Animal Abusers

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Do you have some evidence that non-roaming cats are messed up or are you posting from the previous century?

Uh oh, the repeated post, looks like I hit a nerve!

Go in, tell me, how big is the box you keep your cat in and how do you know this is fine by the cat? As a kitten, did it dream of the noise and fumes of traffic, sliding across laminate floors?

Edups

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Uh oh, the repeated post, looks like I hit a nerve!

Go in, tell me, how big is the box you keep your cat in and how do you know this is fine by the cat? As a kitten, did it dream of the noise and fumes of traffic, sliding across laminate floors?

Indeed we should release domestic animals into the jungle.. they'll get on well with the lions.

Edups

Edups wrote: »

Indeed we should release domestic animals into the jungle.. they'll get on well with the lions.

I live in a rural area. No jungle. No lions. Fields and woodland. And I believe wholly more suited to a cat then some apartment in suburbia. Not that the area has been well examined at all. Junkyard Tom repeatedly referred to the last century, but I believe the BBC documentary in conjunction with the British Veterinary Council was the first effort to study the roaming habits of cats using GPS, and that was within the past 3 or 4 years.

Edups

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I live in a rural area. No jungle. No lions. Fields and woodland. And I believe wholly more suited to a cat then some apartment in suburbia. Not that the area has been well examined at all. Junkyard Tom repeatedly referred to the last century, but I believe the BBC documentary in conjunction with the British Veterinary Council was the first effort to study the roaming habits of cats using GPS, and that was within the past 3 or 4 years.

If a cat is properly stimulated then I see nothing wrong with having them live inside.

Edups

Edups wrote: »

If a cat is properly stimulated then I see nothing wrong with having them live inside.

I think there is something inherently cruel in having an animal like a cat or dog in an apartment in an urban area. It's for the benefit of the owner, the animal lives on the owners terms, gets out of the box when the owner dictates, to pad on concrete roads and enjoy the passing traffic, from their exhaust pipe level vantage.

Far more pervasive and common place than violence against animals. But obviously downplayed, we tell ourselves it's fine and invent silly reasons to justify it - like the animals are safer. Well of course they are, and indeed the smaller and more controlled the space in which they are confined, the safer they are.

petrolcan

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There's something very very sinister in someone who's capable of inflicting harm on a defenceless, vulnerable creature.

<sinister mode>

Really? FFS!

</sinister mode>

petrolcan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Also, cats run away from trouble so cruelty to cats is particularly evil.

Not if you get them whilst they are young!

Uriel.

Noveight wrote: »

Prison sentence and a heavy fine to start, ban from keeping animals in more serious cases.

All cases of animal abuse are disgusting and the more sinister ones are absolutely horrendous, but they cannot be compared to the abuse of a human being.

Should be significant fines and the fines should be attached to social welfare payments (for those supposedly not earning) or other incomes; prison sentence for more serious cases and named on a public register.

Winterlong

I caught a fox having a dump on my driveway this morning. Hurled abuse at the fecker as he ran away.
Lock me up.

petrolcan

Jolie Mealy Tomahawk wrote: »

I think it's the set of animal cruelty, fire-starting and bed-wetting - when all three are present - that a weirdly high number of serial killers exhibited in early life. Bed-wetting always seemed like the third wheel there to me.

Well, I haven't killed anyone.

Rubberchikken

cant deal with aminal abusers. prison time and banned for life isn't good enough. humans are supposed to be at the top of the chain and they amount of new ways they dream up to inflict pain and misery on animals never fails to sadden me.

D3V!L

Rubberchikken wrote: »

cant deal with aminal abusers. prison time and banned for life isn't good enough. humans are supposed to be at the top of the chain and they amount of new ways they dream up to inflict pain and misery on animals never fails to sadden me.

We aren't at the top of the food chain. Polar bears are.

Rubberchikken

Rubberchikken wrote: »

cant deal with aminal abusers. prison time and banned for life isn't good enough. humans are supposed to be at the top of the chain and they amount of new ways they dream up to inflict pain and misery on animals never fails to sadden me.

Hard to beat the cruelty of fishing, if we dragged cute mammals through water by hooking their mouths there would be outcry.

dodderangler

Are people just insane. Putting animal cruelty in the same category as human murder, rape etc is dumb as fcuk.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say most here are vegans??

Pac1Man

dodderangler wrote: »

Are people just insane. Putting animal cruelty in the same category as human murder, rape etc is dumb as fcuk.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say most here are vegans??

You only believe that because you are human. Look at it objectively.

LexieOnRale

LexieOnRale wrote: »

This topic makes me very very sad. I think it should be treated as severely as paedophilia or abuse of an elderly person. There should be a register to be placed on to alert authorities you're a danger, and an appropriate prison term. It goes without saying if you're on the register, you should never own so much as a goldfish ever again.

