http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248211/Gothic-kittens-Holly-Crawford-accused-piercing-cats-selling-online-goes-trial-animal-cruelty.html

Get your mind out of the gutter.

-Arms the Death Ray-
feth with people all you want, but mess with Kittens, you go down.

I'm confused, she was charged with animal cruelty? Does that mean that parents who get their kids ears pierced should be charged with child abuse?

Redbeard wrote:I'm confused, she was charged with animal cruelty? Does that mean that parents who get their kids ears pierced should be charged with child abuse?

Kids do not risk having their ears torn off as they go about their business.

And in any case, a Kid can say No. A Kitten can't.

And yes, if they force them, they should be charged with Child Abuse IMO.

Not a fan of Cats as a species, but as an animal lover this is pretty bloody wrong.

Poor Kitties. But who is to blame? The cretin that pierced them, or the people who buy them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just for the record, I feel there ought to be a ban implaced on piercing anyone under the age of 8. Not only does it look bloody tacky, but there is no way to know that it was the kids choice!

Gwar wrote:And yes, if they force them, they should be charged with Child Abuse IMO.

Gwar for the win.

What the feth is wrong with this woman. I am no animal rights nutter, but there are limits. How would she feel if some one twenty times her size grabbed her, stabbed a hole in her without consent and shoved a metal bar through it?

As for the freaks buying them, I have a wall to put them up against if anyone would like to supply the gun???

squilverine wrote:What the feth is wrong with this woman. I am no animal rights nutter, but there are limits. How would she feel if some one twenty times her size grabbed her, stabbed a hole in her without consent and shoved a metal bar through it?

As for the freaks buying them, I have a wall to put them up against if anyone would like to supply the gun???

I'd be happy to oblige you squilverine, do you have a calibre of preforance?

I was raised never to hit a woman.


I might make an exception for that piece of gak. Cruelty to animals just boils my blood.

In an interview with The Associated Press a year ago, Crawford said she didn’t think there was a difference between piercing a cat or a human.

I'm not sure she understands the legal ramifications of haphazardly stabbing 3 month old human babies in their necks and faces with a 14 gauge needle.

I still think this is complete over-reaction. There are some breeds of dogs where their tails and/or ears are trimmed or clipped to conform to a breed standard. This is standard practice for these animals, and no one is accusing their breeders of animal cruelty.

Wild animals and domesticated animals are tagged all the time, for tracking purposes in the wild, or accounting purposes on the farm.

And these same piercings that this cat was given are given to humans every day. I think it's hypocritical that this woman is punished because her cat's modifications are subculture, rather than mainstream. What she's doing is tame compared to what people do to Great Danes every day, and no one says a word.

Redbeard wrote:I still think this is complete over-reaction. There are some breeds of dogs where their tails and/or ears are trimmed or clipped to conform to a breed standard. This is standard practice for these animals, and no one is accusing their breeders of animal cruelty.

Yes they are. 'Tail-docking' is banned here in the UK - it's banned in many countries.

Redbeard wrote:Wild animals and domesticated animals are tagged all the time, for tracking purposes in the wild, or accounting purposes on the farm.

And these same piercings that this cat was given are given to humans every day. I think it's hypocritical that this woman is punished because her cat's modifications are subculture, rather than mainstream.

Tagging wild animals to track their migration patterns is hardly the same as injuring an animal for purely cosmetic reasons. It wasn't just her pet cat that she mutilated - she was selling them. And the concept of 'subculture' is a myth.

@ Redbeard.
I myself dislike the process of lopping off animals tails/trimmimg ears for aesthetic reasons,I know it's commanly accepted,but I still think it's a fethed up practice.
What if someone decided that all blonde people would look "cute" with no legs and pointed ears?

I don't endorse this treatment of animals, but many of the reactions here do not seem consistent with the severity of the crime. None of these kittens were killed, and the use of the word 'mutilation' is inappropriate. The holes from the piercings will close over time, and it seems rather odd to ascribe human emotional notions to cats vis a vis 'rehabilitation'. Infection could have been an issue, but does not seem to have been.

FITZZ wrote: @ Redbeard.
I myself dislike the process of lopping off animals tails/trimmimg ears for aesthetic reasons,I know it's commanly accepted,but I still think it's a fethed up practice.
What if someone decided that all blonde people would look "cute" with no legs and pointed ears?

I think Luna wins the weirdest person on the forums award for that one lol


Seriously I think the reactions are a tad bit over dramatic, but what she did was incredibly wrong. That is borderline torture IMO.

What makes my blood boil is that there are people out there with nothing better to do than pierce animals for absolutely no practical purpose. If it were done for the good of the animal or the species in general (i.e. monitoring migration patterns of endangered birds or chipping sheep to monitor the spread of diseases) then i don't have a problem as long as it is done as humainly as possible.

At what point did we create a society where some peoples lives are so dull and pointless that they have nothing more pressing to be doing than decide they want their cat to have earings?

