Cat in a Wheelie bin

Remove all ads!

Since I've used this so many times before, it was about time I researched the originator of this fine quote:

"Some people say that cats are sneaky, evil, and cruel. True, and they have many other fine qualities as well.

-Missy Dizick"

'nuff said.

http://www.felineaddiction.com/catquotes.htm

 

Cat's, erm... 'using' your garden is, in my mind, free fertilizer. Them digging up your garden in the process isn't so nice, I'll admit. Them similarly 'using' a sandbox is just plain annoying (but oddly I've never seen that happen, and we had a sandbox over the course of 3 cats).

As for the birds, your birds are just cowards. Around here, we have real birds. They dive-bomb the cats. Of course, the cats still come home with the occasional feathered friend in their jaws, but there are plenty of songbirds that love our garden (and blueberries).

 

I think the blueberries are the key. If you have something in your garden that birds like to eat, there will be birds in your garden. Likewise, if you want squirrels, just plant a nut tree.

 

They also love the echinacea flowers we have.

 

you havent met the British Seagull

however, Im a bit inland, the birds here sit on power lines, as opposed to entering gardens

 

I call your British Seagulls and raise with Eastern Finnish Mosquito. They're pretty near immortal (or rather, have 40+ dodge AC bonus) and skip landing procedures completely when sucking blood. It feels like being hit with a mini-dart with legs. I'd be willing to bet that Stirge were designed after them.

 

I agree - I think the response is disproportionate to the crime. (If what she did was even illegal.) The cat was not even hurt. I'm not sure on this, but to qualify as animal cruelty, you'd think you'd have to hurt the animal.

Two points here: I have no problems with dogs limited to backyards, or cats for that matter. However, I have never heard of an outdoor cat that was limited to one's backyard. (I suppose you could use the collar and tie them to something, but I've never seen it done.)

I do find them nuisances when they dig up my garden, or use my son's sandbox as if it were a litter box (we keep the sandbox covered now). That said, I've never even considered killing them or harming them. If I'm taking the garbage out at night, yell at them, and that's enough to send them running. I know they probably come back 5 minutes later, but I've never had any desire to do anything more.

 

When I said to my neighbour that I wasn't happy about her cat crapping in my garden and it was one of the reasons we hadn't got Ashley a sand-pit ( got him a water thingey instead) she said that it was my responsibilty as her cat had been there first.
Saying that, after I got a thing to spray water when something triggered the sensor she complained that all the neighbourhood cats had been coming into her garden.

 

I love irony.

 

There has always been cats around here but the people who lived in our house before us had 2 cats so all the other ones in the area used to avoid our garden. When next door got the cat it didn't know about the old ones (guess the scent markers must have gone by then) and came in; this encouraged other cats to come in. Therefore, Charlie started it (Charlie's the cat) and the woman next door can't complain that I've taken measures to stop it.
Anyway, I still wouldn'r dump the damn thing in a bin!

 

I will agree that the response was disproportionate to the act, however, the cat was in the bin for 15 hours. I'm assuming the lady didn't know how often the wheelie bin was checked (and I myself do not), but if the cat had not mewed at the right time, it may have been in there for days. Possibly long enough to kill it. I can see how it could be played as endangerment. The cat was not harmed in the end, but the possibility that it could have died/went for days without food was there.

Not the same as locking a baby in a bin for 15 hours, but still cruel in my book.

 

Big deal. Factory farm animals are trapped in tiny cages and stalls for their entire life, flapping about in their own faeces and slowly going insane. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that almost every one of those people who wants to harm this woman eat meat. Even that Bosnian girl who threw the puppies in the river is an angel in how she treats animals, when compared to the stuff that *routinely* occurs on a global wide scale.

This just highlights how the media has citizens by the balls.

'LOOK AT THIS! FEEL ANGRY!'
'GRAAHHHHH, HULK SMASH!'

'LISTEN TO THIS, FEEL SAD!'
'BOO HOO HOO'

'QUICK, HATE MUSLIMS!'
'LET'S GO LYNCH A SAND NIGGER!'

'OBAMA SUCKS ASS'
*GASP* 'OBAMA IS A TERRORIST'

'BUSH SUCKS ASS'
*GASP* 'BUSH IS A ********'

 

Because something happens often it isn't cruel? That assumption is based on a huge logical fallacy.

