NationStates Jolt Archive

Just proving that Walmart is the heart of darkness in the corperate jungle of modern American.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/30/cat.killed.ap/index.html

It must have been a slow news day...

My God......I hope they do go to jail for shooting the cat. WTF

It must have been a slow news day...
i shoulda make a spicer thread title. like " Walmart Sacrifices Kittens in Satanic Ritual". aye well its never to late

i shoulda make a spicer thread title. like " Walmart Sacrifices Kittens in Satanic Ritual". aye well its never to late

"Walmart employees go on feline rampage"?

'Batboy found to be employed at Walmart, eats kittens'
^THAT is a catch line. :P

Bloody Massacre in Walmart Trailer, Dead Kittens Everywhere

Considering the amount of meat that might be on sale inside the store (beef jerky, SPAM, etc), I guess we'll only be upset about killing the "cute" animals.

"Outbreak of swearing in Walmart, rain of dead kittens"

Just proof that Wal*Mart is evil... You know what yall should do? Start shopping at target and come in to see me!

Target... It's so much better. What else needs to be said. the best thing is: WE DON"T SHOOT CATS!!! lol

Just proof that Wal*Mart is evil... You know what yall should do? Start shopping at target and come in to see me!

Target... It's so much better. What else needs to be said. the best thing is: WE DON"T SHOOT CATS!!! lol

Yeah, you only sell meat inside cans...

Considering the amount of meat that might be on sale inside the store (beef jerky, SPAM, etc), I guess we'll only be upset about killing the "cute" animals.

At least those animals are killed for sustinence; what purpose did killing this cat serve? Hell, I could have adopted that cat; my cat Cruiser needs a little brother or sister anyway. I might be a state away but I could have used him. Killing the cat when they could have just as easily chased him out, dragged him to the Humane Society, and let them handle him would have been just as effective and saved a couple of bullets.

I'm sure that like any commercial building, they also put out rat traps and rat poison. So it's ok to kill the rats and mice, but not ok to kill cats? Isn't there someone who would adopt a rat?

The idea of adopting a cat is reinforcing my argument that we'll only save the cute animals.

As a card-carrying member of People for Cute Fuzzy Animals, I believe that we should only save the animals that look nice.

it's a cat!! i can't beleive they're taking these guys to court. crime must be at an all time low in america for the police to be bothered prosecuting a pissy little charge like that

it's a cat!! i can't beleive they're taking these guys to court. crime must be at an all time low in america for the police to be bothered prosecuting a pissy little charge like that

It *IS* at an all-time low. Incarceration rates are very high, and crime is at its lowest since the early 1960s. Especially violent crime.

As a proud member of PETA, I say, who gives a shit? It's not as if they tortured the cat, the killed the damn thing. Dont get me wrong, I like cats, have some of my own, but its not news worthy, this is a collossal waste of money and time. I dont want my tax dollars paying so that some animal rights faggots can charge people over exterminating pests.


btw PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

I'm sure that like any commercial building, they also put out rat traps and rat poison. So it's ok to kill the rats and mice, but not ok to kill cats? Isn't there someone who would adopt a rat?

The idea of adopting a cat is reinforcing my argument that we'll only save the cute animals.

Rats spread disease and will eat each other.

GUys guys. To stop this we have to destory the heart of Walmart

It *IS* at an all-time low. Incarceration rates are very high, and crime is at its lowest since the early 1960s. Especially violent crime.

cool. even so - i'd rather have them prosecute speeders and drunk drivers, before this got brought to 'justice'

Riiight. Because, like, the reeeeally important part of this story is that it happened at a Wal-mart!

(Seriously, I've been thinking here: what exactly IS the important part of this story?) :rolleyes:

Rats spread disease and will eat each other.

Cats spread disease too!

Guess I'll have to get those socks at Target instead.....

i shoulda make a spicer thread title. like " Walmart Sacrifices Kittens in Satanic Ritual". aye well its never too late
How about:
"Wal-mart manager, obsessed with pussy, goes on a killing rampage!"

Cats spread disease too!

Not as badly as rats, and mass cat cannibalization is not something I am familiar with.

Thank heaven!

And people wonder why I never shop there.

I hate Wal-Mart with a passion with the ugly people they hire. I blame both the two workers and the manager. Why the workers should have told the manager to screw and get fired because I wouldn't want to work for a evil animal killing corp. I blame the manager because he probally had his head up his ass when he gave the order.

In the end the manager and the two workers should be fired.

New moto for Wal-Mart

"Dump your animals off at Wal-Mart. Get your executions in a hour. :gundge:

Dude, it was a stray cat living on walmart property. I'm no fan of walmart, but if vermin infest anyone's property they have the right to exterminate.

Rats spread disease and will eat each other.
Cats infested with fleas can spread disease too.

i shoulda make a spicer thread title. like " Walmart Sacrifices Kittens in Satanic Ritual". aye well its never to late
“Walmart kills cat, sells meat”
They did kill the cat … and they do sell meat … just not cat meat lol

Not as badly as rats, and mass cat cannibalization is not something I am familiar with.

Thank heaven!
Now cannibalism among animals is a reason to value one species over another? Why?

Dude, it was a stray cat living on walmart property. I'm no fan of walmart, but if vermin infest anyone's property they have the right to exterminate.

Yes, by hiring a professional exterminator or calling the SPCA to do it. But that would cost money, and the cheapos wouldn't do that.

It serves them right.

Yes, by hiring a professional exterminator or calling the SPCA to do it. But that would cost money, and the cheapos wouldn't do that.

It serves them right.
What's the difference if you exterminate by yourself or hire someone else? Might as well save some cash. A bullet will make the cat just as dead as a lethal injection.

It's funny how millions of animals, easily as sophisticated as cats get killed all the time in the most apalling conditions, but when somebody kills a cat in a painless way like shooting they whine about it. The cat would probably have been euthanised at the animal shelter anyway.

What's the difference if you exterminate by yourself or hire someone else? Might as well save some cash. A bullet will make the cat just as dead as a lethal injection.

Yeah, they really saved a wad of cash. Did you read the article? Suspended WITHOUT PAY. Plus some charges.. Court costs, bad publicity that the PR department will have to work on.

Cheapos always have to pay more in the long run.

Yeah, they really saved a wad of cash. Did you read the article? Suspended WITHOUT PAY. Plus some charges.. Court costs, bad publicity that the PR department will have to work on.

Cheapos always have to pay more in the long run.
Yeah, that's just unfair. They should not have been punished for doing the right thing.

Dude, it was a stray cat living on walmart property. I'm no fan of walmart, but if vermin infest anyone's property they have the right to exterminate.

i work at mcdonalds, and we have a bit of a problem with hobos... does that mean i can... i can waste them? i mean, they are vermin, and they are in our trash

Yeah, that's just unfair. They should not have been punished for doing the right thing.


They didn't do the right thing. What if they accidentally shot an employee, customer, or passersby?

It was just a stupid thing to do.

i work at mcdonalds, and we have a bit of a problem with hobos... does that mean i can... i can waste them? i mean, they are vermin, and they are in our trash
cat=/= human. human>cat. stray cat=expendable vermin. stray human=there but for the grace of a job and a steady paycheck go I

They didn't do the right thing. What if they accidentally shot an employee, customer, or passersby?

