Why do we get so enraged over a cat being burned?
 

I will grant you that it is extremely cruel, but why is it that there is SO MUCH outrage over this compared to the beheading videos? A lot of people would like to see those two kids get the death penalty for what they did.

What if it was a rat instead of a cat? Rats feel pain just like cats do. However, I doubt any of us would put up too much of a stink over it. Instead of forming a lynch mob, we'd probably lament over the fact that those two poor kids need help.

Now, what if it was a roach being burned alive? Roaches feel pain too. Would the actions be any less cruel? And yet, we'd probably think nothing of it.

Just the fact that those kids did that bothers me

Good point...

Hey, did you ever see "Roger and Me?" It's a very nice documentary by Michael Moore. In it he shows a woman kill and clean a rabbit. (She raises rabbits for Pets or Meat - your choice.)

He received many, many complaints about that scene with the rabbit being killed.

What was odd about this is that he had another scene, this one was of a caped man being shot to death by the police . . . and nobody said anything about that scene.

Rabbit death = complaint
Human death = who cares?

Because they are innocent and completely at our mercy.

Someone said earlier that when you see a person in a bad spot he most likely made bad decisions that put him there.

Your right it is funny how people arent as outraged about people getting thier heads cut off but the fact that cat gets burned is over the line.
Strange were some people place thier priorities.

Because human are not innocent.

Animals are.

I think we object more to killings of things which represent innocense. Fluffy white rabbits and cute little cats are animals which we view as completely innocent, incapable of harming others. Children are in the same category, which is why we object so strongly to child abuse. Adult human beings do not represent innocense in the same way. A lot of times, we feel that if an adult gets killed over something, he/she probably deserved it. A lot of this, I feel, is subconscious.

Adult humans are capable of hurting others; cats, rabits, and children are not. Note that rats and roaches are living things which can and do do harm to humans. They spread disease, bite children, nest in our bathtub drains. When they are killed, we look at it as more of a good thing.

the human race is evil.. Period

We destroy everything in our path

I'd like to visit Irak next week.

As I don't want to get killed, I'll wear my fluffy white rabbitsuit.

Thanks for the tip.

It was God's will

OK, this is interesting but I am certain that this argument will ultimately fail.

What do you mean by innocent?

Are you claiming that all humans are not innocent?

You're innocent at birth.

Soon you get spoiled by "guilty" parents and family.

I completely agree with this statement as the way people must think when they react (as described), but I am certain that it is not logical (at all).

As a follow up to this, one of the things a lot of people said during the rash of recent beheadings is that the people who got beheaded were stupid to have put themselves in a position of danger in the first place. It seems irrational to most of us that someone whould knowingly put themselves at risk by staying in an area where something like this could happen to them. In other words, if someone gets beheaded, it's partially their fault for not getting their asses out of dodge when they were warned to get out.

The cat in that video, on the other hand, did not put itself in a position to get burned alive. It was incapable of doing so. The kids presumably picked it up out of someone's backyard, or, even worse, it was a pet of one of the kids to begin with. The humans could have left, the cat could not have. As a result, we tend to view the killing of the cat as more henious.

Careful ..... you can't use the word 'evil' if you're an atheist.

Emotions are rarely logical.

Is this true if your mother was raped when you were conceived? What if the rapist was Charles Manson?

Is this true if your development or the delivery kills your mother?

Is this true if you are one of multiple developing fetuses and your physical development in the womb actually causes the termination of one (or more) of the other fetuses?

Because it's not P.C. to kill an animal you're not going to eat I guess.

Politics fucks with your head.

I forgot to ask at what age do you become "guilty?"

3 months old?
6 months old?
9 months old?
1 year old?
2 years old?
5 years old?
8 years old?
12 years old?

Well, the people that got beheaded by the terrorists were not innocent. They were either a part of the army or involved in another way with the war.

The animals are/were not. Understand?

In order to be guilty of a 'sin' or 'wrong doing', you must first have the capacity of volition. In other words, you are only guilty of doing something wrong if you consciously know it is wrong. This is why the law makes allowances for so-called legal insanity.

Note that this is not the same as the theological concept of 'original sin', which holds that all men are born guilty (i.e., with the capacity for evil) through the sin of Eve, regardless of their volition to commit such a sin. As a result, all men are in need of salvation.

Dude, you went on a fucking campaign agaist me. This is a question you need to ask yourself. How many times did you say bad things about me? 50? 100? 200? You know nothing about me yet you can judge.

The answer to your question is, "Because you are a pussy".

We need more cat burning threads:glugglug

- - -
Is this true if your mother was raped when you were conceived?
- - -

You didn't rape your mother.

