Mild objection to a Dex thread closing

[Randy Seltzer]

The thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9255791#post9255791) that Dex closed was certainly objectionable. Witness Opal's reaction just before it was closed. But the rationale Dex gave for closing it was that it discussed illegal subject matter.

Here's my beef: the law is not entirely knowable. Dex says "please read and play by the rules. OK?" implying that if the OP (not me! I never posted in that thread) had read the SDMB rule regarding posting about illegal actions, he would have known not to post about shooting cats with BB guns. But how is he supposed to know that shooting cats with BB guns is illegal? (Unimportant, but interesting note: the actions he was asking about are not necessarily illegal. See below.)

If I had an infallable memory and an extra 100 years to live, I still would not have enough time to learn "the law." There's too much of it and it changes too quickly. Should I get my thread locked for asking where I can buy rattlesnake meat in Missouri on a Sunday? Does the SDMB charge each OP with knowing the entire law? Do I need to hire a lawyer to do two hours of legal research before I post anything? A good application of the rule would be that one is not allowed to post regarding anything that a reasonable person would understand to be illegal.

The real reason that the thread in question was locked is probably that the mods were deluged with reports. Fine. Move it to the pit. Or just honestly say, "I'm closing this because you've pissed everybody off." But you can't require all posters to know the law in its entirety. And you shouldn't close a thread just because the OP doesn't realize that one of the courses of action he wishes to be advised on might be illegal in some states. If you really want to be able to use a rule to back up such thread closings, how about making a new one: "No posting about stuff that will upset other posters." Sound like a good rule?

And just for fun, here are some statutes that suggest that the OP's actions are legal, and that, possibly, even his (morally reprehensible) planned course of action might be legal.


This article shall not apply to any of the following persons or institutions:


(1) Academic and research enterprises that use dogs or cats for medical or pharmaceutical research or testing.
[. . .]

(3) Any person who kills a dog or cat found outside of the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of the dog or cat when the dog or cat threatens immediate physical injury or is causing physical injury to any person, animal, bird, or silvicultural or agricultural industry.

(4) A person who shoots a dog or cat with a BB gun not capable of inflicting serious injury when the dog or cat is defecating or urinating on the person's property.Section 25-3514: Chapter construed not to interfere with normal or legal practices

No part of this chapter shall be construed as interfering with or allowing interference with:


(1) Normal or accepted veterinary practices;


[. . .]


(4) The humane destruction of an animal which is diseased or disabled beyond recovery for any useful purpose, or the humane destruction of animals for population control;
[. . .]

(6) The killing of any animal, by any person at any time, which may be found outside of the owned or rented property of the owner or custodian of such animal and which is found injuring or posing a threat to any person, farm animal or property;

[. . .]

(8) The killing or destruction of predatory animals, vermin or other animals or birds which are injuring or posing a threat to farm or privately owned animals or property, when such killing or destruction is conducted in accordance with laws and rules covering such animals;
[. . .]

The practices, procedures and activities described in this section shall not be construed to be cruel nor shall they be defined as cruelty to animals, nor shall any person engaged in these practices, procedures or activities be charged with cruelty to animals.Affirmative defenses. It is an affirmative defense to this section that:

A. The conduct was performed by a licensed veterinarian or was a part of scientific research governed by accepted standards;

B. The conduct was designed to control or eliminate rodents, ants or other common pests on the defendant's own property; or[. . .] (underlining mine)
IANAL, etc.

[Liberal]

Or just honestly say, "I'm closing this because you've pissed everybody off."Word.

[Astroboy14]

"No posting about stuff that will upset other posters." Sound like a good rule?


Hell no! That would suck the fun out of this place faster than... erm... something that sucks fun out really fast!

RO is half the reason I read the SDMB.

[hajario]

You make a good point. In Dex's defense, the OP doesn't have a location listed and someone did cite where it is illegal in at least one State. In addition, our new guest was probably being a troll.

I think that the thread should be re-opened and moved to the Pit where it belongs. We haven't had a good R.O. thread in quite a while.

[lobstermobster]

what does RO stand for

[Telemark]

what does RO stand for
Recreational Outrage

[NightRabbit]

That's stupid. The SDMB has a major cat-lover problem. Dollars to donuts if I began a thread about feral weasels infesting the neighborhood, and what I could do about them, it wouldn't be an issue. I love how OpalCat's bleeding heart opinions on animal cruelty become board policy within the blink of an eye.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested to hear a discussion on what the moral problem is with humanely killing feral cats and stray dogs, if they're just taken to the pound anyway and shot THERE, but I suppose that's not allowed as discussion topic, either :rolleyes:

[Risha]

That's stupid. The SDMB has a major cat-lover problem. Dollars to donuts if I began a thread about feral weasels infesting the neighborhood, and what I could do about them, it wouldn't be an issue. I love how OpalCat's bleeding heart opinions on animal cruelty become board policy within the blink of an eye.Actually, I have a problem with any animal being injured or killed due to mildly inconveniencing a human. But go ahead with your thread, I'll just avoid it like I was planning to for the original one.

[catsix]

NightRabbit said:
Meanwhile, I'd be interested to hear a discussion on what the moral problem is with humanely killing feral cats and stray dogs, if they're just taken to the pound anyway and shot THERE, but I suppose that's not allowed as discussion topic, either

It costs a person with a feral cat problem significantly more money to trap the cats alive and take them to the pound. Adult feral cats are not exactly going to get adopted, and the pound doesn't just take them off your hands for free.

