Eating Cats - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-17-2012, 11:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
A man was charged with a misdemeanor for eating stray cats. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/l...139333093.html

What do you think?

To me, it seems like in their quest to punish this man for eating "wild" cats, law enforcement is actually doing more harm than good. I know that in my locality, feral cats are collected, by the animal control department, particularly around industrial parks, where they viewed as creating a nuisance. Homeowners also bring in nuisance feral cats, to the animal shelter. Almost all the cats that are brought in, or collected, are killed within a day or 2, and very few, maybe 1 out of 100, are adopted. It is very very hard to make pets out of these cats. Requires intensive training, and it doesn't always work. Sure they are the same species as pet cats, but they aren't actually pets, or even capable of being pets, under normal circumstances. Seems to me that he was eating cats that were likely to be picked up by the local animal control organization, or brought in to the shelter by homeowners, and euthanized at the shelter. There weren't any reports of missing pets. He wasn't depriving anyone of their pet. For every cat he ate, I'd guess that's roughly equal to about 2 less chickens that needed to be killed, to feed him. By his eating cats, instead of someone else "cooking" them without eating them (that is, cremating them), the net result is less animals are killed. Why is this man being punished, for something that workers at the animal shelter do with impunity? The only difference is that instead of allowing their bodies to go to waste, and pollute the air, he derived nutrition from them. Seems to me he should be applauded for this, instead of punished.
soilman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-17-2012, 11:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Idhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 722
I blame ATMs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yYEX9dV34I
Idhan is offline  
#3 Old 02-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vMaryv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 585
i wouldn't applaud anyone for killing animals for food. That said, meat eaters should ask themselves why is it acceptable for a cow/chicken/pig to be killed for food and not a cat?

Article goes on to say that a woman witnessed the man skinning a cat alive. If that's true, then we REALLY shouldn't be applauding.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the blog I write. It's mostly about food. Some healthy. Some junky. All vegan.

vMaryv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-17-2012, 12:37 PM
Ankle Biter
 
Poppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Central Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,333
I do not understand how anyone could skin any animal alive. It's so completely sickening.

This story just has so many horrible aspects to it. I'm just grateful I don't live anywhere near this man.

It is our choices that show what we truly are far more than our abilities. ~A. Dumbledore
Poppy is offline  
#5 Old 02-17-2012, 01:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
If the skinning alive thing is true, that's horrible.
das_nut is offline  
#6 Old 02-17-2012, 01:26 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppy View Post

I do not understand how anyone could skin any animal alive. It's so completely sickening.

I agree. It's horrifying to imagine such wanton cruelty.

My local animal rescue centre works to reduce the feral cat population by capturing the cats and spaying/ neutering them.
Pixie is offline  
#7 Old 02-17-2012, 02:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Envy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idhan View Post

I blame ATMs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yYEX9dV34I

You know that you are a veg**n when you felt relief that the woman got shot rather than the cat.

"Hell exists not to punish sinners, but to ensure that nobody sins in the first place."
Envy is offline  
#8 Old 02-17-2012, 03:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kazyeeqen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Envy View Post

You know that you are a veg**n when you felt relief that the woman got shot rather than the cat.



I'd be willing to bet most people who watched that felt that way. Which is totally weird.
kazyeeqen is offline  
#9 Old 02-17-2012, 04:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
fadeaway1289's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppy View Post

I do not understand how anyone could skin any animal alive. It's so completely sickening.

This story just has so many horrible aspects to it. I'm just grateful I don't live anywhere near this man.

Agreed. This story is horrible and disturbing. He should be locked up and the charge should be more than a misdeamenor.

And where in the article did it state that cats were the only food he was eating?
fadeaway1289 is offline  
#10 Old 02-17-2012, 04:55 PM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,955
When we allow animals we recognize as our companions to be killed and eaten as food we'll know there is no hope at all.
This man is a sick individual, not a hungry or needy person who succumbed to the last resort.
Do you really feel the message of Why eat one and not the other? should say to people "why not eat the cats and dogs as well?" instead of getting them to think "why eat any?"