- - -
What if the rapist was Charles Manson?
- - -

You didn't choose the rapist.

- - -
Is this true if your development or the delivery kills your mother?
- - -

Survival of the fittest.


- - -
Is this true if you are one of multiple developing fetuses and your physical development in the womb actually causes the termination of one (or more) of the other fetuses?
- - -

Survival of the fittest.


At that age, you have no knowledge or intentional influence on your environment.

Rick, read my posts VERY CAREFULLY. The vast majority of my anger was over the beheading videos. I tghought the cat shit was bad but it was due to your fucking insensitive description of the Kim Sun-il beheading (e.g., calling it chop suey) that I went off on you. The cat video just gave me the opportunity.

Note that I probably wouldn't have reacted nearly as angrily over it if you had described it in less disrespectful terms. The video was bad enough without the fucking irrevrence.

When you are capable of having volition, whatever age that is.

Yes, I agree again!

I think that is why we try very hard (even though we don't entirely succeed) in keeping emotions out of the legal system and more specifically - criminal law.

Imagine locking up someone for life because they killed your pet cat (for fun).

Imagine locking someone up for a much shorter time because they killed a person you hated (for fun).

Now imagine that your pet cat was killing "TheWildcard's" guinea pig each time they brought one home. After the cat killed thirty five of their guinea pigs, they were so mad they killed your cat.

Now imagine that the person you hate is "TheWildcard's" mother.

See how perspective means everything for emotion?


Cats kill all the time. Animals are not "innocent."

Well, this is also interesting because it would seem to exclude almost all animals except humans. So if a lion eats your baby you gently pet it and say, "no, no . . . don't do that kitty" and drop it off at the nearest nature preserve?

What if you find a deadly snake in your daughter's bedroom? Can you kill it? It is innocent so you must not harm it . . . right?


What if a retarded man sets fire to your house and your entire family is killed and you survive but are burned so badly you will never get out of bed again. Is he innocent?

What if a severly retarded man breaks into your home and rapes one of your children? He clearly isn't capable of "volition" so you must continue to consider that he is an "innocent" correct?

Because it's a defenseless animal we can all relate to.

We would put down the animals, not because they should have known better, but because allowing them to exist would endanger us. Ideally, we would put them down humanely.

We would hospitalize the retarted rapist and arsonist for the same reasons. Keeping them out of society is not the same as punnishing them.

How do you know that that scene isnt from a low class veterinary and that Cat is dying of cancer and they are sparing it much long pain by killing it there

QUOTE]Originally posted by AnalProbe

- - -
Is this true if your development or the delivery kills your mother?
- - -

Survival of the fittest.


- - -
Is this true if you are one of multiple developing fetuses and your physical development in the womb actually causes the termination of one (or more) of the other fetuses?
- - -

Survival of the fittest.


At that age, you have no knowledge or intentional influence on your environment. [/QUOTE]


Does the "survival of the fittest" include the accidental or incidental?

You do realize that "survival of the fittest" is simply "a natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the environment?"

The Theory of Evolution has never been about survival. What Darwin said was that heritable variations led to differences in reproductive success.

So, in order to survive by being the "fittest" you need to posses traits, which enable you to have the most offspring, which presumably will possess the traits that enabled your success at procreation. This combined with a steady environment would be how the "fittest" survive.


Don't tell me that this is a contributing factor on how you determine/define "innocence."

Watch the video and tell us if you think the two kids in question are vets!

WHAT? You would kill the lion? You would kill the snake? But they didn't do anything wrong? These are innocent animals you want to KILL.

Lions and snakes are constantly killing "innocent" animals, does this make them guilty?

Why not "humanely put down" the retarded people who kill or who potentially could do something to endager us?

I don't understand why we wouldn't put the lion in a safe nature preserve (where it can't get to us) instead of killing it.

I don't understand why we wouldn't kill the retarded man who raped your child and killed your wife.

I am so confused.

guess it woud have been ok if the cat was beheaded instead...

Not cool either type of Vids :321GFY

I guess I am only asking all of these questions to point out that we need to think about things a lot more (than we do).

Everyone has an opinion, but it seems that most opinions are based on nonsense or actually conflict with other opinions held by that same individual.


All you need to do is ask ?why?? enough times and soon you will be able to be consistent and logical.

There are two things in this world I will fight to the death over instantly and with total ferocity, seeing someone viciously harming a child or someone viciously harming an animal. Do that in front of my eyes and you'll wish you were dead when I get done with you.

:mad:

no one cares about human death
only when a cute cat is killed is it over the line
someone post a video of a human being burned to death, you'll have 6 pages of "burn baby, burn" and " :1orglaugh "
the world is full of hypocrites, and most of them post here

:warning