Personally I think as long as the person who kills them isn't out to do it by torture, but does it as quick and clean as possible, there is no moral problem there.

[Shodan]

Based on Randy's cites, I don't see that killing stray cats is necessarily illegal. Shooting them within city limits, probably. Then the OP should have been dealt with by advising TO of such.

I was a little surprised that Opal wasn't warned for so direct an insult outside the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

[Dewey Finn]

I linked to an article from the New York Times in that thread. The article discussed the problem of feral cats killing wild birds. Now the domestic cat is in no danger of extinction, but some bird species are, and if a feral cat is hunting an endangered wild bird species, one could argue that the cat ought to be stopped, whether that's by shooting it or by some other means.

[crowmanyclouds]

... Personally I think as long as the person who kills them isn't out to do it by torture, ...Interesting,I tortured animals in a fashion pretty much identical to a scene that haunted me after being exposed to it way too early. I doubt I'd ever get the idea to shove prickly-pear needles through guppies mouths and out by their tails and then standing them up in the dirt without that influence. I'm pretty confident that early exposure to violent media affected me in a negative way. ...Link to Post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9254977#post9254977)I'm pretty confident that I smell troll.

CMC +fnord!

[Scissorjack]

I linked to an article from the New York Times in that thread. The article discussed the problem of feral cats killing wild birds. Now the domestic cat is in no danger of extinction, but some bird species are, and if a feral cat is hunting an endangered wild bird species, one could argue that the cat ought to be stopped, whether that's by shooting it or by some other means.

That's a huge problem in New Zealand, where bird - and other - species evolved with no mammalian predators to cope with, and introduced species like cats, dogs, possums, rats and stoats have wrought havoc on largely defenceless populations, pushing many to the brink of extinction.

I've shot feral - and probably domestic - cats before, as well as a lot of possums and rabbits, and don't have a problem with it as long as it's a quick and clean kill. A .22 will do the job easily for a clean killing shot on a small mammal: with an air rifle, you're probably looking at a .22 with a velocity of at least 1000 fps, which means a pneumatic or a pre-charge, and they ain't cheap.

Frankly, I'd rather have the skink colony, the bellbirds and the fantails than a few mangy, disease-ridden felines skulking around; and if it's a choice between your fat pampered moggy going bush for an afternoon of killing and a breeding population of endangered species - bang!

[Lionne]

I recently read a chapter in the book, The World Without Us that dealt with what would happen if humans were no longer around to care and feed the domestic cat, and the havoc they would wreak on the existing bird populations. It really opened my eyes to the amount of damage they do, since they will continue to hunt even when they are not hungry.

I don't know if the OPin the other thread is a troll or not, but it is a touchy subject to bring up, with no real right or wrong answer.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Quick response: first, I have given Bricker an OK to start a discussion about the legality of killing cats. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=447307) As usual with the law, it's not so simple.

I stand by my closing of the "how to kill cats," however. There is a difference between a discussion of the law (which is certainly permitted on our boards) and a discussion about how to commit crimes or to violate the law. We have this all the time: a discussion about whether the laws on marijuana use are fair is permitted; a discussion about where to obtain high-quality weed is not. The thread was closed based on its purpose -- how to commit cat-icide. The open thread discussing the law is fine. Everyone OK on the diff?

I agree, in re-reading, that I was perhaps a bit too harsh on T.O. in assuming that he would know that shooting stray cats with a BB gun or braining them with a slingshot is illegal. I probably should not have said "Play by the rules," I should have said "These are the rules, and your question is not within them." I was rushed when I was writing my post, and I sort of assumed that most people would know that cruelty to animals is generally illegal.

[T.O.]

Interesting,I'm pretty confident that I smell troll.

CMC +fnord!

No, I was being honest to illustrate a point. Lots of kids that age (I was 10 or 11) torture small animals like insects or fish. It's not something I'm proud of, but I don't think it was wholly aberrant behavior. What I found important was that the method I chose to kill the guppies was obviously (in hindsight) an imitation of a disturbing scene from a movie I had seen when I was 6.

I also squished snails and burned ants with a magnifying glass. My "creative" torture of guppies was no doubt caused by early exposure to media I should have been protected from.

I don't want to torture the cats that infest my yard, I just want them gone. One of the reasons I haven't switched to using a slingshot is I'm afraid of causing a crippling injury leading to the cat suffering unduly. The BB gun I'm using seems to just sting them, and I was considering upgrading to a more powerful airgun that could kill them humanely.

[CarnalK]

I agree, in re-reading, that I was perhaps a bit too harsh on T.O. in assuming that he would know that shooting stray cats with a BB gun or braining them with a slingshot is illegal. I probably should not have said "Play by the rules," I should have said "These are the rules, and your question is not within them." I was rushed when I was writing my post, and I sort of assumed that most people would know that cruelty to animals is generally illegal.
It seems like you are ignoring the point that shooting cats isn't necessarily illegal. If he had started a thread asking how to get rid of gophers would you have assumed that was illegal activity as well?

[T.O.]

I was a little surprised that Opal wasn't warned for so direct an insult outside the Pit.


It's no biggie, I've been on the internet a while and I'm used to being called a subhuman by liberals for not being politically correct. It just reinforces my beliefs about how a certain percentage of the population likes to dehumanize those they disagree with.

