Posted on 07/16/2002 3:21:27 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Man arrested for burning kitten on grill July 16, 2002 Posted: 4:03 PM EDT (2003 GMT)
A neighborhood friend of Sherry Scott holds the kitten they named 'Lucky,' in a recent handout photo.
LIBERTY, Missouri (AP) -- A man was arrested Tuesday for allegedly burning a kitten on a barbecue grill as several other people stood around and watched in amusement.
A witness pulled the scorched, 7-week-old tabby from the hot coals, but it was severely injured and had to be put to death, police said.
"They kept saying, `Meow, meow,' and they were poking at it with a stick," said Sherry Scott, who burned her hand grabbing the kitten.
Charles C. Benoit, 24, was charged with animal abuse, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. He was jailed on $10,000 bail.
Jim Roberts, spokesman for the Clay County prosecutor's office, said he does not expect anyone else to be charged, because no witnesses could identify the others.
Scott said that on Friday night, she saw 10 or 12 people at the barbecue grill in the courtyard of the apartment complex where she lives. Scott said she asked what they were cooking, and they said it was a cat. She said the group taunted her, daring her to rescue the cat.
She said the group scattered when she threatened to call police. She said she pulled the kitten from where it had been shoved into the coals at the back of the grill. Its tail, whiskers, fur, eyes and throat were scorched.
"I called him Lucky because I thought I got him out of there just in time," she said.
Scott said she and other residents stayed up Friday night trying to nurse the kitten with an eye dropper of milk. But animal control officers decided that because of its respiratory injuries and inability to swallow food, it had to be destroyed.
"If you would have seen him, you would have cried," said Sheri Simpson, one of the residents who helped care for the kitten.
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
I'm just thinking out-loud here, but isn't that also how evolutionists view us? Not that evolutionists necessarily are serial killers, but philosophically, if they are correct that's all we are, isn't it; "walking meat"? From an 'evolutionary' point of view, what basis could purely physical forces provide for making any transcendent distinction between humans and animals, or for that matter, making any moral distinction between cruelty and kindness? Like Rush said one time - "look what animals do to each other."
How does evolution provide a basis for a moral condemnation of predation (supposedly an evolutionary development itself) whether of cats or serial killers?
Cordially,
I disagree with you about animals. But your point about name calling is valid. Some people look for scapegoats to carry away their own guilt.
BTW, have you ever read John Muir's true-life adventure story, Stickeen? It might change your mind about animal nature.
"I have known many dogs, and many a story I could tell of their wisdom and devotion; but to none do I owe so much as to Stickeen. At first the least promising and least known of my dog-friends, he suddenly became the best known of them all. Our storm-battle for life brought him to light, and through him as through a window I have ever since been looking with deeper sympathy into all my fellow mortals."
From "Stickeen" by John Muir
The real irony is that while everybody expresses outrage at the torture of the kitten, more than a few FR posters wouldn't think twice if a Muslim were being grilled in the same way.At least the Moslem could fight back.
I'm against anybody (or any living creature) being tortured to death. Yes, it's okay to kill animals for food, or humans out of self-defense, but any killing that needs to be done should be accomplished as quickly and painlessly as possible.
It is but one of the sickening examples of abortion used after viability. You see, the babies must not be alive outside the womb or some right-wing religious nuts might consider it murder and not just a woman's choice.
By this same logic, it is OK to torture and kill human beings, since they are not "property" that can be owned by another, at least in this country.
Nah -- he's our hemorrhoid.
You're right of course, but the qualifying word in your sentence is "often." If you used the word "always," and I agreed with the use of that word, my position on this would do a 180.
Oh, and no, I won't keep my mouth shut. The time most definitely is "now." That's why this thread is here, silly.Sorry for my tardiness in replying.
But if your purpose was to try and make people think, then you purpose is understandable. It’s your timing that is terrible.
Sometimes is a GREAT idea to interject controversial comments just for the sake of, as you say, stirring things up. However, you remind me of the “intellectual” kids in high school who thought they could say anything they wanted at any time and defend themselves with, “but it is a fact”.
No, of course you don’t have to sugar coat you’re your words to keep from hurting people’s feelings. Perhaps though, you could learn some respect for people (since it is people you claim to care so much about)or show some respect to people by learning when to speak and when to wait.
Oh, BTW, my grandparents had us to their farm in Cumberland, WA all of the time. We thought it was gross yet funny to watch the chickens flop around after they chopped off their heads. We watched grandma snap the neck of a little chick who had been mangled by a cat. However, when my cousin threw a firecracker into the henhouse my grandma spanked his a$$! And it wasn’t because she was concerned with her “property”.
In my opinion, most people are upset with this story because of the TORTURE aspect. Most people are upset with you because of your timing. If you had started an opinion thread on the value of animals vs. people I doubt you would see the volume of emotion you are seeing here.
Oh… maybe that’s what you wanted
Because the law reflects our common judeo-christian heritage that eschews violence for violence sake against either animal or human.
Even in the good ol' days, blood sports existed for the sake of sport and profit. Cats were tortured and killed as witches, wrong, but at least there was a purpose.
Mindless violence toward animal, human or property has never been tolerated in the general culture that America rose from. Our laws reflect that heritage (still).