After my initial bout of "anger at people hurting small fluffy animals" my mood has changed to "sadened that people have nothing better to do". Then again I would probably still like to see them all shot.

Poor little kitten. I hope they find a nice granny to mind it.

Further to the Tail-Docking thingy, it is indeed illegal in Britain, unless it is for working purposes. For example, a Terrier bred for Ratting would still have it's tail docked, as that was the original reason for it. It allowed the dog greater manouverability in burrows and that.

Great Danes have lovely stupid floppy ears here in the UK. The whole 'conforming to breed standards' is sheer snobbery! As long as my pooch has 4 legs, a wet nose and no brain, it's a Dog!

As for subculture, it's nonsense. It's yet more attention seeking, done for the some reason an Emo whinges and threatens suicide every 30 seconds. Look at me, look at me, aren't I different, just like all my friends. Hell, I'm a Goth myself, and yet find the idea of giving someone £50 to ram a piece of metal through my body a daft idea.

Why would anybody do that?

Hey, I don't disagree with you about the emo/goth whiny crap. I just don't think that this woman (in the US) deserves a criminal charge for doing something that is no worse than other pet modifications done in the US, simply because she did something different.

Claiming that giving an animal a piercing is animal cruelty is ludicrous. Humans have been piercing animals for centuries.

Upon what I first thought this was I have to say I'm mildly disappointed. :/

Hey, didn't the Egyptians used to do this to their pet cats?

Redbeard wrote:Hey, I don't disagree with you about the emo/goth whiny crap. I just don't think that this woman (in the US) deserves a criminal charge for doing something that is no worse than other pet modifications done in the US, simply because she did something different.

Claiming that giving an animal a piercing is animal cruelty is ludicrous. Humans have been piercing animals for centuries.

Just because it's done, doesn't make it right. I disagree with the pointing of ears and the docking of tails, as it serves little if any purpose, but at least such things are done by trained Veterinary Surgeons, and not some daft bint with a needle and half baked plan!

Certain things like removal of say the inner nail on paws of some dogs is actually done as a safety for them and done within hours of birth as it is the safest time to do it. This women though is a fething B%@&H that needs to hang for what she did. I am an animal lover big time and to inflict such cruelty is sick and inhuman. I say we lock her up in a cell with a bucket for a toilet and let her rot!

FITZZ wrote: @ Redbeard.
I myself dislike the process of lopping off animals tails/trimmimg ears for aesthetic reasons,I know it's commanly accepted,but I still think it's a fethed up practice.
What if someone decided that all blonde people would look "cute" with no legs and pointed ears?

Oddly that shouldn't be a concern since humans != animals. We haven't kept humans for pets for at least 150 years. Let's allow this specious argument to die,let's move on shall we.

SPARKEYG wrote:Oddly that shouldn't be a concern since humans != animals.

Sorry, you are wrong.

Homo sapiens sapiens are bipedal primates belonging to the Hominidae (Great Ape) family under the Class of Mammalia in the Kingdom Animalia.

SPARKEYG wrote:

FITZZ wrote: @ Redbeard.
I myself dislike the process of lopping off animals tails/trimmimg ears for aesthetic reasons,I know it's commanly accepted,but I still think it's a fethed up practice.
What if someone decided that all blonde people would look "cute" with no legs and pointed ears?

Oddly that shouldn't be a concern since humans != animals. We haven't kept humans for pets for at least 150 years. Let's allow this specious argument to die,let's move on shall we.

wanna bet.... slavery is still alive and well in many nations, and even does stil lhappen here in the U.S we just only hear about it on the news as no one likes to admit it still happens. Much like plural marraige.

SPARKEYG wrote:
Oddly that shouldn't be a concern since humans != animals. We haven't kept humans for pets for at least 150 years. Let's allow this specious argument to die,let's move on shall we.

That depends entirely on the philosophers you read. Peter Singer would laugh in your face, for example. Well, he probably wouldn't actually laugh, too nice you see, but he would disagree strongly.

Now humans are not equivalent to the other animals, in the same sense that a dog is not equivalent to a cat. However, the extent to which that should compel a difference in the ethics regarding our treatment of other animals if actually a very contentious philosophical issue. Hardly specious, though frequently hyperbolic.

Redbeard wrote:I still think this is complete over-reaction. There are some breeds of dogs where their tails and/or ears are trimmed or clipped to conform to a breed standard. This is standard practice for these animals, and no one is accusing their breeders of animal cruelty.

Wild animals and domesticated animals are tagged all the time, for tracking purposes in the wild, or accounting purposes on the farm.

I do. Beat them with clubs until they understand the error of their ways.

Redbeard wrote:Claiming that giving an animal a piercing is animal cruelty is ludicrous. Humans have been piercing animals for centuries.

This.

Agreeing with Redbeard yet again.

Manchu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Claiming that giving an animal a piercing is animal cruelty is ludicrous. Humans have been piercing animals for centuries.

This.

Agreeing with Redbeard yet again.

