun during his spare time to practice shooting on cats. I'm not joking, he literally said to me: "I like to hunt cats with my shotgun, I hate them so much that I can easily shoot multiple times at one". This in my eyes, is a pure inhumane act, and is a huge crime.

Well... it's certainly a crime if those cats are the property of someone else.

 

[Famine]

What's there to think about -

Here in DK we had a case only a few weeks ago with some ****** up kids (16-21 I believe) pouring lighter fluid on a hamster - laughing, then lighting the poor thing on fire - Watching for a while, then killing it with a golf club..

And being stupid enough to record the session on video with a phone..

If the above should be a crime, .....

Think about it, really....

You see, in your haste to respond you missed the whole question.

The question wasn't "Is hurting animals really wrong? Illustrate with another example.". We get that you find it utterly disgusting and including Sage you probably won't find any disagreement.

The question was "What is a crime? Why do we define things as "crimes"?"

So... what is a "crime"? What's the actual point of having these things we call "crimes", and then having police and lawyers and courts and juries and prisons for people who perform them. Whither "crime", if you will?


I have an answer in my head, but I have spent a little time thinking about it. Don't knee-jerk respond with more examples of people being cruel to animals - think about the nature of why we, people, have "crime".

If someone finds that some act highly immoral (I find cruelty in animals has being immoral, unjust and senseless), I think it can be considerate a crime.

Many people see homosexual sex between consenting adults to be highly immoral. Does that make it a crime?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Well... it's certainly a crime if those cats are the property of someone else.

Our last cat was a beautiful animal, but on a day he just dissapeared for no reason. After 3 weeks he still had not returned and rumours start spreading that some spare time shooters shot him. "So, heard your cat got busted by a gun?" I once got asked... Well, what a nice way to start your day

 

[Flerbizky]

I can't see cats having any rights except the right not to be tortured. I don't see cats having a right to life, or a right to liberty. I don't see cats having a right to government representation, or property.

Cats in general have very little or no interest in said things apart from the liberty thing (I understand this as freedom) which they'll just take by leaving..

 

[Danoff]

Cats in general have very little or no interest in said things apart from the liberty thing (I understand this as freedom) which they'll just take by leaving..

If a cat has a right to liberty then it cannot be owned. You cannot put a collar on it, you can't put a leash on it, and you can't keep it in your house without expressed consent. Since the cat can't give it's consent - that doesn't even make sense. The reason we have a right to liberty is because we cannot be considered objectively superior to others - which means we cannot use force against them justifiably (unless in defense of our rights). On the otherhand, humans can be considered objectively superior to cats. We're superior in our ability to understand the implications, responsibilities, and importance of liberty. Cats are not able to do these things, and as such, they do not warrant a right to liberty.

I would argue that cats and humans are both similarly capable of understanding the implications, responsibilities, and importance of not being tortured.

 

[Pupik]

So we’re actively encouraged to chop up their private parts, but can’t put holes anywhere else? Wow, that makes perfect sense.

You do know they give cats and dogs quite a bit of anesthetic before neutering, right?

Those acts committed (docking tails, clipping ears, et cetera) without a form of anesthetic are usually committed by a fairly low form of life; ranging from low-brow gamblers to "high-brow" breeders.

 

[Der Alta]

So... what is a "crime"? What's the actual point of having these things we call "crimes", and then having police and lawyers and courts and juries and prisons for people who perform them. Whither "crime", if you will?

My definition of "crime" is: the Violation of the Laws of the Nation.

Do we have laws regarding Animal Cruelty, yes, are they vague? Yes. That's where Common Sense comes in.

Oh.. wait.. Common Sense has been lawyered to death.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A point not raised here is the line between animals raised as pets, for food or for sport.

It's animal cruelty to shoot a cat, but what about a rat?
It's cruel not to give a dog an anaesthetic when it's castrated, but what about a bull/bullock?

 

[Danoff]

A point not raised here is the line between animals raised as pets, for food or for sport.

I don't see a distinction on the basis of the purpose of the animal. I see a distinction based on the brain of the animal.

It's animal cruelty to shoot a cat, but what about a rat?

Neither is inherently cruel. Killing a cat is not against the law - people put their cats down all the time.

It's cruel not to give a dog an anaesthetic when it's castrated, but what about a bull/bullock?

I'm not sure either constitutes torture. But you can make an assessment based on the brain of the animal about whether it can even register torture. Fish, for example, I would argue can probably not be tortured.

