# Veterinarian brags about killing a cat **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224 "2015-04-21T21:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/321 "2015-05-04T05:59:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, logical fallacies are methods of reasoning which will lead to logically incorrect conclusions, and are used in any context in which logic is important. > > It’s absolutely astonishing that _even you_ don’t know this. It certainly puts a permanent pall over any argument you try to make from now on, as you’ve just openly admitted that you don’t know how logic works. > > I mean, not that anyone who’s read more than four or five of your posts needs the tip, but it’s always nice to have it in writing. I expect this exchange is going to be referenced quite a lot whenever you drop trou in a thread and leave another steaming pile of stupid. Obviously neither you nor Bricker know the difference between **Informal** and **Formal Fallacies**. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal\_fallacyAn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacyAn) informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises may fail to adequately support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from reasoning that renders the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic. Let me restate that last: _In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not a flaw in logic_ Bricker quoted Appeal to consequences > **[Appeal to consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)** > > Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or unde In... \*Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for “argument to the consequences”), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, \* Again, let me restate that last: **Appeal to consequences…is… a type of informal fallacy,** Thus\* Appeal to consequences\* is **not** _a flaw in logic_. Both you and Bricker clearly don’t know the difference. _In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure which can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic, for example propositional logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered to be wrong. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false._ You logic is unsound, as well is your knowledge of Logic. _It’s absolutely astonishing that even you don’t know this. It certainly puts a permanent pall over any argument you try to make from now on, as you’ve just openly shown that you don’t know how logic works._ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/322 "2015-05-04T07:07:10Z")
You know what’s really choice dudes and dudettes? **Bricker** claims he is a lawyer, and a defense lawyer to boot. You know what another term for “Appeal to consequences” is- (that “logical fallacy” that he sez I am so very wrong to use on this\* message board\*)? It’s called “_an appeal to emotion_”. Really **Bricker**? \*You have never made an emotional argument for your client in the courtroom? \* (or elsewhere). No appeals to the jury, no appeals for mercy? :dubious::dubious::dubious: And of course, since you object to it’s use _here,_ in a very informal forum called the BBQ Pit on a rather informal fucking _message board-_ you must “object” in the courtroom right? When the People does their closing argument you pop right up and say "Objection your Honor! “Appeal to consequences!”- The DA has an active antipathy towards correct logical reasoning, and thus loses the debate! " Pul\*leeeze \*tell me when you’re gonna try _that_ Counselor, I’d love to see the look on the Judges face. Contempt or Section 8? _Yes_, you’re damn we’re using an appeal to emotion. It’s someones beloved pet who was killed by a fucking sociopath in a cruel and stupid way- who even bragged about it in public (and you know _that_ gets quite a few points towards “sociopath”, right?). Yes, we \*are \*emotional. \*We have a right to be. \* This is not your fucking High School debating team, it’s not even a courtroom. It’s a message board, and in fact it’s a forum of a message board where posters are invited- nay _encouraged_\*- to be emotional. You can take your _“Objection! Appeal to consequences!”_ and cram it up your tight Republican ass ( use a hammer and lots of lube). Is \*that \*emotional enough for you? - _For rants about the world …_ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/323 "2015-05-04T11:01:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Yes_, you’re damn we’re using an appeal to emotion. It’s someones beloved pet who was killed by a fucking sociopath in a cruel and stupid way- who even bragged about it in public (and you know _that_ gets quite a few points towards “sociopath”, right?). Yes, we \*are \*emotional. \*We have a right to be. \* > > This is not your fucking High School debating team, it’s not even a courtroom. It’s a message board, and in fact it’s a forum of a message board where posters are invited- nay _encouraged_\*- to be emotional. You can take your _“Objection! Appeal to consequences!”