Kitten cruelty sentence cut

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd say death penalty. Not because I give a rat's ass about the cat (I don't) and not because the cat's rights were violated (cats don't have rights), but because anyone who could commit such an act is *clearly* not playing with a full bag of marbles.

I believe that rights are social constructs (i.e., they are man-made, not god-given), defended by law (force), and open to improvement. Animals have rights if we choose as a society to extend them rights. It's as simple as that. There are laws against animal cruelty in NSW, and so in fact, cats *do* have a limited set of rights in that state.

I'm heading out the door to go home, but I will pick this up later. Rights are neither Social Constructs nor are they gifts from God. Rights are derived from man's specific nature and his relationship to the Natural World. They are identified by his specific capabilities (reason being chief among them) and the requirements of his survival.

Anyway, more later but I gotta run!

Jason

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd say death penalty. Not because I give a rat's ass about the cat (I don't) and not because the cat's rights were violated (cats don't have rights), but because anyone who could commit such an act is *clearly* not playing with a full bag of marbles.

I believe that rights are social constructs (i.e., they are man-made, not god-given), defended by law (force), and open to improvement. Animals have rights if we choose as a society to extend them rights. It's as simple as that. There are laws against animal cruelty in NSW, and so in fact, cats *do* have a limited set of rights in that state.

I'm heading out the door to go home, but I will pick this up later. Rights are neither Social Constructs nor are they gifts from God. Rights are derived from man's specific nature and his relationship to the Natural World. They are identified by his specific capabilities (reason being chief among them) and the requirements of his survival.

Anyway, more later but I gotta run!

Jason

I utterly disagree with your *opinion* on the nature and origin of human rights. But if you're going to run out the door, there's not much point in me laying out my views, now is there?

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Taejin
lol. Make no mistake, I am totally against the torture of animals, since it's completely unnecessary. But the attempt to humanize and attribute human emotions to animals that can't even think about their own future is ridiculous and laughable.

So you think a kitten is incapable of experiencing emotional states like fear, pain, contentment, affection? I don't think these emotions are intrinsically human emotions, it seems quite reasonable to expect that many non-human species are able to experience these emotions too.

So what if it experiences basic emotional states? It has no consciousness, no sense of self, only basic responses.

"So what if a 1 week old human baby experiences basic emotional states? It has no consciousness, no sense of self, only basic responses."

Originally posted by: Taejin
I'm not dehumanizing the animal. It is not human. What humans intrinsically have (well apart from teh monkeys) is the ability to laugh, dream, attempt to control our future and consciousness.

A human baby possesses none of the qualities you list. A newborn human baby is incapable of laughing, dreaming (dreaming in the sense of fantasizing about future possibilities), attempting to control it's future, etc. Therefore according to your logic, the torture of a human baby is nothing to be overly concerned about. A baby doesn't have a consciousness, so it's no matter if it is in pain.

This is about the capacity to empathize when you see another living thing experiencing pain. If you see another organism (whether a human, or a cat) experiencing pain and terror, and you *feel* nothing at all, then congratulations, you have one of the key indicators of sociopathy/ psychopathy, i.e., the inability to empathize with others.

Again, you come at me with another flawed argument. A human baby most certainly will acquire the characteristics of humanity, a cat, a dog, a tapeworm or a rat will never do so.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Taejin
Nothing in my post did I say I enjoyed the suffering of the kitten, or that I whack off to watching squirrels get skinned alive. Not once did I claim what the kid did was a good thing, and neither did I say I supported him in his statements. But it borders on the edge of idiocy when people feel their little gooey hearts drop to their feet and start clamoring that the kid himself be burned alive and then kept alive in order to "punish" him. What would our world be like if we really did follow Hammurabi's code? While you may like the idea for "an eye for an eye" it is really not feasible, and so our state only attempts to limit it to preset conditions for punishment. Timothy McVeigh didn't have little bits of his body blown off at a time. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't sodomized, lobotomized, had acid poured into his brain or eaten alive. They were all given a punishment based on their deeds.

