Cat Forum / General Topics / April 2005
Cat Set On Fire -- US Army sets Women and Children on Fire -- Who cares?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
\ - 21 Mar 2005 00:10 GMT Cat Set On Fire, Tossed Off School Roof Wilbur, Klohr Face Charges Of Animal Cruelty, Arson
POSTED: 8:50 am MST March 18, 2005 UPDATED: 10:09 am MST March 18, 2005
ARVADA, Colo. -- Two men have been arrested, accused of setting fire to a cat and tossing it off the roof of Arvada West High School.
Police say 22-year-old Christopher Wilbur and 18-year-old Joshua Klohr set a gray cat on fire and then tossed it off the school roof Wednesday night. Officers spotted the two men on the roof of Arvada West High School just before 11 p.m.
By the time officers reached the cat, it was already dead, Arvada police spokeswoman Susan Medina said.
Police still don't know who owned the cat, described as a neutered, short-haired gray tabby with black stripes. The male cat was less than 3 years old.
Wilbur and Klohr have been released from jail pending the filing of formal charges. They face charges including arson and cruelty to an animal.
Anyone with information about the crime, or the cat's owner, is being asked to call Arvada police at (720) 898-6721.
soli13taire@juno.com - 21 Mar 2005 02:01 GMT "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
> Cat Set On Fire, Tossed Off School Roof > Wilbur, Klohr Face Charges Of Animal Cruelty, Arson [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Anyone with information about the crime, or the cat's owner, is being asked to > call Arvada police at (720) 898-6721. Doll is Mine - 21 Mar 2005 02:05 GMT > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >>call Arvada police at (720) 898-6721. 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks.
nimue - 21 Mar 2005 03:59 GMT >> "- Prof. Jonez?" wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks. That's not a prank. There is nothing amusing about it. I say those two have made it pretty clear they do not belong in society and should be locked up for the rest of their lives.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 21 Mar 2005 22:31 GMT nimue goes:
>I say those two >have made it pretty clear they do not belong in society and should be locked >up for the rest of their lives. Setting fire to a cat is wrong -- very wrong.
It dries out the meat, which has very little fat marbling, and makes the beast almost inedible. Braising is by far the better alternative -- slow cooking in a small amount of liquid with aromatics added.
Or stewing in beer, something that works very well with rabbit, which has a similar structure to the cat. A dark ale is delicious, and a fruity cherry-beer from here in Belgium adds a whole new dimension. I'd reckon one cat per two guests at a very minimum.
HTH
 Signature AH
nimue - 22 Mar 2005 02:19 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > HTH It didn't. It's not funny. Look -- if people kill animals to use as food, that is one thing. If people kill animals because they (the people) enjoy brualizing and terrorizing a defenseless creature, that's something else. Don't confuse the two. Those two men are a real danger to society.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 22 Mar 2005 18:18 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes:
>>> I say those two >>> have made it pretty clear they do not belong in society and should >>> be locked up for the rest of their lives.
>> Setting fire to a cat is wrong -- very wrong.
>> It dries out the meat, which has very little fat marbling, and makes >> the beast almost inedible. Braising is by far the better alternative >> -- slow cooking in a small amount of liquid with aromatics added.
>> Or stewing in beer, something that works very well with rabbit, which >> has a similar structure to the cat. A dark ale is delicious, and a >> fruity cherry-beer from here in Belgium adds a whole new dimension. >> I'd reckon one cat per two guests at a very minimum.
>> HTH
>It didn't. It's not funny. Look -- if people kill animals to use as food, >that is one thing. If people kill animals because they (the people) enjoy >brualizing and terrorizing a defenseless creature, that's something else. Okay you've said it's something else, how about you go ahead and demonstrate how it's something else.
In what way is slitting a pig's throat different from setting a cat on fire? Build your argument on anatomy or neurology or ethics, whatever. Show where the difference lies.
>Don't confuse the two. Those two men are a real danger to society. How so? Are deer-hunters a danger to society? What about men who shoot rats? Can you sustain your position through all the possible arguments? Or have you never really thought it through? Let's see. Begin with the questions posed above.
 Signature AH
Mel - 22 Mar 2005 20:14 GMT .
> In what way is slitting a pig's throat different from setting a cat on > fire? This isn't even an intelligent question. Tell me, if you had a choice, would YOU rather be set on fire or have your throat slit? Have you ever had a third degree burn? I would think that immolation would be far, far worse. And to top it off, those useless excuses for human beings were not killing the cat for food. They did it out of sadism. When people kill animals for food, I would hope it is for that only.
I grew up on a farm, and chose vegetarianism some time ago. I don't believe that killing innocent beings when plant life is so plentiful is what God would want us to work toward improving ourselves.IMHO.
MH
\ - 22 Mar 2005 21:59 GMT > . > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This isn't even an intelligent question. Tell me, if you had a > choice, would YOU rather be set on fire or have your throat slit? Well, ask Nick Berg's head and the remains of US "contractors" BBQ'd in Fallujah which was a more pleasant death ...
> Have you ever had a third degree burn? I would think that immolation > would be far, far worse. And to top it off, those useless excuses for > human beings were not killing the cat for food. Does it make a difference to the cat?
> They did it out of sadism. When people kill animals for food, I would hope it > is for > that only. So it's not the killing you protest, it's the mental state of the killer that has you upset. A thought crime as it were.
> I grew up on a farm, and chose vegetarianism some time ago. Traitor.
> I don't believe that killing innocent beings when plant life is so plentiful > is what God would want us to work toward improving ourselves.IMHO. Yet you "Support the Troops" while they maim and kill 100,000+ innocent Iraqi men, women and children don't you, hypocritical lowlife?
> MH Alan Hope - 23 Mar 2005 00:31 GMT Mel goes:
>> In what way is slitting a pig's throat different from setting a cat on >> fire?
>This isn't even an intelligent question. Explain.
>Tell me, if you had a choice, >would YOU rather be set on fire or have your throat slit? My question wasn't "what's worse," you moron. My question was, "why is one wrong and the other not?"
>Have you ever had >a third degree burn? No, have you?
>I would think that immolation would be far, far worse. You would think, but do you have any information to offer?
>And to top it off, those useless excuses for human beings were not killing >the cat for food. They did it out of sadism. When people kill animals for >food, I would hope it is for that only. How does that affect the rights and wrongs? It's absolutely not necessary to kill an animal for food, so how is that a valid excuse?
>I grew up on a farm, and chose vegetarianism some time ago. I don't believe >that killing innocent beings when plant life is so plentiful is what God >would want us to work toward improving ourselves.IMHO. So how is slitting a pig's throat different from setting fire to a cat? Do you have an answer?
