Bronx teen confesses to roasting kitten

[El-ahrairah]

...anyone finding pleasure or amusement in the suffering and/or death of animals has issues.

Defined broadly, then anyone who hunts or fishes "has issues". And even broader, anyone who eats meat "finds pleasure" from the death of the animal. But I suppose the key here is whether the enjoyment's from the actual act of killing or from the often necessary results of it.

As the Law of the Jungle says:

Ye may kill for yourselves, and your mates, and your cubs as they need, and ye can;

But kill not for pleasure of killing, and seven times never kill Man!

[potsherds]

A dead kitten? It sucks and all, but a big deal? Perspective, Ocean, you has none.

Er. Nice long post and all about the human atrocities of the world. I think that your opinion of perspective is just that though.

There's a common thread in all this though: humans. The atrocities that humanity commits, on large scales and small. The lack of compassion and empathy of many humans, the ability to asign other people and creatures into the 'other' category and do horrible things to them. To me, all these things are signs of the same human failings, the same barbarities in human nature. Ignoring any one of them is foolish, imo. They all need to be addressed if we wish humanity to progress.

Man, I'm finding some gems in this thread. I gotta stop reading it.

[Frog Eater]

The killing of baby animals by young women today is becoming a trend

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31447723/ns/us...ime_and_courts/

[The_BlauerDragon]

Wow... There goes another small piece of my Hope for Humanity...

[TerraPrime]

My current boyfriend has a pet from his ex, and I hate his ex. So, I should:

(A) Give the pet away to the Animal Shelter

(B) Put the pet up for sale on Craig's List for cash

© Dump the pet in the wild and be rid of it

(D) Put it in a box and drop it off at the ex's apartment

(E) Ask my bf to shoot the pet ten times with a .22 calibre gun, then skin it, and nail the pelt to a board.

[Seventh Pup]

My current boyfriend has a pet from his ex, and I hate his ex. So, I should:

(A) Give the pet away to the Animal Shelter

(B) Put the pet up for sale on Craig's List for cash

© Dump the pet in the wild and be rid of it

(D) Put it in a box and drop it off at the ex's apartment

(E) Ask my bf to shoot the pet ten times with a .22 calibre gun, then skin it, and nail the pelt to a board.

If he loves you he'll do E. In fact if he really loves you, you won't even have to ask him to do E. Just saying.

[fitheach]

Source

My response to this is an eye for an eye- throw Cheyenne Cherry in an oven and crank up the temperature.

Seems like a sign of a future serial killer.

Also, your impeach Obama avatar freaks me out. Are you serious?

[Ixodes]

My current boyfriend has a pet from his ex, and I hate his ex. So, I should:

(A) Give the pet away to the Animal Shelter

(B) Put the pet up for sale on Craig's List for cash

� Dump the pet in the wild and be rid of it

(D) Put it in a box and drop it off at the ex's apartment

(E) Ask my bf to shoot the pet ten times with a .22 calibre gun, then skin it, and nail the pelt to a board.

I have a big problem with choice E. I mean, COME ON. Shoot it ten times? That's wasteful. Two or three shots would be more than sufficient. And you could just stuff the pelt in the mailbox without any nailing needed.

[Dresden]

I have a cat--or she tolerates my presence for the pampering and the food, rather--but I do agree that some of the reactions are rather overblown. I'm not a vegan or anything, but what we do to cows, pigs, and chickens--not to mention other animals that we slaughter by the millions to feed ourselves--is far worse.

[Lord O' Bones]

what we do to cows, pigs, and chickens--not to mention other animals that we slaughter by the millions to feed ourselves--is far worse.

Efficiency and avarice are less shocking to most than possible psychosis that can be turned on another human being (or "pets" that hold a middle ground for the average person between people and livestock.)

[Tobin]

I was told that if you feed pidgeons alkaseltzer their heads will pop off.

I never tried it, but made me wonder who was out there experimenting to find the right combo...

[Lord O' Bones]

I was told that if you feed pidgeons alkaseltzer their heads will pop off.

I never tried it, but made me wonder who was out there experimenting to find the right combo...

Birds generally can't pass gas. So while their heads probably won't pop off, alkaselltzer will kill them through ruptured GI organs.

No idea who the intrepid scientist that discovered this was.