I assumed the posters were joking when they called for the death or torture of the perpetrator.

Originally posted by: Taejin
Unfortunately, it is ridiculous when people attempt to equate something like a kitten to a human being. If we're going to punish people for killing kittens as much as we do people, where do we stop? Dogs? Squirrels? Rats? Mice? Insects?

The man was not charged for killing an animal. He was charged for acts of animal cruelty. It is not illegal to euthanize a pet cat or dog. However it is illegal to subject a cat or dog to extreme forms of torture or abuse.

I don't necessarily think juvenile detention would be the best sentence. Probably some kind of court-mandated therapy would be more appropriate.

Originally posted by: Taejin
All these beings are capable of feeling pain, and I assure you, fear as well. All these things are living beings that struggle to survive, simply because that is what being alive is all about. All these things have a fundamental equal right to life, and all these things murder each other in the wild.

So before you start assuming that I must be some sadistic evil motherf*cker who would like nothing more to watch you die, since I obviously do not give two sh*ts about a kitten who happened to make it on the news, try pulling your head out of your @ss and thinking things through.

And whether you want to have anything to do with me or not is not my concern. This is an internet forum, and while you may be looking for some fufilling relationship online, I am most certainly not interested.

I intended my comments more generally, i.e., I would tend to avoid people who appear to have a gross deficit in their capacity to empathize.

You assumed the poster's were joking? I guess we're off on different foots here. A lot of posts that are intended to raise someone's moral outrage are always met with the same tired old responses: "That little sh*t should receive the same!" - "I hope that bastard dies" - "OMG U SHOULD DIA.F!!" .. stuff like that. Either these people are completely bluffers, and just keyboard warriors with no guts in real life, or they are exhibiting a part of their own sense of vigilante justice - something that is unneeded and worthless in a lawful society.

Also, okay, I tortured a cat. What about torturing a rat? What about torturing a lynx, since lynx's weren't bred to be human companions and therefore are not capable of being semi-sentient? What about torturing a cricket? Torturing a spider and ripping off it's legs? When should someone be punished for torturing a living being? Well, this offshoot of the discussion is moot, since society already has laws against animal cruelty, but I thought it would be interesting to raise the question of why our punishment of animal cruelty is so arbitrary.

Finally, I felt that a valid counterpoint was needed against the mindless deluge of the fools who felt that human life was somehow equal to a lesser form of life. REgardless of how anyone rants and behaves, an animal will never make a meaningful contribution to human society directly, and they will never be treated as equal, given equal rights and considerations. Animals ARE NOT equal to humans (and you f*ckers know when I say animals I'm talking about non-human living beings) and this is reflected in how our society metes out rights to animals and punishments concerning humans vs animals.


Your ability to empathize with animals is not an excuse to go off screaming for blood. Although you and many others have attempted to slander my personal character, or infer somehow that I am a cold blooded future-murderer, I can assure you I am a law-abiding citizen, with no plans and no urges to break the law, nor commit murder of anything maliciously. Personally, I felt a twinge of sorrow for the kitten, and I recognized that the kid who set the cat on fire was unstable - but I was totally disgusted at the unbalanced outpouring of idiocy by forum members who felt that as long as they were in the moral green, they could imagine all sorts of vengeance on the kid.

I guess that's why all of us aren't judges, lawyers, lawmakers and leaders of this country.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Taejin
Also, okay, I tortured a cat. What about torturing a rat? What about torturing a lynx, since lynx's weren't bred to be human companions and therefore are not capable of being semi-sentient? What about torturing a cricket? Torturing a spider and ripping off it's legs? When should someone be punished for torturing a living being? Well, this offshoot of the discussion is moot, since society already has laws against animal cruelty, but I thought it would be interesting to raise the question of why our punishment of animal cruelty is so arbitrary.

It's arbitrary mostly because we wanted to keep the law clean and simple (animal cruelty). However, different animals possess varying degrees of sentience and capacity to experience emotional pain. It would be much less arbitrary if we had laws defining stuff like "cruelty towards dogs", "cruelty towards cats", etc.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[NetGuySC]

My brother was in the local paper for his efforts to save a pit bull that was sprayed with lighter fluid then lit by a group of neighborhood kids. Kis were laughing at my brother as he tried to put out the flames with a blanket and when he was bitten.
Dog died later that day at the vet....