It was just a stupid thing to do.
They didn't. What if a hunter accidentaly shoots a hiker? Do we stop everyone from hunting? No we punish the guy who took his shot without being sure what his target was.

just more evidence as to how corrupt and evil wal mart is.

They didn't. What if a hunter accidentaly shoots a hiker? Do we stop everyone from hunting? No we punish the guy who took his shot without being sure what his target was.

Hunter's have more experiences with rifles, they are out away from people and not hunting by a crowded department store.

Anyone with a weapon near a crowded store deserves all the trouble he brings upon himself.

They could have called animal control and got rid of the cat for FREE.

I seriously can't believe that any of you actually care about this. Those of you claiming that Walmart is evil because a couple of their employees killed a cat are displaying an astonishing lack of perspective.

I'm sure that like any commercial building, they also put out rat traps and rat poison. So it's ok to kill the rats and mice, but not ok to kill cats? Isn't there someone who would adopt a rat?

The idea of adopting a cat is reinforcing my argument that we'll only save the cute animals.

Or, just the ones that don't spread diseases and destroy merchandise.

GUys guys. To stop this we have to destory the heart of Walmart

It cannot be destroyed! We must divide the heart into 4 pieces, put them into a box with separate compartments, and bury it deep within a cave, lest the evil come back to plague the land.

How about:
"Wal-mart manager, obsessed with pussy, goes on a killing rampage!"

*Gets vote*

If they killed the cat by shooting it in the head, I fail to see how they could be charged with animal cruelty. Shooting something in the head to kill them is one of the least cruel ways of killing something. Unauthorized animal killing okay, but killing a cat instantly is not really considered cruel.

It's funny how millions of animals, easily as sophisticated as cats get killed all the time in the most apalling conditions, but when somebody kills a cat in a painless way like shooting they whine about it. The cat would probably have been euthanised at the animal shelter anyway.

Heh, you trust a couple of Walmart lackeys to shoot an animal in a proper way? I see nothing about a headshot in that article, for all you know they pumped 10+ shots into it before they hit something vital - hence why there are professionals who do things like this.

Good thing that Indiana gives Class D felony only after the second incident, we would be talking about up to three years in prison for a freaking stray cat otherwise. Fine up to 10k bucks is going to hurt nonetheless.

I seriously can't believe that any of you actually care about this. Those of you claiming that Walmart is evil because a couple of their employees killed a cat are displaying an astonishing lack of perspective.

And anyone who thinks that this is the only reason to boycott Walmart is displaying an amazing lack of information. This is one more thing, not the only thing.

If they killed the cat by shooting it in the head, I fail to see how they could be charged with animal cruelty. Shooting something in the head to kill them is one of the least cruel ways of killing something. Unauthorized animal killing okay, but killing a cat instantly is not really considered cruel.

You're not supposed to kill animals with a gun in a public place period. Theyc= could have called animal control.

What if the cat had an infectious disease? Shooting the animal in the head causes its infected blood to splatter, thereby spreading the infection.

Those employees were just brainless idiots. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things; it wasn't just a stupid and cheap way, it was also a dangerous way.

Someone could have been infected, or worse, the bullet could have missed the cat and hit someone.

How is shooting a cat animal cruelty? One shot to the head and it's all over, no pain.

I don't like the cruelty to animals charge on this, one, they had every right to be rid of the cat, but on the other hand, if this was in a city or town or whatever that had ordinances against firing a gun in town limits I'd be all for prosecuting these people.

How is shooting a cat animal cruelty? One shot to the head and it's all over, no pain.

You can say that about shooting a human in the head: one shot to the head and it's all over, no pain. Why charge the shooter, eh?

It wasn't their call to kill the cat. If the cat has a disease, the sprayed blood could have infected them. They do not have the authority nor qualifications to make that judgement call and to fire a weapon in a crowded public place. It was their duty to call animal control.

I would have charged them with being reckless, using a weapon, and endangering the public. Stray animals have all sorts of diseases, from rabies to AIDS to West Nile on to other fun fatal diseases.

Killing an animal is cruel and that is why they were charged with animal cruelty.

If you see a stray animal, call Animal Control. They are equipped to remove an animal without potentially infecting the public.

You can say that about shooting a human in the head: one shot to the head and it's all over, no pain. Why charge the shooter, eh?

It wasn't their call to kill the cat. If the cat has a disease, the sprayed blood could have infected them. They do not have the authority nor qualifications to make that judgement call and to fire a weapon in a crowded public place. It was their duty to call animal control.

I would have charged them with being reckless, using a weapon, and endangering the public. Stray animals have all sorts of diseases, from rabies to AIDS to West Nile on to other fun fatal diseases.

Killing an animal is cruel and that is why they were charged with animal cruelty.

If you see a stray animal, call Animal Control. They are equipped to remove an animal without potentially infecting the public.

1) they are not charged with potentially infecting humans. They are charged with animal cruelty.

2) homicide is not illegal because it is cruel. It is illegal because it's homicide.

Current estimates of the death toll from the Southeast Asia's tsunami range as high as 400,000, and you're raising hell with WalMart about some idiot manager who wanted a stray cat killed? What's wrong with this picture??? :rolleyes:

Current estimates of the death toll from the Southeast Asia's tsunami range as high as 400,000, and you're raising hell with WalMart about some idiot manager who wanted a stray cat killed? What's wrong with this picture??? :rolleyes:

People actually talk about more then one topic in their life. Surprising but true.

Current estimates of the death toll from the Southeast Asia's tsunami range as high as 400,000, and you're raising hell with WalMart about some idiot manager who wanted a stray cat killed? What's wrong with this picture??? :rolleyes:


Your memory may be a little worse than mine: I seem to recall this little flu-like thing called SARS that had an excellent chance of being spread from rats to humans. Caused a little damage to some people around the world. :rolleyes:

You don't fool around with the blood of stray animals. You don't touch a dead crow because you can become infected with West Nile. Animals have rabies and other less than fun diseases that can permanently cripple or even kill you.

That is why you don't fool around with stuff that don't know anything about. Shooting that cat in the head can arguably lead to bigger problems and has in the past.

What if now SARS or West Nile ravaged Asia now? Believe me, the death toll could come into the millions if infected animals passed diseases to people at this point. That's why aid workers are working overtime to vacinate people there. They know any diesease can be a hundred times worse than what happened now.

I'd rather drown than get SARS.

Your memory may be a little worse than mine: I seem to recall this little flu-like thing called SARS that had an excellent chance of being spread from rats to humans. Caused a little damage to some people around the world. :rolleyes:

You don't fool around with the blood of stray animals. You don't touch a dead crow because you can become infected with West Nile. Animals have rabies and other less than fun diseases that can permanently cripple or even kill you.

That is why you don't fool around with stuff that don't know anything about. Shooting that cat in the head can arguably lead to bigger problems and has in the past.

What if now SARS or West Nile ravaged Asia now? Believe me, the death toll could come into the millions if infected animals passed diseases to people at this point. That's why aid workers are working overtime to vacinate people there. They know any diesease can be a hundred times worse than what happened now.

I'd rather drown than get SARS.
And your point in regards to the topic of this thread is??? :confused:

1) they are not charged with potentially infecting humans. They are charged with animal cruelty.

2) homicide is not illegal because it is cruel. It is illegal because it's homicide.


1. Murdering animals still fall under animal cruelty laws.

2. Just because they have not been charged with potentially infecting humans diesn't mean it cannot happen.

They were irresponsible. The gun could have misfired or bounced back and struck someone in the eye or spine.