We've been sacrificing children for centures too. Doesn't make it right, just continuing stupidity.

barlio wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248211/Gothic-kittens-Holly-Crawford-accused-piercing-cats-selling-online-goes-trial-animal-cruelty.html

Get your mind out of the gutter.

yes, this happened up in Pennsylvania not too long ago.

Pennsyltucky white trash. That cretin should be removed from the gene pool, slowly.

Yeah, sweety, sticking needles into a defenseless animal is "neat". I can think of some neat things to do to you too, it involves a car battery, a belt sander, a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

Howlingmoon wrote:

barlio wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1248211/Gothic-kittens-Holly-Crawford-accused-piercing-cats-selling-online-goes-trial-animal-cruelty.html

Get your mind out of the gutter.

yes, this happened up in Pennsylvania not too long ago.

Pennsyltucky white trash. That cretin should be removed from the gene pool, slowly.

Yeah, sweety, sticking needles into a defenseless animal is "neat". I can think of some neat things to do to you too, it involves a car battery, a belt sander, a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

several things one...go on.....two thats hot( Ineed a towel) and three I agree animals are defenseless and to misstreat is wrong and just sick. They have personalities as every being is different, and they offer nothing but love in return.

Frazzled wrote:We've been sacrificing children for centures too.

Pretty disproportionate example but, hey, it's the internet. And while we're on the topic, if I posted an article about the six more daily killings of poor black people that happened in Detroit yet again today (same as yesterday, same as tomorrow) nobody would give a gak. The attitude seems to be, paraphrasing Gwar!, doesn't matter what happens to people as long as the (cute) animals are safe. Can't help but think this is the kind of self-righteous nonsense that eventually leads to animal cruelty and other crimes of desensitization.

Frazzled wrote:Doesn't make it right, just continuing stupidity.

You could say the same for raising animals to slaughter as food. I know you can see how ridiculous this train of thought could become.

Frazzled wrote:
We've been sacrificing children for centures too.

Maybe we shouldn't have stopped. Society is going to hell, I mean look at this crazy woman and her goth kitties. If she'd been sacrificed while still a young'n, those cats would be in pristine condition today.

The difference between the cat piercings and tracking tags, is location. As was stated in the article the back of the neck gives the cat a forced feeling of submission that never goes away. The tracking tags are designed in such a way as to have the least amount of hinderance as possible.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
We've been sacrificing children for centures too.

Maybe we shouldn't have stopped. Society is going to hell, I mean look at this crazy woman and her goth kitties. If she'd been sacrificed while still a young'n, those cats would be in pristine condition today.

We haven't stopped.

Stating something has been done for years is only relevant in stating that something has been done for years. drawing some sort of import from that is...misplaced.
Animal cruelty is animal cruelty. My point (and Howlingmoon's jeez we are on the same side) stands. Beat them with a stick until they realize their logic is faulty. re-apply attitude adjustment methodology as needed.

Now don't strawman me. I am down twith the beat them with a stick behavioral modification tool for many things.

Even kitty cats?

Frazzled wrote:Beat them with a stick until they realize their logic is faulty. re-apply attitude adjustment methodology as needed.

Their logic isn't faulty, their value system is simply different. As it is, the beating with sticks methodology is unlikely to produce a change in anyone's value set, it simply indicates that someone is sufficiently averse to a given action to inflict pain on another.

Really, I fail to see how your proposal is anything other than human cruelty that you're attempting to justify via aesthetic sensibilities.

Manchu wrote:Even kitty cats?

Tbone likes kitties on a stick with a nice sauce.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Beat them with a stick until they realize their logic is faulty. re-apply attitude adjustment methodology as needed.

Their logic isn't faulty, their value system is simply different. As it is, the beating with sticks methodology is unlikely to produce a change in anyone's value set, it simply indicates that someone is sufficiently averse to a given action to inflict pain on another.

Really, I fail to see how your proposal is anything other than human cruelty that you're attempting to justify via aesthetic sensibilities.

Sure it is. get beat by a stick. I can guarantee baheavior change. You're not Gandhi. You'd change.

dogma wrote:Really, I fail to see how your proposal is anything other than human cruelty that you're attempting to justify via aesthetic sensibilities.

The dao of Frazzled.

Manchu wrote:

dogma wrote:Really, I fail to see how your proposal is anything other than human cruelty that you're attempting to justify via aesthetic sensibilities.

The dao of Frazzled.

Are you familiar with the works of Tzuan Chi?

I had you pegged as more of a student of Han Fei Zi rather than Zhuangzi.

The Manchster wrote:Pretty disproportionate example but, hey, it's the internet. And while we're on the topic, if I posted an article about the six more daily killings of poor black people that happened in Detroit yet again today (same as yesterday, same as tomorrow) nobody would give a gak. The attitude seems to be, paraphrasing Gwar!, doesn't matter what happens to people as long as the (cute) animals are safe. Can't help but think this is the kind of self-righteous nonsense that eventually leads to animal cruelty and other crimes of desensitization.

I care about the poor black people too. Really. But we're talking about animals here. No-one is saying they are more important than humans, babe.