I thought what I said was pretty clear, but perhaps it was misunderstood. My point was not that the cat was in an enclosed space for a long amount of time, but that it had no food or water and no one but the lady in question knew where it was. It is sad that some animals are held in closed spaces, their only purpose to be eaten, but I guarantee you that they have food and water and that they are monitored.

I'm not a slave to the media; it is insulting that you would compare me to those who believe Obama is a Muslim or anything similar simply because they 'heard it on tv.'

 

Straw man logic fallacy. I'm simply putting what the UK woman (or even the Bosnian girl) did in perspective. Dumping a kitten in a garbage bin pales in comparison to literally billions of livestock who are not only butchered, but forced to endure tortuous living conditions.

Perhaps what offends people is that the woman had the courage to look her victim in the eye before 'harming' it, while the millions of meat eaters are too cowardly to slaughter their own produce. To them, harming and killing is OK, as long as it is out of sight and mind.

'It is sad'? Heh. I would postulate that these animals find it more their treatment more than 'sad'. Indeed, I would speculate that the gaping 'bed sores' sows develop from lying in one position in their own filth for weeks on end would make them a little more than sad.

LOL!

You guarantee? On what basis do you provide this guarantee? Do you work in a slaughter house? Have you performed surprise inspections on factory farms? Perhaps you have written a report on the meat industry?

If not, how can you provide me with a such a guarantee? Sounds like you are just talking out of your ass.

'OMG SHE PUT A KITTEN IN TEH GARBAGE BIN KILL KILL KILL'
*continues chewing on big fat steak, which was probably taken from a cow that **** itself just before being killed*

 

Killing one person pales in comparison to dropping an atom bomb; but it is still cruel no matter how you spin it. The fact that billions of livestock are tortured and treated inhumanely is irrelevant. It is not something I endorse, and I can see why you are so passionate about it; it is respectable that you care about animals to such an extent. However, it has no relevance to this situation.

If it did, murderers would be citing Hitler as a defense for their crimes. (Assuming I'm understanding correctly that you are saying, "Millions of animals (livestock) are treated horribly and awfully every day, so when one animal (the cat) is treated badly it isn't a big deal.")

I've killed and eaten my own meat, I've picked and eaten my own berries. I have no problem acquiring my own food and resources. I'm very thankful to every deer who has filled my stomach for months. Because I have no reason, I do not kill any more than me and my family can eat.

The difference is that this lady was serving absolutely NO purpose by throwing the cat in the wheelie bin. She was not feeding families, she was not providing any resource. She attempted to harm a living being with nothing to gain. She may not have 'thought about it' but if that cat wasn't found, it was going to starve to death. As I said, the cat was fine, the owner found it, so no harm was done. But I can easily see how she was charged with endangering the animal; can you honestly say that there was no chance that the cat could have died or been injured if it had not been found?

If they were not given food and water, how would they survive to become food? Are you operating on the assumption that animals don't need to eat to live? Some of them may have horrible, awful, nasty inhumane conditions, but they 'do' eat. The 'only' thing that I guaranteed was that livestock eat. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether or not the animals should live in such a way is a moral question, and a completely separate discussion.

I'm not debating with you on the treatment of animals raised by other people for eating. It is an issue which has merit in discussion, but not this one here and now.

I can see that you enjoy the use of hyperbole. As I previously mentioned I don't believe she should be punished severely in any sense of the word, I simply think it's reasonable to say that she was endangering the cat.

You seem to be applying to me many assumptions that aren't true. I always enjoy a good debate, but if you're going to insist that I want to kill old ladies (yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but in a very confrontational way) and assume that I care nothing about what happens to livestock, I will have to withdraw myself from this discussion. I bear no hard feelings toward you, though.

 

But I argued no such thing. What I did contend was that the vengeful wrath being directed against this woman is disproportionate, given the meat trade. I also find it hypocritical that many condemn this woman while chewing on meat, despite the very real possibility that the cow likely suffered more than the kitten.

It's irrelevant if I were arguing what you wrongly assumed I was arguing.

Explain to me why so many people want to harm a woman for dumping a kitten in the bin, when systemised cruelty occurs on a daily basis in slaughterhouses and factory farms. Again, I'm not arguing that the woman's actions aren't cruel, I'm arguing that her actions her received a *disproportionate amount of media attention and public outrage*.

I repeat: I'm arguing that her actions her received a *disproportionate amount of media attention and public outrage*.

