Kitten stabbed to death in drunken attack

Red Alert

It's absolutely sick. Someone who does that has the intent to kill and should be locked up.

Dudess

Mairt wrote: »

Well said.

Reading that sent a shiver through me, pity more here couldn't be as sensitive and understanding.

I've kinda detached myself from the story because to be honest, thinking about it in any detail would upset me too much. I used to get bothered by such stories but now I just tune out.

drunkmonkey

Red Alert wrote: »

It's absolutely sick. Someone who does that has the intent to kill and should be locked up.

that's a bit harsh, you could say the same about any meat eater, it's the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest (cat's are aware of this a lot more than we are), we all posesse the ability to kill, it's built into us.....our western society dictates we cuddle cats, not every country or people share the same view....

stovelid

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I wonder if any here who profess such outrage at this incident that they want this guy's head actually give a shít about global poverty, sweatshops, child labour etc.

Seriously, horrific as this incident was, it's just a cat.... You probably passively support much worse crimes on a day to day basis but don't care because it hasn't been sensationalised like this.

I understand perfectly that global warming or genocide is more important than a cat. I don't have to compare any of the acts to know that they are all wrong.

I'm not proffering an opinion on the value of human life or about sweatshops, although I can if you want.

I'm proffering one about the story to hand - a sick fcuk that tortured and killed an innocent animal. It's not any less wrong because it's less serious than famine and war.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

that's a bit harsh, you could say the same about any meat eater, it's the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest (cat's are aware of this a lot more than we are), we all posesse the ability to kill, it's built into us.....our western society dictates we cuddle cats, not every country or people share the same view....

You fail at trolling.

reggiethefirst

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I wonder if any here who profess such outrage at this incident that they want this guy's head actually give a shít about global poverty, sweatshops, child labour etc.

Seriously, horrific as this incident was, it's just a cat.... You probably passively support much worse crimes on a day to day basis but don't care because it hasn't been sensationalised like this.

Here here, by buying nike runners you are supporting and increasing demand for child labour. By supporting companies such as this you are subjecting children to horrific conditions in sweatshops. Any yet people here feel more strongly about than innocent child. Look at the bigger picture.

JC 2K3

stovelid wrote: »

I understand perfectly that global warming or genocide is more important than a cat. I don't have to compare any of the acts to know that they are all wrong.

I'm not proffering an opinion on the value of human life or about sweatshops, although I can if you want.

I'm proffering one about the story to hand - a sick fcuk that tortured and killed an innocent animal. It's not any less wrong because it's less serious than famine and war.

*shrug

I just find it kind of ironic that someone would get so incensed over this and yet be indifferent to and often passively supporting much worse atrocities.

Suffice to say: Sensationalism Works.

stovelid

reggiethefirst wrote: »

Here here, by buying nike runners you are supporting and increasing demand for child labour. By supporting companies such as this you are subjecting children to horrific conditions in sweatshops. Any yet people here feel more strongly about than innocent child. Look at the bigger picture.

By your own admission then, your life is completely free of this kind of compromise? Given that you care so much about the big picture.

I'd be interested in hearing about how no part of your life (in a developed country) involves third-party exploitation of some sort?

Dragan

Mairt wrote: »

I realise this is After Hours and a lot of things are said 'tongue in cheek', but I've modified by opinions of more than one person here based on their behaviour in this thread and what they're willing to post up.

Cats in sacks, and hitting them over the head with bricks etc.. I've a cat, I've also two dogs - all three are treated as family members, we put equal value on all their lives.

And that said, if ANYONE wanted to come here and try harm one of my dogs or my cat I'd quickly put a value on that person's life far below that of my pets and I'd exact very heavy punishment on the idiot.

So the killing of a cat made the national headlines!.. Wow, last week it was Kerry Kitona's tit's in The Star - slow news days happen, don't buy the god damn papers if you feel strongly enough.

+1

Then again i tend to agree with Mairt a lot.

reggiethefirst

stovelid wrote: »

By your own admission then, your life is completely free of this kind of compromise? Given that you care so much about the big picture.

I'd be interested in hearing about how no part of your life (in a developed country) involves third-party exploitation of some sort?

Obviously not, that would be nigh on impossible unless I live in a shack in the middle of nowhere, growing my own food, making my own clothes. But I try to minimise my impact and care much more about exploiting developing countries for our benefit than I do about a kitten in limerick.