 Signature AH
_ G O D _ - 23 Mar 2005 07:52 GMT > . >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > killing innocent beings when plant life is so plentiful is what God would want us > to work toward improving ourselves.IMHO. There was a case about a month ago, when a person was sentenced to 4 yrs. of slave labor in prison in the US, which is a brazen violation of the Charter of Human Rights, and exposing policy of blatant hypocrisy by the government itself. So, apparently, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Isn't it a known fact, that all forms of slavery were abolished world-wide over 56 years ago?
But people are still killing and torturing not only all sorts of animals for profit in the capacity of the entertainment and a method of capitalization on slavery and genocide. Of course last words were used to describe torture and mutilation of defenseless humans by the mercenaries, hired henchmen and slave-drivers...
Someone has to be real hypocrite to say that people are doing this to animals, while being perfectly aware about this also being done to people in clear violation of the Human Rights. I haven't seen a document of the same stature as the UDHR in defense of the animals' rights, but nevertheless some people chose to go after defenseless individuals for crimes of cruelty to animals, while blatantly ignoring ongoing slavery and genocide on industrialized basis and grand scale all over the world...
Why aren't we talking about "professional performance" of sadistic torture and brutality, which is being exhibited in grotesque killings of real bulls by toreadors in front of hundreds of thousands of public audience at the stadiums as often as we are talking about single cases of brutality toward animals by obviously very sick individuals, whose mind was effected by the mentioned above traditions (of superstitious nature) of human beasts? Shouldn't we talk more about public beheading of defenseless human beings at the soccer fields between local and international games at the stadiums of Saudi Arabia? Why don't we abolish a hunting for "sport" defenseless creatures with latest (word of the art) weaponry, to show that it isn't a hypocrisy, when we are criticizing people for being cruel do domesticated animals, instead?
So next time, when you decide to open your mouth to talk about singled out incidents of cruelty by mentally disturbed individuals, please mention first and foremost about cruelty to defenseless creatures and hostages of the incarceration industry, in the capacity of introduction to your blabbering...
 Signature _____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~ ___________________________________________________ --
nimue - 23 Mar 2005 02:53 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > fire? Build your argument on anatomy or neurology or ethics, whatever. > Show where the difference lies. Well, when someone kills a pig for food, that pig dies for a purpose. If I dare say it -- he dies for life. He is part of the cycle of life. His death will bring food and life to another. It's natural. It's sad -- but it's Nature. We have to eat to survive. We do not, however, have to torture animals for no reason to survive. That is another impulse entirely -- an impulse most people are without. Everyone needs to eat -- very few people need to torture a defenseless creature for no reason other than that they want to cause pain and suffering.
>> Don't confuse the two. Those two men are a real danger to society. > > How so? Are deer-hunters a danger to society? What about men who shoot > rats? Can you sustain your position through all the possible > arguments? Or have you never really thought it through? Let's see. > Begin with the questions posed above. I have thought it through, many, many times. Don't be so arrogant. If the men hunting deer are doing it for food -- FINE. I have no problem with that. I do not know anyone who shoots rats -- small target. However, since rats are disease-carriers and present a danger to society, I have no problem with the laying out of rat poison. That said, I would never torture a rat or a deer and would think someone who did was seriously disturbed. Can you honestly not see a difference between hunting deer for food and setting an animal on fire and tossing it off a roof. Do you think those actions have the same source? They don't.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Mel - 23 Mar 2005 03:12 GMT Nimue: You said it so well!
I wrote this really long post to Mr. "Prove it" and then I got a "server cannot be resolved" error (grrr) so I have to copy and paste it before I send . But this is really fantastic and makes most of what I was Trying to say redundant.
I kept thinking "what do you mean "what is the difference?!! If you don't know, you belong in jail with those sick little jerks!" Because I have experienced burns, and work a burn ward, believe me, that is not something I would wish on anyone.
You have put this beautifully. Thank you!
Mel (who has a tendency to top-post)
> Well, when someone kills a pig for food, that pig dies for a purpose. If > I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > animal on fire and tossing it off a roof. Do you think those actions have > the same source? They don't. Mel - 23 Mar 2005 03:24 GMT For your information, I do NOT support ANY troops: I do not even live in the US. It is insane sending thousands of young people to imminent death to shoot and bomb other people. Thank you for accusing me of something that I do not believe in.
As a firm vegetarian, I do not believe in killing ANYTHING. I guess you skimmed my post and absorbed only the parts you needed to draw your own conclusions. Pathetic.
I think George Bush is a complete lunatic who authorizes the killing of innocent people while trying to get at the guilty ones.
I do not support war in any form.
I am not a "hypocrytical lowlife" and it must be really wonderful for you to sit at your computer wherever you are and judge someone you don't know.
I have had 3rd degree burns. I work in the burn unit in one of our hospitals. It is a really upsetting place to work, and many people cannot stomach it. Have you ever had to deal with this? I doubt it. So don't go mouthing off about "traitors" and "upset about mental states". I know very well what kind of pain that poor cat went through. There are people on the burn unit I work in who plead to die because they are in so much pain. Some have NO SKIN, it has all burnt. You talk about the 'mental state' of the killers and then call me a traitor because I am vegetarian? Make up your mind! You should be glad I am vegetarian if you call the people who eat meat killers! (I do, but then again, that is because I do not eat meat!)
Your selfish mouth-off shows just how little you know. I prefer people kill NO animals. Being a vegetarian after being raised on a farm does not make me a traitor. I don't know where you get such a small-minded opinion. After seeing animals slaughtered, that was enough to turn me off meat. If you read my statement on what I believe God wants, perhaps you might have a little enlightenment
I don't even know who Nick Berg is, so without elucidation of your statement, I cannot even begin to tell what you meant by that.
I think you should get together with Alan Hope and spend a few weeks on a burn unit......find out what it's really like and just how bad it is. The smell is incredible. I suggest you bring the Vicks along. Most people can't tolerate it. Then perhaps you will stop with the smart-a.s comments when you realize that severe burns leave one completely open, one raw open nerve, extreme, excruciating pain.......imagine this during the burning, this endless pain going on and on, and you are not dying.
Then perhaps you both will quit making light of it and trying to make it sound like I am saying that there is some type of moralistic theme behind "less-cruel" types of killing. There is killing, and there is "torture and killing". If people are going to continue to eat meat, don't tell me that you don't know the difference between a more humane method of killing, and a "torture and kill" I suggest you read the very recent post by Nimue. It is very enlightening.
Can we just agree now, no type of killing is right? Oh, wait, you're not vegetarian are you? Because if you're not, this whole issue was the pot (you) calling the kettle black.
> Mel wrote: >> . [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >> MH wwwolf - 23 Mar 2005 03:35 GMT Dear Prof, it is nice to see that the cat community has someone as caring and considerate as you. As I have monitored this post, it is obvious that the people you are arguing with have no concept of biology or biological processes concerning pain.