[Vinyl Turnip]

well, sure. What do you expect from liberals?

[T.O.]

It seems like you are ignoring the point that shooting cats isn't necessarily illegal. If he had started a thread asking how to get rid of gophers would you have assumed that was illegal activity as well?

You're right, I did not assume it was illegal. I lived in a rural area where it was perfectly legal to kill animals that entered your property. I knew that discharging a firearm within the city limits was illegal, which was why I was asking about non-firearm methods.

[T.O.]

well, sure. What do you expect from liberals?

It's not just the liberals, there's plenty on my side of the fence who act the same way, for different reasons. I posted about how disgusted I was with a woman at my work who was happy about the hostage situation at the Clinton campaign headquarters, and I am no fan of Hilary.

[wring]

It's no biggie, I've been on the internet a while and I'm used to being called a subhuman by liberals for not being politically correct. It just reinforces my beliefs about how a certain percentage of the population likes to dehumanize those they disagree with.
That wasn't the point. We've got rules about which forum one can post specific insults to other posters and CS isn't it.

[Flyhalf]

I agree, in re-reading, that I was perhaps a bit too harsh on T.O. in assuming that he would know that shooting stray cats with a BB gun or braining them with a slingshot is illegal. I probably should not have said "Play by the rules," I should have said "These are the rules, and your question is not within them." I was rushed when I was writing my post, and I sort of assumed that most people would know that cruelty to animals is generally illegal.

But it is ok to directly insult someone outside of the Pit, correct?

[Q.E.D.]

But it is ok to directly insult someone outside of the Pit, correct?
Nobody directly insulted anyone in that thread. Opal's post was stupid, to be sure, and arguably not appropriate for the forum. But, I can't really see a direct insult there. I'm sure you can read one in there if you dig deep enough between the lines, but then you're making an assumption of what you think the poster meant, rather than taking the post at face value.

[T.O.]

Nobody directly insulted anyone in that thread. Opal's post was stupid, to be sure, and arguably not appropriate for the forum. But, I can't really see a direct insult there. I'm sure you can read one in there if you dig deep enough between the lines, but then you're making an assumption of what you think the poster meant, rather than taking the post at face value.

I don't want to stir anything up, but you are being intellectually dishonest. Consider this post:

"I am overcome with an urge to vomit. Sometimes I really wish that certain sub-species of humanity never made it past the evolutionary process. I hope to god I never meet you or anyone like you. [Addressed to Q.E.D., who sickens me on every possible level.]"

Wouldn't you see that as a direct insult? "You sicken me on every possible level, I hope to god I never meet you or anyone like you"?

[Q.E.D.]

Wouldn't you see that as a direct insult? "You sicken me on every possible level, I hope to god I never meet you or anyone like you"?
Not really, no. It says more about the author of the post than its subject, if you ask me.

[T.O.]

Not really, no. It says more about the author of the post than its subject, if you ask me.

I feel that you are stupid and disinegenuous to continue to claim that her post was not a personal insult.

Does the "I feel" make that big of a difference?

[Q.E.D.]

See, those are two different things. In your post, you're expressing a specific opinion of me or my character: I'm stupid; I'm disingenuous. But saying "you make me sick" doesn't really do that. I see it as expressing a distaste of you or your actions, but it doesn't really say anything about you, one way or the other.

Please note, I'm not defending her or her opinion; see my previous post for my feelings in that regard.

[Sapo]

I agree, in re-reading, that I was perhaps a bit too harsh on T.O. in assuming that he would know that shooting stray cats with a BB gun or braining them with a slingshot is illegal. I probably should not have said "Play by the rules," I should have said "These are the rules, and your question is not within them." I was rushed when I was writing my post, and I sort of assumed that most people would know that cruelty to animals is generally illegal.

You have my full respect for this paragraph (not that the going rate for my full respect will make you richer or anything, but still). It is not every day that we see a mod acknowledging the possibility of them making a mistake.

[Baffle]

edited, irrelevant

[T.O.]

See, those are two different things. In your post, you're expressing a specific opinion of me or my character: I'm stupid; I'm disingenuous. But saying "you make me sick" doesn't really do that. I see it as expressing a distaste of you or your actions, but it doesn't really say anything about you, one way or the other.

Please note, I'm not defending her or her opinion; see my previous post for my feelings in that regard.

I think that "you sicken me" means the same thing as "you disgust me", which I would see as an opinion on me or my character. Why would another person make you sick unless you had a strong opinion of their character (or hygiene, but that can't be relevant in this case)? She didn't say "people killing cats makes me sick" or even "what you do makes me sick" or even just "people like you make me sick". She said "you sicken me".

[Rubystreak]

It costs a person with a feral cat problem significantly more money to trap the cats alive and take them to the pound. Adult feral cats are not exactly going to get adopted, and the pound doesn't just take them off your hands for free.

Yeah, this isn't true. There are programs (http://www.spcaonline.com/sp_feralcat.htm) in some places that capture, spay/neuter, and re-release ferals back into their colonies, which presumably will diminish over time. These programs actually have a greater reductive effect (http://www.alleycat.org/pdf/feralspublic.pdf) on feral populations than capturing them and euthanizing them. Also, these programs involve caregivers who feed them, which keeps them away from people like T.O., since truly feral cats actually don't want to be near people, but are forced to enter populated areas by hunger. Thus, safe to say these programs are a good idea.

