[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly In fact, I largely prefer animals to humans in general.

lol

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by jude While I agree that what's wrong and what's illegal need not always coincide, I'd say that the method in which this man allegedly tortured this kitten should be one of those wrong things that's illegal. I'm not arguing the sentence upon conviction here, just the point of legal/illegal in this case. Most would consider littering wrong. In most cases it's illegal. Should it not be? If one was to simply walk to up a stranger and spit in his face, that would be wrong -- I'm guessing that that's probably illegal in most parts too. Should it not be? Going over the speed limit is illegal. If I'm traveling 100 mph down my neighborhood street, most would probably consider it wrong. Should it not be illegal? My only point here is that if you're suggesting that, specifically, this alleged act of torturing the kitten (I say alleged because I'm not sure if he was yet convicted, nor have I reviewed any of the evidence beyond the brief news coverage and what was mentioned in this thread) shouldn't be illegal, then I disagree. Whether or not the man simply gets a ticket or a five year prison sentence is not what I'm arguing here -- just whether or not it should be legal or illegal. And I'd hope that what he's accused of doing would be illegal.

Jude
I understand your distinction between conviction and sentencing and my position would be that the act should not be illegal at all--not even as a misdemeanor.

My position is that what this man did may have been horrible, cruel, whatever--but it was something he did to his own property. In the past, animals were considered property in the United States and while I am in support of women and children being freed from this designation, I believe animals should remain so.

The consequences of not maintaining animals as property will be felt amongst hunters, farmers and ranchers as well as well intended caretakers.

Bear in mind--I believe we're already a long ways down this path and I acknowledge my position as a minority view.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly ....my position would be that the act should not be illegal at all--not even as a misdemeanor....

On this point, it simply appears we couldn't disagree more. Regarding the issue of property -- even if the view is that a pet is property, I have no issues when it comes to legally distinguishing between, say, poking the eyes out of a plush toy that belongs to Joe Doe, and Joe Doe poking the eyes out of his living cat. Legally recognizing the difference between these two acts is not something I'd have a problem with at all, and something I would hope would be legally differentiated.

Again, it seems we simply very much disagree on this point.

 

[andrzejpw]

When we talk about punishments, sure, he's a sicko. Sure, he deserves to be punished. But 5 years in prison is a little excessive. Its a long time. Now, I wouldn't cry if he got 5 years. I wouldn't care. But personally, I think a LOT of community service would be the ticket right here.

 

[ArChaos]

I first read this thread a few hours ago and I got so angry after reading some of the answers that I decided to take a deep breath and not post my opinion for fear not to hurt some people (since I believe things in life are not "black and white" and I believe usually there is not only one "truth" - I tend to be very liberal with other's oppinions.)

Still, I think there are some matters of universal "right" or "wrong" which should be of common consenzus, some universal human values beyond contradiction and every and each time I find myself wrong on this I can't help it but bang my head on the wall. This is one of this cases...

To begin with, all my reaction is written assuming that all the FACTS as portraid in the story are 100% true, BEYOND ANY DOUBT. This reservation is of course essential from the beginning.

I think that what we are dealing here is BASIC to what's GOOD and EVIL!!!!!! in human nature. Whet gets me mad is not that this sadistic damn person did what he did - there are and always will be "creatures" like this - what gets me mad is that THERE ARE PEOPLE on this forum that find his acts "AMUSING", EXCUSABLE, even BEARABLE and I read oppinions that BEEING SADISTIC IS NOT ILLEGAL!!!!!!


__________________________________________________ _
QUOTE
If he's not insane he shouldnt be punished with jail time, its a cat... It's an animal, we kill them all the time. I once blasted the side of a birds head off with my slingshot, I looked at it and said damn that was a good shot. I felt bad, but, it was a damn good shot, I mean, it was a head shot, with a slingshot for the love of god, from about 50 feet even. I deserve to be proud of that, that took skill! And I did it with a rock, a mishappen little rock I found on the ground, I was the superior species that day, I didn't cheat! But your probably thinking that figures, well, I'm thinking it's perfectly normal. Why don't you call animal cruelty on the FARMERS who tie up baby calves so they cant move, and slaughter them so we can have soft meat. Can't you just see the farmers taunting the calves with cries of "moo" "mooo".