_ and cram it up your tight Republican ass ( use a hammer and lots of lube). Is \*that \*emotional enough for you? > > - _For rants about the world …_ Very dramatic. But simply another fallacy: strawman, this time. No one, least of all I, questions your right to be emotional. I question (and reject) your right to declare that your emotions make your factual claims correct. So when you passionately defend your right to be emotional, and act as though you are rebutting my argument, you commit the strawman fallacy: attacking an argument I never made. You have a very childlike view of the courtroom, and unfortunately your extensive experience as a watcher of “Law and Order,” does not equip you to grasp more complicated topics, it seems. An appeal to consequences is never proper argument if it’s form is, “Conclude this fact to be true even without evidence.” However, since the jury’s function can be to extend or withhold leniency, appealing to the consequences of doing that is proper, and not fallacious. This confusion again highlights your basic misunderstanding about what’s going on here: you’re appealing to consequences in order to persuade your audience that certain facts are true, as opposed to trying to persuade your audience of some preferred policy outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/324 "2015-05-04T14:13:46Z")
It occurs to me that some readers might be interested in a quick explanation of the distinction **DrDeth** tried to raise between _formal_ and _informal_ fallacies. He seemed to believe that the naming of those categories conveyed some sort of importance – that only formal fallacies had some deleterious effect on the argument, and _informal_ fallacies were of no concern except to earnest, bespectacled high school students vying for debate points during a competition. That view is, unsurprisingly, incorrect. A _formal_ fallacy is one that fails as a matter of form – that is, it doesn’t fit into the formal steps of logical deduction. For example, we imagine the statements All snakes are in the taxonomic order _squamata_. A python is a snake. Therefore, a python is in the taxonomic order _squamata_. That’s an example of a syllogism, a deductive scheme of formal argument containing a major and a minor premise and a conclusion that does not contain each foregoing premise. It’s also true. Now consider: All snakes are in the taxonomic order _squamata_. A horse is a snake. Therefore, a horse is in the taxonomic order _squamata_. That’s an argument that is formally valid. However, one of its premises is untrue, and its conclusion is not correct. But as a matter of _form_, it is valid. Now let’s consider an argument that is formally invalid, and yet contains true statements and a true conclusion: Some snakes are in the taxonomic order _squamata_. A python is a snake. Therefore, a python is in the taxonomic order _squamata_. Each statement is absolutely factually true. And the conclusion is true. Nonetheless, this argument is suffering a defect of _form_. It is formally invalid: because we only know that SOME snakes are squamata, we haven’t proved that a python is for sure a squamata. And of course we can imagine an argument formally invalid and also false: Some snakes are in the taxonomic order _squamata_. A horse is a snake. Therefore, a horse is in the taxonomic order _squamata_. Now, turning to the _informal_ fallacies, the problems that **DrDeth** believes are of no more than trivial concern. These fallacies generally share the trait that they obfuscate the issues and blur the terms and meanings of the questions at issue. For example: All snakes are in the taxonomic order _squamata_. Rush Limbaugh is a snake. Therefore, Rush Limbaugh is in the taxonomic order _squamata_. This is an example of the fallacy of _equivocation_, which is an informal fallacy. The first proposition uses the word “snake,” to mean a literal scaled reptile. The second uses a colloquial definition of snake as meaning a worthless or treacherous person. Because each sentence, taken alone, can be defended as true, the conclusion is suspect, but the _form_ of the argument is perfectly solid. There is no formal fallacy in this example, but the _informal fallacy_ here is obviously not trivial. Hopefully this digression was of some interest to those reading. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/325 "2015-05-04T16:05:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s absolutely incorrect, but extremely illustrative. I had assumed your confusion was based on a lack of information. It begins to look like you have an active antipathy towards correct logical reasoning. **DrDeth** has active antipathy towards anyone not treating George R. R. Martin’s books as objects of worship. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/326 "2015-05-04T16:31:58Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > **DrDeth** has active antipathy towards anyone not treating George R. R. Martin’s books as objects of worship. Yes, he does, but this is an example of fallacy. It distracts from the issue under discussion; it invites the reader to conclude that because **DrDeth** is obsessive about “A Song of Fire and Ice,” his opinions here are not to be trusted. Both statements are true, but one does not imply the other. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/327 "2015-05-04T16:57:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, he does, but this is an example of fallacy. It distracts from the issue under discussion Well, since your last post was about **Dr** and fallacies… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/328 "2015-05-04T17:01:00Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Well, since your last post was about **Dr** and fallacies… 😃 ::snicker:: Ah, I see… “By way of illustration…” ---