[Insert Edit]

I'm curious as to what the urban/rural split is on this topic. I remember being in college, living with a bunch of room mates; one brings home a kitten. Few weeks later, the poor thing drinks anti-freeze (we thought) and starts having convulsions. I and another housemate decide to jump in the car, and drive to a 24 hour animal emergency shelter.

Another room mate laughs at us, and says we're wasting our time. He was raised on a farm. He offered to take the kitten out and step on its head.

Several hours, a hundred bucks, and much worry and agonizing later, we had one dead cat. There was nothing the vet could do.

Anyway, in no way did I think our farm raised roomie was a budding sociopath - he just had a much more blase attitude towards animals living and dying. We city boys had a different take.

--

For the most part though, this whole thread seems an exercise in 'Man am I morally superior to YOU!'

[fitheach]

I'm curious as to what the urban/rural split is on this topic. I remember being in college, living with a bunch of room mates; one brings home a kitten. Few weeks later, the poor thing drinks anti-freeze (we thought) and starts having convulsions. I and another housemate decide to jump in the car, and drive to a 24 hour animal emergency shelter.

Another room mate laughs at us, and says we're wasting our time. He was raised on a farm. He offered to take the kitten out and step on its head.

Several hours, a hundred bucks, and much worry and agonizing later, we had one dead cat. There was nothing the vet could do.

Anyway, in no way did I think our farm raised roomie was a budding sociopath - he just had a much more blase attitude towards animals living and dying. We city boys had a different take.

--

For the most part though, this whole thread seems an exercise in 'Man am I morally superior to YOU!'

Yeah, except the chick that killed the kitten wasn't from the country- and the kitten wasn't dying... She was from the friggin' Bronx and she just didn't like cats.

=Psychopath.

I lived in the country and I know that some people have a different attitude about animals- but this person just felt like killing. That's whats disturbing.

[Insert Edit]

Yeah, except the chick that killed the kitten wasn't from the country- and the kitten wasn't dying... She was from the friggin' Bronx and she just didn't like cats.

=Psychopath.

I lived in the country and I know that some people have a different attitude about animals- but this person just felt like killing. That's whats disturbing.

I guess I was thinking the larger topic, rather than comparing to the specific incident. The line seems to be pretty movable. At any rate, the thread seems (imo) to be more about a chance to feel morally superior...

<shrug>

[palimpsest.]

I agree with potsherds ... to put it simply, there are things that are simply not ok to do. They are nothing comparing to war and famine, but that doesn't make them any more acceptable. If nothing else, there are laws and rules, and while I don't always agree with them (and have probably broken some), I think those regarding life and well-being of a living creature should be taken seriously. I can understand those who say a thing like that is no big deal, at least not big enough to put the girl into jail, and I agree with that, but I think that we should not take it lightly either.

About rural/urban, I don't really know if there's a difference - I grew up in a rural area and while we had no problems with killing animals for food, we always took our pets to the vet when they were hurt or dying.

[Ser Camaris]

I do understand people saying that this is a minor issue compared lots of big issues. But, um, when you think about it aren't the big issues made up of lots of little issues? Things like genocide and human trafficking still only happen one person at a time, and are made up of thousands/millions of individual choices by people who choose to perpetrate such things. If *everyone* treated one another with empathy and compassion they simply wouldn't occur. I think we ignore the minor issues at our peril, because they are what the *major* issues are born of.

As for the actual case at point (please forgive my philosophical tangent), well I certainly don't see a cat as equal to a human being and I don't consider this as the *same* as putting a baby in an oven. If I had to I would eat cat, but I would never eat a baby. But, I would also never torture an animal and I try and make sure the meat I do eat is a result of reasonably humane practices. I can't see how it is possibly okay to deliberately set out to cause unecessary pain to another living creature, and seems to me to be the sign of a seriously disturbed mind, and I think that some sort of mandated therapy would have to involved in her punishment for the heinous act.

I do know people who have done cruel things to animals and laughed it off as just a bit off fun and as harmless. But, to me, how you treat those you have power over, whether human or animal, says a lot about you. It makes me wonder what else people would be capable of if they knew that there would be no consequence to what they did. If the girl in question had found the person's baby in the house when she broke in instead of the cat, and felt that she wouldn't be punished, would she have put the baby in the oven instead?