Animal Control is there for a reason. I don't want some obedient moron playing with a gun in a public place. :sniper:

If the gun misfired and hit you, I'm pretty sure if you survived you'd be talking to your lawyer.

i shoulda make a spicer thread title. like " Walmart Sacrifices Kittens in Satanic Ritual". aye well its never to late
Hey, fuck you, you fucking prejudiced ass hole.

I have to agree it was a silly court case and the news must have been slow. There really is no reason why they shouldn't have, it was just there hampering efforts and possibly giving disease to the employess, they had all right to shoot iy.

And anyone who thinks that this is the only reason to boycott Walmart is displaying an amazing lack of information. This is one more thing, not the only thing.

This isn't even important or relevant enough to be "one more thing." It's nothing.

This isn't even important or relevant enough to be "one more thing." It's nothing.

Quite frankly, I don't need this to make me not shop at Walmart - I'm already doing that. This is a nice little garnish, though. I never said it was a major thing, since it's not as if this was any more than the action of one idiot. Walmart, as a company, has more than enough damning faults (seems that this is news to you). This is worth noting, though, and the involved employees should be punished.

Walmart, as a company, has more than enough damning faults (seems that this is news to you).

I am fucking sick and tired of people putting words into my mouth. Which of my posts in this thread suggests that I have any problem with people boycotting Walmart for reasons other than this?

I am fucking sick and tired of people putting words into my mouth. Which of my posts in this thread suggests that I have any problem with people boycotting Walmart for reasons other than this?

Aren't we testy tonight? Your comment,

Originally Posted by Copiosa Scotia
I seriously can't believe that any of you actually care about this. Those of you claiming that Walmart is evil because a couple of their employees killed a cat are displaying an astonishing lack of perspective.

would seem to indicate that you think that people bashing Walmart over this are only doing it because of this incident. Checking this thread, the vast majority of people commented as I did - that this was just one more black mark for Walmart. There were two exceptions, one a joking Target employee, another a simple comment of buying an item elsewhere. If you meant one of these guys, maybe you ought to have responded to them directly, rather than posting as if such thoughts were more widespread.

Then people wouldn't be so likely to "put words in your mouth."

I hate Wal-Mart with a passion with the ugly people they hire. I blame both the two workers and the manager. Why the workers should have told the manager to screw and get fired because I wouldn't want to work for a evil animal killing corp. I blame the manager because he probally had his head up his ass when he gave the order.

In the end the manager and the two workers should be fired.

New moto for Wal-Mart

"Dump your animals off at Wal-Mart. Get your executions in a hour. :gundge:

The post that I was most directly responding to.

Aren't we testy tonight? Your comment,

Originally Posted by Copiosa Scotia
I seriously can't believe that any of you actually care about this. Those of you claiming that Walmart is evil because a couple of their employees killed a cat are displaying an astonishing lack of perspective.

would seem to indicate that you think that people bashing Walmart over this are only doing it because of this incident. Checking this thread, the vast majority of people commented as I did - that this was just one more black mark for Walmart. There were two exceptions, one a joking Target employee, another a simple comment of buying an item elsewhere. If you meant one of these guys, maybe you ought to have responded to them directly, rather than posting as if such thoughts were more widespread.

Then people wouldn't be so likely to "put words in your mouth."

If you're capable of looking at my initial post and assuming that I mean, "You're all morons and there's no good reason to boycott Walmart," then I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation.

What's the difference if you exterminate by yourself or hire someone else? Might as well save some cash. A bullet will make the cat just as dead as a lethal injection.

Yeah, cause I am sure that they got the bullet in just the right place the very first time, and I am sure that they took precautions to be humane and not cause undue trauma. Of course not, they are nothing but dumb hicks who think nothing of pulling out a gun to solve their problems.

There are lots of ways to have stray cats removed from your property--ways that are indeed humane, or at least that which gives the cats an opportunity for a better life.

If I ever ran for office, my first act would be to make animal cruelty a death penalty offense. Just because you CAN beat up on a small animal, doesn't mean you should. It just makes you a bully.

The post that I was most directly responding to.

If you're capable of looking at my initial post and assuming that I mean, "You're all morons and there's no good reason to boycott Walmart," then I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation.

Even looking at the post you say you initially responded to doesn't really make me retract a damned thing. You didn't quote it at the time, and quite frankly, your response still makes light of the poster's comment as if there were no other good reason you knew of to hate Walmart. Let's face it - you made your comment too general, and that's your problem. The only way that affects me is in the time I've taken explaining that to you. You want to speak of a trivial subject? This is it.

You're more well-informed than I initially thought? Good for you - choose your words next time as if you were, and save us both some trouble.

1. Murdering animals still fall under animal cruelty laws.

2. Just because they have not been charged with potentially infecting humans diesn't mean it cannot happen.

They were irresponsible. The gun could have misfired or bounced back and struck someone in the eye or spine.

Animal Control is there for a reason. I don't want some obedient moron playing with a gun in a public place. :sniper:

If the gun misfired and hit you, I'm pretty sure if you survived you'd be talking to your lawyer.

1) there is no such thing as murdering a wild animal. The only difference between shooting a feral cat and shooting a wild deer is that most people do not keep pet deer.

2) deer can carry diseases too.

3) deer hunters can accidentally hit people too.

btw PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif
I have a shirt with that on it.

Just proof that Wal*Mart is evil... You know what yall should do? Start shopping at target and come in to see me!

Target... It's so much better. What else needs to be said. the best thing is: WE DON"T SHOOT CATS!!! lol

Lol I have a friend like you who advertises Target to everyone (cause she works there). She works in Yellow, and she is very loyal (disturbingly loyal).

What it takes to get ahead in Corporate America

Anything the boss says..

Just proving that Walmart is the heart of darkness in the corperate jungle of modern American.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/30/cat.killed.ap/index.html
I never did like Wal-Mart...

Hey, fuck you, you fucking prejudiced ass hole.

I have to agree it was a silly court case and the news must have been slow. There really is no reason why they shouldn't have, it was just there hampering efforts and possibly giving disease to the employess, they had all right to shoot iy.
Easy boy, lay of the crystal meth. Once you catch a breather, THEN you can start spreading your insipid nonsense.

I'm sure that like any commercial building, they also put out rat traps and rat poison. So it's ok to kill the rats and mice, but not ok to kill cats? Isn't there someone who would adopt a rat?

The idea of adopting a cat is reinforcing my argument that we'll only save the cute animals.

I do think that rats spread more disesas than cats. Cats also help keep the rat population down and help prevent the spread of disease to humans.

Just proving that Walmart is the heart of darkness in the corperate jungle of modern American.

What do the actions of one store have to do with the entire company? Maybe if this was happening in more than one store, but this is just one case. You people are just prejudiced against successful businesses. What's wrong with being different? I guess differences must be evil according to your way of thinking.

These people, who perpertrated this henis crime are obviously members of an Al Quadea sleeper cell, sent to America to attack our very way of life by harming small furry animals, thank god for the patriot act else they would never have been held accountable for their crimes, all I can say is SLOWEST NEWS DAY IN HISTORY :headbang:

Considering the amount of meat that might be on sale inside the store (beef jerky, SPAM, etc), I guess we'll only be upset about killing the "cute" animals.
What's wrong with eating meat? Animals do it. And they're the ones you're defending. I think the term for this is "conflict of interest."

