St. Paul man who 'accidentally' threw kitten against wall is ch...

[Former MN in WI]

jpberka in Saint Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed it does. One could say an eye for an eye in this case would mean killing a pet that means something to this man. I personally believe that the New Testament means a new promise by God and a new law, but obviously this particular "Praise God" individual would be shocked at such an assertion. I hate getting this religious in a public forum, but in that poster's eyes, Jesus changed nothing.

And, as Jesus said, the 'old law' says an eye for an eye, but Jesus pointed out that this is no longer the Word. If a man should steal your shirt, then offer him your cloak as well, and if he strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one. There is no retaliative justice in the eyes of Jesus' word. Have you read the New Testament as carefully as the old? The NT tells us that God has made the man the head of the woman, as jesus has been made the head of the church. Is Jesus allowed to beat and kill the church or its members when they piss him off? No. Is a man allowed to do so to his wife if she pisses him off? No. And, these two are not even married, and he is a animal-torturing madman. No contest. Anyone who seriously denies the connections between how people will treat defenseless animals and how they will treat human beings they wish to dominate has paid no attention to social science research over the past 50-60 years, at least.

[ZenBirdist]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Zen, it can be "proven" right here, by me, that animals do not have "Human Emotions"
Read and embrace these words please. Perhaps you can then save all of your affection for the Humans that God intended it for, and stop assigning "Human Feelings" to the animals we have Dominion over.
When grandpa dies, leave him in his home with his beloved Kitty's for say ...2 weeks.
After you retrieve him for internment, when sitting with him for the prescribed Buhddist Death Ritual time frame, Notice how much of his flesh was eaten! from his carcass, by his beloved Kitty's.
Now thats Human love and feeling the Animals feel.
Ps...You aint commin' back as an eagle or a rat. Your soul is infinite, flesh is transitory.
IMHO

Oh, Consistent, so much to reply to here!

I didn't find any kind of "proof" in this comment that animals don't feel human emotions, but I'll give you a break because I agree to some extent. Dogs feel a set of emotions connected to the dog experience; humans feel 'human emotions' based on the human experience. Some, though not all, sets of emotional responses are shared by different groups of species.

Scientists have identified the "bonding chemicals" responsible for human attraction, not only between lovers but also for the connection between mothers and their infants. An estimated 3% of mammal species are equipped neurologically with the oxytocin and vasopressor receptors that facilitate this deep 'bonding'. Interestingly, among that percentage is a tiny little critter called a prairie vole.*

So, here we are with a new set of questions about what makes human bonding different from all the other creatures which share this physical attribute? What defines our human-ness if not our capacity to love? And specific to your comment, why do you believe God intends love and affection for humans only?

And what of humans who seem to lack this 'bonding equipment' to some degree, as in the case of autism and schizophrenia?

Next point, dominion. I believe the role of anyone who "has dominion over" anyone else (as humans to other animals, elected leaders to citizens, etc.) is closer to servant than ruler.

Since we don't have evidence proving or disproving the existence of souls in humans or in animals, I find it curious that you embrace the eternal soul concept for one species alone on a planet of so many. It's your faith in that which makes it "true" for you.(Try telling someone who's seen a ghost that they don't exist, or vice versa.)

* Oxytocin Receptor Distribution Reflects Social Organization in Monogamous and Polygamous Voles, TR Insel & LE Shapiro, 1992 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/1...

[Cindy Stainker]

There is NO such thing as accidentally throwing anything. And certainly not a living thing. This guy does not deserve to be around any living thing. His girlfriend better get a clue, the same thing may happen to her unborn child one day, if this guy is ever allowed to go near it. Praise to God needs to chill out. God did not intend for kittens to be killed at will. This guy had no right to kill the cat. He has no right to be violent to any living thing just because he is a man. No real "man" would do such a thing just because he can.

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
...."It's just that animals are very straightforward and pragmatic."......
Sarah, your Kitty hates you. She really doesnt know you exist except as the entity that provides food, and stroking that all animals (domesicated) need.
You keep that Kitty for your own emotional need, you are selfish to use a creature in this manner!
Just like the Dolly's you had tea with 10 years ago, the Kitty doesnt understand the words you use, unless it wants to eat or be stroked.
You scare me!

Wait a minute Consistent, you've been claiming that animals don't have emotions. Now you're saying that my kitty hates me.

Not very consistent of you.

[Consistent]

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait a minute Consistent, you've been claiming that animals don't have emotions. Now you're saying that my kitty hates me.
Not very consistent of you.

I would never accuse you of pulling out snippets and ignoring the point of anyones post....Hahahhehahhohoho.

Sarah, I was wrong. Your Kitty and your Dolly both Love you.

Check this out, I learned a new word today..it has nothing to do with anything, but I can use it if I want to!