From there accusations and name calling, it appears that there problem not only occurs from ignorance but its also mental. Perhaps they are unhappy with their situation in life and that anger and aggression has found an outlet by sitting in front of their computers' and mouthing off to try to get someone "stirred up" since misery loves company.
Their minds are closed and will remain so. There is little point in trying to convince them that setting a living thing on fire is wrong. You should pity them, not debate with them.
It makes no sense to feed the trolls.
Mel - 23 Mar 2005 03:30 GMT >"Alan Hope" <not.alan.hope@mail.com> wrote in message news:1da141ph7amjsjep4d1ctkp4n2e2qvf57d@4ax.com...
>>> In what way is slitting a pig's throat different from setting a cat on >>> fire? > Explain. I explained below, if you had bothered to consider and interpret the question.
>>This isn't even an intelligent question. Tell me, if you had a choice, >>would YOU rather be set on fire or have your throat slit? > > My question wasn't "what's worse," you moron. My question was, "why is > one wrong and the other not?" I hardly consider myself a moron, with an IQ of 129, but that is irrelevant. They are both wrong. You did not state "why is one wrong". You asked "what is the difference." The whole issue is in interpretation by the reader.>>Have you ever had
>>a third degree burn? > > No, have you? Yes, I have. Suffice to say that I got burned trying to pull my nephew from a fire. I have some pretty ugly scars on both arms, and it was an extremely long and painful recovery, requiring plastic surgery and physiotherapy.
>>I would think that immolation would be far, far worse. > > You would think, but do you have any information to offer?
Duh. See above.
Until you have suffered the pain of third degree burns, no one is going to tell me that anything is worse. I now work the burn unit in one of our hospitals. Try to tell some of those patients that a quick slice across the throat and a bleedout would not be merciful to them. If you haven't been there, you have no idea. I suggest you volunteer on the burn ward at a local hospital IF you have the stomach for it. Most people run out puking because they can't stand the smell, but you never know.
>>And to top it off, those useless excuses for human beings were not killing >>the cat for food. They did it out of sadism. When people kill animals for >>food, I would hope it is for that only. > > How does that affect the rights and wrongs? It's absolutely not > necessary to kill an animal for food, so how is that a valid excuse? So what's your excuse?
>>I grew up on a farm, and chose vegetarianism some time ago. I don't believe >>that killing innocent beings when plant life is so plentiful is what God >>would want us to work toward improving ourselves.IMHO. > > So how is slitting a pig's throat different from setting fire to a > cat? Do you have an answer? I already gave you the answer. The least cruel method is what meat-eaters would aim for. (Whether or not this is a valid excuse for killing or not.)
I cannot see my meat-eating friends setting a pig on fire and letting it run around screaming in pain for what could be hours until it died. How unreasonable, cruel and sadistic would that be! I do not condone throat-cutting either, but since I have been unable to talk everyone into a vegetarian lifestyle, a quick bleed-out is a helluva lot more compassionate than hours of pain and hell.
Or do you think that it is exactly the same? I suggest that trip to the burn unit if you do.
If you don't know the difference, you really are one sick puppy.
Moralistically? I don't think humans should kill any animals.
I have used the argument repeatedly (and you obviously overlooked it purposely in my post) that God would not want us to aim for improvement by eating animals but aim toward eating plant and other material....
most people, even Christian, pathetically throw at me "they ate meat in the Bible" Yeasss, and men used to live in caves.
If some want to continue the tradition of eating flesh (it's their ticket to hell, not mine), there is a more humane way to end the animals' life, yes. Moral? No. Humane? As much as possible. If you torture them first, which can happen in some circumstances, and PETA has been fighting to shut these places down, that is neither moral NOR humane and is completely sadistic, right up there with burning and torturing animals for "fun". I know of no-one who would want to torture their livestock before killing it. Nimue just posted something that says it excellently. There is a major difference, read her post. Her prose is far more eloquent and to the point, and will be much easier for you to understand. I seem to be missing the point with you.
If you still can't understand the difference between torturing an animal to death and an immediate killing, I am afraid that you must be one of the ones that are beyond help and cannot see what is right. You admitted to eating cats and rabbits, anyway, why should I have to explain myself to you?
I couldn't even kill something as small as an earthworm or spider! And I'm trying to explain the difference between torture & kill and a straight kill to someone who kills animals?
nimue - 23 Mar 2005 04:01 GMT > Nimue: You said it so well! Thank you!
> I wrote this really long post to Mr. "Prove it" and then I got a > "server cannot be resolved" error (grrr) so I have to copy and paste > it before I send . > But this is really fantastic and makes most of what I was Trying to > say redundant. Thanks -- but you should post your thoughts as well. I am sure you will bring up important points I didn't mention.
> I kept thinking "what do you mean "what is the difference?!! If you > don't know, you belong in jail with those sick little jerks!" > Because I have experienced burns, and work a burn ward, believe me, > that is not something I would wish on anyone. > > You have put this beautifully. Thank you! Thanks again!
> Mel (who has a tendency to top-post) Well, that's a whole lot better than, say, torturing an animal.
>> Well, when someone kills a pig for food, that pig dies for a >> purpose. If I [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> "There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and >> complete bitches." Dawn French
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
none - 23 Mar 2005 16:13 GMT > We do not, however, have to > torture animals for no reason to survive. Cats are the critter equivalent of serial killers -- it may be immoral to torture them to death, but it's not like they don't ultimately deserve it anyway.
> That is another impulse > entirely -- an impulse most people are without. But an impulse that comes naturally to most cats.
-Mike
Noon Cat Nick - 23 Mar 2005 17:56 GMT > > We do not, however, have to > > torture animals for no reason to survive. > > Cats are the critter equivalent of serial killers -- it may be immoral > to torture them to death, but it's not like they don't ultimately > deserve it anyway. Oh, those mean old pussy cats. Guess it's either you or them, eh?
none - 24 Mar 2005 02:27 GMT > Oh, those mean old pussy cats. Guess it's either you or them, eh? Tell it to this little guy: http://www.paws.org/about/emailnetwork/archive/wildagain/wild_2005_02_23.html
-Mike
Noon Cat Nick - 24 Mar 2005 04:59 GMT > > Oh, those mean old pussy cats. Guess it's either you or them, eh? > > Tell it to this little guy: > http://www.paws.org/about/emailnetwork/archive/wildagain/wild_2005_02_23.html So what's your opinion of sharks, hawks, anacondas and other predatory animals? Or is it only cats who merit your Jeffreh Dahmer Award?
Em - 24 Mar 2005 04:40 GMT Okay, if you wish to place yourself on the plane with the rest of the mammal life, fine. Man is separated from other animals by one thing - - - the ability to REASON. We can consider our actions.