Your memory may be a little worse than mine: I seem to recall this little flu-like thing called SARS that had an excellent chance of being spread from rats to humans. Caused a little damage to some people around the world. :rolleyes:

You don't fool around with the blood of stray animals. You don't touch a dead crow because you can become infected with West Nile. Animals have rabies and other less than fun diseases that can permanently cripple or even kill you.

That is why you don't fool around with stuff that don't know anything about. Shooting that cat in the head can arguably lead to bigger problems and has in the past.

What if now SARS or West Nile ravaged Asia now? Believe me, the death toll could come into the millions if infected animals passed diseases to people at this point. That's why aid workers are working overtime to vacinate people there. They know any diesease can be a hundred times worse than what happened now.

I'd rather drown than get SARS.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

oooohhh I'm scared now. I'm so utterly afraid of catching a disease that has a survival rate of 85% Oh my god! How horrible! SARS symptoms you ask? Why head aches, aches and pain and a general feeling of discomfort. My god lets all run to the shelters and board ourselves up! SARS was never a problem but our Media loved to grab onto some new disease and trump it up as if it was the friggin Ebola virus.

BTW: 11,000+ people die a year from the Flu. Less people died from SARS. SARS did nothing but prove the media can trick people into be scared of anything.

I'm sure that like any commercial building, they also put out rat traps and rat poison. So it's ok to kill the rats and mice, but not ok to kill cats? Isn't there someone who would adopt a rat?

The idea of adopting a cat is reinforcing my argument that we'll only save the cute animals.
Once again I have to state the facts, animals kill rats and mice. And, once again, you have a conflict of interest going.

It must have been a slow news day...
You said it....

Oh and if you get SARS and you're under 24, 99% of the peolpe survive. I'm shitting in my pants just thinking about it.

What do the actions of one store have to do with the entire company? Maybe if this was happening in more than one store, but this is just one case. You people are just prejudiced against successful businesses. What's wrong with being different? I guess differences must be evil according to your way of thinking.
how did liking or disliking being different enter into this conversation.besides walmart is the ultimate standardizer, they destroy differences where ever they encounter it. they are such an army of plastic drones that a reasonable person would have to conclude that if one manager forces his lackeys to butcher kitten then they all do.

Hey, fuck you, you fucking prejudiced ass hole.

I have to agree it was a silly court case and the news must have been slow. There really is no reason why they shouldn't have, it was just there hampering efforts and possibly giving disease to the employess, they had all right to shoot iy.


just try it you snivelling little twink and you'll be making sweet love to big bubba in the hotel federales like those dim witted toadies from walmart.

I want to see more than a few months they would get...75+ years in the least.

It dismays me that these two men were brainless and uncareing enough to carry out such cruelity. As many have mentioned the local animal control would have removed the cat for free.

Now what I'm about to say will probably go unnoticed but I have to say it...

Yes cats can carry / contract a disease called Feline AIDS - and yes it does to cats what Human AIDS does to humans - but it is NOT transmissible between cats and humans.

All I can tell from reading all the posts on this thread is that several posters like to jump to conclusions. Unless you have had encounters in the past with someone to whom you are responding, you are very likely jumping to conclusions or generalizing from what someone has said.

Whether or not what the Wal-mart employees did by :sniper: or :mp5: the cat was wrong is not really an important issue. The important issue is how we each respond to the world around us. Do we jump to conclusions and lose our tempers or attempt a rational discussion which acknowledges our emotions but does not let them control our responses.

Besides, who is to say that this universe is actually real? We could all be figments of someone else's twisted imagination... like mine. :D

All I can tell from reading all the posts on this thread is that several posters like to jump to conclusions. Unless you have had encounters in the past with someone to whom you are responding, you are very likely jumping to conclusions or generalizing from what someone has said.

Whether or not what the Wal-mart employees did by :sniper: or :mp5: the cat was wrong is not really an important issue. The important issue is how we each respond to the world around us. Do we jump to conclusions and lose our tempers or attempt a rational discussion which acknowledges our emotions but does not let them control our responses.

Besides, who is to say that this universe is actually real? We could all be figments of someone else's twisted imagination... like mine. :D

take your snivelling hippy hugfest somewhere they care veggy lad.

your cowering appeals for civility are just thinly vieled counter revolutionary abasement before your corperate overlords.

Considering the amount of meat that might be on sale inside the store (beef jerky, SPAM, etc), I guess we'll only be upset about killing the "cute" animals.

Unfortunately for you Mr Brown, we live in a society of laws, and those laws say that it is alright to kill an Animal if it done for either food, or for a Humane Purpose, but not just because they are in the way. And yes, I am aware that humans kill rats and such, but just consider how many diseases are carried by rats.

I suppose you are an animal rights activist, yet in none of your posts do you express a view on the actual subject of all this. The killing of the cat, which by the way, appalls me.

Oh and BTW.. have you ever had a Vet Euthanise your pet... if so, SHAME on you, YOU MURDERED AN ANIMAL!!

Unfortunately for you Mr Brown, we live in a society of laws, and those laws say that it is alright to kill an Animal if it done for either food, or for a Humane Purpose, but not just because they are in the way. And yes, I am aware that humans kill rats and such, but just consider how many diseases are carried by rats.

I suppose you are an animal rights activist, yet in none of your posts do you express a view on the actual subject of all this. The killing of the cat, which by the way, appalls me.

Oh and BTW.. have you ever had a Vet Euthanise your pet... if so, SHAME on you, YOU MURDERED AN ANIMAL!!

It's ok to kill rats because they carry diseases? Cats carry a fuck of a lot of diseases too, especially feral ones. Contrarywise, a friend of mine had a pet rat, which I am quite sure was as disease-free as any other house pet.

I have to agree with Mr. Brown: our culture, like pagan Egypt, enshrines pussycats. They are depicted as cute and cuddly, despite the dangers of disease and violence posed by feral specimens, and are iconized in soft plush animals for our children to sleep with. Our children are not told of the danger of suffocation to the infant and elderly when cats snuggle down on their sleeping chests, nor of the danger of rabies and cat scratch fever and other dangerous pathogens, nor of the fact that their raptor-like claws can slice human flesh in a flash. Meanwhile rats are depicted as filthy vicious predators, despite the fact that they can be just as intelligent as cats and can be just as lovable as pets.

We can kill animals for food or for a "Humane Purpose", or because they are disease-carrying scavenging nuicences, like rats. Well, feral and wild-born cats as just as much a danger as rats. Only rats are rarely made into stuffed toys, are they?

What if a wild boar had made its den behind the Wal-Mart? Would shooting it be animal cruelty? or only if it was not then eaten? In Viet Nam, or so we are told, people eat cats and dogs and walk pigs on leashes. Would it have been alright if they had eaten the cat?

It's bullshit. I have heard nothing of animal cruelty, only of putting down a feral and per force dangerous animal that had made a den too near to humans. And your point about how it could be seen as murdering an animal to euthanize a pet: would it have been just as wrong to call Animal Control and have the cat gassed? The cat is just as dead, but Animal Control officials do not get charged with animal cruelty for the killings they do. Just another case of only the state having the right to kill? Bullshit. The cat, ownerless and feral, was on private property. If I have a dangerous wild animal on my property, I will kill it.