Gwar! wrote:
-Arms the Death Ray-
feth with people all you want, but mess with Kittens, you go down.

Just Gwar! then, sorry for the blanket statement.

It does raise another question. Is it wrong to hurt animals because animals have an innate dignity that people violate when being cruel to them or is it wrong because cruelty violates innate human dignity?

@Manchu - I just think that the powerful have a responsibility to be gentle.

I want to agree with the conclusion but am having trouble figuring out the premises or connective logic that will get me there.

@Manchu - No logic, not really. Just my opinion - the more capable of hurting others you are, the greater lengths you should go to avoid doing so unnecessarily.

For me, it is important that there are . . . I really don't know quite how to say it, maybe "ontological" reasons for ideas like nonviolence. You have to know what hurting another is and exactly what it entails, not to mention what "another" is, to figure out why it is to be avoided. It's obviously not just physical harm. And I think that's part of the point, as I read it, that RedBeard was making. What is the harm? In this case, it seems pretty obvious on a shallow appraisal but we don't have to look far to see similar things being done to other animals. So is this jarring because it's a domestic pet rather than a source of wool or meat? Don't get me wrong, general "rules of thumb" like yours are useful. They keep you from starting down bad roads, hopefully. But as I was trying to point out by commenting on and then reposting Gwar!'s (I'm sure unintentionally) ominous remark and then Frazzled's ad absurdum logic (can you imagine him joining PETA), they can sometimes turn out to be more sinister than yo ever imagined while all the while reinforcing a certain sense of unexamined righteousness.

Well, inflicting pain and injury upon a creature (which has no say in the matter) for purely cosmetic reasons is abhorrent, IMO. I am uncomfortable with the idea of treating an animal as a plaything - there was literally no good reason for what she did. I see it as torture for what was basically the amusement of herself and others.

No, I understand. But even that analysis gets us back to where we've already been. Piercing the ears of little girls--or grown women wearing highheels, in the eyes of some feminists. Some people would claim that you cannot consent to being harmed. Legislators, for example. Remember that chap in Deutschland who put the add out wanting to be killed and eaten?

I agree with Albatross here. There is no need to give the kittens piercings and they have no choice in the matter.

I don't think anyone has argued that the kittens need piercings, L-L.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure it is. get beat by a stick. I can guarantee baheavior change. You're not Gandhi. You'd change.

A change in behavior isn't the same as a change in values. Someone who gives up an act because someone else doesn't like it doesn't necessarily cease to value the original act, they simply prefer that other people like their actions, and so refrain from the action in question. Values only change as a result of long-term corrective action, and even then only when the subject is willing to change.

Albatross, I strongly agree with your statement:

Albatross wrote:@Manchu - No logic, not really. Just my opinion - the more capable of hurting others you are, the greater lengths you should go to avoid doing so unnecessarily.

You learn Karate so you never have to use it, etc. You keep a gun locked away in a cabinet, not holstered on your hip. I could go on.

Also, I STRONGLY resent the media referring to them as "goth" kittens. The woman obviously wasn't a goth, metalhead, punk or even an emo (look at her picture!), it's just lazy media slapping a funny title onto a depressing story, while giving it connotations of counter-culture and possibly satanism or at least "dark philosophies". It's useless reporting like that which lead to me having "HEY EMO!!!!!!1!!" shouted at me by random passers by for a year, despite quite obviously not being a self-obsessed teenager wearing fad clothing. But I digress. Yes, this woman is an idiot and deserves whatever is coming to her. Should we let her off the hook because other people do similar things? No! We should use this as the precedent setter and then take it further. How about passing laws that say any cosmetic procedure must have informed consent. As animals can't give it, problem solved. Neither can children, problem double solved.

Who's to say that most adults are capable of consent--after all, some of them are selling kittens they've pierced--so how about taking it further than that: no body modification . . . er, I mean mutilation at all. Creating rigid and unrealistic categories and pretending its common sense doesn't solve anything.

This is an interesting topic.

I do find myself agreeing with Manchu, Dogma, and Redbeard though. Their logic, along with the hyperbolic reaction, I would associate with the exact same behavior the woman in question performed (to a greater degree of course); makes it quite difficult to rationally draw lines in this topic.

Can't say I would be happy living next to a person that 'modified' animals, especially kittens. Kharne LOVES Kittens! .

Along the lines of living next to a cattle ranch, or a chicken farm, where the treatment of animals falls squarely within the confines of 'cruel and unusual punishment, there is absolutely no way for me to feasibly stop those actions from taking place. Yet, this woman, seems to have been screwed the second the courts got their hands on her. I see a pretty deep chasm of disconnection there. Perhaps a 'save the cute animals' movement?

Dunno, but reacting to a woman giving kittens earrings, with talk of commandant style executions, seems particularly unnecessary. I have seen stories of animal cruelty, that would absolutely make your skin crawl, and this one simply pales in comparison.

