| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should cats be eradicated from Australia? |
| Yes |
|
56% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
43% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| FrankieGoesToCollingwood wrote: | I've come across 2 pitbulls in the past year, the most docile dogs I've ever met. I don't buy the "killing is in their genes" nonsense.
Anyway, this isn't about dogs.
Swoop, surely you understand the difference between a native animal and a feral predator, introduced by man. Who said anything about killing loved pets? Control and greater restrictions, yes but the ferals have to be culled. I would say the same for dogs or any other domesticated animal.
as for the dog argument, I'll let this song settle it 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-fvr2qLc0 |
The problem with pit bulls is the sheer power of their jaws when morons train them to be aggressive. I’ve never ever met a nasty puppy, it’s people that are the problem. I went on your day on hinch years ago and said just that!
K yes all cats are supposed to be chipped and registered but it’s harder to police than dogs. The council go around house by house and check if a dog is there, most bark when someone knocks, harder to do with cats. Shutting down pet mills and stopping pet shops selling anything but rescue animals is a good start.
Now they need even stricter controls on breeders.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | If you're an irresponsible pet owner and allow your pet to roam, you forfeit the right to keep it and it's destroyed. hate doesn't come into it, just pragmatism. |
I think people might be justifiably riled by such dispassionate language (why say “destroyed” rather than “killed”?). Even the most diligent cat owner has probably had their feline escape once or twice; the idea that Mr Jones might be waiting with his shotgun next door for the first opportunity to kill it seems pretty barbaric and, yes, indicative of a certain hostility towards the species in question.
As a serious alternative, have we considered simply better funding for pounds / animal shelters so that more lost or inappropriately roaming domestic animals can be captured and returned to their owners (perhaps with a fine, if need be?) Seems a better option than treating cats like target practice.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
I could say your post shows an emotive response as a cat person. Cuteness is irrelevant. "Destroy" is synonymous with putting an animal down.
If Mr Jones was sitting with his shotgun waiting for Mrs Kafoops cats to enter his yard, then Mr jones has a mental health problem and will have a legal one when he discharges a firearm in a built up area.
While desexed cats are allowed to roam, apart from the damage they do, the feral population grows and that's what needs to be stamped out. You can't remove the feral population while irresponsible cat owners are increasing it.
You want to give roaming domestic cats back to their owners? I'm OK with that provided they can first find them, second if the cat wasn't already de-sexed it's de-sexed prior to being returned and the owner pays the cost plus a serious fine. If it was already desexed and chipped, a smaller fine.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | ...
Then of course it's important to consider the amount of four legged animals killed each year in order to feed the dogs in this country.
Cats to of course.
So pet owners are already placing the well being of their animal over that of another animal that will be killed in order to feed it.
... |
Again, the food chain and veganism are irrelevant to this discussion. (I do think that the vegan couple who put their cat on a vegan diet, with the very predictable result that the cat almost died, should have been charged for their foolishness.) Keeping any non-herbivore, including human babies, will make meat consumption necessary. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | If you're an irresponsible pet owner and allow your pet to roam, you forfeit the right to keep it and it's destroyed. ... |
I think people might be justifiably riled by such dispassionate language (why say “destroyed” rather than “killed”?). ... |
Not only is council dog killing routinely described in the media with the word "destroyed", but the official laws are also written in terms of "destruction orders". It is, of course, outrageous that these laws are applied only to allegedly dangerous dogs and not to obviously dangerous cats (as far as I am aware). |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I’m against all such euphemisms. People should have the guts to stand behind their policies with clear language (same goes for army euphemisms like “engaging” enemy combatants).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
While I'm quite happy for you to wage a personal war on euphemisms, I find it interesting that you want to use blunt basic language when it suits your agenda and more nuanced language other times. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Euphemisms aren’t nuance, they’re weasel words designed to minimise or gloss over the phenomenon being discussed (particularly when clearer language would make people feel uncomfortable). Totally different things – and this isn’t a new thing; I’ve always been against euphemisms of all kinds.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I've looked a tad more at the legislation available online, and what I see tends to confirm the blatant discrimination against dogs. A document's about "cats and dogs", and suddenly it comes to "destruction orders" and it's exclusively about dogs.  |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Euphemisms aren’t nuance, they’re weasel words designed to minimise or gloss over the phenomenon being discussed (particularly when clearer language would make people feel uncomfortable). Totally different things – and this isn’t a new thing; I’ve always been against euphemisms of all kinds. |
Ok, so if someone takes a sick animal to the vet to get it put down, they should just say they took it there to get it killed? When TP had the vet come around to put down her beloved dog, she should have just said the vet came around and killed my dog like I asked?
Is Euthanasia a euphemism for just killing granny?
And what is your problem with "engaging enemy combatants"? Engaging the enemy is a term as old as warfare. What would you propose as an alternative?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Slightly different meaning, I think – “engaging” in the contemporary military jargon sense seems to mean shooting/killing (in the traditional sense it would mean something more like exchanging fire).
See definition 2 here:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=1901
And some more examples of the phenomenon here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distancing_language
Fair point on euthanasia, but I’m quite serious when I say that we would do better not to tiptoe around the subject of death so much. And there’s also a big difference between euphemisms designed to ease the pain of grieving people and euphemisms used to minimise the severity of an act. The latter obviously has a political dimension that the former lacks. |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WTF has this thread become? From made up insults to discussions about the use of euphemisms, cat or dog lover dependant on political persuasion? This place is out of control. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
You never had a conversation in a pub or bar that started on one topic and went off on multiple tangents?
It is called the Vic Park Tavern,
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| "the Vic Park Tavern wink" is a nice name. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Slightly different meaning, I think – “engaging” in the contemporary military jargon sense seems to mean shooting/killing (in the traditional sense it would mean something more like exchanging fire).
See definition 2 here:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.asp?term_id=1901
And some more examples of the phenomenon here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distancing_language
Fair point on euthanasia, but I’m quite serious when I say that we would do better not to tiptoe around the subject of death so much. And there’s also a big difference between euphemisms designed to ease the pain of grieving people and euphemisms used to minimise the severity of an act. The latter obviously has a political dimension that the former lacks. |
nice ninja editing there.
Without looking at your links, the term engage comes from the military jargon to engage the enemy in battle, which goes back to spears and swords days which makes your dislike of the term somewhat redundant.
back when two armies carrying swords would face each other across the plain, someone would give a signal and both sides would run forward and engage in battle. It pre dates shoot at each other by thousands of years.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