Ferals also can be adopted. People with farms and barns come in to the shelter where I volunteer and take them for their property for vermin control. They don't want pets, they want self-sufficient animals, and they get them. Thus, if you actually care about the animals (obviously neither a given nor a requirement), reporting them to animal control and letting them handle it, depending on where you live, is not a death sentence for the animal. There might be a program in place that deals with the ferals in ways that are better for everyone, including people who want them gone. I'd look into it before I invested in a BB gun that will injure but not kill them. Why be cruel when you don't need to... unless you enjoy that sort of thing.


And when it is proven that T.O. lives under a bridge, I hope everyone rushing to defend him feels that little sting.

[Dewey Finn]

Whether or not T.O. is a troll is irrelevant to the legitimate discussion of whether feral cats should be protected. And while spaying and neutering feral cats prevents them from reproducing, it doesn't prevent them from hunting and killing more birds.

[Rubystreak]

Whether or not T.O. is a troll is irrelevant to the legitimate discussion of whether feral cats should be protected. And while spaying and neutering feral cats prevents them from reproducing, it doesn't prevent them from hunting and killing more birds.

There are colony caregivers who feed them. This keeps them away from people and probably reduces the need or urge to hunt, though there are cats who hunt for fun. This includes housecats, though, and just TRY having the argument that all pet cats should be kept indoors...

[Southern Yankee]

Maybe we need a feral cat hunting season to thin the population like we do with deer. What's the difference?

[Q.E.D.]

Maybe we need a feral cat hunting season to thin the population like we do with deer. What's the difference?
A cat head on your wall isn't nearly as impressive as a ten-point buck.

[Southern Yankee]

But think of the proud hunter with a cat corpse strapped to the hood of his Mini Cooper triumphantly returning home.

[Liberal]

I was rushed when I was writing my post, and I sort of assumed that most people would know that cruelty to animals is generally illegal.Did you intend that as a categorical generalization? In other words, is impossible in your view that shooting a cat with a BB could ever be anything other than "cruelty to animals"? Let me give you a for instance. Suppose a feral cat has discovered your koi pond and has begun fishing. You are a hundred feet away and have a BB gun, with which you have marksman skills. You do not have time to get to your koi pond in time to rescue a fish. Is it okay to shoot the cat? Or should you allow the fish to die? If the latter, why wouldn't it be cruel to allow the fish to be eaten alive when you could prevent it?

[Hello Again]

Did you intend that as a categorical generalization? In other words, is impossible in your view that shooting a cat with a BB could ever be anything other than "cruelty to animals"? Let me give you a for instance. Suppose a feral cat has discovered your koi pond and has begun fishing. You are a hundred feet away and have a BB gun, with which you have marksman skills. You do not have time to get to your koi pond in time to rescue a fish. Is it okay to shoot the cat? Or should you allow the fish to die? If the latter, why wouldn't it be cruel to allow the fish to be eaten alive when you could prevent it?
I see your point but the OP stated clearly he lacked the means and ability to make a clean kill by the methods he was using. No chance of a clean kill = cruelty.

[Flyhalf]

Nobody directly insulted anyone in that thread. Opal's post was stupid, to be sure, and arguably not appropriate for the forum. But, I can't really see a direct insult there. I'm sure you can read one in there if you dig deep enough between the lines, but then you're making an assumption of what you think the poster meant, rather than taking the post at face value.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think you really have to dig all that deep. Maybe it was direct or maybe it wasn't, I don't really care. But I do think it was out of line (though I really have no opinion of Opal) and I think it's arguable that folks have been called out for less.

[Rubystreak]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think you really have to dig all that deep. Maybe it was direct or maybe it wasn't, I don't really care. But I do think it was out of line (though I really have no opinion of Opal) and I think it's arguable that folks have been called out for less.

What makes the whole thing worse is that Opal's reaction was the exact one that was being trolled for. Wasn't it obvious that the OP was not trying to start a legitimate discussion about ways to control the feral cat population, but to rile up the infamous cat lovers of the Dope? Sure, Opal was foolish to be suckered into it, but let's not defend someone who came here to light fires.

[Guinastasia]

Wow, for once, Rubystreak, you and I agree.

[Rubystreak]

Wow, for once, Rubystreak, you and I agree.

Have all the little devils gone ice skating? ;)

[Scissorjack]

Suppose a feral cat has discovered your koi pond and has begun fishing. You are a hundred feet away and have a BB gun, with which you have marksman skills. You do not have time to get to your koi pond in time to rescue a fish. Is it okay to shoot the cat? Or should you allow the fish to die? If the latter, why wouldn't it be cruel to allow the fish to be eaten alive when you could prevent it?

What if the fish was Hitler?

[CarnalK]

And when it is proven that T.O. lives under a bridge, I hope everyone rushing to defend him feels that little sting.
Now that he's banned I guess now's the time for me to feel that painful sting. Oh why didn't I listen to the self satisfied school marms that so diligently patrol this place? Oh god why?!?!

[CarnalK]

I see your point but the OP stated clearly he lacked the means and ability to make a clean kill by the methods he was using. No chance of a clean kill = cruelty.
I think it should be re-iterated that the point of the original thread was asking for help in making clean kills:
I'm also considering a wrist-rocket type slingshot with steel shot, I know those can be pretty lethal to small animals but I'm not that good of an aim with one. Of course, a firearm would be ideal but I live in the middle of a city so that's not an option. or if impossible do something different:Does anyone have any advice? Am I barking up the wrong tree and should I be trying traps?