Manchu wrote:No, I understand. But even that analysis gets us back to where we've already been. Piercing the ears of little girls--or grown women wearing highheels, in the eyes of some feminists. Some people would claim that you cannot consent to being harmed. Legislators, for example.

'Cannot' or 'should not'? I can consent to someone harming (definition needed) me - but should I? I don't agree with piercing the ears of little girls either, just y'know, FYI.

Manchu wrote:Who's to say that most adults are capable of consent--after all, some of them are selling kittens they've pierced--so how about taking it further than that: no body modification . . . er, I mean mutilation at all. Creating rigid and unrealistic categories and pretending its common sense doesn't solve anything.

LOL I don't think ALL piercing falls under the category of 'mutilation'! However, consider this: many people pierce the ears of their kids (in Spain they even do it to babies!) and see this as acceptable. How about scarification? Or Tatooing? Subdermal implants? All are legitimate forms of 'body modification'. Why do we not accept this being done to a child? Ask yourself that.

@Manchu
Rigid yes, unrealistic is a matter of opinion. And remember, something being against the law will never stop it from happening, it simply holds a standardised argument against it, coupled with a standardised (ish) punishment that most likely would involve community service and a fine (in this case) rather than prison time. I fail to see who loses out in this hypothetical outcome.

@Wrex - I think it's more the frivolous nature of what she did. It's pretty callous to hurt an animal just because it 'looks cute' as a result. No-ones saying it's the crime of the century. Well, I'm not, anyway.

I think there were only two or three "up against the wall" type posts, but they gave the whole thread a sour flavour.

Albatross wrote:@Wrex - I think it's more the frivolous nature of what she did. It's pretty callous to hurt an animal just because it 'looks cute' as a result. No-ones saying it's the crime of the century. Well, I'm not, anyway.

It seems to be the way that many are perceiving her actions as frivolous, to a degree that makes the actions stronger in terms of being, 'amoral behavior'.

If you want to talk about frivolous behavior, consider the penny-pinching practices of many corporations tasked with producing animal-food products. Comparing the two side by side, I might be able to string together a feasible line of understanding. This woman was trying to run a business, and image matters a lot. The process of creating those images (brands), varies from business to business, but the outcome is much the same overall.

Woman who pierces kittens ears with 14-gauge nails: I sell 'emo-goth' kitties, that emo-goth people like to purchase.

Beef industry: I sell hamburgers at incredibly cheap prices, doing untold damage to the planet and various cultures; everyone loves cheap hamburger though!

To take this a bit further, and to be more concise, I would compare this case, to others of a similar nature. I do think the fact that this woman was in essence, running a business, makes a considerable difference overall.

We do not know exactly what ruling will be made in connection to this case, but I expect a rather harsh one. Purely on the actions performed, and as I stated before, you are all 2-3 minutes away from finding a massive compilation of cases in the same ballpark; animal cruelty. Google it, I don't really want to be the one to bring up the worst of this whole mess... People have done, terrible, terrible things to animals, and by that alone I do not feel this case is especially concerning.

I do hope the woman at the very least, can gain access to some form of therapy, though her need or want of it, is an entirely different story.

Albatross, you pose an excellent question. The answer, or a very quick one that we can unpack as we go, seems to be "social norms." But surely the lines are somewhat arbitrary rather than objective. A tatoo is permanent, one might say, whereas piercings can close. But when a girl gets her ears pierced (not totally unusual for baby girls to have pierced ear in the US, either) it's never with the intention that the piercings will be allowed to close. So what's the difference between modification and mutiliation then? What we say it is. It's okay to do this, but not that. It's okay to put a huge plastic or metal tag in a cow's or sheep's ear but not in a cat's ear. (To the bystanders: this isn't an argument for or against either practice.) I think someone even already mentioned that the latter "has no purpose" implying that the former not only has a purpose (piercing the cats' ears had a purpose, after all) but that the purpose is legitimate.

As for this talk of "consent," I'll stop beating around the bush. An animal's inability to consent to anything at all has nothing to do with whether it is cruel or moral or socially acceptable to do a particular thing to it. An animal cannot consent to being neutered or spayed, either, (or have malignant tumors removed) but that has nothing to do with us doing it. The talk of consent is totally meaningless in this case.

OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

Manchu wrote:Albatross, you pose an excellent question. The answer, or a very quick one that we can unpack as we go, seems to be "social norms." But surely the lines are somewhat arbitrary rather than objective.

Of course they are. I never said anything to the contrary. My position is completely arbitrary (as are most people's positions on most things not directly related to their basic survival!). It's just the way I like to live my life - I'm a fairly big chap, so I go out of my way not to bully or otherwise hurt others. I just think it's the noble thing to do, and I extend that to my treatment of animals.

To be fair, I DID imply that I would like to punch that woman. As I am unlikely to ever meet her, I'm sure she has nothing to worry about!

Ktulhut wrote:OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

I was, for the sake of argument, assuming that it was the case. You are right to say that the article may have mislabeled this lady for their intents and purposes.

Anyway though, I think at the very least, we can all agree that this is goth. This picture...

