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.

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.