This is about animal abuse, not diet.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is offline  
#11 Old 02-17-2012, 05:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by silva View Post

When we allow animals we recognize as our companions to be killed and eaten as food we'll know there is no hope at all.
This man is a sick individual, not a hungry or needy person who succumbed to the last resort.
Do you really feel the message of Why eat one and not the other? should say to people "why not eat the cats and dogs as well?" instead of getting them to think "why eat any?"

This is about animal abuse, not diet.

I'd be willing to bet the guy is mentally ill... so yes he is a sick individual.
Forster is offline  
#12 Old 02-17-2012, 06:14 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyeeqen View Post



I'd be willing to bet most people who watched that felt that way [relief that the man shot the woman instead of the cat]. Which is totally weird.

Absolutely not. Mentally well people do not feel relief when a human is killed instead of a non-human animal. They feel alarmed. Someone who feels relief that the human was shot is mentally abnormal, a sociopath. It is especially evil to feel this way about a human who was trying to protect the cat. I'm sorry, but that is really really sick, beyond my comprehension.

Anyone who felt relief, the way you feel relief, would feel relief if you were shot, instead of the cat.

Envy
Quote:
You know that you are a veg**n when you felt relief that the woman got shot rather than the cat.

You know that there is something seriously wrong with you, if you feel relief that the woman got shot rather than the cat.
soilman is offline  
#13 Old 02-17-2012, 08:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
This is more than just someone eating a cat vs a chicken - he was skinning a cat alive, and another neighbor heard a cat crying in distress. How is he killing them? Obviously not in any sort of humane manner. He's also facing two separate, previous charges of animal abuse. He seems like a sick person who clearly has no regard for the suffering of animals. I think he SHOULD be punished. There are alternatives to euthanizing strays as well - my nana used to walk to the park near her house in the outskirts of Boston twice a day, for years, to feed a colony of strays that lived there. She captured every adult and had them altered, and captured the kittens and found them homes. The feral adults that were too wild to be house pets she re-released into the park and continued to feed them until they passed away. If they were injured or sick, she captured them (if possible) and brought them to the vet, then released them again. Was it ideal? Of course not. Was it better than stuffing them in a chamber and gassing them to death? Definitely. They were allowed to live out their lives without creating more generations of strays, and were fed twice a day. Over time many of them would even let my nana pet them (no one else, though). Obviously this is a small-scale solution that requires someone devoted to caring for the cats, but I can't help but feel that "gas them to death" or "let people kill and barbecue them" should NOT be the only two choices.

My heart breaks for those poor kitties that he killed - the thought of him skinning a cat (or any living thing) alive makes me literally sick to my stomach. Anyone capable of doing something that cruel and heartless is someone we should be concerned about - animal abuse is part of the Macdonald Triad of homicidal risk factors, along with setting fires and bed-wetting past age ten.

Poor kitties. I need to go cuddle the bejeezus out of my kitties now. Luckily Chloe is already curled up in my lap for easy access, and Lentil thinks she's a dog so she'll come over if I whistle.
RedLotus is offline  
#14 Old 02-17-2012, 08:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Absolutely not. Mentally well people do not feel relief when a human is killed instead of a non-human animal. They feel alarmed. Someone who feels relief that the human was shot is mentally abnormal, a sociopath. It is especially evil to feel this way about a human who was trying to protect the cat. I'm sorry, but that is really really sick, beyond my comprehension.

Anyone who felt relief, the way you feel relief, would feel relief if you were shot, instead of the cat.

Envy

You know that there is something seriously wrong with you, if you feel relief that the woman got shot rather than the cat.

