Are you trying to be funny?
I read it more as ironic rather than funny.
Kitten microwaved to death!
- Thread starter C.R.A.Z.Y
- Start date
I read it more as ironic rather than funny.
Pretty much. No one posting here is proposing any solutions to any underlying problems. They're just raging and banging on about how they'd love to flay this woman alive for killing an animal.
It's a woeful lack of perspective and all the rage in the world isn't going to solve anything.
It's like the aristocrats of anger.
I wouldn't flay her, I would microwave her.
In any event, there is no solution to the underlying problems. Some people are ****s. End of.
a facebook page for her
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gina-Robins-of-Torquay-Kitten-murdering-scum/150579111710406
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gina-Robins-of-Torquay-Kitten-murdering-scum/150579111710406
Biohazard the prize winning psychologist, everyone.
She'll be punished indefinitely, it's just people conveying their feelings. Whilst a little strong, it is a common reaction to such an atrocity.
I'm not sure your post was productive either but whatever makes you feel better.
What underlying problems would that be?
A microwave offence for a microwave offence is the answer.
I thank you.
/bows to the applause
But seriously, how can you ever effect anything against wilful neglect of animals or others? We have no means to do so. Seemingly normal people can have the most insidious and devilish nature inside them.
Thought police?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
You're right.. We should sort the underlying issues out. Ban microwaves.
What possible problems here could be solved exactly?
It's the GD cycle - fly off the handle with outrage, moan about today's example of a failing society, do nothing about it, log off, go to bed, wake up.
Repeat ad libitum.
You're right.. We should sort the underlying issues out. Ban microwaves.
What possible problems here could be solved exactly?
Maybe the problems that led her to microwave a cat? Poor impulse control, perhaps? Believe it or not, things like that can be treated, and people don't actually have to die!
Had to look up "ad libitum". Indeed.
How do you identify it? More to the point how do they?
What about those who do not want or would actively avoid treatment?
Well, the neat thing about people committing criminal offences is that once you have convicted them, you can pretty much tell them what to do, which might include sending them for psychological evaluation and treatment. Incredible, I know.
They can already get bans on keeping animals with varying success rates and custodial sentences, but I took the implication you meant the wider issues around animal abuse particularly potential. Waiting until an animal or, person even, has been butchered isn't very pro-active.
Even looking at treatment for those who are convicted is it likely to drastically improve any re-offending? I ask this having never even contemplated looking at such statistics. I am of the impression that such convictions are relatively low, I could be mistaken though.
In any event, is it seriously likely that general consensus would be of solution and analysis? Why can't people be justifiably angered by a persons actions alone?