Some of you have agreed with me on other subjects and others have disagreed with me on pretty much everything. I have wanted to take the time to more fully explain where I'm coming from on this issue.
I found a document I posted on one of those silly evolution vs. creationism threads that covers my "man vs. animal" position. Now, you might not agree with me after reading this (or you might), but you'll know where I am coming from.
So, if you're interested, read on...
Before I can have a passionate opinion on this subject, I have to ask two basic questions first: 1. What is this thing we call life and, 2. Why is it so sacred and precious?
And here are the corresponding answers:
1. Life is merely what could now be called highly sophisticated nano-technology, or a "Biological Machine."
2. Life isn't precious or sacred at all (and I believe Christianity supports this).
A biological machine (BM) is merely a collection of "non-living" atoms collected in such a way as to create a more complex organism, or machine, which is self replicating and self repairing. You could use this description for the Earth or the sun, but maybe not an individual rock, since it has no moving parts, other than those spinning within each atom - and if you break it even a little, it stays broken. Even Mars or Jupiter could be called living things using this definition, considering their flowing atmospheres and constantly moving magma, volcanoes, etc.
It is true that many groups and subgroups of BM seem to include some form of intelligence. But quite often, especially in the example of plants and insects, this is nothing more than the execution of a very simple computer program. In others, it is a very complex form of AI, as in the higher primates, whales and yes - man. BM's can be very sophisticated. Take the human BM. Like a nano-machine, it ingests materials containing a myriad of molecules, all containing different combinations of atoms. This human BM then uses some molecules as- is and breaks down others to extract only the atoms it needs to produce the materials it needs, like blood, muscle, a spleen, or even another human. What it doesn't need, it passes out as waste (poop), much as a gold mine has massive mounds of it's own poop. This waste material is then used as input to other BM's, and so it goes.
A BM also uses some of these atoms to provide itself energy. This means constant chemical reactions to keep the ol' atoms spinning and convert the atoms from input molecules into molecules needed by the BM.. That's why BM's have a warm core or, in the case of plants, depend solely on radioactive stimulation from the sun. This would also imply some sort of evolution as energy is consumed and depleted. Much as a '56 Nash may rust away in a field, so evolution works it's curse on all of creation (the universe, for evolutionsts). But rust is not what created the Nash.
I am only scratching the surface of this concept here, but it begs the question, why is life so precious or sacred anyway. As I stated above, it isn't, EXCEPT… Except for man - not because of his BM body, but because of what that body contains.
Some of the new drone airplanes (and satellites) are so sophisticated in their execution of decisions as to fool the uneducated into believing they contain a pilot. However, a fighter plane is far more valuable than one of the new drone planes for two reasons. One is minor - it costs more. The other is the core of the difference: The fighter contains a human. If a drone is lost, we build another one. If a fighter is lost with it's pilot, an irreplaceable human BM has been destroyed.
So now think of the human BM as the fighter plane. That is, it contains something that no other living thing - be it animal (a monkey) or mineral (a solar system or planet) - contains. That thing is the human spirit. No, I'm not talking about the mind, memory or intelligence -, these are results of the wrinkles on a small part (the brain) of the BM contained in its upper extremity - it is a mere organ and a part of the BM. No, I'm talking about the eternal spirit that ALL human BM's poses. Without that spirit, a human BM is, as are all animals, so much meat and bone. And all that meat is just a very complex and sophisticated Biological Machine.
From my perspective, that makes all non human life nothing more than members of a group I call "Natural Resources," to be consumed, managed and otherwise exploited for the pleasure of man, who exists solely for the pleasure of God.
In a sense, we, and the universe we occupy, are God's ant farm. And our bodies are to be treated with the respect the Bible instructs - Not for the preservation of the body itself, but because it is the "temple" of the spirit. It was created by God as the Spirits Earthly dwelling place, and it's span in years is not to be reduced by man for trivial reasons.
I think the only reason we have a hard time believing the trillions, in number and type, of BM's with which we come into contact every day are actually created by God is that we have accepted their, and our existence as "natural" for as long as we have been able to call ourselves "conscious" - and because God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to neglect the application of a serial number or manufacturers logo. He must've thought it unimportant (and maybe entertaining to boot). Reminds me of the old joke, "how do you keep an idiot in suspense…"
To the creationist, among whom I count myself, I challenge you to show me anything I have written here that contradicts anything written in His Word.
To the evolutionist, a similar challenge. Does any scientific "proof" currently available contradict anything I have posited here?
The real question for me is, did God create the universe and what we call "life," or is there no God and our very existence is just coincidence. I'm sorry folks, but this is not an intellectual question as some would have you believe. You can no more answer this question with your limited "human meat" BM brain than can your dog. Go to a mountaintop, your car, your closet or a skating rink and call out to God, sincerely, and see what answer you get. Then go from there.
We search in vain for the Architect within the structure of His creation - questioning His very existence, simply because we refuse to see His personality in what He has created, of which we are a part.
He is not in the closet. He is not in the parlor. He is not hiding in the water heater. And yet the entire structure, except for us, cries out of His purpose and yes, His presence - within the design itself.
Regarding the protection of animals before the 20th century, what laws?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.