I think that's an over-reaction. That is fiction, not reality - I doubt that anyone where would actually be relieved that a person was shot. My whole life me and my sister have always been the ones shouting "don't shoot the horses!" during civil war movie scenes, etc. I think of animals much like I do children - totally at our mercy, helpless, unable to defend themselves, and essentially innocent. Violence against something or someone who is totally helpless and innocent is far more disturbing, to me (and a lot of people, I think) than violence against an adult or someone capable of defending themselves. That's not to say that I'm not still greatly disturbed by violence against adults, it's just that I have a stronger, instinctual reaction to violence against a totally helpless creature/person. I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a child in the face than I would to see someone punch a man in the face, and I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a dog then I would to see someone punch an adult human. That doesn't make me a sociopath or a bad person. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with me. It means that, to me, vulnerability and complete helplessness inherent in the extreme power differential between humans and animals (or adults and children) adds an extra element of horror and distress to a violent act.
RedLotus is offline  
#15 Old 02-17-2012, 10:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

A man was charged with a misdemeanor for eating stray cats. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/l...139333093.html

...

To me, it seems like in their quest to punish this man for eating "wild" cats, law enforcement is actually doing more harm than good.

Jesus Christ - did you even read the article you posted, like the part about skinning the animals alive? He deserves a lot more than a misdemeanor. How about a felony for animal torture.

Quote:
The only difference is that instead of allowing their bodies to go to waste, and pollute the air, he derived nutrition from them. Seems to me he should be applauded for this, instead of punished.

Uh, no, they don't skin animals alive at the animal shelter, they try to do it with some humanity. That's a big difference. Also, if a dead body isn't eaten by humans, it is not going to "waste" as though bodies only exist to nourish humans.

It's very outlying that you think he should be applauded for this.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#16 Old 02-17-2012, 10:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Shyvas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

I think that's an over-reaction. That is fiction, not reality - I doubt that anyone where would actually be relieved that a person was shot. My whole life me and my sister have always been the ones shouting "don't shoot the horses!" during civil war movie scenes, etc. I think of animals much like I do children - totally at our mercy, helpless, unable to defend themselves, and essentially innocent. Violence against something or someone who is totally helpless and innocent is far more disturbing, to me (and a lot of people, I think) than violence against an adult or someone capable of defending themselves. That's not to say that I'm not still greatly disturbed by violence against adults, it's just that I have a stronger, instinctual reaction to violence against a totally helpless creature/person. I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a child in the face than I would to see someone punch a man in the face, and I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a dog then I would to see someone punch an adult human. That doesn't make me a sociopath or a bad person. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with me. It means that, to me, vulnerability and complete helplessness inherent in the extreme power differential between humans and animals (or adults and children) adds an extra element of horror and distress to a violent act.

Many people can relate to the above. Animals are totally helpless and only a minority will defends their rights.

There must be something seriously wrong with the man and I hope that he's gets sent to prison for torture. However, I'm sure that he won't as prisons are already jam packed with bad people.
Shyvas is offline  
#17 Old 02-17-2012, 11:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Jesus Christ - did you even read the article you posted, like the part about skinning the animals alive? He deserves a lot more than a misdemeanor. How about a felony for animal torture.



Uh, no, they don't skin animals alive at the animal shelter, they try to do it with some humanity. That's a big difference. Also, if a dead body isn't eaten by humans, it is not going to "waste" as though bodies only exist to nourish humans.

It's very outlying that you think he should be applauded for this.

I agree. Regardless of what is done with a body once an animal is killed, you've still taken its life against its will. Eating it or not eating it does not change that. The fact that a human being was "nourished" by it does not somehow undo or lessen the fact that the animal lived in inhumane conditions or was killed. An animal's death is not "better" or less tragic because someone ate it. Would you feel less guilty for murdering a person, Soilman, just because you donated his organs to others? Do you think that would somehow lessen the fact that you murdered him or tortured him?

