Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 THe difference is that the cats may be someone's beloved pet which they've gotten spayed and neutered, who they may hold every night, who makes them laugh, and on whom they may have spent lots of money. It's not likely that the skunk is. So, how do they determine if it's not a pet? A collar? Most cat collars are of the " quick-release " variety, which means a cat may go out with a collar on, but not come back with it if they get tangled in some vines or something. It's a safety measure. If they're going to use " shyness " as the determining factor, well, hopefully I don't have to explain why that's not reliable. Ever seen a shy child? That doesn't mean the child is wild or feral. The WORST thing about this law is that it denies human accountability, as usual, for the problem of overpopulation of pets. And, as long as we see punishment of death for the cats and dogs as the ultimate solutions to people who train their pit bulls to kill, people who don't spay and neuter, and so forth, we will never hold ourselves accountable for the mistakes we make, and therefore,will never find solutions. kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 That makes a difference only to the owner of the animal, but a life is a life, so therefore one is not more important than the other. Jo , " keemosabe1 " <keemosabe1> wrote: > > > THe difference is that the cats may be someone's beloved pet which > they've gotten spayed and neutered, who they may hold every night, > who makes them laugh, and on whom they may have spent lots of money. > It's not likely that the skunk is. > > So, how do they determine if it's not a pet? A collar? Most cat > collars are of the " quick-release " variety, which means a cat may go > out with a collar on, but not come back with it if they get tangled > in some vines or something. It's a safety measure. > > If they're going to use " shyness " as the determining factor, well, > hopefully I don't have to explain why that's not reliable. Ever seen > a shy child? That doesn't mean the child is wild or feral. > > The WORST thing about this law is that it denies human > accountability, as usual, for the problem of overpopulation of pets. > And, as long as we see punishment of death for the cats and dogs as > the ultimate solutions to people who train their pit bulls to kill, > people who don't spay and neuter, and so forth, we will never hold > ourselves accountable for the mistakes we make, and therefore,will > never find solutions. > > kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Quantitative. The harm in killing a pet is multiplied by the number of people directly effected. Besides, I would be willing to bet that most of those folks who would sign on to kill cats are the sick little pervs who take great delight in seeing if they can hit one who is sitting on the side of the road. Thus the cat killing spree would have the adverse effect of encouraging a sicker segment of society, those who have been reknown in society to go on to acts of rape, torture and murder. Lynda - heartwerk <heartwork> > > That makes a difference only to the owner of the animal, but a life > is a life, so therefore one is not more important than the other. > > Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 , " heartwerk " <heartwork@c...> wrote: > > That makes a difference only to the owner of the animal, but a life > is a life, so therefore one is not more important than the other. > > Jo > Sure, a life is a life to YOU and to ME, but not to the rest of the world. This is not a vegan world, remember? In a court of law, your argument doesn't stand a chance. The value of even human lives are considered different in courts of law everyday. The bottom line is that value is dependent on worth, and worth....on money. How much did this person have? How much was spent on this animal? Those are the things that matter in this world. So, if you bring humans into the equation, and the animal belongs to a human, it has more worth. Now, you could argue all day that it doesn't. And, theoretically, I might agree. But, I've got my feet my on the ground, not my head in the clouds, and I don't go to sleep to dream (paraphrasing Fiona Apple;) Because the reality is quite different. And, if someone shoots a pet of mine? You can bet big money I'm going to be far more likely to take it to court than I will if they shoot a skunk in someone else's yard. kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2005 Report Share Posted April 16, 2005 It sounds like they already taking pot-shots at cats. Jo - " Lynda " <lurine Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:21 PM Re: Re: Difference between cats and skunks > > > Quantitative. The harm in killing a pet is multiplied by the number of > people directly effected. Besides, I would be willing to bet that most of > those folks who would sign on to kill cats are the sick little pervs who > take great delight in seeing if they can hit one who is sitting on the side > of the road. Thus the cat killing spree would have the adverse effect of > encouraging a sicker segment of society, those who have been reknown in > society to go on to acts of rape, torture and murder. > > Lynda > - > heartwerk <heartwork> > > > > That makes a difference only to the owner of the animal, but a life > > is a life, so therefore one is not more important than the other. > > > > Jo > > To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.