Local Sheriff department would not persue any action aginst the kids..

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the suffering of another creature, or laugh it off, because that creature isn't human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you.

I find it mind boggling that this is coming from someone who is on the record in support of both abortion and infanticide. If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the sufferings of a human, or laugh it off, because that creature is human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you. :|

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Taejin
lol. Make no mistake, I am totally against the torture of animals, since it's completely unnecessary. But the attempt to humanize and attribute human emotions to animals that can't even think about their own future is ridiculous and laughable.

So you think a kitten is incapable of experiencing emotional states like fear, pain, contentment, affection? I don't think these emotions are intrinsically human emotions, it seems quite reasonable to expect that many non-human species are able to experience these emotions too.

So what if it experiences basic emotional states? It has no consciousness, no sense of self, only basic responses.

"So what if a 1 week old human baby experiences basic emotional states? It has no consciousness, no sense of self, only basic responses."

Originally posted by: Taejin
I'm not dehumanizing the animal. It is not human. What humans intrinsically have (well apart from teh monkeys) is the ability to laugh, dream, attempt to control our future and consciousness.

A human baby possesses none of the qualities you list. A newborn human baby is incapable of laughing, dreaming (dreaming in the sense of fantasizing about future possibilities), attempting to control it's future, etc. Therefore according to your logic, the torture of a human baby is nothing to be overly concerned about. A baby doesn't have a consciousness, so it's no matter if it is in pain.

This is about the capacity to empathize when you see another living thing experiencing pain. If you see another organism (whether a human, or a cat) experiencing pain and terror, and you *feel* nothing at all, then congratulations, you have one of the key indicators of sociopathy/ psychopathy, i.e., the inability to empathize with others.

Again, you come at me with another flawed argument. A human baby most certainly will acquire the characteristics of humanity, a cat, a dog, a tapeworm or a rat will never do so.

How is the capacity to aquire human traits at a later point in development relevant to the baby's experience of suffering in the present moment?

Describe for me how the baby's experience of suffering is different to the kitten's experience of suffering (assuming they have each been doused in petrol and set on fire).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the suffering of another creature, or laugh it off, because that creature isn't human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you.

I find it mind boggling that this is coming from someone who is on the record in support of both abortion and infanticide. If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the sufferings of a human, or laugh it off, because that creature is human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you. :|

ROFL! You're such a drama queen. The aborted fetus does not suffer. It is incapable of suffering. 99% of all abortions are performed before the 5th month; the brain and nervous system are not completed until the 7th or 8th month. It is held by researchers that the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until at least the 7th month. The fetus simply does not have the neurological equipment that would allow it to experience pain or fear. I would be inclined to support the possibility or option of infanticide in certain situations - for example, where the newborn infant has painful, untreatable birth defects - providing the method of killing is painless and the infant is not allowed to suffer.

BTW this thread was not about someone just killing a cat. It is perfectly legal to have your cat euthanized. The issue here is the deliberate infliction of needless suffering on a cat.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: NetGuySC
My brother was in the local paper for his efforts to save a pit bull that was sprayed with lighter fluid then lit by a group of neighborhood kids. Kis were laughing at my brother as he tried to put out the flames with a blanket and when he was bitten.
Dog died later that day at the vet....

Local Sheriff department would not persue any action aginst the kids..

Your brother is a very decent person, imo.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: kogase
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

this topic is running out of steam

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
ROFL! You're such a drama queen. The aborted fetus does not suffer. It is incapable of suffering. 99% of all abortions are performed before the 5th month; the brain and nervous system are not completed until the 7th or 8th month. It is held by researchers that the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until at least the 7th month. The fetus simply does not have the neurological equipment that would allow it to experience pain or fear. I would be inclined to support the possibility or option of infanticide in certain situations - for example, where the newborn infant has painful, untreatable birth defects - providing the method of killing is painless and the infant is not allowed to suffer.