The manner in which he killed these poor creatures is also a serious component of the story. Are we even sure that the PURPOSE of killing them was for food, or was he eating them as an afterthought or part of some sick, twisted ritual aspect of torturing and killing them? I commented above on the McDonald Triad of homicidal risk factors, and re-reading the article I realized it says that this man was setting fires as well - that's two out of three risk factors confirmed. He's obviously a disturbed individual and could very well pose a real danger to humans in addition to the poor animals he's abusing and killing.

There is absolutely NOTHING about this story worth applauding except for law enforcement responding and charging him with animal cruelty.
RedLotus is offline  
#18 Old 02-17-2012, 11:31 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

This is more than just someone eating a cat vs a chicken - he was skinning a cat alive, and another neighbor heard a cat crying in distress. How is he killing them? Obviously not in any sort of humane manner.

He isn't being accused of, or punished for, an inhumane and illegal method of slaughter. He is being charged with a misdemeanor based on a law that says you aren't to use pet-animals as food animals. There are laws applying to how an animal must be killed, when being slaughtered. The animal must be stunned first, and exsanguinated rapidly. If there is something wrong with his method of killing then he should be punished for disobeying the law which specifies the method of killing an animal. But he is not being punished for failing to properly stun and exsanguinate. He is being punished for choosing a species to kill, that doesn't conform to the species that are allowed to be killed. This is the same speciesism that so many veg*n's so frequently decry. There is nothing to indicate he was never even accused, in court, of inhumane slaughter method. It is just something that the reporter was told by one of his neighbors, and told to him outside of court. Skinning alive and inhumane slaughter was not established as having taken place, according the legal standards of due process. It is just something that a reporter said that a neighbor told him, outside of court, where the person is not subject to being charged with perjury, if she or he is lying — and you want him to be punished based on that. The neigbor didn't even tell the reporter that he saw the cat being skinned alive. The neigbor told the reporter that a deputy told him, that another neighbor, said that. Thiis is hearsay that would not even be allowed in court. Rumor. Punishing someone based on rumor is not rule of law. That is not justice. That is mob vengeance based on rumors. I thinking you are foolishly acquiesing to allowing this person to be tried by the press. For all way know we are simply hearing the gossip of catty neigbors who didn't like the way the man combed his hair, or thought his lawn had too many weeds.
soilman is offline  
#19 Old 02-17-2012, 11:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,013
In California, Bakersfield is often referred to as the "westernmost suburb of Tulsa." Do people eat cats in Tulsa?
paperhanger is offline  
#20 Old 02-17-2012, 11:51 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

I think that's an over-reaction. That is fiction, not reality - I doubt that anyone where would actually be relieved that a person was shot. My whole life me and my sister have always been the ones shouting "don't shoot the horses!" during civil war movie scenes, etc. I think of animals much like I do children - totally at our mercy, helpless, unable to defend themselves, and essentially innocent. Violence against something or someone who is totally helpless and innocent is far more disturbing, to me (and a lot of people, I think) than violence against an adult or someone capable of defending themselves. That's not to say that I'm not still greatly disturbed by violence against adults, it's just that I have a stronger, instinctual reaction to violence against a totally helpless creature/person. I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a child in the face than I would to see someone punch a man in the face, and I would be far more disturbed to see someone punch a dog then I would to see someone punch an adult human. That doesn't make me a sociopath or a bad person. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with me. It means that, to me, vulnerability and complete helplessness inherent in the extreme power differential between humans and animals (or adults and children) adds an extra element of horror and distress to a violent act.

That's baloney. The man was armed. The woman was unarmed, and elderly. She was begging the man not to hurt the cat. The woman was quite vulnerable. Perhaps more so than the cat. A cat has greater skill and dexterity at locomotion, and at escaping, and as all cat owners know, at slipping out of someone's grasp, if it doen't want to be held anymore, and could hide out of sight easier. It has a better chance of avoiding a gunshot. And here we have elderly adult woman who approaches closer to the man, comes right up next to him in hopes of trying to talk him out of killing the cat, begging him not to shoot the cat, making herself an unavoidable target, and totally vulnerable, as vulnerable as conceivably possible. Baloney baloney baloney.
soilman is offline  
#21 Old 02-17-2012, 11:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Wolfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
The man should have shot himself, but the whole thing was kind of stupid anyway.
Wolfie is offline  
#22 Old 02-17-2012, 11:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shyvas View Post

Many people can relate to the above. Animals are totally helpless and only a minority will defends their rights.