There's something very very sinister in someone who's capable of inflicting harm on a defenceless, vulnerable creature.

Similarly, I think we should begin farming the elderly for meat.

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

You only believe that because you are human. Look at it objectively.

Um...what does that mean?

How is the matter objectively assessed at all? Is there some formula for assessing what is more cruel, rape or kicking a dog?

What is the objective view?

pragmatic1

Definitely should be monitored. It's a hallmark of psychopathy apparently.

osarusan

Sorry, but honestly, I thought that goat had consented.

Pac1Man

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um...what does that mean?

How is the matter objectively assessed at all? Is there some formula for assessing what is more cruel, rape or kicking a dog?

What is the objective view?

Not surprisingly you used examples from different ends of the spectrum.

Take it like for like. Torturing an animal (dog, cat, horse whatever) and torturing a human.

Both as bad as each other and both worthy of the same punishment in my opinion.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Meh. I care about my dogs more than 99 percent of people. I would consider it very comparable.

Animal cruelty is very bad and very few people will say otherwise, but what also concerns me is having somebody with your logic imposing rules and regulations on the rest of society. That scares the shít out of me.

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

Take it like for like. Torturing an animal (dog, cat, horse whatever) and torturing a human.

Both as bad as each other and both worthy of the same punishment in my opinion.

I think that is just...bizarre.

When the fisherman gets life for each fish, would you have him serve them consecutively or concurrently?

Pac1Man

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think that is just...bizarre.

When the fisherman gets life for each fish, would you have him serve them consecutively or concurrently?

Another ridiculous comparison.

I eat meat. I have no issues with fishing, the farming of livestock for food (except chickens), hunting for food etc.

I do have an issue with animal cruelty. There is a difference there as much as you can't see it.

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

Another ridiculous comparison.

I eat meat. I have no issues with fishing, the farming of livestock for food (except chickens), hunting for food etc.

I do have an issue with animal cruelty. There is a difference there as much as you can't see it.

You have no issues with fishing?

I see your objectivity has just gone sailing out the window!

So would you allow a dog be dragged in a river by a hook through its mouth? Why a fish? You do "take like for like", that is your philosophy. Or is it the cute animals you like? Just the furry mammals?

Ragnar Lothbrok

dodderangler wrote: »

Are people just insane. Putting animal cruelty in the same category as human murder, rape etc is dumb as fcuk.

I'm not going to say animal cruelty is as bad as human murder, rape, etc. However, imagine yourself living next door to a person who tortures animals for fun. Would you feel comfortable with that?

The question asked originally was what form of punishment (if any) people would like to see given to those guilty of animal cruelty - not whether cruelty to animals is equal or worse than cruelty to humans.

dodderangler wrote: »

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say most here are vegans??

Not sure how you reached that conclusion. You don't have to be a vegan to feel repulsed by animal cruelty. I would say that most ordinary, decent people are sickened by acts of cruelty to animals, regardless of whether they eat meat or not.

Personally, I'm vegetarian (NOT vegan) and I have no problem with people who choose to eat meat, but I would have a huge problem with anyone who is deliberately cruel to an animal.

Pac1Man

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have no issues with fishing?

I see your objectivity has just gone sailing out the window!

So would you allow a dog be dragged in a river by a hook through its mouth? Why a fish? You do "take like for like", that is your philosophy. Or is it the cute animals you like? Just the furry mammals?

I have no issue with the killing of animals for commercial use. Fish die from asphyxiation (they're mostly caught in nets by the way). Cows die from getting a piston fired through their skull.

I have no issue with either of those methods. I have got an issue with animal cruelty.

whisky_galore

Going down the vegan vs omnivore rabbit-hole.
This always ends well.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not going to say animal cruelty is as bad as human murder, rape, etc. However, imagine yourself living next door to a person who tortures animals for fun.

Lived next to farmers. They'd drown pups, beat cattle to get them into trailers, catch rats on glue boards, shoot foxes, crush testicles on young bulls etc.

Now it was all cruel, none of it was done for fun. It was done for expedience usually. It certainly wasn't socially useful, it wasn't directly necessary for food production etc. But there was a recognition of an order, they are just animals. That is not to say they should be treated cruelly for fun...but let's not equate the life of a human with the life of a rabbit.

pilly

Jolie Mealy Tomahawk wrote: »

It is kind of funny the knots and tears people work themselves up into over the thoughts of someone kicking a dog when the majority of these people eat dead animals for the sake of convenience and pleasure on a daily basis. "My dogs are the same as people and anyone who hurts a dog should be shot. Chickens and cows and pigs is fine though coz I really like eating them"

Not a fair comparison, just because you enjoy meat doesn't mean you would condone a cow, pig or chicken being tortured or kicked around?

AudreyHepburn

Imprisonment and being added to list as well as never being allowed anywhere near animals again would be my punishments.