Lets put you in a lion cage and see how long you last. lol
Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 pm
Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 pm |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Over a CAT!!!!
| Yuki wrote: |
| Lets put you in a lion cage and see how long you last. lol |
EDIT: Moreover, you're not addressing the argument. You're just using ad hominems and red herrings. Again.
Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:28 pm |
|
|
Lady, I know what I do. And don't quote rape me. Nobody else than you is trying to "win" anything. Let people have their opinions.
Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:55 pm
Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:55 pm |
|
|
Who says I'm trying to "win" or "rape" anyone, or change anyone's opinion? I'm debating, the same as you are. I just disagree with all of you. Again, watch the ad hominems.
EDIT: I believe you were also the one to begin your own argument with, "If this was real life, I'd slap you." That's mature. I haven't been attacking anyone directly, either, for that matter.
Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:52 pm
EDIT: I believe you were also the one to begin your own argument with, "If this was real life, I'd slap you." That's mature. I haven't been attacking anyone directly, either, for that matter.
Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:52 pm |
|
|
Some humans deserve to be killed, and some drug dealers are good people.
But animals killers? What the hell did a cat ever do to deserve being slaughtered?
I think you're a true idiot. =/
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:48 am
But animals killers? What the hell did a cat ever do to deserve being slaughtered?
I think you're a true idiot. =/
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:48 am |
|
 |
|
| Laa wrote: |
| Some humans deserve to be killed, and some drug dealers are good people.
But animals killers? What the hell did a cat ever do to deserve being slaughtered? I think you're a true idiot. =/ |
Of course some humans deserve to be killed. Others don't. But hypothetically speaking, if a cat attacks you, do you have a right to kill it in self-defense? If you say no, I'm gonna have a lol attack. If you kill an animal for no reason, of course it should be dealt with. A fine or minimal jail time, depending on the severity of the case. But to treat it the same way as a human murder? That's just ridiculous.
And, how many times have I said that over the past ten odd pages? I really wonder how many people actually read people's arguments other than the first few sentences...
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:58 am |
|
|
Actually, I didn't read anything beyond the first two posts. And, I don't have to. I don't care that much.
Plus, I wasn't calling you an idiot. Until now. =/
If a cat freakin' attacks me I highly doubt it's doing it to kill me. It's either, a) protecting itself, or b) has rabies.
In either case, it's not the cat's fault. And no, I don't think anyone has the right to kill it besides a vet.
Not to mention, who cares if a cat attacks me? You think it's gonna hurt me? A little freakin' cat?
And no, I wouldn't 'kill' it in self-defense.
Now a mountain lion? Yes, yes I'd kill that. But it's twice my size and can actually hurt me.
You find me a murderous house cat, and I'll totally agree with you.
Until then, stop being so highly opinionated. I wasn't even talking to you.
And as an afternote, I do in fact believe people should go to jail for killing animals. And just as long as for killing humans. Do you know how serial killers get started? They most likely got kicks outta hurting animals when they were young. See a pattern?
Just because a cat can't talk doesn't mean people should get away with torturing or killing it.
That's simply ridiculous. In fact, you're a very cold-hearted self centered brat to think so.
Just my opinion.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:06 am
Plus, I wasn't calling you an idiot. Until now. =/
If a cat freakin' attacks me I highly doubt it's doing it to kill me. It's either, a) protecting itself, or b) has rabies.
In either case, it's not the cat's fault. And no, I don't think anyone has the right to kill it besides a vet.
Not to mention, who cares if a cat attacks me? You think it's gonna hurt me? A little freakin' cat?
And no, I wouldn't 'kill' it in self-defense.
Now a mountain lion? Yes, yes I'd kill that. But it's twice my size and can actually hurt me.
You find me a murderous house cat, and I'll totally agree with you.
Until then, stop being so highly opinionated. I wasn't even talking to you.
And as an afternote, I do in fact believe people should go to jail for killing animals. And just as long as for killing humans. Do you know how serial killers get started? They most likely got kicks outta hurting animals when they were young. See a pattern?
Just because a cat can't talk doesn't mean people should get away with torturing or killing it.