There must be something seriously wrong with the man and I hope that he's gets sent to prison for torture. However, I'm sure that he won't as prisons are already jam packed with bad people.

You are creating confusion between the real man in the real trial, and the man in the fictictious screen play.
soilman is offline  
#23 Old 02-18-2012, 12:04 AM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

You are creating confusion between the real man in the real trial, and the man in the fictictious screen play.

Yes, those witnesses were lying. He tickled them to death, with a feather

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#24 Old 02-18-2012, 12:16 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Yes, those witnesses were lying. He tickled them to death, with a feather

what does your message have to do with the quote, where you quote me complaining about confusion between the man, in real life, being charged with eating pets, and the man in the fictional screenplay, threatening to shoot a cat and shooting a woman?

As far as the people talking about the man in real life who ate cats, there were no witnesses in the article. There was a neighbor speaking to a reporter, when the reporter shows up in the neighborhood. Doesn't matter whether the neigbor is lying or telling the truth. It is wrong to judge people on the basis of a what their neighbor says to a reporter. Especially if the neighbor did not even see anything himself, but is simply repeating what someone else said, that the someone else said he had heard from another neighbor. Shame on you. You are hearing something from a reporter, who heard it from a neighbor, outside of court, who heard it from someone else, who heard it from someone else.
soilman is offline  
#25 Old 02-18-2012, 12:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

He is being punished for choosing a species to kill, that doesn't conform to the species that are allowed to be killed. This is the same speciesism that so many veg*n's so frequently decry.

Sure - that's what those 'why pet one and eat the other' ads are about - but the difference between most vegans and you is that if an animal gets taken off that list of animals who can be tortured and killed for food, most vegans are glad for it. We want to add all animals to that list. You seem to be arguing that he should be able to kill cats too, and it's some undesirable thing to protect these cats.

And I believe the neighbor over the cat killer who is obviously deeply troubled. I'm not sure why you really seem into defending him.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#26 Old 02-18-2012, 12:32 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

He isn't being accused of, or punished for, an inhumane and illegal method of slaughter. He is being charged with a misdemeanor based on a law that says you aren't to use pet-animals as food animals. There are laws applying to how an animal must be killed, when being slaughtered. The animal must be stunned first, and exsanguinated rapidly. If there is something wrong with his method of killing then he should be punished for disobeying the law which specifies the method of killing an animal. But he is not being punished for failing to properly stun and exsanguinate. He is being punished for choosing a species to kill, that doesn't conform to the species that are allowed to be killed. This is the same speciesism that so many veg*n's so frequently decry. There is nothing to indicate he was never even accused, in court, of inhumane slaughter method. It is just something that the reporter was told by one of his neighbors, and told to him outside of court. Skinning alive and inhumane slaughter was not established as having taken place, according the legal standards of due process. It is just something that a reporter said that a neighbor told him, outside of court, where the person is not subject to being charged with perjury, if she or he is lying — and you want him to be punished based on that. The neigbor didn't even tell the reporter that he saw the cat being skinned alive. The neigbor told the reporter that a deputy told him, that another neighbor, said that. Thiis is hearsay that would not even be allowed in court. Rumor. Punishing someone based on rumor is not rule of law. That is not justice. That is mob vengeance based on rumors. You are foolishly acquiesing to the idea of allowing people to be tried by the press. For all way know we are simply hearing the gossip of catty neigbors who didn't like the way the man combed his hair, or thought his lawn had too many weeds.

From the article:
Quote:
35-year-old Jason Wilmert was arrested on two charges. One count is animal cruelty.