 

[mafia_boy]

Many people see homosexual sex between consenting adults to be highly immoral. Does that make it a crime?

In some countries, yes it is most definitely a crime. Look at countries like Iran & Saudi Arabia, where if you're found to be gay, you're tortured for ages before being executed or (for guys) having your gonads chopped off!!

Here's some quotes about it from wiki:

LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual & transgender) rights in Iran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 have come under governmental persecution, with international human rights groups reporting public floggings and executions of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals.

Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under the country's theocratic Islamic government.[3] Any type of sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage is forbidden. Gay men are treated far more harshly under the law than lesbians, and some men undergo sex change operations—which the late Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini declared permissible in a fatwa—to avoid harsh penalties that include imprisonment and/or execution

I didn't want to comment on Sage's original comment as I wasn't going to go there with that (I could've been a lot worse than what HAS been said), hence the kitty pictures.

 

[Touring Mars]

Often when people refer to "animal rights", they apply what are actually human rights to animals in general. But "animals" (i.e. non-humans) do not have "rights" as we define them, since rights as we define/understand them can only truly apply to us. Animals may well deserve "rights" in their own right, but I don't believe that all animals can be or should be treated with total equality.

As such, despite my initial surprise at Sage's comments, I can understand why he (an incurable animal lover himself) would say such a thing - not because cruelty to animals is justifiable, but because "crime" itself is a concept founded upon our application of human rights, and not the "rights" of 'animals in general, including us'.

Acts of violence and cruelty against animals are abhorrent and awful, but this is not a reason to bestow an animal with the same rights as a human, simply for the purposes of enabling the perpetrator to be punished by another human.

That said, I don't think that acts of violence and cruelty against animals should go unpunished... the reason I think this is not because of the "rights of the animal", however, but because I think that acts of deliberate and pointless brutality by people against other people or animals deserves punishing.

 

[Famine]

My definition of "crime" is: the Violation of the Laws of the Nation.

That's "a crime". I'm referring more to the entire notion of "crime" - why do we have it. What purpose does it - and law - serve?

Often when people refer to "animal rights", they apply what are actually human rights to animals in general. But "animals" (i.e. non-humans) do not have "rights" as we define them, since rights as we define/understand them can only truly apply to us. Animals may well deserve "rights" in their own right, but I don't believe that all animals can be or should be treated with total equality.

As such, despite my initial surprise at Sage's comments, I can understand why he (an incurable animal lover himself) would say such a thing - not because cruelty to animals is justifiable, but because "crime" itself is a concept founded upon our application of human rights, and not the "rights" of 'animals in general, including us'.

Acts of violence and cruelty against animals are abhorrent and awful, but this is not a reason to bestow an animal with the same rights as a human, simply for the purposes of enabling the perpetrator to be punished by another human.

Nail. Head.

 

[Nicknamealguem]

Some people find homosexuality highly immoral...

It is my fault; I should have put it more clearly. The definition of crime is kind of open for interpretation. Some people find something to be considered a crime, while others not. Common sense comes to play here.

Many people see homosexual sex between consenting adults to be highly immoral. Does that make it a crime?

Like mafia boy stated, there are countries and people who consider homosexuality as a crime, while others not. I am not saying what one person says it is immoral it is instantly to be consider a crime (I know, I forgot the “to himself” in that statement), it is something subjective.

Animals may well deserve "rights" in their own right, but I don't believe that all animals can be or should be treated with total equality.

I agree with that statement. And lab mice comes to my mind in this.

 

[Famine]

it is something subjective.

Something criminal (I can see cases for civil, but we're not discussing that) law should never be.

 

[Stevisiov]

If a cat has a right to liberty then it cannot be owned. You cannot put a collar on it, you can't put a leash on it, and you can't keep it in your house without expressed consent. Since the cat can't give it's consent - that doesn't even make sense. The reason we have a right to liberty is because we cannot be considered objectively superior to others - which means we cannot use force against them justifiably (unless in defense of our rights). On the otherhand, humans can be considered objectively superior to cats. We're superior in our ability to understand the implications, responsibilities, and importance of liberty. Cats are not able to do these things, and as such, they do not warrant a right to liberty.

I don't disagree with your point on the whole, I just found this statement interesting. 'If animals cannot understand the implications, responsibilities and importance of liberty they don't warrant the right to liberty'

I take it this is not the only qualifying sentiment to who is and isn't entitled to liberty because under the same don't mentally undeveloped people fall exactly under the same bracket? Imay have misunderstood what you meant by this though.