That's simply ridiculous. In fact, you're a very cold-hearted self centered brat to think so.
Just my opinion.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:06 am |
|
|
|
You have a right to your opinion, as do I. So let's stop calling each other idiots and actually debate. If the comment wasn't directed at me, you should have either stated the name of the person it was directed at or quoted their post. Otherwise, it seems to some people like the comments are directed to the poster above. The conversation then flows much better.
But I digress. So if a rabid cat attacks me, I have no right to kill it? Right. Riiiight. Cause then I can get rabies, and then I can die, too. >.> The thing is, some people feel like it will hurt them. And it's not like you're given much time to think about it, either.
And yes, there is a pattern between animal killers and human killers. But arresting people assuming that they will do something is like guilty until proven innocent. They haven't hurt a human yet, so don't punish them for that until they actually, you know, do it. And either way, it doesn't address people who hunt wild animals for sport, especially the ones who don't even use the animals they kill for anything. Besides, jails are counter-productive. They're overpopulated and make people more violent than they were in the first place.
And I'm not saying it's okay to hurt or kill animals for fun. For the millionth time. It's just not as bad as killing a human, and should not be treated with the same severity in a court of law. I have my reasons to believe this, which I have previously stated: intelligence, ability to communicate through speech, ability to reason (which only primates can do), and we are the top of the food chain.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:30 pm
But I digress. So if a rabid cat attacks me, I have no right to kill it? Right. Riiiight. Cause then I can get rabies, and then I can die, too. >.> The thing is, some people feel like it will hurt them. And it's not like you're given much time to think about it, either.
And yes, there is a pattern between animal killers and human killers. But arresting people assuming that they will do something is like guilty until proven innocent. They haven't hurt a human yet, so don't punish them for that until they actually, you know, do it. And either way, it doesn't address people who hunt wild animals for sport, especially the ones who don't even use the animals they kill for anything. Besides, jails are counter-productive. They're overpopulated and make people more violent than they were in the first place.
And I'm not saying it's okay to hurt or kill animals for fun. For the millionth time. It's just not as bad as killing a human, and should not be treated with the same severity in a court of law. I have my reasons to believe this, which I have previously stated: intelligence, ability to communicate through speech, ability to reason (which only primates can do), and we are the top of the food chain.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:30 pm |
|
|
So, for arguments sake, a human who is deaf, dumb and mute doesn't have the same rights as a human who can. Because by that logic, they cannot communicate through speech nor reason.
Just because we cover most of the earths surface does not mean that we somehow hold the higher rights to everything else on the planet. I'm not saying that animal killers should be given the same sentences as human killers, but I still don't believe they should get off with a fine and/or minimal jail time. Attacking something as defenseless as a small cat, which we can say for arguments sake does not have rabies or else I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be domesticated, is still wrong and deserves punishment. Without some kind of reprimand for their actions, without that jail time that may or may not make them more violent, they'll see their actions as acceptable and would be more likely to move up the chain to humans.
I think the law is the way it is to prevent that likelihood based on the thousands of cases already in existence where this has been a true pattern of behavior from people who move from animal killing to human killing. Innocent until proven guilty be damned; most lawyers are aware that these cases are going to be judged on past cases, so they need to work for that accordingly. So we can argue hypothetically until we're blue in the face, about rabid cats and animals that deserved being killed, but until that animal can talk and say 'Hey, look, I deserved it', it can be assumed that they did not.
Hunting is a different topic altogether, however. I have been told it's illegal in most places to leave your game after you've killed it.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:00 pm
Just because we cover most of the earths surface does not mean that we somehow hold the higher rights to everything else on the planet. I'm not saying that animal killers should be given the same sentences as human killers, but I still don't believe they should get off with a fine and/or minimal jail time. Attacking something as defenseless as a small cat, which we can say for arguments sake does not have rabies or else I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be domesticated, is still wrong and deserves punishment. Without some kind of reprimand for their actions, without that jail time that may or may not make them more violent, they'll see their actions as acceptable and would be more likely to move up the chain to humans.