It seems pretty reasonable to assume that the animal cruelty charge has to do with the killing of the cats, and/or the manner it was carried out. As for "species-ism", I would want someone who killed ANY animal in this manner to be punished for doing so, regardless of the species. Unfortunately, most species are not legally protected. That doesn't mean I'm not as morally appalled by someone skinning a chicken or a cow alive.

And until he's convicted in court of COURSE I don't think he should be punished. Did I say ANYTHING about wanting him strung up, or subjected to mob justice? No. To be honest, I half-skimmed the sentences on the brutal details like skinning the cat because I find such images to be nauseating and deeply upsetting. I'm a visual person, and when I read something like that my mind conjures up an image to go with it rather I want it to or not. So I admit that I didn't catch the fact that it was a third-hand account about the skinning. IF that is found to be true, however, then I stand by everything else I said.

Regardless, this man did not NEED to kill these cats and eat them. He chose to do it, to take a living creature and kill it with his own hands, and I find that disturbing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

That's baloney. The man was armed. The woman was unarmed, and elderly. She was begging the man not to hurt the cat. The woman was quite vulnerable. Perhaps more so than the cat. A cat has greater skill and dexterity at locomotion, and at escaping, and as all cat owners know, at slipping out of someone's grasp, if it doen't want to be held anymore, and could hide out of sight easier. It has a better chance of avoiding a gunshot. And here we have elderly adult woman who approaches closer to the man, comes right up next to him in hopes of trying to talk him out of killing the cat, begging him not to shoot the cat, making herself an unavoidable target, and totally vulnerable, as vulnerable as conceivably possible. Baloney baloney baloney.

I didn't watch the video, because I didn't want to see anything about animals or people being hurt or threatened. I was commenting generally on the issue of people not wanting to see animals hurt, and the reasons that people tend to respond so strongly to even fictional animal abuse. You accused others of being sociopaths for rooting for the cat in the video. I think THAT'S "baloney." I was speaking not about the specific video, but about the reaction that many of us have to animals and children being hurt. Regardless of whatever semantics you want to argue about a cat's dexterity, etc the fact remains that no matter how you argue it, in our society a cat has SIGNIFICANTLY less power and protection than a human. Period. A cat cannot kill a person. A person can very easily kill a cat. Cats do not have the rights that people do. They cannot speak to defend themselves or plead for their lives. They are physically much smaller and weaker. Legally, physically, and socially humans are FAR more powerful than cats.

Are you really saying that if you saw a fully grown man punch another fully grown man it would bother you JUST as much, or more, than seeing a fully grown man punch a cat? Because that was my point - that many people have very strong reactions to seeing animals be hurt due to the extreme power differential between humans and animals, and the inherent innocence of animals, and that does not make them bad people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Sure - that's what those 'why pet one and eat the other' ads are about - but the difference between most vegans and you is that if an animal gets taken off that list of animals who can be tortured and killed for food, most vegans are glad for it. We want to add all animals to that list. You seem to be arguing that he should be able to kill cats too, and it's some undesirable thing to protect these cats.

And I believe the neighbor over the cat killer who is obviously deeply troubled. I'm not sure why you really seem into defending him.

RedLotus is offline  
#27 Old 02-18-2012, 12:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Note that according ot the article the law says you are not allowed to eat pets, yet no-one said that the person being accused of eating pets, actually ate anyone's pet, rather, they are saying he ate "wild" cats. It really sounds like they are just trying to hurt this guy, by making up stories about him.

RedLotus writes "There is absolutely NOTHING about this story worth applauding except for law enforcement responding and charging him with animal cruelty."

The man was not charged with animal cruelty. Not in court. Only in the press. It is wrong to judge people based on gossip you read in the press.