Besides it's a fucn cat, 10 million kids each year harm a cat in some way shape or form, slingshots, firecrackers, rocks, pellet guns, who gives **** if her roasted one on the grill. Baby sitters have put babies in the microwave, hamsters, cats, you name it baby sitters have nuked it. There are bigger fish to fry, forget about the cat killer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "SUPERIOR SPECIES" goes with his instincts and "trains" in his childhood at hunting...but he's not superior enough to see the difference between this and burning alive a cat for fun...the "SUPERIOR SPECIES" also does not see the difference between killing for food and killing for fun...The "SUPERIOR SPECIES" also thinks "There are bigger fish to fry, forget about the cat killer" meaning SADISM is too small an offense to deal with. The "SUPERIOR SPECIES" gave birth to the Nazzis, to Ku-Klux-Clan, to the Inquizition, the "SUPERIOR SPECIES" is the only one who's only enemy is ITSELF - some superiority...




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
i thought it was funny, but hey.. that's just me.

i really could care less about another cat dying. there's only about 89234789327 million more where that came from. no, i do not condone it and no, i wouldn't ever do it; but the courts are overstuffed with enough ******** trials as it is.. maybe we could try and have the rapists put away first? then the cat killers next?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FUNNY??????????????? To burn a cat alive "FUNNY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't want to know what you find "serios"... how on earth can you find it funny?

and why put the Rapists away first...why not BOTH?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Barbequeing small animals is a not something I partake in, but come on -- sending someone to jail for it is ridiculous. I suppose we should lock up all those stompers of ants and grass mowers, too. Definitely all those chefs who cook lobsters alive.

A cat's life is not worth five years of any person's, even a kitty roaster's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can someone be so insensible to other beeing's suffering not to see the difference - the HUGE difference between taking a life with a purpose and doing it SADISTICALLY for fun?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
.......... But being sadistic is not a crime, nor should it be. And, regardless of what many people have posted, most animal murderers do not grow up to be psycho killers. Now, maybe if you throw them in jail for five years, where they're anally raped every night, are surrounded by people who do kill people ... maybe you'll get a pyscho killer out of your investment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEEING SADISTIC IS NOT A CRIME????? NOR SHOULD IT BE!!!!!!!! I just can't believe my eyes reading this...Let's see you talk after somebody beeing sadistic to someone close to you...And , by the way, I wouldn't feel so sad for the guy beeing annaly raped every night - twice a night would suit me even better and a to make a barbecue of his ass would be fine with me...



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I don't think he should go to jail... I think he should be sent over this way for a "visit" with me and my animal-loving friends. If being "cruel" or "sadistic" isn't inherently wrong, I'm sure no one will mind if we return the favor?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, MacDEF...I would gladly come too....




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
What I do have a problem with is reactionary laws and the pretense of animal protective services. We eat animals. We kill them, we stuff them, we make pillows out of them. Society recently has decided that some of these things must be done in a "humane" way. I don't really have a problem with the sentiment, but I do have a problem with the LAW. The government is overloaded with protecting human life as it is--and doing a damned poor job of it, I might add. Let's please not clutter the system further by trying to prosecute people who torture kittens. What's "wrong" and what's illegal need not always coincide and believe me, this sentiment will go further than most of us would wish.

These type of things tend to snowball. Already we've done idiotic things like placing stupid limits on hunting in areas where overpopulation has lead to disease problems. Sure, spare the poor mama deer because Bambi needs a mother--but remember that you're whiping out the entire forest when disease sets in because the animal no longer has a predator.

My position is that what this man did may have been horrible, cruel, whatever--but it was something he did to his own property. In the past, animals were considered property in the United States and while I am in support of women and children being freed from this designation, I believe animals should remain so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a saying stating that "THE HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS"...I do not wish to argue IF the system is or is not overprotecting animals because this is not the issue...In this case we are dealing with completely other question-IS SADISM AGAINST ANIMALS LEGITIMATE? My position on this is exactly the opposite from yours - I believe the MAJOR problem with the law system is the places where "legal" and "moral" do NOT coincide. On my oppinion, the more close they are the better.
And finally on the question of animals belonging or not to us - the moral (and legal,on my oppinion)question "IS SADISM AGAINST ANIMALS LEGITIMATE?" still stands either way.

 

[Totoy]

Hmm...

Should this guy be punished? Not sure here, but I dont really care if he is sent to prison for five years or just let off. Sure, what he did would be considered wrong by nearly everyone who I know, but what can we do about it? Make it illegal and punish everyone who does it? What would that accomplish? Our system is already pathetically overloaded, and generally I'd rather have an actual criminal who is a risk to myself and the people that I know stay in prison than somone who tortured a helpless cat. Will he turn out to be a criminal? I have no idea.