Right here...



Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

Edited for exclamation points...

Exclamation point, Exclamation point, Exclamation point, Exclamation point... Exclamation point.

Wrexasaur wrote:Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

QFT! Weird.

Yep, she COULD be hot - if she didn't have all that gak in her face!

iuono, she might be very plain without all the clown makeup and metal

Manchu wrote:As for this talk of "consent," I'll stop beating around the bush. An animal's inability to consent to anything at all has nothing to do with whether it is cruel or moral or socially acceptable to do a particular thing to it. An animal cannot consent to being neutered or spayed, either, (or have malignant tumors removed) but that has nothing to do with us doing it. The talk of consent is totally meaningless in this case.

How many of the procedures you mention are for purely cosmetic reasons?

Wrexasaur wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

I was, for the sake of argument, assuming that it was the case. You are right to say that the article may have mislabeled this lady for their intents and purposes.

Anyway though, I think at the very least, we can all agree that this is goth. This picture...

Right here...

Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

Teehee, her frilly neck things look like a beard.

Ktulhut wrote:How many of the procedures you mention are for purely cosmetic reasons?]

The very existence of many breeds (and perpetuation of most if not all) is cosmetic. The point is we do with animals what we feel is acceptable. The question is never "up to them" nor can it be.

Which is where we differ in opinion. I dislike the inbreeding of certain types of animal for a desired appearance, a quick google will show what it does to their gene line. And while I can see you using the same style of debate I use when people say things like "banish money" without explaining how they plan to go about it, and while I agree that there's no such thing as a quick fix, I simply disagree from a moral and philosophical point of view. I know you're talking about a type of injustice that's practicable while I'm talking about justice that isn't practicable in any way shape or form without turning the whole world on it's head. But then, who says I don't want the world turned upside down?

*EDIT*
I thought I'd add, in case you wanted to play devils advocate some more, that I have totally left the realm of constructive input to society with this, and am essentially "wishlisting", so don't take me over seriously.

No pets, period.

That is where your argument lays, having a pet in any form, leads to inherent human nature, taking effect.

There is flipping the world on it's head, and then there is reality. I don't mean to offend, but your overall philosophy, lacks serious substance.

I recommend living the life you want to, and leaving others to their own devices.

You can tell everyone they are bad for not eating tofu instead of beef (which is not what you are doing, to be clear, but the analogy stands), but that has an insignificant, and rather wasteful impact on the world at large. We would not have domestic cats, if it were not for breeding. Specialized breeding is simply a subset of that same action.

Again, no pets, period.

I feel that this argument, is in much the same area, as disputes over hunting. Is clubbing baby seals palatable to most? Of course not, but it is what most would consider a 'necessary evil'. By whose decision do people NOT have the right to hunt, within pragmatic limitations? I see no real reason to stop one from hunting, besides the 'unnecessary' violence, within that topic.

Ktulhut wrote:Which is where we differ in opinion. I dislike the inbreeding of certain types of animal for a desired appearance, a quick google will show what it does to their gene line.

Our desire is as legitimate an environmental factor as cold weather, or limited food sources.

Wrexasaur wrote:No pets, period.

That is where your argument lays, having a pet in any form, leads to inherent human nature, taking effect.

I dislike ownership of animals. There are simply too many people for it to work any other way, and I'm not going to have that conversation. Animals as willing companions is another story. If an animal likes you, it will choose to associate with you.

You can tell everyone they are bad for not eating tofu instead of beef (which is not what you are doing, to be clear, but the analogy stands), but that has an insignificant, and rather wasteful impact on the world at large. We would not have domestic cats, if it were not for breeding. Specialized breeding is simply a subset of that same action.

*Noms down a steak sandwhich*
Yes, telling people they're wrong is wasteful, but I don't see too many people who have any good ideas about life in general, so untill I do I'll just keep pointing out the flaws and admiring the wonder untill I notice a way to enact valid change to at least my own community. Nagging is better than silently wishing it was different. Neither is actually going to do much of ANYTHING, but one vents steam whereas the other just slowly crushes the majority into further silence and lack of opinion on anything.

I see no real reason to stop one from hunting, besides the 'unnecessary' violence, within that topic.

Violence, shmiolence. If you're gonna eat it and you're not going out of your way to torture it you're just part of the food chain. Not a murderer any more than a spider, or a dolphin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Our desire is as legitimate an environmental factor as cold weather, or limited food sources.

So... our aesthetic tastes allow us to create inbred monstrosities that suffer prolific cancer and brain disorders, some breeds that can hardly walk anymore, which are destined for extinction (and soon)...

Just because we can? By that logic, I can murder babies, so I will.


*EDIT* I think the problem here is that I don't value the life of a human about the life of any other organism. Rail against this all you wish, but I love a good steak, wild deer of course being best, but push come to shove I'd eat any one of you, too.

Ok, but don't please.

I'm not going to, I was just pointing out crappy logic. Although the post did confuse me with it's wording and I may have taken it entirely backwards.