Jumpy

Degsy wrote: »

The article also says that those responsible could do it to a young child next..ffs..idiocy.
I wonder when the name "fifi" was dubbed on this much-loved family pet..probably during the course of the interview.
The idea that the killing of a poxy cat should make the news ever,is laughable,especially when there's plenty of human suffering to go around.

He was carrying a knife.
He had the emotional withdrawal to use it to kill a creature that was no threat.
You have made it clear in your post that you dislike cats, a lot of people do, but would you kill one knowing that someone may be emotionally attached to it? I very much doubt it.
It is worth thinking of the state of the persons mind at the time that would have done this.
He/she was probably very angry, either drugged or incredibly drunk. Most likely not thinking in a real world sense. I doubt they would have thought this was entertaining, more of an outburst. This person was not of the mental state that most people would consider 'normal'.

Do I think that this person could have used the deliberately carried knife on another human being that they crossed paths with at this stage.

Yes I do.

If this report was on a brutally stabbed donkey I would think the exact same thing. The rage was enough to use an illegally carried, lethal weapon on a living creature that standard society would consider as harmless and does not cross over into any form of disgust (ie rats, mice, spiders, snakes).

This person would scare me.

drunkmonkey

Jumpy wrote: »

He was carrying a knife.

That's a very good point and is the most concerning point of the whole incident. There seems to be a serious knife epidemic at the moment at somebody needs to get a handle on it....

Anyone know the law about carring a knife?, and where do they draw the line between knife for work & pleasure and a knife for intent to mame...?

Dudess

reggiethefirst wrote: »

Obviously not, that would be nigh on impossible unless I live in a shack in the middle of nowhere, growing my own food, making my own clothes. But I try to minimise my impact and care much more about exploiting developing countries for our benefit than I do about a kitten in limerick.

If I find this case very upsetting (which I do) it does not mean I consider it more serious than third world exploitation. I'm only looking at the case on its own merits, not comparing it to other scenarios. And on the face of it, this case is horrible.

reggiethefirst

Dudess wrote: »

If I find this case very upsetting (which I do) it does not mean I consider it more serious than third world exploitation. I'm only looking at the case on its own merits, not comparing it to other scenarios. And on the face of it, this case is horrible.

I agree it was a fairly horrific event, I just feel it does not merit this amount of attention, when there are so many other more horrific events every day.

Dudess

I also agree it doesn't warrant national news and such tabloidy language normally reserved for the death of a human... but I do think it warrants attention here - considering there are also threads on this forum about defecation

Dr P Bear

"Cowards die many times before their deaths,
The valiant never taste of death but once."

the_syco

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Am I a bad man to think this is hillarious?

The f**ker was drunk, it was in Limerick, and he knifed a kitten for the fun.

If he does for the fun, I wonder what he does to a kid when he's angry?

Call Me Jimmy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The article was written in a style that suggests strong emotional impact. The language used is almost identical to the sort that would be used in a case of murder or assault on a human. Am I far off the mark?

The reason why yourself and the OP think that this is funny is because you see a greater distance in value between a human and a kitten than many other posters here do. Hence the article seems farcical to you. Much as I might if the article were written about a house plant. However I see the value of a kitten's life, whilst being considerably less than that of a human, as not being insignificant enough to make the tone of the article "funny". I can see it as being over the top for the subject matter, but not the thigh slapper that apparently you see it as.

Jesus christ! It isn't exactly laugh out loud but it's the images the text conjurs up that are funny.

When the piece says stuff like "rushed to hospital" the image that first comes to mind is along the lines of paramedics coming, putting a neck brace on it and carefully mounting this tiny kitten onto a little kittycat-stretcher and into the back of an ambulance before it tears off down the road sirens blaring, cars pulling over to let it through and all sorts of fuss on arrival at the hospital.

Recognising something that surprises us is how pretty much all humour works. In this case, a kitten being in what most people think of as a human situation is humorous.

This bull**** about not seeing value in a kitten's life because of this is ridiculous... I actually can't believe you think like that.

EDIT: In fact it reminds of a part in the simpsons where a gerbel or something is rushed into the vet and he does the usual drama shouting "CLEAR" before he tries to revive it and when the machine shows it's dead he's like "god damnit!". Why do you think the writers thought that might be funny? You'll probably also say something stupid like "yea that was a cartoon though, you heartless psychopath!" but the images conjured up by the text are even less real then a cartoon.

andrew

I Love this thread.