The cat does not sit there thinking and delighting in the pain it is causing it's prey. God made cats this way. Who knows why? They take no delight in torture, they have no ability to reason what they are doing. Man is the only species with this ability. So, if you want to compare yourself to say, a rat (spiders, snakes, and rats are other animals who love to torment what they eat, so don't just blame cats.) go right ahead. I doubt that spider on the windowsill is sucking the juice out of it's live prey because it gets a thrill out of it.
If you think so, it is time to go back to school.
>> We do not, however, have to >> torture animals for no reason to survive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Mike Alan Hope - 23 Mar 2005 21:51 GMT nimue goes:
>Can you >honestly not see a difference between hunting deer for food and setting an >animal on fire and tossing it off a roof. Do you think those actions have >the same source? They don't. They have precisely the same source: namely, Man's belief that he can do what he likes to animals, because he has "dominion" over them.
 Signature AH
nimue - 23 Mar 2005 23:01 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They have precisely the same source: namely, Man's belief that he can > do what he likes to animals, because he has "dominion" over them. We need to eat to live, Alan. We can make it brutal or not. We evolved eating meat and while I guess you can survive without it, I do not think that is a healthy way to live. Anyway, what you said is pretty silly. There is a difference between someone torturing an animal for fun and someone killing an animal for food. If you want to pretend you can't see the difference -- go ahead. Most people can see the difference.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 24 Mar 2005 00:28 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes:
>>> Can you >>> honestly not see a difference between hunting deer for food and >>> setting an animal on fire and tossing it off a roof. Do you think >>> those actions have the same source? They don't.
>> They have precisely the same source: namely, Man's belief that he can >> do what he likes to animals, because he has "dominion" over them.
>We need to eat to live, Alan. We can make it brutal or not. We evolved >eating meat and while I guess you can survive without it, I do not think >that is a healthy way to live. Anyway, what you said is pretty silly. >There is a difference between someone torturing an animal for fun and >someone killing an animal for food. If you want to pretend you can't see >the difference -- go ahead. Most people can see the difference. You're quibbling. The similarities between the two acts are far greater than the differences. And there's only one difference: if you eat the creature afterwards, you can do what you like to it. See: factory farming, lobster cookery etc.
 Signature AH
pinnochiojones@hotmail.com - 25 Mar 2005 22:17 GMT This makes sense.
> You're quibbling. The similarities between the two acts are far > greater than the differences. And there's only one difference: if you > eat the creature afterwards, you can do what you like to it. See: > factory farming, lobster cookery etc. However it contradicts your earlier recipes post.
> Setting fire to a cat is wrong -- very wrong. > It dries out the meat, which has very little fat marbling, > and makes the beast almost inedible. Braising is by far > the better alternative -- slow cooking in a small amount > of liquid with aromatics added. > Or stewing in beer... Why do you let commonsense elude you on this straightfoward topic? Would you care to explain the difference?
Alan Hope - 26 Mar 2005 16:47 GMT pinnochiojones@hotmail.com goes:
>This makes sense.
>> You're quibbling. The similarities between the two acts are far >> greater than the differences. And there's only one difference: if you >> eat the creature afterwards, you can do what you like to it. See: >> factory farming, lobster cookery etc.
>However it contradicts your earlier recipes post.
>> Setting fire to a cat is wrong -- very wrong. >> It dries out the meat, which has very little fat marbling, >> and makes the beast almost inedible. Braising is by far >> the better alternative -- slow cooking in a small amount >> of liquid with aromatics added. >> Or stewing in beer...
>Why do you let commonsense elude you on this straightfoward topic? >Would you care to explain the difference? You seem not to be aware of the concept of humour.
I'd explain but ... well that's the quickest way to kill the joke.
 Signature AH
nimue - 26 Mar 2005 17:19 GMT > pinnochiojones@hotmail.com goes: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I'd explain but ... well that's the quickest way to kill the joke. You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 27 Mar 2005 23:15 GMT nimue goes:
>You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny. That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
 Signature AH
nimue - 27 Mar 2005 23:32 GMT > nimue goes: > >> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny. > > That's just what someone who didn't get it would say. I am pretty sure you feel most people don't get your humor or understand you. I am also pretty sure you attribute this to flaws in their personality and intelligence.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 28 Mar 2005 19:45 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes:
>>> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>I am pretty sure you feel most people don't get your humor or understand >you. Not only that, it's actually a great relief.
>I am also pretty sure you attribute this to flaws in their personality >and intelligence. Naturally. Nobody has ever yet experienced a failure of their own sense of humour. It's always the other guy's fault. Hence my comment, which you quote.
You seem to think there's such a thing as "being funny" which you either got or you haven't got. You also appear to exclude the possibility that someone could be funny, but you don't get it. Thus, your sense of humour is intact, it's the other guy that's all wrong.
You're not alone. We're all like that. You can criticise my driving, my work, my wife, my golfing or anything you like, but don't ever say I don't get a joke.
 Signature AH
nimue - 28 Mar 2005 23:57 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not only that, it's actually a great relief. So this is something you have experience with.
>> I am also pretty sure you attribute this to flaws in their >> personality and intelligence. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > possibility that someone could be funny, but you don't get it. Thus, > your sense of humour is intact, it's the other guy that's all wrong. I hate the 3 Stooges and don't think they are funny BUT I do recognize that others think they are hilarious. Different strokes. Still -- no one intended the Passion of the Christ to be funny and the fact that you think it is is disturbing.
> You're not alone. We're all like that. You can criticise my driving, > my work, my wife, my golfing or anything you like, but don't ever say > I don't get a joke. You may a get a joke. I never said you didn't. However, if you think the Passion of the Christ is hilarious, you have a real problem.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
G W Shrub - 29 Mar 2005 01:34 GMT > You may a get a joke. I never said you didn't. However, if you think the > Passion of the Christ is hilarious, you have a real problem. Not if you are watching the "South Park" version!
GW
Alan Hope - 29 Mar 2005 01:44 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes: >>>> nimue goes:
>>>>> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>>>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>>> I am pretty sure you feel most people don't get your humor or >>> understand you.
>> Not only that, it's actually a great relief.
>So this is something you have experience with. If I thought the Great Unwashed Masses were going to get everything I had to say -- and especially the Great American Masses -- then I'd know it was time to raise my game or get out.
>>> I am also pretty sure you attribute this to flaws in their >>> personality and intelligence.
>> Naturally. Nobody has ever yet experienced a failure of their own >> sense of humour. It's always the other guy's fault. Hence my comment, >> which you quote.
>> You seem to think there's such a thing as "being funny" which you >> either got or you haven't got. You also appear to exclude the >> possibility that someone could be funny, but you don't get it. Thus, >> your sense of humour is intact, it's the other guy that's all wrong.
>I hate the 3 Stooges and don't think they are funny BUT I do recognize that >others think they are hilarious. Different strokes. Still -- no one >intended the Passion of the Christ to be funny and the fact that you think >it is is disturbing. That only speaks to your boundaries, and says nothing about me. So I won't bother to address it.