BTW this thread was not about someone just killing a cat. It is perfectly legal to have your cat euthanized. The issue here is the deliberate infliction of needless suffering on a cat.

ROFL! You're such an ignoramus. The fetus has developed the ability to feel pain at 8 weeks, not 8 months. 99% of all abortions are performed after the eighth week. It is held by researchers that you'd be wise to go back and re-read your sources, checking the units given for time spans this time around. You simply don't have the neurological equipment necessary to determine what a fetus can or cannot experience. I would be inclined to support the possibility or option of you being consistent in your arguments or, perhaps, even justifying your overbearing assumptions (that the ability to sense pain or fear is a determinant factor in determining what is or is not worthy of protection). I'd also like to hear how you justify killing a human infant when you won't allow the killing of an animal, since the animal feels pain. What you're suggesting goes beyond eugenic practices and into the realm of the truly insane, putting you in good company among well-known abortion advocates in your support of infanticide and eugenic practices.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma

Originally posted by: SuperTool
100hrs is too much for a frikken kitten. Unless there is an owner who wants to press destruction of property charges. It's an animal, they shouldn't have any rights. Sending someone to jail over this is ridiculous.

I don't think it's about a "frikken" kitten, it's about some sick piece of human waste who would take delight in causing the suffering of a defenseless animal.

You don't have to like what he's doing, but I don't think it should be a crime.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
ROFL! You're such a drama queen. The aborted fetus does not suffer. It is incapable of suffering. 99% of all abortions are performed before the 5th month; the brain and nervous system are not completed until the 7th or 8th month. It is held by researchers that the fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until at least the 7th month. The fetus simply does not have the neurological equipment that would allow it to experience pain or fear. I would be inclined to support the possibility or option of infanticide in certain situations - for example, where the newborn infant has painful, untreatable birth defects - providing the method of killing is painless and the infant is not allowed to suffer.

BTW this thread was not about someone just killing a cat. It is perfectly legal to have your cat euthanized. The issue here is the deliberate infliction of needless suffering on a cat.

ROFL! You're such an ignoramus. The fetus has developed the ability to feel pain at 8 weeks, not 8 months.

Feel free to cite research supporting this. Also define precisely what you mean by "feel pain". Surely you cannot mean "the registering and awareness of pain in the brain of the fetus". An awareness of pain in the fetal brain at 8 weeks is almost certainly an impossibility, given the cns has not formed at 8 weeks, the synaptic connections in the brain believed essential for the experiencing of pain are yet to form at 8 weeks, indeed little sensory information hits the fetus' brain prior to the 25th week.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
99% of all abortions are performed after the eighth week. It is held by researchers that you'd be wise to go back and re-read your sources, checking the units given for time spans this time around.

You're the one presenting an utterly preposterous time line for the development of fetal capacity to experience pain.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You simply don't have the neurological equipment necessary to determine what a fetus can or cannot experience.

I do not have the knowledge or opportunity to conduct my own scientific investigations into fetal pain. Hence I rely on the research and opinions of experts in this field.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I would be inclined to support the possibility or option of you being consistent in your arguments or, perhaps, even justifying your overbearing assumptions (that the ability to sense pain or fear is a determinant factor in determining what is or is not worthy of protection).

That animals shouldn't be subject to needless suffering is a matter of belief or principle for me. How is such a belief an "overbearing assumption"?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'd also like to hear how you justify killing a human infant when you won't allow the killing of an animal, since the animal feels pain.

Please identify where in this thread I have objected to the killing of a cat. I don't have a problem with someone having their cat euthanized using a painless method. Nor do I have a problem with people killing their farm animals in a swift, painless manner. I do have a problem with someone torturing their cat or other animals. For late term abortions, I do agree with the use of an anesthetic to eliminate the possibility the fetus will experience pain. If you want to discuss infanticide, then start up a thread on that topic, fvcktard.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
What you're suggesting goes beyond eugenic practices and into the realm of the truly insane, putting you in good company among well-known abortion advocates in your support of infanticide and eugenic practices.