[Liberal]

What if the fish was Hitler?What if you were Dex? That'd be just grand.

[Rubystreak]

Now that he's banned I guess now's the time for me to feel that painful sting. Oh why didn't I listen to the self satisfied school marms that so diligently patrol this place? Oh god why?!?!

Why, oh, why would you be glad you were feeding trolls? ... Oh yeah, THAT'S why.

[Randy Seltzer]

And when it is proven that T.O. lives under a bridge, I hope everyone rushing to defend him feels that little sting.
For the record, I never said he wasn't a troll. That wasn't the point of my OP.

I reiterate that my objection is not (as people in this thread seem to be interpreting1) that that thread shouldn't have been locked. I'm saying that it shouldn't have been locked on the basis of discussing illegal activity, when the illegality of said activity is very much in dispute. It would not bother me so much if Dex had locked the thread saying "You are a troll. I'm locking your thread. Stop trolling." At least that would have been honest.

In essence, I'm saying (inexpertly, I guess) that while mistake-of-law is inexcusable in cases like this, mistake-of-fact should be a legitimate affirmative defense to rule-breaking on this board. Allow me to 'splain:

Analogy time!
Mistake-of-law: You have consentual sex with a 17-year-old, knowing s/he is underage. You can not claim that you didn't know about the statutory rape law. Guilty! (In most jurisdictions in the US; for most classes of crimes.)

Mistake-of-fact: You have consentual sex with a 17-year-old, knowing about the statutory rape law, but reasonably and honestly believing that s/he is 18. Innocent! 2 (In most jurisdictions in the US.)

In the situation at hand, the consentual sex is analogous to posting about potentially illegal material, and the statutory rape law is analogous to the SDMB rule about not posting about illegal material. Of course, it becomes complicated by the fact that the jailbait's age is in dispute, and s/he might be 20.

In the closed thread, Dex is calling3 something a mistake-of-law when it is actually a mistake-of-fact. Foul!



1(It was, perhaps, ill-advised to discuss cats at such length in my OP. I should have known that's what everyone would focus on...)
2If you're still going to impose punishment for mistake-of-fact, it should at least be mitigated. I do appreciate Dex's apology for his harsh words. That shows real class.
3Of course, considering his addendum to that thread and his post in this one, this is all academic. But the fun kind of academic!

[CarnalK]

Why, oh, why would you be glad you were feeding trolls? ... Oh yeah, THAT'S why.
You're kind of an idiot, aren't you? I wasn't "feeding the troll" in any way. I was just agreeing with Randy Seltzer, which requires a partial defence of T.O's other thread. But awesome "gotcha" turn around of my sentence. How did you ever come up with it? :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

Of course, considering his addendum to that thread and his post in this one, this is all academic. But the fun kind of academic!All that bothers me (aside from his not responding to my question) is that he (Dex) presumes to be the arbiter of what constitutes cruelty to animals. If he wants to be the arbiter of what constitutes a closeable thread, fine. But don't tie it to some moralistic proclamation that doesn't even make sense. Lots of people have koi ponds, and feral cats are the worst possible nuisance and danger to the fish. It is hardly cruel to protect them.

[saoirse]

Analogy time!
Mistake-of-law: You have consentual sex with a 17-year-old, knowing s/he is underage. You can not claim that you didn't know about the statutory rape law. Guilty! (In most jurisdictions in the US; for most classes of crimes.)

Mistake-of-fact: You have consentual sex with a 17-year-old, knowing about the statutory rape law, but reasonably and honestly believing that s/he is 18. Innocent! 2 (In most jurisdictions in the US.)

In the situation at hand, the consentual sex is analogous to posting about potentially illegal material, and the statutory rape law is analogous to the SDMB rule about not posting about illegal material. Of course, it becomes complicated by the fact that the jailbait's age is in dispute, and s/he might be 20.

I agree with your point, but just as a nitpick, I don't think there's any jurisdiction where having the mistaken belief that the young lady was of age is any defense. I forget what the legal term is, but it's a crime without intent.

[Sarahfeena]

All that bothers me (aside from his not responding to my question) is that he (Dex) presumes to be the arbiter of what constitutes cruelty to animals. If he wants to be the arbiter of what constitutes a closeable thread, fine. But don't tie it to some moralistic proclamation that doesn't even make sense. Lots of people have koi ponds, and feral cats are the worst possible nuisance and danger to the fish. It is hardly cruel to protect them. I question whether pinging a BB off a cat's butt isn't stretching the definition of cruelty to animals just a tad bit. I loves me the kitties myself, and I personally would try to figure out a better way to handle the problem, but I'm not sure I'd call it cruelty.

[Randy Seltzer]

Edit: Actually, never mind.

[Risha]

I question whether pinging a BB off a cat's butt isn't stretching the definition of cruelty to animals just a tad bit. I loves me the kitties myself, and I personally would try to figure out a better way to handle the problem, but I'm not sure I'd call it cruelty.Actually, BB guns are perfectly capable of maiming or killing a small animal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_gun#Safety

[Sarahfeena]

Actually, BB guns are perfectly capable of maiming or killing a small animal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_gun#Safety Well, in that case, I would say that if the cat was actually killed, I still wouldn't consider it animal cruelty. If you let it run away injured, that's another story.