I think the law is the way it is to prevent that likelihood based on the thousands of cases already in existence where this has been a true pattern of behavior from people who move from animal killing to human killing. Innocent until proven guilty be damned; most lawyers are aware that these cases are going to be judged on past cases, so they need to work for that accordingly. So we can argue hypothetically until we're blue in the face, about rabid cats and animals that deserved being killed, but until that animal can talk and say 'Hey, look, I deserved it', it can be assumed that they did not.
Hunting is a different topic altogether, however. I have been told it's illegal in most places to leave your game after you've killed it.
Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:00 pm |
|
|
@ Scraps
Mkay, this is the definition of highly opinionated.
You cannot die from rabies. Well, you can, but only if you don't go get treatment. It which case, it's your fault if you die.
And, again, a freakin' little cat can hardly hurt me. It's not fair to kill it. That's not even self-defense. That's someone bigger and meaner taking advantage of a small and defensless animal.
Scenario. A cat attacks me. What's it gonna do? Scratch my neck to death? Bite me on my finger?
Tell me how a cat can kill me. Honestly. I'm curious now.
And listen to Rai.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:47 am
Mkay, this is the definition of highly opinionated.
You cannot die from rabies. Well, you can, but only if you don't go get treatment. It which case, it's your fault if you die.
And, again, a freakin' little cat can hardly hurt me. It's not fair to kill it. That's not even self-defense. That's someone bigger and meaner taking advantage of a small and defensless animal.
Scenario. A cat attacks me. What's it gonna do? Scratch my neck to death? Bite me on my finger?
Tell me how a cat can kill me. Honestly. I'm curious now.
And listen to Rai.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:47 am |
|
|
|
It's not that the cat can actually kill you. But you're not given much time to think. If anything attacks me, I will react defensively. A cat can seriously hurt you if it goes for your face. And if you're wearing glasses, it can shatter the glass and blind you. If you're allergic, it can hurt you internally, too. Sometimes treatment isn't readily available, either. Admittedly, a cat can't seriously hurt you. But I will react defensively if attacked by anything. End of story. That defensive action will probably not end in the death of the cat, but if it was a more dangerous animal, of course I'd try to kill it.
And PLEASE stop with the ad hominems. I suggest you look up what that means.
EDIT: And as for the deaf, dumb, and blind kid, though education and therapy, they have the capacity to learn. A cat doesn't.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:14 am
And PLEASE stop with the ad hominems. I suggest you look up what that means.
EDIT: And as for the deaf, dumb, and blind kid, though education and therapy, they have the capacity to learn. A cat doesn't.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:14 am |
|
|
Actually, I'll argue you there on the basis that animals learn; only what they need to in order to survive. My cat learned not to jump on my bed as he'd get a good swat on the backside. That's still learning, even if it's based on survival instinct.
And not all humans recover or are able to process information through the use of education and therapy. Those people who survive on machines and are basically vegetables are still humans, they just lack the capacity and capability to learn.
And I'm missing the ad hominems you're mentioning frequently. Sure, your argument may be trivialized, but by no means is she attacking you and not your argument this time around. She's simply seeking clarification for some of the things you're mentioning, such as the need to kill a cat if it attacks you. I think maybe we all need a better clarification of the term before it's thrown around so loosely as it applies in many manners.
If you want to get into the pettiness of what a cat can and cannot do, should you attack a child if he leans in on your face and smashes your glasses, shattering the glass into your eyes? Should that give you right to hurt them just because of an accident? I doubt a cat would honestly understand the nature of their actions if they were to attack your face and break your glasses. It's not premeditated. They are akin to a child in that they don't understand the true nature of their actions. If they go for your face, you either pissed them off or they're attempting to play.
Also, I believe a lot of the topics that have arisen about animal cruelty haven't been based on the fact that the owner/person in question was attacked by the animal. I think if anyone killed a dog that had them by the arm and was about to tear them limb for limb, they'd be heralded a hero. However, in these cases, the courts understand the need for the killing. Killing a cat just to get revenge at the owner and instill fear? Killing a cat out of spite because it pissed in your shoe? (Hypothetical argument.) There aren't a reasonable amount of things that a domesticated pet could do that would warrant being killed or tortured.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:59 am
And not all humans recover or are able to process information through the use of education and therapy. Those people who survive on machines and are basically vegetables are still humans, they just lack the capacity and capability to learn.