What am I suggesting, PsychoWizard?

 

[FP]

Originally posted by: Crucial
We used to "toture" the cats on my aunt's farm all the time. Kitten bowling, stringing them up over the electric lines in a bucket, seeing how high you could throw them up in the tree. It was all harmless fun to us. None of us are homicidle maniacs. They got it worse from their idiotic behaviors like sleeping in the engine bay of the cars. Turn it on and WHACK they would get it from the fan blades.

We never set them on fire though. That's pretty harsh but I can't see wasting taxpayer dollars and space in jail for this kind of crap. And why in the hell would you try and save "William" by doing skin grafts? It would be much more humane to snuff him out and end the pain. *racks the 12 gauge* Here kitty kitty.

Calling the cats behavior idiotic for trying to find a warm place to sleep may help you rationalize your own idiotic behavior but it doesn't change the fact that what you did is wrong on so many levels. It indicates a severe lack of empathy at an early age which probably manifests itself in other ways in your life today. Do us all a favor and never procreate.

 

[raildogg]

This thread has gone places.

aidanjm, I would like you agree and sympathize with you but I can't. You have shown yourself to be absolutely cruel and disgusting to fellow human beings. I take it that you regard animals higher than humans. By the way, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply saying I find a bit odd things that you have posted in the past.

Personally, those are some of the most disgusting statements I've ever seen.

Here is your quote from this thread:

• "If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the suffering of another creature, or laugh it off, because that creature isn't human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you."

So I guess you're completely guilty of the same exact thing you tried to associate someone else with.



Here are some of your other quotes:

Regarding the Pope and his, at the time, failing health:

• "is he dead yet? is he dead yet? is he dead yet? "
  
  "
  Yay! "
  
  "funny, that's exactly what I think of that evil little creep, the Poop, and his disgusting church
  
  Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
  
  "I'm not calling for his death. I'm gleefully enjoying the prospect of watching this evil little turd die a painful death."

How can you possibly wish pain and suffering upon a human being and yet be outraged when a animal suffers pain? How can you expect us to take you seriously?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: raildogg
How can you expect us to take you seriously?

I expect you to discern the difference between ludicrously over the top, deliberately provocative statements made to get a rise out of people, and statements where I earnestly put forward my opinions, beliefs or arguments.

That is expecting too much, apparently.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: raildogg
This thread has gone places.

aidanjm, I would like you agree and sympathize with you but I can't.

It's not me you should be sympathizing with, it is the owner of the tortured pet.

Originally posted by: raildogg
You have shown yourself to be absolutely cruel and disgusting to fellow human beings.

Oh really. Because a few facetious statements on an internet forum are indiciative of the way I treat the people I interact with on a daily basis, right?

Originally posted by: raildogg
I take it that you regard animals higher than humans. By the way, I'm not attacking you, I'm simply saying I find a bit odd things that you have posted in the past.

No, I don't in general hold non-human animals in higher regard than humans.

Originally posted by: raildogg
Personally, those are some of the most disgusting statements I've ever seen.

Here is your quote from this thread:

• "If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the suffering of another creature, or laugh it off, because that creature isn't human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you."

So I guess you're completely guilty of the same exact thing you tried to associate someone else with.

What am I guilty of?

Originally posted by: raildogg
Here are some of your other quotes:

Regarding the Pope and his, at the time, failing health:

• "is he dead yet? is he dead yet? is he dead yet? "
  
  "
  Yay! "
  
  "funny, that's exactly what I think of that evil little creep, the Poop, and his disgusting church
  
  Yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "
  
  "I'm not calling for his death. I'm gleefully enjoying the prospect of watching this evil little turd die a painful death."

How can you possibly wish pain and suffering upon a human being and yet be outraged when a animal suffers pain? How can you expect us to take you seriously?