He was charged based on a law that bans eating an animal commonly used as a pet. And feral cats are not used as pet. I'm not sure whether the law specifically says you can't eat an animal if it is the same species as an animal commonly used as a pet, or if it simply says you can't eat a kind of animal that is kept as a pet. Feral cats are the same species as animals kept as pets, but feral cats are not kept as pets. Whether he is breaking the law depends upon how clearly and specifically the law is written. I don't have the time to look up the law now. Note that the reporter didn't bother to put a quote from the law in his article, and may not have bothered to look it up, yet there seems to be some importance attached as to whether the man was eating feral cats or whether neighbors were reporting that their cats were missing (they were not).
soilman is offline  
#28 Old 02-18-2012, 12:52 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

feral cats are not kept as pets

Now that's not true. I and many others have had feral cats as pets. They may not be lap cats, but they can be pets.

My question for you is - is there any chance you have recently been charged with a misdemeanor?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#29 Old 02-18-2012, 01:03 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Alright, I missed the part that he was charged with two crimes, one for eating the wrong animal, and one for animal cruelty. However there was nothing else in the article beyond the first sentence, about the animal cruelty charge. The rest of the article only referred to the wrong type of animal charge.

Remember that most of the people accusing the person, trying him, and gossiping about him, are not veg*ns. If the accused is to be treated fairly, in court, and by the general public, it makes sense to see this from the non-veg*n point of view, as well as from our own.
soilman is offline  
#30 Old 02-18-2012, 01:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Note that according ot the article the law says you are not allowed to eat pets, yet no-one said that the person being accused of eating pets, actually ate anyone's pet, rather, they are saying he ate "wild" cats. It really sounds like they are just trying to hurt this guy, by making up stories about him.

RedLotus writes "There is absolutely NOTHING about this story worth applauding except for law enforcement responding and charging him with animal cruelty."

The man was not charged with animal cruelty. Not in court. Only in the press. It is wrong to judge people based on gossip you read in the press.

He was charged based on a law that bans eating an animal commonly used as a pet. And feral cats are not used as pet. I'm not sure whether the law specifically says you can't eat an animal if it is the same species as an animal commonly used as a pet, or if it simply says you can't eat a kind of animal that is kept as a pet. Feral cats are the same species as animals kept as pets, but feral cats are not kept as pets. Whether he is breaking the law depends upon how clearly and specifically the law is written. I don't have the time to look up the law now. Note that the reporter didn't bother to put a quote from the law in his article, and may not have bothered to look it up, yet there seems to be some importance attached as to whether the man was eating feral cats or whether neighbors were reporting that their cats were missing (they were not).

For the second time, a direct quote from the article:
Quote:
35-year-old Jason Wilmert was arrested on two charges. One count is animal cruelty.

Also from the article:

Quote:
"It makes it against the law to use companion animals, or animals that are commonly kept as pets, for food," Yraceburn explained. "Plain and simple."

Did you read the article? You seem to be ignoring information that was blatantly clear in the article.

Also, I found another article on this matter here: http://www.turnto23.com/north_river_...70/detail.html

He plead no contest to eating the cats. No one is "making up stories" about him, he admits he did it, and in return they dropped the cruelty charge, which I think is a travesty. Also, this article says that one neighbor's cat DID go missing.

WARNING, DISTURBING DETAILS OF THE CAT KILLINGS BELOW:
In another article, it's revealed that the neighbor who called the police on this man did so because they witnessed him decapitating a cat. Deputies found the cat's head in the back yard where the neighbor said he'd done it, and the headless body in his kitchen sink. Several other neighbors reporting hearing cats "screaming" coming from his home. I realize that you want to pass all that off as "gossiping", but just because there's not video evidence of him doing the crime does not mean that his neighbors are making all this up.
http://www.turnto23.com/north_river_...99/detail.html

I have no idea why you're trying to paint this man as some sort of victim when he's brutally killing animals, other than possibly a desire to rile people up or argue. But I'm done arguing with you about this right now because now I can't stop thinking about those poor little kitties being tortured and killed, and I'm fairly certain that will haunt my dreams all night.
RedLotus is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off