Also, it mentions nothing about he or his friends being drunk, etc...Hell, if I was drunk (Which I have never experienced by the way, I am simply speaking from what Ive heard) I'd probably laugh as well...I'd be laughing at practically anything that someone else is laughing at...

However, I also have to say this...If I was at that party and in my current state of mind, I would have sat building up anger, and eventually exploding by finding the nearest large swingable object and beating the living hell out of said person. Then again that is just me...

As for the more recent posts...I'll agree with both sides...Both systems have their disadvantages and their advantages...Both are equal...If one was better than the other in almost all cirumstances one would have already been chosen over the other...

Make it illegal and put another load on an already overworked system...Or just make it morally wrong and possibly, later in the man's life, risk harm to those around him...Choose your poison...

 

[TimSchirmer]

Well, It is my opinion that people like him are a menace to society. Imagine a glass of fresh, pure water, then imagining adding a drop of ink to the water....the water is tainted. Criminals, like the man who did this taint society, and should be put away.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by Totoy ....Make it illegal and put another load on an already overworked system...Or just make it morally wrong and possibly, later in the man's life, risk harm to those around him...Choose your poison...

If I understand correctly, the alleged act is already illegal there, and it'll simply be a matter of conviction or not.

Regarding the loaded system: it's my opinion that determining what's criminal and what's not should be done independent of the status of how loaded the system is. I figure the system will always be loaded.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly I'd like to see this statistic if you can recall where you gathered it. This is probably the same kind of "logic" that suggests that marijuana leads to crack use and masturbation leads to serial rape. (The logical equivalent is: "100% of all murderers began life as an infant, therefore all infants grow up to be murderers!" A cause/effect relationship cannot logically be reversed.)

It was some news blurb and I don't remember the source. The gist of it was that somebody like this suffers from pathetically low self esteem and cowardice to boot, and probably reeeeeeeeeeel low IQ as well. The only way such can come up with to bolster their lack of self esteem is to torture the weak and innocent, thus giving them sense of power and control. Article indicated it was a small step to transfer this acting out from animals to humans.

Nuff said, still sick and reprehensible behavior regardless of what he grows up to be.

 

[dhwilkin]

Quote:

Totoy said... Also, it mentions nothing about he or his friends being drunk, etc...

If he or they were, so what? It's not an acceptable excuse.

Some states have laws against cruelty to animals, and people found guilty can go to jail. I'd like to see that happen here. Such cruelty really saddens me. Heck, even criminals on death-row at least get a quick death. If an animal is going to be killed, make it as quick as possible... there's no need for malicious torture.

 

[kelly]

kwkarth
The studies I've read about serial killers have indicated a higher average IQ than the norm. This is the first time I've heard it quoted otherwise. Are you sure you mean *serial* killers and not something else?

ArChaos
I am certainly very glad that you are not a legislator. Furthermore, I wish people like you were not allowed to vote for legislators and beyond that wish that if they had to be elected that they could only serve one term rather than having to depend on your emotional reactions to gain a second term.

It is far too easy for any one person to decide what is and is not "evil." It is harder to imagine that the world we live in is actually far more complex and that what is or is not "moral" to one culture or individual may not be to another. Whenever possible, I believe, like I believe our founding fathers did, that the government should have no authority or responsibility over matters of moral character.

Rather, I believe the government should serve three very basic needs. They are:
1. Defend itself and our country from military enemies foreign and domestic.
2. Protect its citizens from harming one another.
3. Enforce matters of property law.

Convicting kitten torturers simply does not fall within what is in my opinion the role of government. That you find this behavior to be sickening or repulsive or even evil or wrong to me has no relevence. If the law were to only attempt to do the three above tasks which I have designated, it would already be overloaded. It is already an impossible task. Asking the law to then on top of that defend your taste or decide morality is a burden I believe our tax dollars could do without.

Emotional reaction is the most basic reason why democracy and representative democracy can never be just. It is in every man's character to vote for that which benefits himself and his views the most--or to elect individuals with the best perception that they are doing so.

The ruling class of our society must be pleased that the peons so willingly elect to destroy their own freedoms and enforce moral and social conformity. Good consumer. Eat up.

 

[jude]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly ....The ruling class of our society must be pleased that the peons so willingly elect to destroy their own freedoms and enforce moral and social conformity. Good consumer. Eat up.

LOL. That's what I totally dig about a lot of your posts. They can exude a certain cockiness -- a certain self-assuredness about believing you're a much smarter monkey than the rest, in a My, isn't it fun to look down and observe all the blind, dopey monkeys? sort of way. You do it with such a solid sense of self that, in some ways, it has to be admired. It makes me wonder if you're like this in real life, as I know online personas can often vary significantly from in-person personalities. I'm pretty much just like my online persona, like it or not.