Poor analogy. If anything, the cat dumping scenario is more along the lines of a Nazi camp guard whinging about the beating of a German citizen, while being complicit in the gassing of numerous Jews. Remember that many people who condemned this woman *eat meat*, and that meat is obtained through animal cruelty. The only difference is that they outsource their killing to automatons in a factory farm.

Cruelty is cruelty. However, when so much media attention is focused on a moderate act of cruelty against *one* little kitten, while not a peep is said about millions of acts of systemised animal cruelty in slaughterhouse and factory farms, then that's messed up. And I'd like to put things back into perspective.

Why? With the broad range of non-meat foods available in the West today, meat is a luxury. So I'm guessing that you either eat meat because you like the taste, or out of convenience.

Sure she was. She was obtaining pleasure from it, just like some people get pleasure from fried chicken. If chickens are simply objects to pleasure our taste buds, then why aren't kittens simply objects to pleasure the minds of disturbed individuals?

What makes you think that all animals held in captivity survive long enough to become food?

Furthermore, people can survive for a long time in a state of dehydration and starvation. Indeed, people in North Korea have long life spans, likely due to their below recommended caloric intake. With the advent of growth hormones, you can get large chickens, despite them being malnourished and dehydrated.

Strawman.

Which you can't guarantee. You can't guarantee that they drink. And you certainly can't guarantee that they are monitored. Quite frankly, you're making a bunch of empty assertions, and I'm calling you on it.

Hey, if the shoe fits.

Sure, I agree with that.

I never said you did. I'm just satirising the general attitude towards this woman. My apologies for being unclear.

--------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBKeYXgm_w&feature=related

OH MY GOD THAT'S HORRIBLE I... oh, wait, they are only pigs. Pigs taste good. Whew, and for a moment there I thought that they were innocent little kittens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYGRTuB_G_4&feature=related

GRAHHH, RAGE BUILDING, GONNA GO KICK SOME A... oh, KFC is having a special! Gotta go.

 

But the very first statement that you quoted from me was "I will agree that the response was disproportionate to the act." This is why I thought you were arguing the act was not cruel... seeing as I clearly stated that I thought the response was greatly disproportionate to the act.

I haven't stated that I wanted to harm this woman, and I have not been following the story closely in the news so I don't know if anyone else wants to harm her. You say you think her act was cruel, however, the very first thing you said to me was "Big deal." I don't normally say "Oh, well, big deal, animals die every day," if someone comes up to me and says "My neighbor hurt my pet!" That implies to me that you don't think it's very cruel.

Your argument is coming across as very mixed to me. You state you're arguing that the media response was disproportionate, however, I clearly said that I agree with that many times. You showed no compassion for the cat in question, saying 'Big deal' because his suffering wasn't as bad as that of livestock.

Personal story time:
When I was a little boy, maybe 8 years old, I had a dog named Ranger. He was really friendly, loved everyone, loved the outdoors, loved children. For some reason, my neighbor hated dogs with a passion; he set bear traps up in our back yard (I lived in the UP, we had tons of woods behind us) where Ranger frequented. He came limping home, and ended up losing his leg. He lived happily still, three-legged, still ran and played with me and my siblings. My ma found him in the backyard one day eating a raw piece of meat (store-bought meat) that we assume my neighbor put there; he got sick that day and we took him to the vet. Turns out he had some medication (meant for humans) in him, presumably from the meat (which we assumed was not out of the garbage; it was a fresh, whole piece of meat, not even dirty when we found him eating it). It ended up causing him to have liver failure and he died with his head on my lap a few nights later.

Obviously this woman did not take such a violent approach, but she still could have killed someone's pet. That 'could' have been a big deal. The result was not a big deal and all ended well, but the lady had 'no idea' how it was going to end. Her intent is what was cruel, not the cat's fate. It still would not have merited any media coverage, in my opinion, but just because other animals suffer too, does not relieve her of any guilt.

I'm not an expert on animal cruelty, but I've seen quite a few articles and stories in the news about horrible slaughterhouses and slaughterhouses that were trying to reform and become more humane.

Yes, I like meat. It's hearty and gives me energy to work all day. I could eat alternative food, but I don't see the point; most of the meat I eat and cook at home comes from a private owned farm of a friend whom I've visited before. The living conditions are not that which you describe; they have plenty space and a clean environment. However, this is mostly because it tastes better that way. I still eat out at times, yes, for convenience. Just because we have a choice now not to eat meat, does not mean it is immoral and cruel to remain as omnivores.

