Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.