Call Me Jimmy

me too...

EDIT: not sure if I'm allowed actually...

Jumpy

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

but the images conjured up by the text are even less real then a cartoon.

Not for everyone.

Most people focus on what it was about, not the the style in which it was written.

Anyone who has stated that they think the article is funny because of the way it is written. We get it. You dont need to try and defend yourselves. It sometimes means you write stuff that is unintentional and easily taken out of context and it just make yourselves look bad when someone does just that.

Half the people on the thread are stating what a horrible occurence it is, the other half are trying to put forward what the OP meant. These things are clashing and its causing all sorts of misunderstandings.

Anyone who stabs a kitten = screwed up
Anyone who laughs at someone stabbing a kitten = screwed up
Anyone who laughs at an article style which may have humourous wording, regardless of the content = not thinking of the reaction he/she might get from others by publically announcing it but not screwed up. Just not thinking ahead.

stovelid

reggiethefirst wrote: »

But I try to minimise my impact

I'm very proud of you.

reggiethefirst wrote: »

and care much more about exploiting developing countries for our benefit than I do about a kitten in limerick.

I care about developing countries. I care about the welfare of animals.

I don't usually feel that I have to choose which one I care about most. If I was told by an omnipotent power that I could cure either but not both, I'd opt for the humans, but so what?

As for it being front page news, it's the fcuking Indo. What exactly do you expect their leading stories to be? That's why I neither read (or care) what they write in that rag.

Call Me Jimmy

What exactly was your point then jumpy? I thought it went without saying that the guy who did it is a nutjob. Do you expect every poster to say "omfg this psycho must die" for them to prove they care about the kitten?

WindSock

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

When the piece says stuff like "rushed to hospital" the image that first comes to mind is along the lines of paramedics coming, putting a neck brace on it and carefully mounting this tiny kitten onto a little kittycat-stretcher and into the back of an ambulance before it tears off down the road sirens blaring, cars pulling over to let it through and all sorts of fuss on arrival at the hospital.

Not to mention the large heroic fireman administering mouth to mouth and CPR

I could see it in my head, him taking a large breath breathing into the kittens tiny mouth, inflating the whole animal, then with his large fingers, trying daintily to pump it's chest and a large caption underneath saying 'Real Man'

It's funny that we try to put a human face on an animal, I guess thats the only face we know.

localhothead

well , at least he got closer to a pussy than you'll ever get dude

m@cc@

They do say the psychopaths start out by attacking animals.

Clare Bear

Presume this fcuker will never be caught.

aidan24326

m@cc@ wrote: »

They do say the psychopaths start out by attacking animals.

Quite often they do. A guy who can do that to a kitten is probably quite capable of doing something similiar to a human. I find it sad that some people actually think this is funny.

nacho libre

Dudess wrote: »

But nobody (apart from a troll who doesn't count) said they thought what happened to the kitten was funny. Some people said they found the hysterical style of writing funny - there's a massive difference.

(to answer your earlier post)
I feel a person with the capacity to derive pleasure from torturing animals may do so with or without alcohol. The alcohol in this case likely acted as a disinhibitor. I think this guy is disturbed and drink is once again being used as a excuse to explain away his vile actions.

I get why this article is supposed to be funny. Those who find it amusing seem to do so because the kitten is an inferior being to us. The writing style suggests anthropomorphism on the part of the scribe therefore it's hilarious to them.
I believe we give rights to those who do not have the capacity to understand those rights and as such we should not inflict needless cruelty on them. I still fail to see the humour in a report that expresses outrage about this, but other do apparently because the tone of the article is too significant for a mere animal.

Dudess

localhothead wrote: »

well , at least he got closer to a pussy than you'll ever get dude

WindSock's a girl.

Jumpy

aidan24326 wrote: »

Quite often they do. A guy who can do that to a kitten is probably quite capable of doing something similiar to a human. I find it sad that some people actually think this is funny.

No one is finding it funny.

See my last post.

Dudess

nacho libre wrote: »

I feel a person with the capacity to derive pleasure from torturing animals may do so with or without alcohol. The alcohol in this case likely acted as a disinhibitor. I think this guy is disturbed and drink is once again being used as a excuse to explain away his vile actions.