And I'm missing the ad hominems you're mentioning frequently. Sure, your argument may be trivialized, but by no means is she attacking you and not your argument this time around. She's simply seeking clarification for some of the things you're mentioning, such as the need to kill a cat if it attacks you. I think maybe we all need a better clarification of the term before it's thrown around so loosely as it applies in many manners.
If you want to get into the pettiness of what a cat can and cannot do, should you attack a child if he leans in on your face and smashes your glasses, shattering the glass into your eyes? Should that give you right to hurt them just because of an accident? I doubt a cat would honestly understand the nature of their actions if they were to attack your face and break your glasses. It's not premeditated. They are akin to a child in that they don't understand the true nature of their actions. If they go for your face, you either pissed them off or they're attempting to play.
Also, I believe a lot of the topics that have arisen about animal cruelty haven't been based on the fact that the owner/person in question was attacked by the animal. I think if anyone killed a dog that had them by the arm and was about to tear them limb for limb, they'd be heralded a hero. However, in these cases, the courts understand the need for the killing. Killing a cat just to get revenge at the owner and instill fear? Killing a cat out of spite because it pissed in your shoe? (Hypothetical argument.) There aren't a reasonable amount of things that a domesticated pet could do that would warrant being killed or tortured.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:59 am |
|
|
Ok first off i really depends on the situation, and no im not saying i believe in killing or hurting an animal for entertaionment or what ever, i have cats and if i saw a person beating on a kitty there going to be in for the beating of their life.but with that said, lets say im driving and i hit a cat, should i get punished... no...period, but on the flip side did this guy torture the cat or hurt it for no reason cause then a heavy fine or a light sentence like a summary conviction (up to 6 months in jail and/or a $2000 dollar fine) would be fine by me, and maybe depending on the age of the person some medical help, cause as it was said before cruelty to animals is one symtom of the beginings of a serial killer.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:52 am
Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:52 am |
|
|
| Scraps of Former Sanity wrote: |
| Nevaeh: You missed my point completely. I never said it was okay to kill either a human or an animal. But killing a human is (quite obviously) worse, and they should not be treated the same way in a court of law. |
And why is it 'quite obviously worse'? I see no proof of this.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:50 am |
|
|
| Nevaeh wrote: | ||
And why is it 'quite obviously worse'? I see no proof of this. |
RaiRai: What are her ad hominems? Try "highly opinionated" and "idiot" to start off with. Why is it that just because I disagree with everyone that I'm opinionated? Laa, I'm not going to agree with you just because you attack me. Get over it.
If a kid hurts me by accident, that's different from a cat purposefully attacking my face. Either way, I will defensively react. Hell, it goes against the very nature of being an animal of any kind not to react defensively. It's in my brain to do so. I'm not just going to sit there and take it if anything attacks me. I'd probably just punch them to get them away from me, assuming I got hurt beforehand. If the cat's playing, it's different, but reacting defensively is a reflex. It's an inherent, defensive reaction. Again, you are not given much time to think when it comes to defending yourself. Other animals seem to have the same problem, just worse.
Yes, animal cruelty is usually unprovoked. I'm against that. But defending yourself against an animal? That's not cruelty. That's just self-defense.
But getting back to the dumb and mute kid, again, they can still learn. Humans have an amazing learning capacity. They can communicate through sign language. On Wikipedia, I looked up dumbness, and it redirected me to speech impediments. People with speech impediments can learn, too. One of the smartest people I know has a speech impediment. If by that you mean retarded, they can still learn, as well. Vegetables can't, but if there's hope for them to come out of that state, then they'll be able to do it again someday. If there's no chance at all for recovery, I think they should just be euthanized if their loved ones consent.
Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
A place to hang out and make some friends...
Create your own avatar and customize him or her with your choice of clothes, hair styles and other items.
To buy clothes you need to earn Gold by participating in the forums and playing games.
