Insane

Remove all ads!

Just saw in the news an American woman was convicted to spend a full night on a snowy forest - -7degrees - on the basis that she "abandoned" cats on the street! How far will these activist twits go? I wonder how long till people be convicted because they refuse to shelter poor and homeless animals.
Bye bye individual freedom.
Don't take me wrong, I love cats, and actually own two of them, but that is just insane. The end of the world.
I was asked before if ambientalism is a lefty idea, which I said not necessarily, although 99% of these activist are leftists. The resemblance is crystal clear: the same total disregard of people's individuality and personal freedom, on the basis of "protecting the weak and helpless". Control and more control...Big Brother is watching you.

[ December 04, 2005, 17:30: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

While I support animal rights to an extent, the punishment in this case qualifies as "cruel and unusual", which goes against US laws. A fine would have been suitable, if they were her cats and she seriously neglected them. Not knowing the case details I can't say much.

However, I wouldn't call the judge (it is, after all, the judges who ultimately decide the nature of the punishment) an activist twit. Just a twit.

Well, to pass a law like that would require the majority of lawmakers to be animal rights extremists of the most unreasonable kind - the kind I haven't so far witnessed anywhere. Of course one should shelter their *own* animals, though.

 

Funny how folks on the right will see anything they don't like as lefty, and vice versa.

I mean, you could see such severe punishment as rather conservative and traditional, an eye for an eye and all that. I think that was the judge's point: she left animals out in the cold where they froze to death, so he forced her to spend a night out in the cold (not so awful, by the way, eskimos do it every night).

Calling such punishment "the end of the world" seems a tad over-the-top. The sky is not falling... just a judge obeying the Old Testament. How's that "leftist" ?

 

I pretty much agree and there's also a more serious problem than simply neglecting the animals. Abandoned unsterilized cats on the streets can potentially become and reproduce feral cats and feral cats are bad for the nature in every way, not to mention that I'd say most humans don't like them too much either. So abandoning cats on the street is just plain irresponsible and should be criminal. However she could have allways killed the cat and as long as the death was quick and relatively painless she'd have my full blessing.

In general I am of the opinion though that once you get pets you should be ready to take care of them but sometimes life can throw unexpected twists and the only solution would be to get rid of them. Preferrably taking them to some sort of home for abandoned animals, but if that's not possible then it might be required to have the animal killed.

 

I don't know if the judge is an activist - I heard this is not the first time he gives such an unusual punishment, so my guess he is just an oportunist show off. However, these kind of things happen because of the pressure from the animal right activists.

Except that the right have concerns other than animal rights. It is a known fact these activists are leftists. Do you think they are conservative people?
I even mentioned something they share deeply in common, and I quote: "the same total disregard of people's individuality and personal freedom, on the basis of "protecting the weak and helpless". Control and more control."
But I guess the skimos do it so every night, so it must be right.
By the way, the Old Testament was not meant to "protect animals", in case you did not know.

 

It's not at all unheard of that a conservative person has a deep love of animals. Maybe the judge had just that, combined with an eye for an eye -mentality. He doesn't have to be an activist or leftist for that, nor does he have to have been influenced by them. Neither does he need to be a leftist to be an opportunist show-off.

 

I said he was an opportunist show-off. I did not relate this fact to the condition of being a leftist or not.
Having a deep love for animals does not make one an activist - as I said, I like animals myself.
I have never heard of an animal rights activist or ambientalist who is a conservative rightist. I do know nazi heathens who are all very much pro- nature, but those account to that 1% I have mentioned before.

 

I'm fine with it. As far as I'm concerned abandoning an animal on the street to freeze to death, is no less worse than doing it to a human child.

She got what she deserved. (though if it was up to me, she would have been stuck there for a week )

 

The night out wouldn't kill the woman. Sounds to me like letting the punishment fit the crime. These sorts of "alternative consequences" are becoming more and more common (or maybe I'm just hearing more about them) partly because of the high cost of incarceration.

Personally, I hate cats with a passion, but that doesn't mean I think they should be tormented. It's been my experience that cat lovers tend to be a weird lot anyhow

 

Correlation does not equal causation, first of all. Second, a judge doesn't have to be an "activist" to hand down a sentence like that - just eccentric. I personally think punishments should fit crimes more often. How is a fine going to show someone the error of their ways? But I digress...

This thread seems like an excuse to lefty bash. You aren't attacking the judge here, but rather "lefty activists." There's no evidence to suggest this sentence had anything to do with outside pressure from animal rights activists, or that the judge was one himself. Yet you choose shout "Oh my god the lefties are destroying the world!"

The fanaticism that is dangerous may very well be your own. Which applies to everyone, of course.

 

Death Rabbit,

In all my posts - within this thread - I have made clear what I think this judge is. If you could not grasp so far, you won't do it now, so that is all I have to say.

LKD,

I am a "cat-lover". but then I might be weird indeed.

 

Wow, what a mature response!

Considering how you set the tone of this thread with "How far will these activists twits go?" - opining the "fact" that animal-rights activists are all lefties, then rail on the judge for bending to pressure from these animal rights "twits," and despite calling him an opportunist show-off, it isn't too much of a stretch to read lefty-bashing into your post. So while you aren't calling him an lefty activist per se, you do contest that he's bowing to pressure from them by doing their will, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. I called it like I saw it. You don't like it, fine. But don't tell me I'm the one who has trouble grasping.

 

I agree. The judge let her off way too easy, IMO. I would have given her the 3 months in jail. This judge, it seems to me, is taking the idea of choice too far...this woman did the crime, so she should do the time.

 

Any stats to show how fitting punishment affects reoffending in the US, compared to standard prison or fine? Could be interesting. I suppose it can also have the additional value of allowing the offender more fully to understand why he is being punished and why his deed was wrong.

 

Chandos! It warms my heart to see you finally speak out against "pro-choice" judges!

Here's the problem with rulings like this. Although it might seem like a good idea to let the punishment fit the crime, all it does is get the criminal a degree of celebrity. She gets her picture in the paper, appears on the evening news, gets talked about on internet bulletin boards...next week she'll be on Jerry Springer. In the fall she gets a quarter million for the screenplay of the CBS miniseries "Cold and Hungry".

The woman just needs to be tossed into the county jail to serve her time and eat green bologna, be released to house arrest just in time to avoid losing her job, work 6 months of community service at an animal rescue shelter...and...oh yeah, be fitted with a pink, belled collar that says "fluffy".

I also want to sound off on the side that opposes "activism" and "leftism" being considered one in the same.

 

Not likely, chev. It's so rare here that I don't think anyone could make a quantatative study on it. Judges typically pass down the sentence on the books (fines, community service, jail time, etc.) and move along to the next case. Most aren't as creative as this guy.

 

This puzzles me; why did she leave them in TWO parks? Repeat behaviour might indicate malicious intent.

Also, I think she got off pretty easily for it, especially considering the reduced sentence. I have no doubt that if those 40 babies had been human, she'd be dead before she made it to sentencing.

Here's an idea: find someone else's doorstep to leave them on; maybe someone who gave half a damn. You don't see CSI scrambling to find the person who left them on her doorstep, so if you're really that apathetic (no offense to AE, of course), you can just pawn them off on some other stranger. She's getting two weeks for the high crime of Stupid.