I would kill it to protect my pups. :)

It's ok to kill rats because they carry diseases? Cats carry a fuck of a lot of diseases too, especially feral ones. Contrarywise, a friend of mine had a pet rat, which I am quite sure was as disease-free as any other house pet.

I have to agree with Mr. Brown: our culture, like pagan Egypt, enshrines pussycats. They are depicted as cute and cuddly, despite the dangers of disease and violence posed by feral specimens, and are iconized in soft plush animals for our children to sleep with. Our children are not told of the danger of suffocation to the infant and elderly when cats snuggle down on their sleeping chests, nor of the danger of rabies and cat scratch fever and other dangerous pathogens, nor of the fact that their raptor-like claws can slice human flesh in a flash. Meanwhile rats are depicted as filthy vicious predators, despite the fact that they can be just as intelligent as cats and can be just as lovable as pets.

We can kill animals for food or for a "Humane Purpose", or because they are disease-carrying scavenging nuicences, like rats. Well, feral and wild-born cats as just as much a danger as rats. Only rats are rarely made into stuffed toys, are they?

What if a wild boar had made its den behind the Wal-Mart? Would shooting it be animal cruelty? or only if it was not then eaten? In Viet Nam, or so we are told, people eat cats and dogs and walk pigs on leashes. Would it have been alright if they had eaten the cat?

It's bullshit. I have heard nothing of animal cruelty, only of putting down a feral and per force dangerous animal that had made a den too near to humans. And your point about how it could be seen as murdering an animal to euthanize a pet: would it have been just as wrong to call Animal Control and have the cat gassed? The cat is just as dead, but Animal Control officials do not get charged with animal cruelty for the killings they do. Just another case of only the state having the right to kill? Bullshit. The cat, ownerless and feral, was on private property. If I have a dangerous wild animal on my property, I will kill it.

I would kill it to protect my pups. :)

First of all I never said it was wrong to kill the Cat. I supposed it is my fault for not explaining properly.. what I said was that the act appalled me.. to whit.. the fact that it was done by wal-mart employees and not by the recognized authority.

Second.. there was no proof that the animal was a disease carrier.. and the only reason such a thing (killing without proof of disease) is ok when applied to those creatures that society as a whole considers vermin is because there is normally no revelevant authority to determine such things and so the killing is done as a matter of cousre to assumedly protect populations from disease.
(NB: I do NOT agree with this)

Third.. I also used to have pet rats.. and yes, they really can be quite clean animals.

Fourth.. My descripton of Euthanising a pet was meant to provide a mirror to Mr. Brown for his seemingly uneven views on animal rights.. all of those posts seemed to me to be more about whether it is wrong to kill any animal (eg: reference to the sale of meat products in Wal-mart) and not about whether it was right/wrong to kill the cat.

Also, The difference between animal control doing it and wal-mart doing it is that you know that animal control will kill the animal in as humane a way as possible with little or no danger to the public where as a wal-mart employee doing it with a gun [B]COULD[/B} be seen as a danger to the public, and there is no reason to assume that it was done humanely (the person with the gun may have been a bad shot and caused great pain with several non-fatal hits before the final blow.) And for Your information.. I think gassing animals is Incredibly cruel.. Here in Australia, as far as I know, Strays and Terminal Cases are given a painless leathal injection just like in some state in the USA do to people.

By Druthulhu: Our children are not told of the danger of suffocation to the infant and elderly when cats snuggle down on their sleeping chests, nor of the danger of rabies and cat scratch fever and other dangerous pathogens, nor of the fact that their raptor-like claws can slice human flesh in a flash - bolding is mine

Oh please, not this hairy old hoax - cats do NOT 'snuggle down' on the chests of infants and eldery to suffocate them, or "steal their breath".

Rabies is relatively rare, Cat Scratch Fever even more so - most "pathogens" carried by felines, or other animals are NOT zoonosis ( IE able to cross species lines - transmittable from animal to humans )

and as far as 'raptor- like' claws - sorry feline claws and raptor claws are very distinctly different ( yes I'm being a picky bitch )

I've raised rats - gentle, smart and natural clowns, and cleanly - but theur claws can do a fair amount of damage themselves.

Feral does not necessarily mean dangerous - most feral animals are afraid of humans. ( feral dogs being a noteable exception )

If anything, this should be an indictment of Wal Mart on sloppy management decisions and a general "take the easy way out" attitude. Much as I have to rely on Wal Mart at the moment, the ones I have seen tend to share the same general sloppiness in areas where slothful customers (who need bitch-slapping as well) leave crap around, the highlight of which includes frozen food left to thaw in the toy section or similar feats.

First of all I never said it was wrong to kill the Cat. I supposed it is my fault for not explaining properly.. what I said was that the act appalled me.. to whit.. the fact that it was done by wal-mart employees and not by the recognized authority.

Second.. there was no proof that the animal was a disease carrier.. and the only reason such a thing (killing without proof of disease) is ok when applied to those creatures that society as a whole considers vermin is because there is normally no revelevant authority to determine such things and so the killing is done as a matter of cousre to assumedly protect populations from disease.
(NB: I do NOT agree with this)

Third.. I also used to have pet rats.. and yes, they really can be quite clean animals.

Fourth.. My descripton of Euthanising a pet was meant to provide a mirror to Mr. Brown for his seemingly uneven views on animal rights.. all of those posts seemed to me to be more about whether it is wrong to kill any animal (eg: reference to the sale of meat products in Wal-mart) and not about whether it was right/wrong to kill the cat.

Also, The difference between animal control doing it and wal-mart doing it is that you know that animal control will kill the animal in as humane a way as possible with little or no danger to the public where as a wal-mart employee doing it with a gun [B]COULD[/B} be seen as a danger to the public, and there is no reason to assume that it was done humanely (the person with the gun may have been a bad shot and caused great pain with several non-fatal hits before the final blow.) And for Your information.. I think gassing animals is Incredibly cruel.. Here in Australia, as far as I know, Strays and Terminal Cases are given a painless leathal injection just like in some state in the USA do to people.

1,a) why assume that the Walmartians did not shoot the cat right in the head in one shot? b) why assume that all Animal Control officials treat aniimals humanely? c) why assume that shooting off a gun in a trailer behind a Wal-Mart is more of a damger to the public than hunting deer or geese? d) why assume that the Animal Control people in that area use injections and not gas, and if they use gas, isn't it less cruel to shoot the cat?

2) there is no reason to assume that any individual RAT is a disease carrier, but animal cruelty laws for some reason don't apply to private citizens who kill rats.

3) yes rats can be smart and clean and sweet. Another case for the sheer hypocricy of this. Ever heard of someone calling Animal Control over a rat?

4) OK, so you may not believe that it is wrong to euthanize animals. Only that it is wrong for private citizens to do it &/or do it with guns. Do you know what deer culling is? Good. I thought you did. Deer and rats apparently have fewer rights than cats. You seem to appreciate the hypocricy, but are you willing to assert that deer killing and rat traps (VERY cruel) are wrong?

Walmartians. Hehehe. :)

- bolding is mine

Oh please, not this hairy old hoax - cats do NOT 'snuggle down' on the chests of infants and eldery to suffocate them, or "steal their breath".

Rabies is relatively rare, Cat Scratch Fever even more so - most "pathogens" carried by felines, or other animals are NOT zoonosis ( IE able to cross species lines - transmittable from animal to humans )

and as far as 'raptor- like' claws - sorry feline claws and raptor claws are very distinctly different ( yes I'm being a picky bitch )

I've raised rats - gentle, smart and natural clowns, and cleanly - but theur claws can do a fair amount of damage themselves.

