Poor kitty-cat

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:21 am

StruckingFuggle, who said anything about before they're born? Are you trying to make this an abortion discussion or something?

PS Nice ninja edit in that post about Bin Laden, btw.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:28 am

On the edit: Yeah, I figured I could go for the really extreme example of comparison, but then I decided to also include one that's much more common: not just comparing beloved pets to one of history's greatest villains, but also comparing them to more common, basically useless stupid wastrels.

And ... oops. I meant to said "when they're born", not "before they're born"...

In that light: You're the one who said that a human is worth more than an animal when they're both born - my point was that the discussion isn't so much about newborns and pups, but about people and animals who've moved up or down in terms of 'value' via living their life, and challenging the notion that after they've moved past their birth, all people are inherently worth more than all animals.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:34 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="683103"]my point was that the discussion [is] about people and animals who've moved up or down in terms of 'value' via living their life[/quote]
Since when? Where do you come up with this stuff? The thread started with a kitten and human children are really the only ones talked about on the rare occasion when any age group is specified, and even so it's entirely irrelevant. When I said "When they're born" it was in response to Liz questioning, "When did human life become more important than that of a dog?" The answer is as soon as it exists, as it is inherently more valuable than a dog. Like a mad dog, however, I believe it is just and right to put down a human who has committed grave crimes against humanity, which has been made clear in other discussions regarding capital punishment. Stop trying to muddy up this discussion like you do with pretty much every other discussion, drawing out (mostly irrelevant) rabbit trails and demanding that we take off down them with great haste.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:42 am

When I said "When they're born" it was in response to Liz questioning, "When did human life become more important than that of a dog?" The answer is as soon as it exists, as it is inherently more valuable than a dog.

So then all the ghetto trash wasting their money on bling and booze selling crack on the corner that you rant about... their lives are inherently worth more than that of your beloved dog was?

Because I disagree. And the implication of that is that "when their born, all people become inherently and automatically more valuable than all animals" is absolutely not true.

So say "blinged out John G. Gangbanging-Crack-Dealer has always been worth more than Sheba ever was", or stop using it as a point.

(speaking of which, it's kind of funny you say taxpayer money put to shelters "could be better used helping human beings", instead of "should be cut with taxes lowered", or somesuch ... am I the only one who noticed?)

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:46 am

I did not mean to start a war over this. I simply was ranting about how someone could just dump a baby animal on a night that is literally freezing instead of just going the next day to a shelter so as to not leave the kitten to the elements. A 5 week old kitten cannot survive on it's own. So by dumping it, they are putting a death sentence on it.. if no one had seen her.

Why say taking away money from a child, or food from a person's mouth, I don't get. Very little is given for the welfare of animals compared to people. WIC, food stamps, etc. Taxes and such go more for people then animals, common sense tells you that...

I just really don't understand why such an uproar was made over this? Why do you want to fight against something like this Deacon, I mean, shelters are good for helping the animals, and also (especially) what Liz had done. What my family and I had done was in the best interest of the kitten, and it didn't do no harm to any person... so why the issues?
I just don't understand, not to mention you (Deacon) are not on good grounds with me. First you insult and bad mouth my religion here, and then go about to start a war over whether or not people should help animals? Am I missing anything here?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:00 am

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="683107"]So then all the ghetto trash wasting their money on bling and booze selling crack on the corner that you rant about... their lives are inherently worth more than that of your beloved dog was?[/quote]
Yes, though the emotional impact is much greater when my beloved dog died than it would be if some nameless ghetto trash died. If I had to give up my dog such that the ghetto trash could live, then the dog goes. Of course, once again, this is predicated on the assumption that you're not talking about thieves, rapists, and murderers, here, who by the own actions have given up their claim to the same level of humanity as those who have not. I only repeat this because I'm sure as you continue your campaign to muck up the waters with vaguely pseudophilosophical, child-like emulation of Socrates' probing questions.

And the implication of that is that "when their born, all people become inherently and automatically more valuable than all animals" is absolutely not true.

You are in the overwhelming minority in your stance on the matter.

speaking of which, it's kind of funny you say taxpayer money put to shelters "could be better used helping human beings", instead of "should be cut with taxes lowered", or somesuch ... am I the only one who noticed?

It was done on purpose. The argument for helping out cute animals is nearly entirely emotional. Rational arguments to the contrary must be tempered by other emotional-base arguments that are closer to the correct conclusion. It's simply to help illustrate and drive home the ridiculousness of what they're saying. In reality I'm not a huge fan of many of the social programs politicians toss out there to win votes based on funds they've picked from my pocket, the way they're executed, or the way they're administered. The heart is sometimes in the right place, but the head is often up the ass. Regardless, all this is largely irrelevant to the point of the discussion, which is not about a broader sense of the best way for the government to squander the money it takes from its citizens or issues with how much they take in the first place, but rather the extent to which some people lose their perspective enough that they begin valuing vermin and cockroaches over humans in a misguided attempt to live out little neatly packaged nuggets of wisdom gleaned from old Disney cartoons.

