Lesser charge in animal-cruelty case

Lovesanimals wrote:

<quoted text>
It is very scary that people actually think this way.....too much inbreeding, I suppose.

petdoc wrote:

How sad that you are so starved for attention yourself that you would take the opposite side of such a clear cut issue just to get attention, even negative attention from the internet. If you really believe what you say, you should see from the overwhelmingly negative response to your posts that you a out of step with the majority of society. But it is the majority of us who are wrong in your mind, is that not so? Better to check in with a mental health pro now before it is too late. The measure of a civilization is the amount of compassion it shows to animals. Age old observation, still true.

Learn From the Past wrote:

<quoted text>

I would say that the way our civilization treats our elderly and the unborn says a whole lot more that how we treat our animals,,,, it also just as this thread shows how out of whack our priorities are.

the Lorax wrote:

<quoted text>
Your defense of her only illustrates one of two things... either an absurd dichotomy based on abstract concepts, or simply an enjoyment of creating discord by playing "devils advocate". I would hope for the latter. Otherwise, you, for all your attempts to impress us with obtuse hyperbole, are even more ignorant than that idiot who is the subject of this forum.

Learn From the Past wrote:

<quoted text>
First off I am not defending her or her inactions which caused a horrible death to a dog. As I have stated I think she deserves a little jail time and should never own another pet. The point I am trying to make to all the people who feel that mankind has evolved to the point where we should hold all animals equal to ourselves is that they are outrageous hypocrites.
Nowhere did I say anything other than those who call for her to be killed,,, and those who want to pester the judge or prosecuter should find a more worthy cause. We already have plenty of laws about how animals can and can't be treated.
For merely stating what I still hold to be a reasonable opinion, I have been threatened, called names, even been threatened with a bullet behind my ear.
Pretty nasty stuff from the socially evolved, empathetic, defenders of all things rights.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a pervasive attitude among a lot of people that animals simply do not matter, period. It doesn't matter if we hurt, torture, starve or otherwise act out all the cruel tendencies that e wouldn't be able to get away with were there a human involved..

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>

Plainly stated, the woman should be publicly flogged til bloody, have the words "abuser" tatooed on her forehead and THEN put in jail for a year. On a diet that keeps her just barely alive.

Learn From the Past wrote:

<quoted text>
I strongly disagree, you are perhaps speaking of a few individuals,, however the organized groups that have changed public opinion over the last 30 years have strogly polarized the public in general. Hunters, fishermen, trappers, those who raise horses, dogs, and edible livestock,, medical as well as cosmetic researchers, and yes even average pet owners have all been targeted. Yes some animal sufferring has been stopped, but the price paid by villifying a lot of legitimate business-people, and good stewards of American wildlands has been excessive, and should stop.
<quoted text>
Once again, you want to torture a human being, I still don't see how you can't see the hypocrisy. Perhaps it is just like other "liberal" thinking,,,, that the ends do justify the means,, and that as long as you rule the world no wrong could be done because you are justified in being cruel because you are always right.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
Sometimes, I get the impression that you are purposely not getting it. Your idea of what her punishment should be is merely a slap on the wrist as she would likely serve less than half of the time that you suggested would be appropriate.
There is a place in this world for "an eye for an eye" treatment. In a society where an individual is procecuted and then punished based on little or no evidence and mostly on the say-so of the people of more money/status, you are correct.
However, we do not, for the most part, live in such a society, and the basic fact of the matter is that, not only did she do it, and admit to doing it, she showed no remorse for having done it; and THAT's the criteria by which I believe her punishment should be decided. No remorse, none. The avenues by which she could have avoided torturing (to use your word) that poor dog, were easily available to her, but she was simply to uncaring to avail herself of them. For that lack of basic decency, you are correct, I feel that she deserves a torturous punishment. And public humiliation.
Tell me, as a hunter, do you practice with your various weapons enough so that you are certain when you pull a trigger or loose a string that you will not simply injure a critter, but actually achieve a proper killing shot? I am also a hunter, so there's no need to go into what the difference is, I am perfectly aware. As well, I am aware of all the mitigating factors that can affect such a shot. My question is are you concerned enough, ethical enough, that you practice to the point of perfect confidence in you skill?
Cruelty shows in many ways, and why should cruelty not be punished with similar behavior? You might say that we would then be "stooping to their level", and I would say that you would be correct. But as long as there are bad people in the world, there will always be a need for good people to stoop to the level of doing whatever is necessary to stop them. And if word got out that the punishment for animal/child abuse was public, bloody flogging combined with permanent humiliation, AND if it were exercised consistently, that it might just serve as a deterrent to that behavior???