Feral does not necessarily mean dangerous - most feral animals are afraid of humans. ( feral dogs being a noteable exception )

"Stealing Breath" = old wives' tale.
Sitting on chests = actually true.

How zoonosis are pathogens carried by rats? And what happens when a feral cat gets in a fight with a domestic cat?

Cats' claws are a lot closer to raptors' than they are to, say, dogs and rats. The are hooked and very sharp. Ever seen a cat scratch injury?

If most feral non-canine animals are afraid of humans, this includes rats, doesn't it? Not technically feral unless they were formerly domesticated, but it goes right back to the point: if these guys had shot a rat, even once in the head much less slowly with a neck-breaking trap, no one would give a damn.

Walmartians. Hehehe. :)

"Warlike servents of Wal." ;)

Could you please make your title for the thread a little more realistic? I mean, joking around is fun and all (I loved the "Bloody Massacre in Walmart Trailer, Dead Kittens Everywhere" one) but "satanic ritual"? Did they put the poor thing on a candle lit altar and gut it? What about "forced to shoot by manager"? The manager never said to shoot it, just to get rid of it.

It's ok to kill rats because they carry diseases? Cats carry a fuck of a lot of diseases too, especially feral ones. Contrarywise, a friend of mine had a pet rat, which I am quite sure was as disease-free as any other house pet.

I have to agree with Mr. Brown: our culture, like pagan Egypt, enshrines pussycats. They are depicted as cute and cuddly, despite the dangers of disease and violence posed by feral specimens, and are iconized in soft plush animals for our children to sleep with. Our children are not told of the danger of suffocation to the infant and elderly when cats snuggle down on their sleeping chests, nor of the danger of rabies and cat scratch fever and other dangerous pathogens, nor of the fact that their raptor-like claws can slice human flesh in a flash. Meanwhile rats are depicted as filthy vicious predators, despite the fact that they can be just as intelligent as cats and can be just as lovable as pets.

We can kill animals for food or for a "Humane Purpose", or because they are disease-carrying scavenging nuicences, like rats. Well, feral and wild-born cats as just as much a danger as rats. Only rats are rarely made into stuffed toys, are they?

What if a wild boar had made its den behind the Wal-Mart? Would shooting it be animal cruelty? or only if it was not then eaten? In Viet Nam, or so we are told, people eat cats and dogs and walk pigs on leashes. Would it have been alright if they had eaten the cat?

It's bullshit. I have heard nothing of animal cruelty, only of putting down a feral and per force dangerous animal that had made a den too near to humans. And your point about how it could be seen as murdering an animal to euthanize a pet: would it have been just as wrong to call Animal Control and have the cat gassed? The cat is just as dead, but Animal Control officials do not get charged with animal cruelty for the killings they do. Just another case of only the state having the right to kill? Bullshit. The cat, ownerless and feral, was on private property. If I have a dangerous wild animal on my property, I will kill it.

I would kill it to protect my pups. :)

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.htm shows cats don't suck breath out of babies, and any parent who leaves a cat in the crib with a newborn should have that baby taken away from them.

Cats are actually rarely eaten anywhere, even in Eastern countries.

Animal Control doesn't necessarily kill the animal but may spay and relocate it.

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/catsuck.htm shows cats don't suck breath out of babies, and any parent who leaves a cat in the crib with a newborn should have that baby taken away from them.

Cats are actually rarely eaten anywhere, even in Eastern countries.

Animal Control doesn't necessarily kill the animal but may spay and relocate it.

I never said cats suck breath. But they do sit on chests. And no matter how few cats get eaten, the point is that there are cultures that eat them and nobody cares. And why the Hell doesn't Animal Control spay and adopt rats?

1,a) why assume that the Walmartians did not shoot the cat right in the head in one shot? b) why assume that all Animal Control officials treat aniimals humanely? c) why assume that shooting off a gun in a trailer behind a Wal-Mart is more of a damger to the public than hunting deer or geese? d) why assume that the Animal Control people in that area use injections and not gas, and if they use gas, isn't it less cruel to shoot the cat?

2) there is no reason to assume that any individual RAT is a disease carrier, but animal cruelty laws for some reason don't apply to private citizens who kill rats.

3) yes rats can be smart and clean and sweet. Another case for the sheer hypocricy of this. Ever heard of someone calling Animal Control over a rat?

4) OK, so you may not believe that it is wrong to euthanize animals. Only that it is wrong for private citizens to do it &/or do it with guns. Do you know what deer culling is? Good. I thought you did. Deer and rats apparently have fewer rights than cats. You seem to appreciate the hypocricy, but are you willing to assert that deer killing and rat traps (VERY cruel) are wrong?

It seems to me that you need to go back to school and take a class in english comprehension.

I never said I believed that Wal-Mart employees were cruel or anything else, what I said included LOTS of quailications like could, may, and possibly.

In defence of Animal Control.. And please note.. I am Australian so if my information is not current for USA pleas etell me and don't flame me for it, In Australia, ALL animal refuges are policed by the Individual State Governments (even though most are either privately run of Local Council run) and by the R.S.P.C.A. (ever heard of them?) and there are SEVERE PENALTIES for anyone not carrying out these action in a humane manner. In fact, in most cases over here, the shelter in question must use a Quailified Vetinary Surgeon to Euthanise Animals (How can this be considerd cruel when the reason most Vets give for being Vets is a love of Animals). If the Animal Control/S.P.C.A. (see, I do kow a few things about the US) in America is gassing animals then they are cruel so and so's and need a good swift kick up the rectum for it. As I said before I think gassing is incredibly cruel. Are you trying to trell me that there is no Regulatory Authority that oversees the actions of Animal Control.. If so.. For Shame America

You see.. here in the Rational and Intelligent Country called Australia, we even have culls. Ever hear of the annual Kangaroo Cull. Yet we still seem to be able to do these things in as humane a way as possible (culls are monitored by local authorities, police and the R.S.P.C.A. to make sure of this, and any animal not killed instantly is put out of it's misery by a mercy shot from the Guy with the scoped rifle flying above in a Helicopter.

And this reminded me of a story that the Grandfather of a friend of mine told me. Mr. Doorbakker, a US citizen now living in Aus told me about an Island In a river somewhere (He never said exactly) in Washington state that was designated a Deer Preserve. The only problem was that the CUTE and FLUFFY Deer were being killed by BASTARD WOLVES. So the local authority instituted a complete kill off cull of Wolves on the island, thereby protecting all those aforemention CUTE and FUZZY deer. Imagine their horror when the Deer, who now had NO natural predators on the island, experienced a population explosion that threatened to destroy the ECOSYSTEM of the island very quickly. The only thing that saved the Island was a heavy freeze in the winter that allowed the wolves to cross back to the island and do their jobs, to whit controlling the deer population so as to maintain a balanced ecosystem.

Seems to me that the hero in this story is a wolf. Does that make all deer bad and all wolves good... NO Does this prove that we need balance.. YES.

And for your information, while I see the need for the killing of animals for food/pest control I never support wanton killing of any species. I myself use a humane device that drives pests away without hurting them.. So how do I rate in your eyes now..

Fact.. The IS a local/state/federal departmrent in most areas of the US that is responisible for the control of these creatures, feral or otherwise and they are in most cases well trained and caring individuals who would no sooner hurt an animal that you or I.