[Rubystreak]

You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

And you are the wittiest, most brilliant mind ever to grace the Dope.

I wasn't "feeding the troll" in any way. I was just agreeing with Randy Seltzer, which requires a partial defence of T.O's other thread. But awesome "gotcha" turn around of my sentence. How did you ever come up with it? :rolleyes:

Why even respond to me then if I wasn't talking about you, douchebag? You decided to respond to my post about T.O. being a troll as if I were talking about you. If I wasn't, then why all the defensiveness? I wonder.

[Liberal]

Well, in that case, I would say that if the cat was actually killed, I still wouldn't consider it animal cruelty. If you let it run away injured, that's another story.We've tried everything from fox pee (which works great on squirrels and rabbits around the garden) to screaming "Scat!" to shooting BBs (though we have higher powered weapons). A three-pump BB shot won't even break skin, but it will sting. It has been my experience that the animals are pretty smart, and even communicate in some way. Maybe a frightened cat peed on a tree and other cats can smell the fear warning or something, I don't know. But for whatever reason, we only need to address this issue once or twice a year — evidently as new generations arrive or the old scents disappear. Our fish are several years old now (and will outlive us, we are told). They are big and beautiful and deserve their space. They get frightened too, especially by cats leaning over and slobbering into the water. We have given them little spaces where they can sort of hide and lots of plant cover, but the cats definitely pose a danger. And we intend to do whatever we have to do to protect our fish. I wish some others were as understanding as you are.

ETA

Incidentally, we actually have an (mostly) outdoor cat. I think she makes some difference in helping to defend the property generally. She has all her claws, but she is almost 18 years old, arthritic to some extent, and has deafness that goes in and out. We have an indoor cat as well. We love cats. But that doesn't mean that we feel obligated in some way to every cat in existence.

[Sarahfeena]

We've tried everything from fox pee (which works great on squirrels and rabbits around the garden) to screaming "Scat!" to shooting BBs (though we have higher powered weapons). A three-pump BB shot won't even break skin, but it will sting. This is what I had always heard about BB guns, and I was giving my opinion on whether or not I consider it "animal cruelty" based on the assumption that it is correct. I don't consider it animal cruelty to chase a cat away with a BB if it just smarts a little and doesn't do any actual damage. As I said, I probably wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think it's cruel.

It has been my experience that the animals are pretty smart, and even communicate in some way. Maybe a frightened cat peed on a tree and other cats can smell the fear warning or something, I don't know. But for whatever reason, we only need to address this issue once or twice a year — evidently as new generations arrive or the old scents disappear. Our fish are several years old now (and will outlive us, we are told). They are big and beautiful and deserve their space. They get frightened too, especially by cats leaning over and slobbering into the water. We have given them little spaces where they can sort of hide and lots of plant cover, but the cats definitely pose a danger. And we intend to do whatever we have to do to protect our fish. I wish some others were as understanding as you are. I don't blame you for wanting to protect your fish. As far as I'm concerned, if the cat is feral, then it's no different from any other wild animal when it comes to protecting your property...you are not obligated to let them run around in your yard eating your fish. Although I do think you are obligated to use the most humane method you can figure out to get rid of them.

ETA

Incidentally, we actually have an (mostly) outdoor cat. I think she makes some difference in helping to defend the property generally. She has all her claws, but she is almost 18 years old, arthritic to some extent, and has deafness that goes in and out. We have an indoor cat as well. We love cats. But that doesn't mean that we feel obligated in some way to every cat in existence. Agreed.

[kaylasdad99]

Lib why don't you (temporarily) replace the koi with piranha?

:D

[lobstermobster]

It costs a person with a feral cat problem significantly more money to trap the cats alive and take them to the pound. Adult feral cats are not exactly going to get adopted, and the pound doesn't just take them off your hands for free.

Personally I think as long as the person who kills them isn't out to do it by torture, but does it as quick and clean as possible, there is no moral problem there.

Doppleganger!!!

[Rubystreak]

Incidentally, we actually have an (mostly) outdoor cat. I think she makes some difference in helping to defend the property generally.

Let me ask you a question-- what if your outdoor cat was going over in to the neighbor's yard, as they are wont to do, and killing birds at the neighbor's bird feeder? She might well be doing this daily without you knowing. What if your neighbor was like T.O. and assumed your cat was a feral, or just considered her a nuisance, and shot her with a BB gun?

I'm really not trying to antagonize you, just trying to get you to look at this another way. We only have T.O.'s word on these ferals, how much of a nuisance they are, etc. They might be someone's outdoor cat(s), and someone very like yourself might be very upset if the cat was shot. You know what my solution would be-- keep your damn cat in the house-- but I realize many people do not agree. However, if people have free license to shoot at whatever cat appears on their property and bugs them, you will have outdoor housecats getting shot, and then what?

[Scissorjack]

What if you were Dex? That'd be just grand.

All will love me, and despair!

[Liberal]

Lib why don't you (temporarily) replace the koi with piranha?

:DThey're illegal around here, but wouldn't that be a hoot! :D

Let me ask you a question-- what if your outdoor cat was going over in to the neighbor's yard, as they are wont to do, and killing birds at the neighbor's bird feeder? She might well be doing this daily without you knowing. What if your neighbor was like T.O. and assumed your cat was a feral, or just considered her a nuisance, and shot her with a BB gun?