To say that this was okay because it was only an animal ignores a deeper issue here, IMHO. One, it's not okay to be cruel to anything, it bespokes a fundamental character flaw, and secondly I think this is a warning sign of future undesirable behaviour. I don't think it is too far fetched to at least be concerned that it could be roasting a cat today, and a baby tomorrow. But this case require justice, not vengeance, which I think is what people in their emotional reaction are calling for. I want a justice system that attempts to cure this sort of behaviour, not just punish it, especially not by committing an act of torture in response to the original vile act!

Edited to add: I didn't see this:

About rural/urban, I don't really know if there's a difference - I grew up in a rural area and while we had no problems with killing animals for food, we always took our pets to the vet when they were hurt or dying.

That's the sort of attitude I think is a healthy one. Eating meat isn't wrong, being cruel and uncaring is.

[fitheach]

I guess I was thinking the larger topic, rather than comparing to the specific incident. The line seems to be pretty movable. At any rate, the thread seems (imo) to be more about a chance to feel morally superior...

<shrug>

Really? Thats what you think?

Morally superior I don't feel. Seems like your putting down everyone who finds horror in a person killing a kitten just because... I don't think feeling this way equates moral superiority.

Also, this was about a specific incident, not the larger picture. But maybe you just get the larger picture and everyone else doesn't.

:bow:

[TerraPrime]

Well, I don't know what good does having good morals bring if we cannot feel morally superior to people who bake a kitten alive or shoot 7-week-old puppies before skinning it. I mean, yeah, I do feel morally superior to those people. But that's because I don't torture helpless animals for fun or revenge. By my reckoning, that earned me the right to feel morally superior in this case, just as the cases where I feel morally superior for not using racial slurs or sexist epithets or agitating in favor of massive genocides.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

This ignorant, disgusting and highly offensive statement does not surprise me UDM. You are building quite a reputation for resorting to insults as a first port of call.

It wasn't an insult, it was an argument disguised as a glib remark. And if you want to be treated with respect by me, then put more thought into your arguments that the nonsense you've presented.

As you probably well know, indigenous people that live in my country are not treated like dogs. They are treated as human beings.

I don't believe you. The historical inhumane treatment of the Aborigines by the white European colonists is well-documented, and the ongoing racism directed towards Aborigines is a matter of great contention in Australian society.

Furthermore, you have claimed that Aborigines are 48 times as likely to engage in criminal acts. There is only two possible explanations for a fact like that, much like there are only two possible explanations for the higher crime rate amongst African Americans: the first explanation is that black people are innately morally inferior to white people and thus more likely to engage in crime. That would be the racist explanation.

The other explanation is the racism explanation: That African-Americans and Aborgines are the subject of racism and thus more likely to be placed in the sort of economically and socially disadvantaged postion that makes crime seem reasonable, and also (perhaps more importantly) more likely to be arrested and prosecuted by the criminal justice system.

So either Australia is a nation of racist dicks, just like America, or black people are evil.

Sorry if it offends you or you think I'm trying to win an argument by insulting you, but I'm not a racist and so I'm going to go with the "Australians are racists dicks." explanation, and thus see the different crimes rate as a call to anti-racist action, and not as a call to punish black people for being black. Because I just can't bring myself to believe that the Aborigines are innately morally inferior to the white colonial oppressor class of Australia that has -- again, historically documented -- engaged in racist oppression and treated Aborigines as an underclass.

Your logic is that a high correlation between a characteristic (animal abuser) and future misconduct is an argument in favour of a stricter penalty.

Why does that characteristic have to be a crime for your logic to hold?

Because crimes have penalties. See my contention is that animal abuse is a far more serious crime than the law currently treats it, and thus should have a stronger penalty, a penalty that more accurately reflects the crime.

Your response to this is to ask me why being black in Australia shouldn't have a stiffer penalty. It's very hard to take you seriously when you ask me questions that make you look like a racist dickwad. I mean seriously, you seem to be arguing that Aborigines should be punished for being Aborgines, and then you get offended that I implied that the white colonial oppressors in Australia are racists dicks?

You are blowing my fucking mind.

Maybe you just don't understand that your argument hinges on equating abusing animals with being black.