Still though, there is nothing to suggest he would behave like that when sober. I'm not suggesting he's a pillar of society when sober or anything and I still hope the ****er gets punished. It's not certain that he derived pleasure from it either - maybe he was just looking for something or someone to lash out at, and sadly the kitten was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I believe we give rights to those who do not have the capacity to understand those rights and as such we should not inflict needless cruelty on them.

Of course - so do I.

I still fail to see the humour in a report that expresses outrage about this, but other do apparently because the tone of the article is too significant for a mere animal.

Well it's unprofessional reporting - emotion is not supposed to be injected into news reports. That's reserved for features and opinion/comment pieces. It's unprofessional language for similar stories about humans also - tacky, hysterical, tabloidy fodder by a newspaper that masquerades as a broadsheet. And it's cynical too - pitching it in such a manner will help sales greatly.
If it was a feature on animal cruelty then yes, a tone of disgust and anger and upset would be more appropriate. This piece though looks absolutely farcical. I'm disgusted by what happened to the kitten - as I said, I don't even want to think about it too much - but I don't think I'm belittling animal cruelty by recognising the silliness of that reporting style.
Also, I think it warrants some level of news coverage - animal cruelty is a very serious issue and should be highlighted - but an isolated incident is not worthy of a national news piece. A broader story on animal cruelty yes (e.g. the discovery of puppy farms) but not a story - however disgusting and heartbreaking - about a kitten.

Jumpy

Dudess wrote: »

WindSock's a girl.

Gah. Why did you not post that before I thanked him. Now I am on the owned list.

johnnyskeleton

An Fhile wrote: »

Back on topic. I actually agree with the OP. The same article made the front page of our local paper here. That is understandable because of local interest. The fact that a national paper chose to place it ahead of more far-reaching issues is just strange. To then use such a writing style when describing the incident is best categorised as funny in the sense of bizarre. I appreciate how hideous the crime was. I think we all do. What I don't appreciate is the sensationalist approach taken by the paper. Obviously they knew the story would attract great interest as pets are commonplace and usually loved dearly by their multitudinous owners. The story wasn't reported for its own sake, it was just used to increase sales and profits.

In a week where Fanny Mae and Freedy Mac were nationalised by the US government, Lehman brothers look set to crumble, CSO statistics have painted a very grim picture in Ireland, there were several murders (when the annual murder rate is less than 1 per week) and lots more besides, it is also possible that the Indo want to bury their heads in the sand.

johnnyskeleton

Xavi6 wrote: »

Similar story over here in the last day or so -

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKA945720080911



Animal cruelty is one of the most disgusting things. The animals are innocent, have done absolutely nothing wrong and are in most cases completely defenceless. I wish the kangaroo had of kicked the bollox out of your man.

If I saw anyone kick a dog or anything similar on the street I'd be straight over (and I have done in the past). And God help anyone that intentionally harmed an animal of mine.

I don't think it is a similar story at all, because as Dudess has said at least half a dozen times already, it's the style of the story and the utter ridiculousness of what happend that I find funny, not cruelty aspect.

For what it's worth, I quite like animals, cats included.

Call Me Jimmy

nacho libre wrote: »

Those who find it amusing seem to do so because the kitten is an inferior being to us.
I believe we give rights to those who do not have the capacity to understand those rights and as such we should not inflict needless cruelty on them. I still fail to see the humour in a report that expresses outrage about this, but other do apparently because the tone of the article is too significant for a mere animal.

ffs I don't cry about every sad thing I hear and just because one finds humour in the surprising nature of the article doesn't mean they think kittens are worthless/deserved it.

I mean, wtf are you guys smoking?

If someone was laughing at the thought of the guy ripping the kitten to pieces and slinging its lifeless corpse against a concrete wall then maybe you'd have a point but you'd have to tell me that you've never found anything funny that was in any way connected to somebody's suffering for you not to be a flaming hypocrite!

I didn't even laugh at it but I can see how it can be funny. I hate all this high-horse bull****.

WindSock

localhothead wrote: »

well , at least he got closer to a pussy than you'll ever get dude

Dudess wrote: »

WindSock's a girl.

Ha ha. Fail. :cool:

paddy316i

COH wrote: »

I thought it was pretty funny!

Check the other posts before you post Dudess . . .

Dudess wrote: »

Groan... nobody is saying what was done to the kitten and what the kitten suffered, is funny...