>> You're not alone. We're all like that. You can criticise my driving, >> my work, my wife, my golfing or anything you like, but don't ever say >> I don't get a joke.
>You may a get a joke. I never said you didn't. However, if you think the >Passion of the Christ is hilarious, you have a real problem. You're saying that if you don't get the joke there is no joke. Don't you see that?
Why is my amusement at TPOTC a symptom of illness? Because he died for my f.cking sins? Do you really think you're making a case for *my* being unhinged with that statement? Don't you think that position really rather speaks to your own total lack of sanity?
 Signature AH
nimue - 29 Mar 2005 02:38 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > You're saying that if you don't get the joke there is no joke. Don't > you see that? I don't get the 3 Stooges but I know it's funny -- to others. Many others. So, no -- that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I don't think PotC is funny and I don't think anyone else does. I don't think the 3 Stooges are funny but I know they must be because many people find them hilarious.
> Why is my amusement at TPOTC a symptom of illness? Because he died for > my f.cking sins? No. I already told you I am Jewish and do not believe he died for your sins. No, it's just a bloody, violent, ugly film (from the few clips I have seen) -- nothing funny there.
>Do you really think you're making a case for *my* > being unhinged with that statement? Don't you think that position > really rather speaks to your own total lack of sanity? If you are asking if my belief that there is something wrong with you for your thinking that the bloody portrayal of revolting brutality is hilarious is an indication of my total lack of sanity I would have to say no.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 31 Mar 2005 00:42 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes: >>>> nimue goes: >>>>>> nimue goes:
>>>>>>> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>>>>>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>>>>> I am pretty sure you feel most people don't get your humor or >>>>> understand you.
>>>> Not only that, it's actually a great relief.
>>> So this is something you have experience with.
>> If I thought the Great Unwashed Masses were going to get everything I >> had to say -- and especially the Great American Masses -- then I'd >> know it was time to raise my game or get out.
>>>>> I am also pretty sure you attribute this to flaws in their >>>>> personality and intelligence.
>>>> Naturally. Nobody has ever yet experienced a failure of their own >>>> sense of humour. It's always the other guy's fault. Hence my >>>> comment, which you quote.
>>>> You seem to think there's such a thing as "being funny" which you >>>> either got or you haven't got. You also appear to exclude the >>>> possibility that someone could be funny, but you don't get it. Thus, >>>> your sense of humour is intact, it's the other guy that's all wrong.
>>> I hate the 3 Stooges and don't think they are funny BUT I do >>> recognize that others think they are hilarious. Different strokes. >>> Still -- no one intended the Passion of the Christ to be funny and >>> the fact that you think it is is disturbing.
>> That only speaks to your boundaries, and says nothing about me. So I >> won't bother to address it.
>>>> You're not alone. We're all like that. You can criticise my driving, >>>> my work, my wife, my golfing or anything you like, but don't ever >>>> say I don't get a joke.
>>> You may a get a joke. I never said you didn't. However, if you >>> think the Passion of the Christ is hilarious, you have a real >>> problem.
>> You're saying that if you don't get the joke there is no joke. Don't >> you see that?
>I don't get the 3 Stooges but I know it's funny -- to others. Many others. >So, no -- that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I don't think PotC >is funny and I don't think anyone else does. I don't think the 3 Stooges >are funny but I know they must be because many people find them hilarious. You're saying, as I suggested, that *you* get to decide what my sense of humour should consist of. Who cares what you think of the Three Stooges? Do they only become funny when enough people agree to laugh at them? What is the threshold number? How many people does it take before you reluctantly admit they're funny -- to some?
And since you don't find them funny, why would anyone care about your point of view anyway? Are you saying that you have a voice in deciding which among the things you don't find funny may nevertheless be considered funny?
Are you reading your own posts at all closely?
>> Why is my amusement at TPOTC a symptom of illness? Because he died for >> my f.cking sins?
>No. I already told you I am Jewish and do not believe he died for your >sins. No, it's just a bloody, violent, ugly film (from the few clips I have >seen) -- nothing funny there. I don't know if you know this, but getting two fingers poked in your eyes is no picnic. If Oliver Hardy had truly been subjected to all the injuries we see in one Laurel and Hardy short, he'd be in the hospital. Do you see what I'm driving at?
>>Do you really think you're making a case for *my* >> being unhinged with that statement? Don't you think that position >> really rather speaks to your own total lack of sanity?
>If you are asking if my belief that there is something wrong with you for >your thinking that the bloody portrayal of revolting brutality is hilarious >is an indication of my total lack of sanity I would have to say no. It displays a total lack of perspective. It's a f.cking movie.
 Signature AH
Offshore Eddie - 31 Mar 2005 05:24 GMT > If you are asking if my belief that there is something wrong with you for > your thinking that the bloody portrayal of revolting brutality is hilarious > is an indication of my total lack of sanity I would have to say no. I saw a film in which 75 people were killed in the first five minutes, and it was hilarious.
Not the killing, the movie.
Unintentionally.
G W Shrub - 28 Mar 2005 00:47 GMT > nimue goes: > > >You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny. > > That's just what someone who didn't get it would say. Perhaps he's German?
 Signature GW
Alan Hope - 28 Mar 2005 19:46 GMT G W Shrub goes:
>> nimue goes:
>> >You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>Perhaps he's German? The Germans have comedy. They find things funny, but we don't.
Who's right?
Can you see some kind of parallel developing here?
 Signature AH
G W Shrub - 28 Mar 2005 21:08 GMT > G W Shrub goes: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Can you see some kind of parallel developing here? "Scientists have finally found the gene which is responsible for humor in humans. Interestingly, they also found that Germans have a pseudo humor gene. This means that Germans only think they are funny".
GW
nimue - 28 Mar 2005 23:57 GMT > G W Shrub goes: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Can you see some kind of parallel developing here? I have a very good friend who is German. Her sense of humor is more dry than the Sahara desert. She didn't think Passion of the Christ was funny, btw.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 29 Mar 2005 01:46 GMT nimue goes:
>> G W Shrub goes: >>>> nimue goes:
>>>>> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>>>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>>> Perhaps he's German?
>> The Germans have comedy. They find things funny, but we don't.
>> Who's right?
>> Can you see some kind of parallel developing here?
>I have a very good friend who is German. Her sense of humor is more dry >than the Sahara desert. She didn't think Passion of the Christ was funny, >btw. Oh well that's f.cking proof then. Anonymous person's unidentified friend's unconfirmed opinion: trumps any argument under Usenet rules.
Guess I lose.
 Signature AH
nimue - 29 Mar 2005 02:39 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Guess I lose. I didn't think it was proof. I just thought I would say it. You really haven't presented any arguments -- just your opinion.