Actually, the Poop holds that human suffering is beneficial, in that it brings us closer to the suffering christ on the cross. (Or some such nonsense). This is a fundamental belief within the Catholic faith. Thus it is quite *generous* of me, I think, to wish the Poop a lingering, painful death. Such a death will ensure the Poop is very close indeed to Jesus when he heaves his last breath.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crucial
We used to "toture" the cats on my aunt's farm all the time.

Kitten bowling, stringing them up over the electric lines in a bucket, seeing how high you could throw them up in the tree.

It was all harmless fun to us. None of us are homicidle maniacs.

Holy crap.

Many States have now made Animal torture a Felony crime and for good reason since torture certanly appears to be on the rise and normally a pre-cursor to human torture or killing next, Georgia put that Law into effect last year for example.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
...

You're simply wrong about the developmental timeline - you claimed something that is completely false. Do your own legwork. A cursory Google search should give you the results you need. for your third grade namecalling.

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I expect you to discern the difference between ludicrously over the top, deliberately provocative statements made to get a rise out of people, and statements where I earnestly put forward my opinions, beliefs or arguments.

In other words, you're a troll of the worst kind.

 

[raildogg]

Have you retracted your earlier statement which read "That kitten is worth a 1000 poops"? Poop meaning Pope.

Why do you hate Christians so much?

I'll quote you from your earlier post:

"If 'you' (and by you, I mean anyone) are willing to completely dissociate yourself from the suffering of another creature, or laugh it off, because that creature isn't human, then I don't want to know you or have anything to do with you."

Seems like your not following your own words.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Just how cruel do you have to be to an animal before you go to jail? Why is the intentional infliction of pain and terror of a kitten not considered to be a moral outrage?



Kitten cruelty sentence cut

By Kim Arlington
March 16, 2005
From: AAP


A TEENAGER jailed for 16 months for setting a kitten on fire has had his sentence reduced on appeal to 100 hours of community service.

Matthew Staines, 18, of Tregear, was found guilty of aggravated cruelty to the 10-week-old kitten, named William.

William was doused with petrol and set alight at Mount Druitt, in Sydney's west, in January.

He was found cowering under a house with second degree burns and later died after an operation to reconstruct his skin.

Staines was sentenced last month in Penrith Local Court to a minimum eight months behind bars.

He immediately appealed against the decision to the District Court, which last week overturned the maximum 16-month jail term and ordered him to perform 100 hours' community service.

The decision outraged the RSPCA and NSW Opposition, which said Staines should have gone to jail.

Staff were shocked and frustrated by the "heartbreaking" appeal decision, RSPCA NSW Chief Inspector Don Robinson said today.

"For the safety of other animals, this individual should be behind bars," he said.

"This outcome makes the RSPCA wonder at the community's perception of our ability to safeguard animals and to alleviate their pain and suffering.

"Perhaps a stronger penalty may have acted as a deterrent to others considering torturing animals for a bit of 'fun'."

William was burned less than two weeks after closed circuit television footage captured an attack on an eight-week-old kitten at Seven Hills railway station, also in Sydney's west.

The kitten, named Shelley, was allegedly stoned, stomped on and run over with a bicycle.

Christopher Leigh Herreros, 18, and a 15-year-old youth were charged with aggravated animal cruelty over the incident and are due to reappear in court this month.

NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden also criticised the appeal decision, saying Staines had committed an evil act and should have been sent to jail.

"One hundred hours of community service is a slap on the wrist for what is a very cruel, and in fact evil form of behaviour, which should be punished as it was intended to, by a jail sentence," Mr Brogden said.

The real question is will they reduce his sentence when he inevitibly moves up from torturing animals to people?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I'd say death penalty. Not because I give a rat's ass about the cat (I don't) and not because the cat's rights were violated (cats don't have rights), but because anyone who could commit such an act is *clearly* not playing with a full bag of marbles.

I believe that rights are social constructs (i.e., they are man-made, not god-given), defended by law (force), and open to improvement. Animals have rights if we choose as a society to extend them rights. It's as simple as that. There are laws against animal cruelty in NSW, and so in fact, cats *do* have a limited set of rights in that state.