Fact.. Laws in America prevent PRIVATE CITZENS from Euthanising animals because of the POSSIBLE danger to public saftey. (NB: POSSIBLE not ACTUAL)

Fact.. The Wal-Mart employees broke the Law and should be punished. I leave it up to those more qualified than me to determine what this punishment should be.

Fact.. You have no idea who I am or what I do.. I could be an Animal Control worker over here in Australia and YOU would never know it.

Fact.. There is no place I know of that will come and remove a rat from your property, so sometimes extermination can be the only answer. Extermination carried out by Qualified Pest Controllers.. (Yes I even think Traps are Cruel)

Fact.. Most people know that Fleas on Rats spread the Bubonic Plague in earlier times. But very few know that it was acutally the rats that had the disease and fleas passed it to us through drinking the infected blood of rats and then biting Humans. I personally, have never heard of a disease of this magnituted ever having been spread this way by a Cat.

Please Got Back To School

It seems to me that you need to go back to school and take a class in english comprehension.

...and you, and in english grammer as well.

I never said I believed that Wal-Mart employees were cruel or anything else, what I said included LOTS of quailications like could, may, and possibly.

In defence of Animal Control.. And please note.. I am Australian so if my information is not current for USA pleas etell me and don't flame me for it, In Australia, ALL animal refuges are policed by the Individual State Governments (even though most are either privately run of Local Council run) and by the R.S.P.C.A. (ever heard of them?) and there are SEVERE PENALTIES for anyone not carrying out these action in a humane manner. In fact, in most cases over here, the shelter in question must use a Quailified Vetinary Surgeon to Euthanise Animals (How can this be considerd cruel when the reason most Vets give for being Vets is a love of Animals). If the Animal Control/S.P.C.A. (see, I do kow a few things about the US) in America is gassing animals then they are cruel so and so's and need a good swift kick up the rectum for it. As I said before I think gassing is incredibly cruel. Are you trying to trell me that there is no Regulatory Authority that oversees the actions of Animal Control.. If so.. For Shame America

You see.. here in the Rational and Intelligent Country called Australia, we even have culls. Ever hear of the annual Kangaroo Cull. Yet we still seem to be able to do these things in as humane a way as possible (culls are monitored by local authorities, police and the R.S.P.C.A. to make sure of this, and any animal not killed instantly is put out of it's misery by a mercy shot from the Guy with the scoped rifle flying above in a Helicopter.

And this reminded me of a story that the Grandfather of a friend of mine told me. Mr. Doorbakker, a US citizen now living in Aus told me about an Island In a river somewhere (He never said exactly) in Washington state that was designated a Deer Preserve. The only problem was that the CUTE and FLUFFY Deer were being killed by BASTARD WOLVES. So the local authority instituted a complete kill off cull of Wolves on the island, thereby protecting all those aforemention CUTE and FUZZY deer. Imagine their horror when the Deer, who now had NO natural predators on the island, experienced a population explosion that threatened to destroy the ECOSYSTEM of the island very quickly. The only thing that saved the Island was a heavy freeze in the winter that allowed the wolves to cross back to the island and do their jobs, to whit controlling the deer population so as to maintain a balanced ecosystem.

Seems to me that the hero in this story is a wolf. Does that make all deer bad and all wolves good... NO Does this prove that we need balance.. YES.

And for your information, while I see the need for the killing of animals for food/pest control I never support wanton killing of any species. I myself use a humane device that drives pests away without hurting them.. So how do I rate in your eyes now..

Fact.. The IS a local/state/federal departmrent in most areas of the US that is responisible for the control of these creatures, feral or otherwise and they are in most cases well trained and caring individuals who would no sooner hurt an animal that you or I.

Fact.. Laws in America prevent PRIVATE CITZENS from Euthanising animals because of the POSSIBLE danger to public saftey. (NB: POSSIBLE not ACTUAL)

Fact.. The Wal-Mart employees broke the Law and should be punished. I leave it up to those more qualified than me to determine what this punishment should be.

Fact.. You have no idea who I am or what I do.. I could be an Animal Control worker over here in Australia and YOU would never know it.

Fact.. There is no place I know of that will come and remove a rat from your property, so sometimes extermination can be the only answer. Extermination carried out by Qualified Pest Controllers.. (Yes I even think Traps are Cruel)

Fact.. Most people know that Fleas on Rats spread the Bubonic Plague in earlier times. But very few know that it was acutally the rats that had the disease and fleas passed it to us through drinking the infected blood of rats and then biting Humans. I personally, have never heard of a disease of this magnituted ever having been spread this way by a Cat.

Fact(s).. Rats are animals with brains and central nervous systems. Australia's animal cruety laws are commendable, but from the sound of things y'all don't care about the pain that "vermin" suffer there either.

That's my point, my only point. Until animal cruelty laws are enforced against citizens who kill ANY animals ... at least any vertebrates... at least when not hunting for food... these people should not be prosecuted. Why? Uneven enforcement of the law is a form of lawlessness.

And just to draw it out: we have no reason to believe that the cat in question was not killed with one quick humane shot to the head. Maybe we can assume that Animal Control officers are humane people, but until they show as much concern for the rights and feelings of rats as they do for those of cats, I really don't care if people get rid of their "cute and cuddly" vermin by themselves. It is sheer hypocricy to hold such a double standard, and when I read your earlier post I assumed that you might even agree with that.

...and you, and in english grammer as well.



Fact(s).. Rats are animals with brains and central nervous systems. Australia's animal cruety laws are commendable, but from the sound of things y'all don't care about the pain that "vermin" suffer there either.

That's my point, my only point. Until animal cruelty laws are enforced against citizens who kill ANY animals ... at least any vertebrates... at least when not hunting for food... these people should not be prosecuted. Why? Uneven enforcement of the law is a form of lawlessness.

And just to draw it out: we have no reason to believe that the cat in question was not killed with one quick humane shot to the head. Maybe we can assume that Animal Control officers are humane people, but until they show as much concern for the rights and feelings of rats as they do for those of cats, I really don't care if people get rid of their "cute and cuddly" vermin by themselves. It is sheer hypocricy to hold such a double standard, and when I read your earlier post I assumed that you might even agree with that.


Well now at least we both seem to uinderstand each other..

So to avoid confusion and any further personal attacks (I must apologise but I had a bad day and no reason to take it out on you :( ), let me state my position

I believe that any wonton destruction of any species is wrong, I do not kill vermin, i use an appliance called a pestcontro which ultasonically drives them off, I do not belive the killing of the feral cat was wrong in and of itself or that animal cruelty laws should apply(which I never said) but that the employees did wrong in that they broke the laws reguarding safe use of firearms and should be punished accoringly (which I also never stated exactly {My appologies})

Also I would like to point out that in none of my posts did I ever state one way or the other on the subject of the shooting being humane or not, just suppositions and examples like a wal-mart employee doing it with a gun COULD be seen as a danger to the public, and there is no reason to assume that it was done humanely (the person with the gun may have been a bad shot and caused great pain with several non-fatal hits before the final blow.). If anything I have said led you to belive otherwise then I need to learn to express myself better.

And yes I do agree that the attitude that ANY life has more relevance or right to existence than ANY other life is ridiculous but until society as a whole ( or even a large part thereof) agrees, then all we can do is obey the law.. ALL LAWS.. no matter how stupid we feel them to be. The only other choice is anarchy.

