Thread: Starving Kitten: AKA...What the Hell Is Wrong With People?

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

Because I'm human.

ie. A worthless piece of thinking meat that only has value to you and those who will miss you when you are gone but carry on almost as if you'd never existed.

How do people feel about adopting cute little spayed or neutered kittens or puppies and then dropping them off at the shelter to get euthanized when they stop being cute?

I see from your profile that you're in San Antonio. A little googling shows several resources at your disposal.

The city Animal Care Services office. It highlights their commitment to no-kill sheltering.

The San Antonio Humane Society.

The Feral Cat Coalition. Their website notes that feral kittens can often be tamed and made available for adoption. My link goes to the page that advertises the cats that they have available to adopt.

* Reaching toward a dog to pet him did not constitute contributory negligence. Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, etc., Inc. (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 479.

* Playing with a dog and patting his head did not constitute assumption of the risk. Smythe v. Schacht (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 315.

* Feeding a dog did not constitute assumption of the risk. Burden v. Globerson (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 468.

I don't agree with these. Nobody should have the right to come within touching distance of my dog while it's on its leash, without a court order, or something. My dog isn't a communal pet.

Originally Posted by ivan astikov

Any statistics on the kind of owners they had? I'd think that would be far more relevant than whether or not they were unneutered.

No, but if the study was done well, it should have been a randomized sample of dogs, so the kind of owners wouldn't matter.

I don't think that anyone should have the right to come up and pet your dog but that your dog is probably not that well trained if it reacts by biting.

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

No, but if the study was done well, it should have been a randomized sample of dogs, so the kind of owners wouldn't matter.

I'm sure a study that was done well would realise that the occurrence of totally "random" dog-bites was so small as to be insignificant. Negligence by the owner is probably by far the biggest factor in incidents of dog attacks.

Originally Posted by Freudian Slit

I don't think that anyone should have the right to come up and pet your dog but that your dog is probably not that well trained if it reacts by biting.

So, if an old dear feels the need for a protective dog to accompany her to the post office when she cashes her pension money, anybody should be able to walk within the circle of her leash's limits without fear of being bitten?

Originally Posted by ivan astikov

I'm sure a study that was done well would realise that the occurrence of totally "random" dog-bites was so small as to be insignificant. Negligence by the owner is probably by far the biggest factor in incidents of dog attacks.

Well I don't know the details of that study but if all other things are equal and unneutered dogs bite, then I would think that it's a fairly big factor.

So, if an old dear feels need for a protective dog to accompany her to the post office when she cashes her pension money, anybody should be able to walk within the circle of her leash's limits without fear of being bitten?

Well, yeah. If just walking that close to a dog makes it bite, then there's something seriously wrong and old dear needs to call in a dog whisperer.

Though are those factors you listed--feeding the dog, petting it--necessarily strangers? Couldn't they also be for friends or owners of the dog? If a dog is biting a stranger that pets it, that's not good, but if it bites its own owner for doing that, it's even worse.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Perhaps we are considering "euthanizing" the wrong party in this dilemma.

I agree. I don't understand people's callousness towards suffering creatures. And then they just talk about it as if it's no big deal? Psychos.

Originally Posted by Chessic Sense

Because I'm human. I am therefore more important than animals.

Because you say so? OK. The cat should live because I say so.

I exist outside of nature.

Actually, you don't.

And I don't go around killing other humans, so you can't kill me.

Your question was whether something should be kept alive. But thanks for playing.

Cats, on the other hand, are just biological robots. It's perfectly cool to act calously toward them, treat them as property, and destroy them as I would a clay pot I no longer wanted.

Many serial killers started as animal torturers. You're in good company.

Which one of your jacked up, peanut-brained assumptions didn't I flatly deny?

Deny all you want. Denial is not refutation. You can look it up.

Let me know and I'll be sure to state blatantly why you're an idiot.

See above.

Originally Posted by cwthree

Audrey Levins, if you're in Chicago and you need help catching or transporting the kitten, PM me.

I think she's in Texas or thereabouts if I'm remembering correctly. Definitely a possibility I'm not.