"Tectonic plate"...aint I smart to be able to use a Word?

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
I would never accuse you of pulling out snippets and ignoring the point of anyones post....Hahahhehahhohoho.
Sarah, I was wrong. Your Kitty and your Dolly both Love you.
Check this out, I learned a new word today..it has nothing to do with anything, but I can use it if I want to!
"Tectonic plate"...aint I smart to be able to use a Word?

Actually it's plate tectonics and it's the science of the movement of continental and undersea plates of the planet which is what produces seismic activity.

[Reader]

Bob wrote:

All pets don't give "unconditional love"!
Just about daily there is an attack on a human by a dog, shark, lion etc etc.
All people don't stab you in the back!
I would admit there seems to be a trend of that in Minneapolis and Coon Rapids recently.
==========
<quoted text>

Wow I didn't know people had sharks for pets.

[Consistent]

Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow I didn't know people had sharks for pets.

come to minneeesota and visit the decadence...er Mega Mall, sharks are kept there for the "Public's" Pets.

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
come to minneeesota and visit the decadence...er Mega Mall, sharks are kept there for the "Public's" Pets.

I didn't know you were one of those PETA people, Con.

I've seen that exhibit. It's quite impressive. The public of course are not allowed to pet the sharks, just look at them.

At least not when I was there. It's been several years since I was at the MOA.

[Derek]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
come to minneeesota and visit the decadence...er Mega Mall, sharks are kept there for the "Public's" Pets.

Maybe Consistent should test out the waters?

[Consistent]

Derek wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe Consistent should test out the waters?

I may "accidently" forget that my 1 year old grandson is in the "Pet Pool", while I go to purchase Shark Food (so that I can maximize my experience of a caged Creature).

Well, as long it was just a Baby I let die it wouldnt be so bad. Now if I accidently bumped a Shark into the Glass Walled Cage....Bubba, here I come!!

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
I may "accidently" forget that my 1 year old grandson is in the "Pet Pool", while I go to purchase Shark Food (so that I can maximize my experience of a caged Creature).
Well, as long it was just a Baby I let die it wouldnt be so bad. Now if I accidently bumped a Shark into the Glass Walled Cage....Bubba, here I come!!

But Con, you said that animals have no emotions so why should it matter whether the shark is in a tank or not? Surely the shark wouldn't be feeling anything about it one way or another according to you, right?

[Consistent]

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
But Con, you said that animals have no emotions so why should it matter whether the shark is in a tank or not? Surely the shark wouldn't be feeling anything about it one way or another according to you, right?

Hearing that theme song from the Twilight Zone again!

Trying to figure out what your thought has to do with "the price of rice in China".

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Hearing that theme song from the Twilight Zone again!
Trying to figure out what your thought has to do with "the price of rice in China".

Hey you were talking about maximizing your experience with a caged creature. What did that have to do with this story?

[Big Laker]

I haven't read all 276 comments up to now, but who wants to guess that this guys get more jail time than the woman who shopped while her kid drowned?

[Consistent]

Mack the Knife wrote:

<quoted text>
You really should answer Sarah's question. She makes and outstanding point. If the shark has no emotions he should not care if he is in the ocean, in a cage or on your dinner plate.

Sarah knows the answer. She was ignoring my point because it made her uncomfortable.

People like Sarah do not realize that the shark that is a pet for the public, is treated cruely to appease the Sarahs' of the world.
She is upset at me because I pointed out to her that her Kitty Loves her...Just like the Dolly she has tea with loves her.

PS, I dont usualy assign human emotion, to the feelings of my food.

[Sarah]

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Sarah knows the answer. She was ignoring my point because it made her uncomfortable.
People like Sarah do not realize that the shark that is a pet for the public, is treated cruely to appease the Sarahs' of the world.
She is upset at me because I pointed out to her that her Kitty Loves her...Just like the Dolly she has tea with loves her.
PS, I dont usualy assign human emotion, to the feelings of my food.

How is the shark treated cruelly? You are really confusing me Con. You don't care about the kitten being thrown against a wall but you care about sharks being in aquariums. Must be an anti-mammal thing.

By the way, shark can be food so you ARE assigning emotions to your food.

Con's just upset because I keep pointing out how inconsistent he is.

[Bob]

I'm pissed!

A guy down the street lets his cat out every night.

Next time I see it in my yard it's toast!!

[Sarah]

Bob wrote:

I'm pissed!
A guy down the street lets his cat out every night.
Next time I see it in my yard it's toast!!

When I had a cat, I kept it indoors all the time. If you live in an urban area it is safer for the cat to keep it indoors. It doesn't risk getting run over by a car and it doesn't catch diseases from other cats.

And it doesn't annoy your neighbors by doing its business in their flower beds.

[Judge Parker]

Throw Scotty to the lions. Won't be so tough with those kitties.