I see most, if not all, laws as moral laws, in a sense. That is, all laws are held against human-determined standards of what is right and good, and what is wrong and evil. Look at your three standards, read them carefully, think through them fully, and then try to tell me that there are absolutes that apply within any or all of them that are like laws of physics -- that they just are, independent of human definitions and morals.

I mean, look at your #2. Quote:

2. Protect its citizens from harming one another.

Keeping in mind Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which states (as you probably know)....

1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

....I think it's safe to say that there's a lot of wiggle room and human participation in determining that any given action does or does not harm another.

 

[kelly]

Jude
I state my opinions strongly in real life too, I'm just not as excited about it as your average antisocial geek. When you actually have the social prowess to speak your mind when its unpopular, you get used to people disagreeing and you don't have to be as emotional and uptight as the average internet poster. And I DO think they're a lot like that in real life! I've met them!

I personally believe the bill of rights was the first major mistake this country's government made. We both did as you said by vaguely stating our rights AND went so far as to number them as if to say, "Anything we didn't cover here, you don't get." It's inverted freedom. We don't create bills and ammendments to grant freedoms, we create them to limit freedoms.

My three items were not meant to be the letter of the law--rather, I wish all laws had to belong to one of those three categories. If it cannot squarely fit under one of them, I see no reason for the governments intervention. Who you want to sleep with, what gender of person you want to be or marry, whether you like to burn symbols or pay someone for sex is simply put--not any of my business and certainly nothing I want monies deducted from my income to regulate. As much as I like kittens myself, I put individually owned animal rights in the same category--I simply see no need for government intervention. They have better things I'd rather them be doing.

 

[jude]

[size=xx-small] Quote:

Originally posted by kelly ....I personally believe the bill of rights was the first major mistake this country's government made. We both did as you said and vaguely stated our riights AND went so far as to number them as if to say, "Anything we didn't cover here, you don't get." It's inverted freedom. We don't make create bills and ammendments to grant freedoms, we create them to limit freedoms....

[/size]

And still another thing we disagree on -- I don't see the Bill of Rights as a mistake. Where you view it as something created to limit freedoms, I see it as something that was created to grant crucial immunities to the people. Here's a quote from the NARA web site about the Bill of Rights, which rings nicely with me:
Quote:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.

Are you sure it's the Bill of Rights you have a problem with, or is it the rest of the U.S. Constitution? I would have thought the Bill of Rights would have been a part of it even you would appreciate, if not the rest of it.

I apologize if I've now hijacked this thread. I'll stop now, and let it get back to the unfortunate topic of the idiot who very cruelly killed the cat.

 

[DanG]

I agree with Kelly that the government's purpose should be to protect its citizens' rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The meanings of the first two are quite clear. But what is happiness? In the philosophical sense it's quite hard to define, but its practical definition is easy -- whatever makes you happy! This usually means the pursuit of worldly wealth, power, religious enlightenment, education, research, and so on. Life and liberty precede happiness in importance so that people don't have the right to pursue happiness when it infringes on the life and liberty of others.

Now, where does morality fit in to the debate? I firmly believe that morality fits within the realm of an individual's pursuit of happiness. But do we need to use morality as the basis of determining what citizens may or may not do? The answer is clearly no, because the law is intended to be a secular and logical set of guidelines to protect citizens' safety and freedoms. Should we begin to allow morality to supercede logic in determining our laws then we include the element of personal opinion. When opinion supercedes logical truth, we no longer have law but a dictatorship of religion.

So I'll try to bring this all back to the debate at hand regarding the cat-burning sadist. It's clear that he is insane and that he deserves to be punished according to moral law. But how does hurting a cat infringe upon the life and liberty of his fellow citizens? It doesn't. Are his actions so deleterious to others that they can no longer pursue happiness? Perhaps there are people who would be so shocked that they will become unhappy -- but his actions preclude nothing whatsoever in terms of their ability to continue to pursue their own personal goals whether those goals include money, world domination, or celebrities prancing around naked to protest the use of fur.

It's for the state to decide what to do with the man. But if we start trying to incarcerate people because they seem like a "taint" to society to us, then we've embodied the clearly stated goals of the Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan. Then we follow the precedent set by those who throughout the ages have punished people for being black, white, Asian, Jewish, Irish, Italian, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Kurdish, Armenian, Latino, Indian... recognize a group you belong to?