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:06 am

No one here is saying they value animals over humans. But saying that animals have a right as well. Not like a person's, but still a right. It is how it affects each individual, and how one can see the value of their own pet over a person who is a murderer or rapist.

HTRN · Post by **HTRN** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:15 am

No. They. Do. Not.

Animals can't have a "right" because they are fundamentally incapable of understanding said "right".

As far as they're concerned, it's still the "law of the claw". The only reason cats and dogs are kept as pets is because of thousands of years of selective breeding. You wouldn't for instance, want to keep a Civet cat in your house, even though it's only a little bigger than a large housecat. Nor would you want a dingo puppy in your home. It's only through genetic pruning BY HUMANS have these animals become "civilized".

HTRN

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:18 am

[quote="coyote blue";p="683108"]I did not mean to start a war over this. ...I just really don't understand why such an uproar was made over this?[/quote]
A war? First of all, a war is rarely started by a single post. Secondly, this is no war.

I simply was ranting about how someone could just dump a baby animal on a night that is literally freezing instead of just going the next day to a shelter so as to not leave the kitten to the elements. A 5 week old kitten cannot survive on it's own. So by dumping it, they are putting a death sentence on it.. if no one had seen her.

I've asked before, but in all seriousness why are you so convinced someone dumped the kittne?

Taxes and such go more for people then animals, common sense tells you that...

Apparently common sense doesn't tell you that's an odd point to make, as it was never brought up, much less contested in the first place.

Why do you want to fight against something like this Deacon ...What my family and I had done was in the best interest of the kitten, and it didn't do no harm to any person... so why the issues?

I have no problem with and have not fought you about taking in the kitten. In fact, I can't recall having fought you at all, much less on that specifically. Please reread thread if you're having a hard time keeping up.

I just don't understand, not to mention you (Deacon) are not on good grounds with me.

What do the goodness of your grounds have to do with anything?

First you insult and bad mouth my religion here

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... Badmouthed? A religion? On the internet??! NO... WAY. You're the first to experience anyone poking fun at their relgion. Of course, it goes without saying that I haven't experienced it. And with such a serious, respected religion as Wicca, no less! It's unthinkable!

and then go about to start a war over whether or not people should help animals? Am I missing anything here?

Oh dear lord yes, quite a lot. Whether people should help animals? Yes, you're missing a lot.

[quote="coyote blue";p="683128"]No one here is saying they value animals over humans. But saying that animals have a right as well. Not like a person's, but still a right.[/quote]
Did you read the thread?

[quote="Lizzegirle";p="683053"]How is it our call though? Who said that it was alright for us to take the lives of other species into our hands? When did human life become more important than that of a dog?[/quote]

It is how it affects each individual, and how one can see the value of their own pet over a person who is a murderer or rapist.

Yes, you've missed a lot.

Jezebel · Post by **Jezebel** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:25 am

You can't look at this picture and tell me he's not worth at least 10,000 puny humans!!!!

let's all chill out and relax and maybe talk about how great and snuggly cats are instead of everyone poking at each other.

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:31 am

So no animals have rights? I can see what you are saying HTRN, but if they are created for the purpose of being pets, then they depend on us at times. If they are chained up, they need us for food/water and shelter. They deserve that, and should have a right to have it. If left on their own, they could find it, but not if they are bound up. My thoughts are basically, they are a living creature, they have a right to food, water, shelter and reasonable care. Why shouldn't they?

The kitten would be scared of a person if it was a stray. Would have no concept of people, but would fear a person (the size difference alone could do it) if never had contact before. Especially one that is weak and freightened. Where are the litter mates? I know for a fact not anywhere near here.

It really isn't worth it, fighting over what? How each of us values animals?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:37 am

HTRN wrote:Animals can't have a "right" because they are fundamentally incapable of understanding said "right".

Out of curiosity ... Why is the fundamental necessary? What makes a difference between "being totally incapable of understanding it" (like an animal) and "being incapable of understanding it" (by a person being braindead or severely retarded)?

Functionally, isn't it all the same?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:39 am

Ignore HTRN. He's partially right, but for the wrong reasons

Sophira · Post by **Sophira** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:45 am

coyote blue wrote:The kitten would be scared of a person if it was a stray.

Not necessarily true.

Would have no concept of people, but would fear a person (the size difference alone could do it) if never had contact before.

What? Since when do stray cats never have contact with humans at all? Stray merely implies that the cat is homeless, not that it has never met a human.

A stray can be completely friendly; it really just depends on the cat.

coyote blue · Post by **coyote blue** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:53 am

Well, considering that the community I live in, there are very few houses. Field on one side, woods on another. There is a road next to the house that leads to the main highway. Assuming since I've never seen any strays, and saw a guy running along the side of my house late that night... Plus, wouldn't one who knew no humans not understand the concept of a house? This kitten did all she can to get in, ran between the feet of people and all. One who doesn't know people I would believe would be weary upon coming into a house when vulnerable.

But after I wrote what I did, I realized that some kittens, among other animals, might not have a fear, but maybe be at least a little hesitant.

Real Life Forums

Poor kitty-cat

Re: Poor kitty-cat

Who is online