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 31 Mar 2005 00:36 GMT nimue goes:
>> nimue goes: >>>> G W Shrub goes: >>>>>> nimue goes:
>>>>>>> You're not funny. That's why people don't find you funny.
>>>>>> That's just what someone who didn't get it would say.
>>>>> Perhaps he's German?
>>>> The Germans have comedy. They find things funny, but we don't.
>>>> Who's right?
>>>> Can you see some kind of parallel developing here?
>>> I have a very good friend who is German. Her sense of humor is more >>> dry than the Sahara desert. She didn't think Passion of the Christ >>> was funny, btw.
>> Oh well that's f.cking proof then. Anonymous person's unidentified >> friend's unconfirmed opinion: trumps any argument under Usenet rules.
>> Guess I lose.
>I didn't think it was proof. I just thought I would say it. You really >haven't presented any arguments -- just your opinion. But I haven't been presenting a case. You tried that in response to my cat-cookery post. You want to show how I'm damaged, and sick, and wounded, tried, tribulated, traumatised, and so on.
It's rather your responsibility to prove anything you're asserting on that score. Are we agreed on that?
My entire argument has consisted of the following:
You're an a.s to try to argue any such thing in Usenet, on the basis of Usenet posts.
That's such a truism it doesn't even require to be demonstrated. However as luck would have it, you've sustained the thread with further examples of you being an a.s.
So QED, it would seem.
 Signature AH
em - 31 Mar 2005 04:21 GMT I beg to differ. You jumped in and demanded (not verbatim) that I defend the statements in my post. And of course, you kept drawing it out. This was after your initial post about meat drying out.
That is when others, including myself who was fairly new to newsgroups, began to get defensive. I guess some of us truly ha no idea that there were idiots out there who had nothing better to do than troll for people's "hot spots".
I spend my volunteer time at the SPCA as well as several other non-profit organizations, when I am not working the burn ward. I can't imagine that I would feel better about myself if I wasted all that time on my computer, trolling the newsgroups, baiting people and being nasty to them. Doing something to help others makes me feel fantastic. Perhaps it is something you should try.
> But I haven't been presenting a case. You tried that in response to my > cat-cookery post. You want to show how I'm damaged, and sick, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So QED, it would seem. Alan Hope - 01 Apr 2005 15:30 GMT em goes:
>I spend my volunteer time at the SPCA as well as several other non-profit organizations, when I am not working the burn ward. I can't imagine that I would feel better about myself if I wasted all that time on my computer, trolling the newsgroups, baiting people and being nasty to them. Doing something to help others makes me feel fantastic. Perhaps it is something you should try. I learned to type ages ago, darling, and the words flow from me like honey from a bee.
It doesn't take nearly as much time as you seem to think. Still I think it's great that you're making the effort, regardless of the obstacles.
 Signature AH
Noon Cat Nick - 23 Mar 2005 08:09 GMT > nimue goes: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fire? Build your argument on anatomy or neurology or ethics, whatever. > Show where the difference lies. Ethics: If there is no reason to kill the animal other than to kill the animal, to gain satisfaction and enjoyment from making it suffer and die, therein is the difference. If the pig is slaughtered quickly and efficiently for use as food, it is not an act of sheer sadism. If, OTOH, the pig's throat is cut simply to amuse oneself by making the pig suffer to death, and for no other reason, then it is an act of sheer sadism. What ethical or survival role does setting a tame, innocent creature on fire and burning it alive fulfill?
Alan Hope - 23 Mar 2005 21:55 GMT Noon Cat Nick goes:
>> nimue goes: >> >> nimue goes:
>> >>> I say those two >> >>> have made it pretty clear they do not belong in society and should >> >>> be locked up for the rest of their lives.
>> >> Setting fire to a cat is wrong -- very wrong.
>> >> It dries out the meat, which has very little fat marbling, and makes >> >> the beast almost inedible. Braising is by far the better alternative >> >> -- slow cooking in a small amount of liquid with aromatics added.
>> >> Or stewing in beer, something that works very well with rabbit, which >> >> has a similar structure to the cat. A dark ale is delicious, and a >> >> fruity cherry-beer from here in Belgium adds a whole new dimension. >> >> I'd reckon one cat per two guests at a very minimum.
>> >> HTH
>> >It didn't. It's not funny. Look -- if people kill animals to use as food, >> >that is one thing. If people kill animals because they (the people) enjoy >> >brualizing and terrorizing a defenseless creature, that's something else. >> Okay you've said it's something else, how about you go ahead and >> demonstrate how it's something else.
>> In what way is slitting a pig's throat different from setting a cat on >> fire? Build your argument on anatomy or neurology or ethics, whatever. >> Show where the difference lies.
>Ethics: If there is no reason to kill the animal other than to kill the >animal, to gain satisfaction and enjoyment from making it suffer and >die, therein is the difference. That hinges on your definition of the word "reason". Is food for you a good enough reason to kill a pig? Many people think not. The pig would probably agree.
>If the pig is slaughtered quickly and >efficiently for use as food, it is not an act of sheer sadism. Perhaps not, although "quickly and efficiently' are troublesome terms, if you've ever seen a pig slaughtered. Anyway, while it may not be an act of sheer sadism, it could easily be seen as an act of needless murder.
>If, OTOH, >the pig's throat is cut simply to amuse oneself by making the pig suffer >to death, and for no other reason, then it is an act of sheer sadism. >What ethical or survival role does setting a tame, innocent creature on >fire and burning it alive fulfill? Killing a pig merely to eat its flesh is just as needless and unjustifiable. There are other things to eat.
 Signature AH
nimue - 23 Mar 2005 23:10 GMT > Noon Cat Nick goes: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > good enough reason to kill a pig? Many people think not. The pig would > probably agree. Yeah. You know -- I'll bet he wouldn't like being set on fire and tossed off a roof for no reason either. C'mon, Alan. You believe there is nothing wrong with torturing a cat for no reason -- why is it now suddenly wrong to kill a pig for food?
>> If the pig is slaughtered quickly and >> efficiently for use as food, it is not an act of sheer sadism. > > Perhaps not, although "quickly and efficiently' are troublesome terms, > if you've ever seen a pig slaughtered. Anyway, while it may not be an > act of sheer sadism, Like setting an animal on fire and throwing it off a roof?
>it could easily be seen as an act of needless > murder. So there is a difference?
>> If, OTOH, >> the pig's throat is cut simply to amuse oneself by making the pig [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Killing a pig merely to eat its flesh is just as needless and > unjustifiable. There are other things to eat. Are you a vegetarian? If you are, I assume you are because you think killing animals for food is wrong. If that is the case, why do you think it's funny to torture an animal for no reason other to cause suffering, pain, and death? I think you are full of it, actually. I think you just want to piss people off and then ridicule them for being pissed off -- you think that gives you some kind of power. Wow! I can make people angry and then tell them they are pathetic for getting angry! Whoo-hoo, Alan. Pretty pathetic.
-- nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Alan Hope - 24 Mar 2005 00:29 GMT nimue goes:
>C'mon, Alan. You believe there is nothing >wrong with torturing a cat for no reason -- why is it now suddenly wrong to >kill a pig for food? You will of course have no trouble pointing to where I said such a thing.
 Signature AH
Mel - 24 Mar 2005 03:22 GMT >>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Killing a pig merely to eat its flesh is just as needless and >> unjustifiable. There are other things to eat. This is a mighty strange argument, considering you are the one who initially posted the recipe for, what was it, beer battered cat? or was it rabbit? At any rate, you spoke of how cooking meat too fast dried it out. Yet, you say it is unjustifiable to kill to eat meat. But you do it. End of conversation. Only a troll would have dragged this on far past it's due date, so perhaps you can just move on to another news group now.
>nimue wrote > Are you a vegetarian? If you are, I assume you are because you think [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete > bitches." Dawn French Noon Cat Nick - 24 Mar 2005 00:38 GMT > Noon Cat Nick goes: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > good enough reason to kill a pig? Many people think not. The pig would > probably agree. Then let's be in concord on the matter. What's your definition of the term?
> >If the pig is slaughtered quickly and > >efficiently for use as food, it is not an act of sheer sadism. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > act of sheer sadism, it could easily be seen as an act of needless > murder. Again, define for me "quickly" and "efficiently" so we can understand each other. Also explain what you believe is/are the difference(s) between the verbs "to kill" and "to murder". I'd rather not agree to disagree until I'm certain what the disagreement might be.
> >If, OTOH, > >the pig's throat is cut simply to amuse oneself by making the pig suffer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Killing a pig merely to eat its flesh is just as needless and > unjustifiable. There are other things to eat. True, but we don't eat animals for the mere thrill of knowing that they were made to suffer and die in a deliberate excruciating manner. Just as people don't deliberately torture animals to death just for an entree--e.g., setting someone's companion animal on fire and tossing it from the roof of a building while burning it alive. (Then again, maybe they grew up in a cat-eating family and that's how they were raised to cook supper. Who knows?)
Doll is Mine - 22 Mar 2005 00:05 GMT >>> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > have made it pretty clear they do not belong in society and should be locked > up for the rest of their lives. I didn't at all mean I thought it was funny. I just meant that from time to time you hear these stories about things done to cats by youngish teenagers.
Noon Cat Nick - 21 Mar 2005 04:00 GMT > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks. Sadism knows no age limits.
Lesley Madigan - 22 Mar 2005 16:04 GMT 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks.
> Sadism knows no age limits. This reminds me of a story that appeared in the news over here about 2 years ago when some people went into a pet shop and purchased some gerbils. They then went to a shop that sold fireworks, brought some rockets and asked the assistant for some rubber bands.....
I am sure I do not need to spell out what they did.....
The main thing that seemed to make this crime newsworthy was that they were not kids but in their 20's and 30's. The assistant said that if they'd been kids, she wouldn't have given them the rubber bands (ignoring the fact that if they had been kids she shouldn't have sold them the rockets)so apparentl some people seem to accept that kids are cruel to animals but it becomes shocking when a grown up does it.
Lesley
Slave of the Fabulous Furballs
MaryL - 21 Mar 2005 08:56 GMT >> "- Prof. Jonez?" wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks. That's not a prank. It's deliberate, malicious cruelty and should be treated as such.
MaryL
catherine yronwode - 21 Mar 2005 09:12 GMT > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>Klohr set a gray cat on fire and then tossed it off the school > >> roof Wednesday night.
> 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks. It's not a prank. They are sociopaths. If not euthanized, "rehabilitated" with heavy medication and continual therapeutic monitoring, or confined to a prison for life, these two men will soon torture and kill more pet animals and then, quite likely, they will move on to smaller human beings such as children. Both Law Enforcement and psychologists now understand and recognize that pet animal torture and killing bears a direct relationship to serial murder and is often a precursor or "try-out" for serial killing. It's time the public wised up as well and stopped thinking of pet animal torture and killing as a "prank."
Since this thread is cross-posted to groups i don't normally frequent, and where i am not known, i want to make it clear that i am not a vegetarian and i do not view the humane slaughter of animals for food in this class of behaviour. I am speaking specifically of the torture and killing of pet animals such as domestic cats and dogs.
cat yronwode
\ - 21 Mar 2005 19:01 GMT > > > "- Prof. Jonez?" wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > cat yronwode "GEORGE W. BUSH BLEW UP FROGS"
MIDLAND, Texas ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000
An alert for American voters and humane educators everywhere appeared on May 21 in the 61st through 64th paragraphs of a 76-paragraph NEW YORK TIMES feature on the childhood of Republican candidate for U.S. president George W. Bush -- if anyone noticed.
?One of the local rituals for children,? reported Nicholas D. Kristof of Life in Midland, Texas, when George W. was a boy, ?were meetings with cookies and milk at the home of a nice old lady who represented the SPCA. The cookies were digested more thoroughly than the teachings.?
?`We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush pal Terry] Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'?
Kristof made plain that ?we? explicitly included George W. Bush, and that George W., the Safari Club International ?Governor of the Year? in 1999 for his support of trophy hunting, was the leader among the boys who did it.
George W. Bush, 54, apparently learned hunting and alleged sportsmanship the National Rifle Association way, from his father, former U.S. President George H. Bush. NRA vice president Kayne Robinson boasted at a members-only meeting in early 2000 that Bush, if elected, would be ?a president where we work out of their office.?
That got some attention, along with the role of NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre in raising $250,000 at a recent Republican Party fundraiser honoring Bush, and the Bush record as Texas governor of signing bills allowing people to carry concealed handguns and take guns to church, and barring cities from suing gun-makers.
Yet no one, not even Representative Tom Lantos (D-California), raised with reference to Bush the character issue implicit in having recreationally shot and blown up frogs -- or talked about the failure of humane education to dissuade Bush from cruelty which must have been known by his famous father, as the evidence would have been hard to conceal.
On May 25, however, Lantos and 20 other Representatives showed that they should've recognized the character issue by introducing House Concurrent Resolution 338. The Resolution, according to Lantos' press release, urges ?greater attention to identifying and treating individuals who are guilty of violence against animals because of the link between abuse of animals and violence against humans. In addition, it urges federal agencies to further investigate the link between cruelty toward animals and violence against humans.?
Offered Lantos, ?It is commonsense knowledge that any individual who harms animals cruelly and deliberately is not otherwise well-adjusted. A man who abuses the family dog or cat may turn that violence on his spouse or children. Those children involved in school shootings weren't just `having fun' or `just being boys' -- they were engaged in torturing and hurting animals. As a society, we cannot overlook the fact that a person who hurts animals is committing an act of violence and may eventually turn on human beings.?