Given a choice between anarchy and subservience to immoral and inconsistantly applied laws, I will always vote for anarchy. :)

Given a choice between anarchy and subservience to immoral and inconsistantly applied laws, I will always vote for anarchy. :)

That is all well and good..

But let me ask you a couple of questions if you would be so kind...

1} Do you consider youself to be (a) one of the Wealty or (b) a normal joe wage earner.

2} Do you consider yourself able to defend and protect your family BY YOURSELF against any threat (e.g: armed gangs of outlaws who prey on the weak)

3} In a society where wealth can buy armies, who do think would eventually end up in charge.


Please consider your answers to these questions VERY carefully.. I think that most people will realise that the platitued It may not be perfect, but it is the best system we have. is particularly relevant to this issue. To Whit: Why exchange a system that has a few flaws (OK Maybe more that just a few ;) ) for a syetm where anybody stronger/richer/more influential than you can simply do what the like to you while you have no LEGAL recourse to defend youself (Society has broken down and the world is in Anarchy, remember.)

No thank you.. Not for my Family anyway.

And YES.. I am aware that these conditions exist in areas of the World right now.. but consider just what it would be like if the whole world was like that.

That is all well and good..

But let me ask you a couple of questions if you would be so kind...

1} Do you consider youself to be (a) one of the Wealty or (b) a normal joe wage earner.

2} Do you consider yourself able to defend and protect your family BY YOURSELF against any threat (e.g: armed gangs of outlaws who prey on the weak)

3} In a society where wealth can buy armies, who do think would eventually end up in charge.


Please consider your answers to these questions VERY carefully.. I think that most people will realise that the platitued is particularly relevant to this issue. To Whit: Why exchange a system that has a few flaws (OK Maybe more that just a few ;) ) for a syetm where anybody stronger/richer/more influential than you can simply do what the like to you while you have no LEGAL recourse to defend youself (Society has broken down and the world is in Anarchy, remember.)

No thank you.. Not for my Family anyway.

And YES.. I am aware that these conditions exist in areas of the World right now.. but consider just what it would be like if the whole world was like that.

I'm not going to answer your loaded questions, but merely leave you to presume the answers that you no doubt anticipate, as they are in all likelihood the truth. But I will put it this way: anarchy, or civil disobedience, vs. the Rule of Law is not an all-or-nothing proposition. On can disobey laws that are unevenly enforced, and hence are immoral, and one should disregard laws that require immoral acts, and that same one can still be obedient to the Rule of Law with regard to other laws, laws that are enforced fairly and laws that are not inherently immoral.

One example of the former: marijuana is illegal, but alcohol, which is inarguably (to any non-brainwashed person) more harmful in toto and per capita user is not only legal but advertised on television and in magazines and on billboards. Obviously (see above) the law is imbalanced in its very writing, and so I feel no obligation to obey laws prohibitting marijuana use. You may disapprove, but unless you hold just as much disapproval for alcohol use, if not more, your only basis for disapproval is my disregard for a biased and unfair law that should not exist, unless such more harmful drugs as alcohol are at least as restricted, which they are not.

Another slightly more complex example: in the past in western societies such as the USA all variety of laws were disproportionally enforced against people of colour as opposed to Whites, and some say that they still are today. The Black Panther Party, in response to police harrassment of Blacks, advocated "any means neccesary" for Blacks to defend themselves against crime, even when such crimes were perpetrated by cops. I certainly would not advocate that a people who are descriminated against have a license to commit crimes, but when the "law" officers come down against them unevenly, they have a right to self-defence, even when the cops have "probable cause" - because those same cops did not pay anywhere near the same attention to White-on-Black crimes, and especially because of the excesses and outright frame-ups that they perpetrated against Blacks.

Now some examples of wholey immoral laws: during the era of slavery in the USA, it was a crime to help slaves to escape. During the Third Reich in Germany it was a crime to hide fugitives from the Nazi authorities. In such cases it was not only a right but a moral duty to commit acts of civil disobedience against those laws.

AGAINST THOSE LAWS - NOT against ALL laws. Selective anarchy, if you like. It is simply not a choice between obeying all laws and living in a lawless world. Perhaps you believe that we must obey all laws, no matter how immoral or how unevenly applied, or else we open the door to others who would use this as an excuse to disobey the "good" laws. My answer is that true morality supercedes human law. If someone commits, say, rape as an act of "civil disobedience", they should be punished with the full weight of those laws which are entirely just. We... most of us at least... can tell a "good" law... a law based on natural conscience... from an unjust law which we SHOULD disobey, or even from an unfairly applied law which we should be free to disobey.

Sorry.. I didn't feel that the question were loaded and I really was interested to read your replies.

Yes... Ok.. you make a very good point..

Immoral Laws or ones that Require Immoral acts are of Very Bad Laws.

BUT.... Who decide which Laws are Immoral?


Consider the fact that no one persons view of morality is exactly the same as anothers. Does this mean that if according to the morals and laws of my home country/relegion it is OK tho flog my wife for dissobedience ( among other things) that I can then do this in say, The USA, where wife beating is considered assault, and then claim that the Assault Laws were immoral and thus still continue to beat my wife as an act of civil disobenience.

Please forgive the narrowness of this example but I am in a bit of a rush and have no time to type more at the moment.. But I am sure you will see my point as I have seen yours..

Oh and BTW.. I agree with you that the law needs to be fairly and equally enforced. However, as mankind is an imperfect organism and only GOD is perfect, how can we do this. Leave it up to relegion to make laws. Most of the Theocratic States in the world today are also some of the most repressive/opressive (EG:IRAN and other Islamic States where the rights of women are strictly curtailed)


And yes.. The laws reguarding Pot/Alcohol are ridiculous, but you will never get a Gov (except one that already opposes it [EG: Relegion such as Islamic/Mormon where alcohol is stictly either forbidden or regulated already])to outlaw alcohol, just look at the US and Prohibition. It didn't work.

As to legal POT. I would like to see it at least decriminalised like the State of South Australia has done.. Turning pot smoking into a Civil Offense and not a Criminal one.

Also, I don't believe an act of Civil Disobedience can be claimed in cojunction with a Criminal Offense, only a Civil Offence. At least I think so. In Australia anyway.

everytime you buy something from Walmart another Chinese slave has been worked to death

everytime you buy something from Walmart another Chinese slave has been worked to death
or as i like to say, another valiant working gives his life to complete the great proletarian transformation of the chinese economy began by chairman mao.

or as i like to say, another valiant working gives his life to complete the great proletarian transformation of the chinese economy began by chairman mao.
chairman Mao shouldve had his head chopped off for crimes against humanity

and there another reason to add to my list of "why im boycotting walmart"

One less cat in the world. Boo hoo.

and there another reason to add to my list of "why im boycotting walmart"


How is this Walmart's 'fault?'

everytime you buy something from Walmart another Chinese slave has been worked to death
So if we buy a billion items can we completely depopulate China?

everytime you buy something from Walmart another Chinese slave has been worked to death
Every single time? really?

Does that include Asda stores in Britain and whoever else they own?

Every single time? really?

Yes. One pack of gum = one life.

So if we buy a billion items can we completely depopulate China?

Yup. Capitalism wins again! :D

Yes. One pack of gum = one life.
But my pack of gum was made in Milwaukee