I'd like to hope that one day all slaughterhouses become humane, and living conditions for livestock become cleaner. We don't gain pleasure from meat, we gain sustenance. Nothing gets me going on a demolition job like a meat and vegetable stew, or a pasty. I just don't have that energy when I eat tofu and lettuce. (I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians; it's just a life style choice that I don't want to make.) People who overeat food as pleasure have a bigger problem than animal cruelty. Eating for sustenance and being a sadist are two completely separate things.

If they don't survive then no one eats them. You argue that people are evil and can't take offense to abusing a cat because they eat meat which is mistreated when it is alive. Obviously if they don't' feed their livestock it's going to die... but then we're not going to eat it. Irregardless, we agree that animals need food to live.

The only assertion I made is that the animals we eat are fed while they are alive. That is no empty assertion, it is a fact. If an animal is not fed at all, it will die, it will not live long enough to be eaten. If we are talking about some horrible inane farm that grows animals but feeds none of them and treats them horribly, then I don't understand what's going on. I've never seen anything like that, but again, I'm not an animal cruelty buff.

Well... you quoted me saying "I'm not a slave to the media;"
and responded
'OMG SHE PUT A KITTEN IN TEH GARBAGE BIN KILL KILL KILL'
I think it's logical to assume that you were referring to me. So if you don't want me to think you're talking about me, don't put such a sentence right after quoting me saying that I am not that 'sentence'. I see now that you were making a generalization. But generalizations tend to encompass assumptions, which tend to hamper discussion.

 

In the grand scheme of things, what occurred in regards to the kitten is low on the cruelty scale. I guess I could obsess over a relatively minor act of cruelty perpetrated against one animal is ridiculous, but why would I, when millions of animals suffer far worse fates?

1. Reform is all well and good, but we aren't talking about effort. We're talking about reality.

2. Bridge, sell, London, etc.

So you are fine with killing animals, because you 'like' meat? So why isn't it OK for this woman to dump a kitten in the bin because she 'likes' to?

Well, you wouldn't be complicit in the killing of innocent kitt, erm, pigs.

I'll take your word for it. Nevertheless, you are fine with killing animals because you 'like' meat. Ergo. You regard animals as objects who exist to fulfill your subjective wants (not needs).

The same could be said of the woman who dumped the kitten in the bin.

You can gain sustenance from non-meat products.

Because that's all that vegetarians eat, right?

Gain pleasure from the act of killing vs. gain pleasure from the flesh of the animal you just killed. At the end of the day, you are willing to kill (and possibly torture) simply to satisfy your subjective wants.

If the system which produced one tasty animal also produced ten rotten uneaten animals, I would still argue that by eating that one animal, you are complicit in the deaths of the other ten.

Again, this is not true. Animals can survive for prolonged periods without food and water.

 

Mordea, I'm constantly confused by the vegan association of value to animal life, but no value to vegetable life. Yes, we could all eat tofu and lettuce, but then we'd be complicit in the mass-murder of lettuce and baby soy plants! How can you advocate such cruelty?! The reality (and I refuse to call it a sad one) is that life is dependant on death. Even if you were to go to the ultimate extreme and synthisize your own nutrients from inorganic compounds that had never been a part of any living creature, at the very least you're probably denying those same compounds to something else that could use them, thus starving the poor cyanobacteria so you can live.

Beyond that, though, I do see your point about this case. It happened, and it was bad, but this is like the media swarming over a girl with a stubbed toe (it could be broken!) while a house with the rest of the family inside is sliding off a cliff. Poor girl, she stubbed her toe, it's sad, but how about saving the rest of them?!

Now, I don't agree with that arguement, simply because I don't equate animal life to human life, or all animal life to all other animal life. I object to what she did because it served no purpose except to please her, while the conditions that farm animals live in serves the purpose of feeding us (which is not just a matter of pleasure). Yes, we could survive on an herbivorous diet, but how would that be any better? Do you know what happens to supermarket produce to get it to you at those prices?

 

I'm not the one who is attaching value to animal life, though. I made no claim to being a vegan, vegetarian, omnivore, or pure meat eater. However, if you're going to bemoan the plight of a poor kitten, then you should agonising over what is occuring to creatures who have an (arguably) similar IQ and EQ in slaughter houses and factory farms all over the world!