I'm really not trying to antagonize you, just trying to get you to look at this another way. We only have T.O.'s word on these ferals, how much of a nuisance they are, etc. They might be someone's outdoor cat(s), and someone very like yourself might be very upset if the cat was shot. You know what my solution would be-- keep your damn cat in the house-- but I realize many people do not agree. However, if people have free license to shoot at whatever cat appears on their property and bugs them, you will have outdoor housecats getting shot, and then what?A fair question, and you express things I've thought about a lot myself. I do worry for Pretty Black Girl. She does wander, but not far. She won't go within thirty feet of a road, but she does meander over a few property lines. I know that one neighbor will not harm her, because she was actually born from the cat they once had. They're the people who filled us in on her history. (She came with the house when we bought it.) But there are other neighbors that we don't know as well. We do our best to check on her from time to time. We bring her inside every night. (The whole basement area is hers — the library, the sewing room, and the garage.) It would devastate me if she died at the hands of a cruel neighbor, and I would likely at least contemplate lashing out in some way. But in the end, two things trump all: (1) it is MY fault if she is shot on a neighbor's land, and (2) I MUST protect the fish. They are the most helpless creatures you can imagine, stuck as they are in a very small world. So, yeah. You raise a good point, and it's one that pet lovers and homeowners need to think about.

[Frylock]

Not really, no. It says more about the author of the post than its subject, if you ask me.

But it is attempting to say something about the subject, not the author.

If Joe Racist says "All niggers are fools," his having said this says more about Joe Racist than it does about black people, but what he said says more about black people than it does about Joe Racist.

Similarly, in some contexts, one's having said "you sicken me" may say more about the speaker than about her subject. That seems to be what you're saying about Opal's comment. But what one says in saying "you sicken me" says, (if not "more about the subject than about the speaker," then) at least enough about the subject of the utterance to count as being intended to insult.

"You sicken me" in almost any context I can think of (including the one under discussion) has much the same force as a comment that "one ought to be sickened by you." They don't mean exactly the same thing, of course, but the intended rhetorical force is practically the same in both cases. Now, one can avoid this kind of rhetorical force when saying "you sicken me" by going on to say something like "but I recognize that's a problem with me, not a problem with you." ("Fat people disgust me, but I believe I am in the wrong to have such a reaction.") In the absence of such ameliorating comments, however, a comment such as "you sicken me," especially if reinforced by comments like "I wish you had never come to exist," and so on, retains its normative rhetorical force. It amounts to a claim that one ought to be sickened by the person, and that the person ought not to ever have come to exist, and so on. These are clearly insulting sentiments.

If someone tells you you sicken them, I believe you when you say you would not feel insulted, but it is hard for me to believe you would not recognize they are attempting to insult you. And as far as I can tell (having thought about this for all of about 10 seconds I guess) insulting is exactly the same thing as attempting to insult. (What other actions have this structure? "To X is the same thing as to attempt to X.") So to recognize something as an attempted insult is (or should be) to recognize it as an insult (even if only one that is unsuccessful in some sense).

-FrL-

[Aceospades]

It seems like you are ignoring the point that shooting cats isn't necessarily illegal. If he had started a thread asking how to get rid of gophers would you have assumed that was illegal activity as well?

damn you Carnalk, you stole my post.

ahh, good times killen gophers. i miss the old days.

[C K Dexter Haven]

It seems like you are ignoring the point that shooting cats isn't necessarily illegal. If he had started a thread asking how to get rid of gophers would you have assumed that was illegal activity as well?Well, if the first couple of posts were about using dynamite in the gopher holes, or smuggling a kimono dragon in to eat the gophers, or catching them and putting them in a stew that you serve at a soup kitchen for the homeless... well...

[LurkMeister]

A kimono dragon? Is that an oriental species?

[Ephemera]

Would stand to reason. So're komodos.

[Lynn Bodoni]

A kimono dragon? Is that an oriental species? It serves tea, wears a kimono, and appears in The Zork Chronicles, a book by George Alec Effinger, along with Glorian(?) of the Knowledge. GotK also appeared in Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson. I know of no other instances of kimono dragons in this or any other world.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

It serves tea, wears a kimono, and appears in The Zork Chronicles, a book by George Alec Effinger, along with Glorian(?) of the Knowledge. GotK also appeared in Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson. I know of no other instances of kimono dragons in this or any other world.
Rather a suave, handsome fellow, too. (http://heidigilbert.blogspot.com/2007/01/kimono-dragon.html)

[CarnalK]

Well, if the first couple of posts were about using dynamite in the gopher holes, or smuggling a kimono dragon in to eat the gophers, or catching them and putting them in a stew that you serve at a soup kitchen for the homeless... well...
Since the other thread didn't include any of those things I can only imagine you're randomly referring to some 80's movies rather than answering a simple fucking question.

And Rubystreak, synopsis: you said people defending the troll would be super embarrassed, I said I wasn't embarrassed to defend his thread, you said then I'm a moron for feeding the troll, I said "that's not feeding", then you said "well then i wasn't talking about you, douche bag", and now I say "u r dum".