But the only people George W. Bush is known to have had a part in killing were the 135 convicts whose executions he has authorized during his five-and-a-half years as Texas governor. Bush mocked the executed killer Karla Fae Tucker's plea for her life in a falsetto, and reportedly giggled when asked by a journalist how he could send the executed Gary Graham to die, when Graham's court-appointed attorney was judicially admonished for sleeping through much of his trial.
DOPPELGANGER? If accused serial killer Robert Yates, 48, of Spokane, Washington, had been caught and convicted in Texas, be might have been among those whose killing by lethal injection Bush approved.
If Bush and Yates had been closer in age and geography, they might have been friends, sharing their love of church, baseball, and -- especially -- using their guns to kill small animals. Instead Yates grew up in Oak Harbor, Washington. An April 26 investigative report on Yates' youth by Jessie Stensland of the WHIDBEY NEWS-TIMES and SOUTH WHIDBEY RECORD buried mention of Yates' hunting in the l7th paragraph of 21.
Like George W. Bush, Yates evidently graduated to trophy hunting. But instead of blasting exotic species on Texas hunting ranches, be allegedly hunted young suspected prostitutes. He allegedly terrorized them, robbed them, and shot at least 18 of them at close range with a handgun. Yates shares his background as a teenaged hunter not only with George W. Bush but also with at least 42 other adults and 35 teens who have been charged with murder in recent years, whose hunting backgrounds have surfaced -- albeit often just barely -- in news coverage of their alleged crimes.
The WHIDBEY NEWS-TIMES and SOUTH WHIDBEY RECORD did not publish a letter by ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton citing the statistics; discussing the traits that studies have found are often shared by hunters, serial killers, and child abusers; and noting that early involvement in legal sport hunting -- not just illegal animal torture -- also was in the reported backgrounds of convicted school massacre perpetrators Luke Woodham, Andrew Golden, Mitchell Johnson, Kip Kinkel, Michael Carneal, Barry Loukatis, and Evan Ramsey.
Press, public, and politicians who are just barely beginning to recognize the link between illegal violence against animals and violence against humans remain far from understanding the distinction between the inhibition about getting caught that discourages illegality, and the inhibition about causing suffering that George W. Bush's humane education teacher tried unsuccessfully to encourage."
From: ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000, p. 18.
Amy - 28 Apr 2005 21:39 GMT I only read the subject line, I can't go any further. If it's as simple as the subject line says, I'm already sickened. I've always been a firm believer that if someone is capable of hurting any innocent life form, human or not, that they have the soul of a sadistic killer.
>> > > "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > From: ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 2000, p. 18. Doll is Mine - 22 Mar 2005 00:16 GMT >>> "- Prof. Jonez©" wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > cat yronwode I honestly didn't mean to come across as if I felt it was funny, and clearly "prank" was the wrong word to use. My point was that usually this sh.t happens from younger teenagers who have since either realized what the did was evil and have felt horribly guilty - or they decided they liked hurting things weaker than themselves and have since graduated to humans. I worked in an animal shelter for years, and we often saw things that were done to cats. When anyone was around who knew what happened it was usually 13-16 year old boys. That was truly my only point and I am sorry I made a flip remark without thinking it thru. I very much care about humane treatment of animals and have dedicated hundreds of my personal hours and many, many weekends in volunteer activities to care for unwanted or mistreated animals.
none - 02 Apr 2005 04:59 GMT > 18 and 22? They seem a little old for such pranks. I don't think it was a prank. Throwing a loved companion off a tall building is a an obvious method of euthanization. Unfortunately, this fellow was not terribly bright, and picked the tallest building he could find. This was a problem because defenestration by skyscraper can never be a humane way of euthanizing a cat.
Cats, unlike other animals, tend to relax as they fall, slowing their terminal velocity to a gentle and typically survivable 60mph (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_190.html). In fact, extermination has shown that 95% of cats that fall from buildings 9 to 32 stories in hight ultimately survive. (http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211.web.stuff/Kuhns/terminal_velocity.htm)
The morality rate for pussies peaks around a mere 5.5 stories. Unfortunately, our poor caretaker did not realize his mistake until _after_ his lifetime friend had already been shoved off a roof. Faced with a pained and wounded animal, he took the only reasonable step -- set the feline aflame, thereby exciting it, ensuring that its final plunge would be fiery, but ultimately short and merciful.
Falling at 160mph (the terminal velocity for an excited cat -- see previously cited article), the cat would have fallen the 32 stories in less than 3 seconds; the animal was probably just starting to feel uncomfortably toasty as its last meeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooow came to an abrupt end.
I think we can agree that if a 5.5-story building is not readily available, setting a cat on fire and shoving it off the roof can be reasonable and still mostly humane method of euthanization. It is probably one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but might be a little hard to pull off in practice.
-Lirpa Loof
Lesley Madigan - 23 Mar 2005 15:05 GMT > > Police still don't know who owned the cat, I think this is the saddest bit that somewhere someone is waiting for their kitty to come home
Lesley
Slave of the Fabulous Furballs
nimue - 23 Mar 2005 22:54 GMT >>> Police still don't know who owned the cat, > > I think this is the saddest bit that somewhere someone is waiting for > their kitty to come home I know. That always makes me sad, too. For all we know, that cat was someone's only companion. I am sure the sadists who committed this crime thought of that -- and got sick pleasure from it.
> Lesley > > Slave of the Fabulous Furballs
 Signature nimue
"If I had created reality television I would have had a much greater influence, but then I would have had to KILL MYSELF." Joss Whedon
"There are two types of women -- those who like chocolate and complete bitches." Dawn French
Mel - 24 Mar 2005 03:17 GMT Nimue: I don't know if you are aware - - - I only noticed this in one of my final posts.....in posting, my newsgroups header picked up that of one of the .....ummm..... people ??? ...... I responded to....... and therefore your responses are cross-posting to 3 newsgroups instead of just this one.
I only mention it because of Diane's post, and I thought if this was unintentional, you might want to delete them from your postings. It apparently is a tradition of trolls, as those groups have nothing to do with the initial topic.
I hope I helped!
:) Mel
>>>> Police still don't know who owned the cat, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Slave of the Fabulous Furballs _ G O D _ - 26 Mar 2005 04:53 GMT >>>> Police still don't know who owned the cat, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who committed this crime thought of that -- > and got sick pleasure from it. Quite possibly, the person who set his can in fire, has mental disorder of some kind, to explain his atrocities toward one's own "only companion." Because by now cat's owner would have announced himself, if he was not this guy, and indeed looking for his cat...
 Signature _____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or high security, or a high b
|
|