Ktulhut wrote:I dislike ownership of animals. There are simply too many people for it to work any other way, and I'm not going to have that conversation. Animals as willing companions is another story. If an animal likes you, it will choose to associate with you.

That means absolutely nothing. Animals choose to associate with you, because you feed them, and out of all the other animals around the whole shebang, you don't try and kill them. Adding your ideas of what is going through that pidgeon/fox/bear, whatever, doesn't change anything. There was no point where the fox went up to the guy, and said 'HEY! Your my new buddy!'. That all happened in the humans head, and has little to no bearing on the reality of the situation.

*Noms down a steak sandwhich*
Yes, telling people they're wrong is wasteful, but I don't see too many people who have any good ideas about life in general, so untill I do I'll just keep pointing out the flaws and admiring the wonder untill I notice a way to enact valid change to at least my own community. Nagging is better than silently wishing it was different. Neither is actually going to do much of ANYTHING, but one vents steam whereas the other just slowly crushes the majority into further silence and lack of opinion on anything.

First off, there is no reason silence has less of an impact that outrage. You can be as angry as you want, but it is not going to necessarily help you, or anyone else.

In terms of needing to be a part of an opinion, that pushes your form of morals, onto others, that is entirely your decision.

Violence, shmiolence. If you're gonna eat it and you're not going out of your way to torture it you're just part of the food chain. Not a murderer any more than a spider, or a dolphin.

I go to the woods, for no reason, besides my own satisfaction. There is no need, besides extending my 'connection to mother earth', which by practical functions mean: I don't deal well psychologically with the concrete jungle.


This is no different for the common hunter, most don't have any interest in eating their catches, and I personally don't blame them. If I were to go hunting, I would do bow-hunting, out of personal choice, not due to 'moral obligations. I also have absolutely no plans on eating anything besides fish that I catch. Even with fish, I would be very cautious of which fish I eat, and where I catch them.

Ktulhut wrote:I'm not going to, I was just pointing out crappy logic. Although the post did confuse me with it's wording and I may have taken it entirely backwards.

Legitimacy, does not necessarily increase the tenacity of an argument.

His logic is also not that faulty, considering context. Eating babies is bad, we don't need to discuss that any further. Piercing kittens with 14-gauge nails, is also bad, but by a different degree, and for different reasons. Your kitten, may have more personal worth to you, than it does for someone else; but that has no bearing on the fact that a kitten is not a human baby. There is no real comparison for that, in this conversation. Contrasting what you feel is faulty logic, with hyperbole, does little to substantiate your points.

Fair point. Here in New Zealand, pretty much anything is safe to eat as long as it's not near sewer outlet or a city road. Which the vast majority of the country isn't. There's a very strong hunter-gatherer tradition amongst the native Maori as well, which I suppose has rubbed off onto me. The last thing I killed and ate was fish though. I also go into the woods to enjoy nature, not to hunt, but for me the woods is a one minute walk down the road, and I'm in the capital city!

I'll add that I'm not trying to convert anyone. I might have come off like I am but I'm not. People should believe what they wish, if I don't like it I'll call it groxdung, just like they do with my opinions. Arguing and debating, giving as good as you get, is just as valid as "live and let live" when it comes to moral issues on interwebs forums. If everyone simply respected everyone elses pucky opinions, this would be a blog not a forum.

Ktulhut wrote:
So... our aesthetic tastes allow us to create inbred monstrosities that suffer prolific cancer and brain disorders, some breeds that can hardly walk anymore, which are destined for extinction (and soon)...

Just because we can? By that logic, I can murder babies, so I will.

No, that's really not the same thing, and I'd appreciate it if you would avoid hyperbole. No one intends to kill dogs when they go about breeding them, but it does happen in consequence. There's a distinction between intending malice, and intending modification.

By simply existing human beings have deprived a number of different creatures access to our ecological niche, and thereby modified their development. Really, to me it seems like you're confusing a desire to avoid suffering with a desire to preserve homeostasis. One is laudable, and the other is impossible.

I've been misenterperated due to my alien ideas again. I have no desire to end suffering, I was playing devils advocate more than anything I guess. Yes, homeostasis is what I'm about. Yes, it's impossible once you enter humans into the mix. Yes, my answer is get rid of the humans. Yes, that includes you. Yes, that includes me.

Bleak? Yes.

Unrealistic? Hell yes.

What would be good for the world, and probably any worlds near enough for us to settle? Definately.

By your own personal guidelines, not 'mother earths', not any specific god, besides the ones that we merit our actions to.

This is a massive rock spinning through a void of mass. It is not an idea that we came up with, we can only attempt to explain it. By my imagination alone, we are the least threatening sentient being to hit the face of reality, in a massive set of much more aggressive, and devastating lifeforms; that may or may not be considered sentient.

We only stand to destroy ourselves, at this point in time. Perhaps we could figure out how to destroy planets... individual planets amongst a group beyond number. We are specks on the back of a fly, on the back of a speck, on the back of a fly, landing on us.