And Aceospades, I knew there had to be a couple of gopher killing punks out there in Doperland. :P

[LurkMeister]

It serves tea, wears a kimono, and appears in The Zork Chronicles, a book by George Alec Effinger, along with Glorian(?) of the Knowledge. GotK also appeared in Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson. I know of no other instances of kimono dragons in this or any other world.
I'll have to try to dig up a copy of The Zork Chronicles (is that related to the old text computer game?) I'm familiar with the Maureen Birnbaum stories, having read a few of them in various magazines and anthologies, but I don't think I have a copy of the complete collection.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I'll have to try to dig up a copy of The Zork Chronicles (is that related to the old text computer game?) I'm familiar with the Maureen Birnbaum stories, having read a few of them in various magazines and anthologies, but I don't think I have a copy of the complete collection. Good luck finding either book. The MB,BS is not the complete collection of Muffy's adventures, but it has lots of the stories in it. And yes, the chronicles are based on the old text game. It covers Zork I and some of Zork II.

[Rubystreak]

And Rubystreak, synopsis: you said people defending the troll would be super embarrassed

No, I said they'd feel that little sting of knowing they were also trolled by the troll, because all these reactions are feeding him. If you somehow read that as "super embarrassed," then you have that comprehension problem I've been saying you have all along. THAT is embarrassing.

I said I wasn't embarrassed to defend his thread, you said then I'm a moron for feeding the troll,

Oh, bullshit. Why do you want to start shit with me? Having a bad ego day? Let me break it down for you:

And when it is proven that T.O. lives under a bridge, I hope everyone rushing to defend him feels that little sting.

Little sting =/= super embarrassed. We've all rushed to defend people who turned out to be trolls, CarnalK, you of all people should acknowledge that. Some people turn it into an avocation.

Later on, I said, NOT TO YOU:

What makes the whole thing worse is that Opal's reaction was the exact one that was being trolled for. Wasn't it obvious that the OP was not trying to start a legitimate discussion about ways to control the feral cat population, but to rile up the infamous cat lovers of the Dope? Sure, Opal was foolish to be suckered into it, but let's not defend someone who came here to light fires.

I think my point is legitimate, that it's not worth getting all worked up by a troll post and people's reaction to it. You don't agree, fine. But I still haven't addressed Your Majesty. You then roll up with this:

Now that he's banned I guess now's the time for me to feel that painful sting. Oh why didn't I listen to the self satisfied school marms that so diligently patrol this place? Oh god why?!?!

Being your usual charming, hyperbolic, defensive self, you jump on my shit. Unprovoked, I might add, unless me saying that getting all worked up by trolling is not a worthwhile pursuit somehow offends you and warrants your shitpile here. At no point did I address you or anythind you'd said; that was an assumption on your part.

I said back:

Why, oh, why would you be glad you were feeding trolls? ... Oh yeah, THAT'S why.

And you, genius that you are, respond with:


You're kind of an idiot, aren't you? I wasn't "feeding the troll" in any way. I was just agreeing with Randy Seltzer, which requires a partial defence of T.O's other thread. But awesome "gotcha" turn around of my sentence. How did you ever come up with it?

I never said you were feeling a troll. YOU stated that you thought I was accusing you of that, and started with the namecalling, defensive idiocy. Now that it's all laid out there for you, in refutation of your version of events, I hope that you now realize that...no, really, it was all you.

I said "that's not feeding", then you said "well then i wasn't talking about you, douche bag", and now I say "u r dum".

NO, U

[C K Dexter Haven]

Well, if the first couple of posts were about using dynamite in the gopher holes, or smuggling a kimono dragon in to eat the gophers, or catching them and putting them in a stew that you serve at a soup kitchen for the homeless... well... Since the other thread didn't include any of those things I can only imagine you're randomly referring to some 80's movies rather than answering a simple fucking questionPerhaps I can explain the notion of "joke" to you sometime? I thought "kimono dragon" was pretty much a clue.

However, my point (what was the question again, anyhow?) was that these things are situational. If I wander into a thread on account of someone reported it, and I see something in the wrong forum, I move it. And if it appears to be about engaging in illegal (in most of the U.S.) activites, then I close it.

A few points to make about that:
(1) Moderators do not have the time, references, or legal authorization to investigate whether a discussion is indeed about illegal activities. We make our best guess and move on. We do NOT want to let six weeks go by, with a flurry of lawyers and paralegals (at $$$ per hour) looking up citations, to decide, oh, gee, yeah, I guess it was illegal and we should have closed it six weeks ago.
(2) If there is ample grounds for thinking that the discussion was NOT about illegal activities, the thread can always be re-opened. A moderator's actions are not indelible.
(3) I think that the question that you're bitching about is whether a thread about gopher-removal would also be closed. My comment above was intended to be a reminder that it's all situational. It depends on what's being asked and what people are saying. When I read the first post and it has to do with someone sitting on the porch shooting guns at anything wandering by his property, that sounds pretty much illegal to me. Although, I suppose, if he were shooting at children out trick-or-treating, that would probably be OK under Section 43(b)(iii) of the tax code.*


* This is another joke, CarnalK.

[LurkMeister]

So then next year, after I have (presumably) bought a house, when I decide that I need a little late-October sport it would not be a good idea to start a "What would the best ammo to use for hunting trick-or-treaters" thread?

[Liberal]

I pretty much agree with Dex here. The last thing we need is mods interpreting actual law.

[silenus]

So then next year, after I have (presumably) bought a house, when I decide that I need a little late-October sport it would not be a good idea to start a "What would the best ammo to use for hunting trick-or-treaters" thread?

Yeah, that would generally be frowned upon.






(Besides, it depends on whether you are hunting them for meat or for sport. Meat - 7mm is fine. Sport - .410 loaded with snakeshot.)