I'm heading out the door to go home, but I will pick this up later. Rights are neither Social Constructs nor are they gifts from God. Rights are derived from man's specific nature and his relationship to the Natural World. They are identified by his specific capabilities (reason being chief among them) and the requirements of his survival.

Anyway, more later but I gotta run!

Jason

I utterly disagree with your *opinion* on the nature and origin of human rights. But if you're going to run out the door, there's not much point in me laying out my views, now is there?

Well sure there is, there is always later on

A man has a single fundamental right from which all other rights are derived: The right to his own life. His right to act in support of that life derives from the fact that in order to survive he *must* act purposefully in order to survive, to acquire the things he needs to live (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) This doesn't imply claims on any other human being in any way, shape or form. Further, a man cannot have a right to any part of the life, work, thought or product of another man's labor. They may negotiate between one another and strike bargains for the exchange of goods/services/etc., but no man has a right to *take* what belongs to another man.

Your idea that rights are some Social Construct, that "society" gives rights to man is not only absurd (if men have no rights by nature, how is it that they can GIVE rights to others? One cannot give something one does not *have*.) but it is precisely the kind of logic that makes it possible to justify depriving some groups rights at the command of others.

"No, lovely human, you can't marry the person you love! We Christians/antigays/etc(fill in the blank!) do not deem it socially acceptable, we therefore do not grant you the right!"

If that logic were *correct*, who the hell are you or any other gay person, to stand astride the proclamation of Society and demand that they allow what you want? If you genuinely don't *have* a right to it, how can you justify demanding that someone else give it to you? What you really should do is learn your place, accept that you get what rights your given and you have no right to speak up or demand change. After all, since rights are just a "Social Construct" granted by "Society", who are YOU to argue?

No, I'm sorry but that's wrong. Man has certain rights *by nature* because of his specific natural characteristics and his relationship to the natural world. These are based on his requirements for survival and are fundamentally predicated on the premise that a man is the owner of HIMSELF.

Jason

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Just how cruel do you have to be to an animal before you go to jail? Why is the intentional infliction of pain and terror of a kitten not considered to be a moral outrage?



Kitten cruelty sentence cut

By Kim Arlington
March 16, 2005
From: AAP


A TEENAGER jailed for 16 months for setting a kitten on fire has had his sentence reduced on appeal to 100 hours of community service.

Matthew Staines, 18, of Tregear, was found guilty of aggravated cruelty to the 10-week-old kitten, named William.

William was doused with petrol and set alight at Mount Druitt, in Sydney's west, in January.

He was found cowering under a house with second degree burns and later died after an operation to reconstruct his skin.

Staines was sentenced last month in Penrith Local Court to a minimum eight months behind bars.

He immediately appealed against the decision to the District Court, which last week overturned the maximum 16-month jail term and ordered him to perform 100 hours' community service.

The decision outraged the RSPCA and NSW Opposition, which said Staines should have gone to jail.

Staff were shocked and frustrated by the "heartbreaking" appeal decision, RSPCA NSW Chief Inspector Don Robinson said today.

"For the safety of other animals, this individual should be behind bars," he said.

"This outcome makes the RSPCA wonder at the community's perception of our ability to safeguard animals and to alleviate their pain and suffering.

"Perhaps a stronger penalty may have acted as a deterrent to others considering torturing animals for a bit of 'fun'."

William was burned less than two weeks after closed circuit television footage captured an attack on an eight-week-old kitten at Seven Hills railway station, also in Sydney's west.

The kitten, named Shelley, was allegedly stoned, stomped on and run over with a bicycle.

Christopher Leigh Herreros, 18, and a 15-year-old youth were charged with aggravated animal cruelty over the incident and are due to reappear in court this month.

NSW Opposition Leader John Brogden also criticised the appeal decision, saying Staines had committed an evil act and should have been sent to jail.

"One hundred hours of community service is a slap on the wrist for what is a very cruel, and in fact evil form of behaviour, which should be punished as it was intended to, by a jail sentence," Mr Brogden said.

I'm more outraged by the legal atttempt to kill Terri Shiavo.