We impact each other, not the galaxy (which I have doubts of us even being able to traverse), and certainly not the universe.

I think we're actually sort of agreeing here, but I'm just a glass half empty type. Although IMO we won't just destroy ourselves, if we do anything stupid enough to wipe us all out, my guess is that everything other than cockroaches and sea monkeys will die with us.

I'm a bit of both kind of guy. There is no reason that a speck has to be a bad thing for me to be. There is also no reason that may not consider myself a speck, mid-range, along a spectrum of specks.



It is really both at the same time, most of the time.

Indeed, although if one wanted to, one could (facetiously) make the argument that a speck who conciously dominates and generally makes life unpleasant for it's fellow specks is less deserving of speckdom than other specks in the spectrum. That's all assuming you're the type of speck with the luxury of the sapience to discuss such issues.


SPECK!

L33T BACON FTW!!!



We all like bacon. Mmmm... bacon...

Edited to add 33 to l33t.

Those vegan types don't like bacon. You've gotta make fake bacon out of veges for them. Then you make the fake bacon out of... BACON! Haha!

And I know it's irrelevent, but there are several individual birds that show up in my garden for the juicy juicy bugs, then hang around chirping inquisitively and watching my antics. Animals (including humans) are meant to tolerate each other or eat eachother, it just so happens there's so many humans we have to farm livestock, and with agriculture we gained symbiosis with the cat and dog.

Oh dear, what have we done to the thread?

Vegans don't actually have it all that bad. I occasionally eat tofurkey links, and they are really quite good. I cannot cope physically without meat, it is simply not going to happen.

Page three, derailed into a bacon, sub-OT, sounds about right to me.

And a random Youtube clip, just to be sure.

Ktulhut wrote:
What would be good for the world, and probably any worlds near enough for us to settle? Definately.

Good? Why would it be good? Natural selection brutally weeds out those beings unfit to survive; particularly genetic mutants. Humans are only a part of that process, not the whole of it. You may as well simply extend that notion to all life, as life which does not exist cannot have a negative impact on itself. But then the absence of a negative impact is not really good, its simply neutral.

I don't think the argument is so much that this is Animal Cruelty, but more so that Goths should not be allowed to do things like this or anything really.

Next we will be seeing Goth Furries. Nobody wants that.

Manchu wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
-Arms the Death Ray-
feth with people all you want, but mess with Kittens, you go down.

Just Gwar! then, sorry for the blanket statement.

It does raise another question. Is it wrong to hurt animals because animals have an innate dignity that people violate when being cruel to them or is it wrong because cruelty violates innate human dignity?

You just gave me a headache. I have a solution.

I've never met a dog I didn't like.
In contrast I often meet people who are a waste of skin.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Sure it is. get beat by a stick. I can guarantee baheavior change. You're not Gandhi. You'd change.

A change in behavior isn't the same as a change in values.

Blah blah blah I don't give a about anyone's "values." I care about what they do.

So again, stick behavioral modification is wonderfully effective for 99% of the populace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:

If its good enough for Khorne, its good enough for me.

Dreadwinter wrote:I don't think the argument is so much that this is Animal Cruelty, but more so that Goths should not be allowed to do things like this or anything really.

Next we will be seeing Goth Furries. Nobody wants that.

(emphasis mine)

The HORROR!!!

You Rang?

Frazzled wrote:
Blah blah blah I don't give a about anyone's "values." I care about what they do.

So again, stick behavioral modification is wonderfully effective for 99% of the populace.

Values inform behavior, and stick modification doesn't insure a change in it which you'll like.

Anyway, I see you're perfectly happy to govern others when your sensibilities are offended. How very liberal of you.

Values are irrelevanta and utterly malleable. Behavior is the only thing that matters. I don't care why a serial killer stops killing, only that he stops killing.

Frazzled wrote:Values are irrelevanta and utterly malleable. Behavior is the only thing that matters. I don't care why a serial killer stops killing, only that he stops killing.

They aren't utterly malleable, that's one of their defining characteristics. If its easily malleable, then it isn't a value. The fact that they vary over a large range from person to person has no bearing on their malleability.

As to their relevance: are you saying you only care about how your daughter behaves, and not also about what she enjoys? That seems strange considering the way behavior changes when consequences are removed; particularly those administered by punishment. The same applies to criminals and repeat offenses. You wouldn't grant clemency to someone who killed in a crime of passion if it was evident that he really enjoyed killing.

dogma wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:
What would be good for the world, and probably any worlds near enough for us to settle? Definately.

Good? Why would it be good? Natural selection brutally weeds out those beings unfit to survive; particularly genetic mutants. Humans are only a part of that process, not the whole of it. You may as well simply extend that notion to all life, as life which does not exist cannot have a negative impact on itself. But then the absence of a negative impact is not really good, its simply neutral.

You're right, good is totally subjective. I do however view humans (myself too, of course) with the utmost contempt.

I could come up with a long winded and paradoxial argument (my favourite kind) to support my point of view, but instead I'll just say:

WTF was she thinking. Lol