**Author:** ![RobDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f07891/32.png) [@RobDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobDog)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/329 "2015-05-04T17:26:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It occurs to me that some readers might be interested in a quick explanation of the distinction **DrDeth** tried to raise between _formal_ and _informal_ fallacies… Well, in truth, I wasn’t interested until I read your post, then I was! Thank you for a clear, concise and elegant explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/330 "2015-05-04T18:10:57Z")
Well, we’ve seen “Lawyer Bricker” Then, he got promoted to “Judge Bricker” Now we have “Professor of Philosophy Bricker” And the vet who shot a cat in the head and posted her grinning picture of the dead animal on facebook is still an unmitigated douchebag. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/331 "2015-05-04T18:39:59Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > **DrDeth** has active antipathy towards anyone not treating George R. R. Martin’s books as objects of worship. Actually, his last book was pretty dreadful. He needs a editor badly. One of the worst things to happen to a author is hubris, where they believe the hype and think they dont need a editor anymore. But yeah, I like books. Sue me. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/332 "2015-05-04T18:41:00Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Well, we’ve seen “Lawyer Bricker” > > Then, he got promoted to “Judge Bricker” > > Now we have “Professor of Philosophy Bricker” > > And the vet who shot a cat in the head and posted her grinning picture of the dead animal on facebook is still an unmitigated douchebag. Appeal to emotion! Facts not in Evidence!:p:D:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/333 "2015-05-04T18:44:50Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Well, we’ve seen “Lawyer Bricker” > > Then, he got promoted to “Judge Bricker” > > Now we have “Professor of Philosophy Bricker” > > And the vet who shot a cat in the head and posted her grinning picture of the dead animal on facebook is still an unmitigated douchebag. Yes, yes. She’s a douchebag. Was that the extent of your claim? That she was a douchebag? I don’t disagree in the least. Never have. But all the other stuff, the Lawyer/Judge/Professor business - what do you mean, specifically? See what I mean about fallacies of distraction? You don’t actually say anything with those comments, but your tone is dismissive without crossing the line into any factual misstatements. And… > [@DrDeth](#): > > Appeal to emotion! Facts not in Evidence!:p:D:rolleyes: Same point. You clearly and convincingly were rebutted on the factual argument, and this is your retreat? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/334 "2015-05-04T18:47:23Z")
My tone is dismissive because that is all you deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/335 "2015-05-04T18:50:07Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > My tone is dismissive because that is all you deserve. Sure, sure – but have you noticed the difference? You’re attacking me, and saying that’s all I deserve, and you’re not addressing any of the factual issues that were presumably in play. Do you believe that dismissing me automatically dismisses my inconvenient factual arguments also? Do you believe that readers of your words will forget my factual arguments after reading a personal attack on me? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/336 "2015-05-04T19:21:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, sure – but have you noticed the difference? You’re attacking me, and saying that’s all I deserve, and you’re not addressing any of the factual issues that were presumably in play. > > Do you believe that dismissing me automatically dismisses my inconvenient factual arguments also? Do you believe that readers of your words will forget my factual arguments after reading a personal attack on me? You have made few factual arguments. Mainly you pooh-pooh others evidence as you claim it doesn’t meet the standards of a criminal trial. We dont have to meet your standards, we just have to come up with evidence that is convincing enough for the other posters here- and we have. You are the sole dissenter. This is not a criminal trial, and you are not Judge Bricker. Again, this is the BBQ Pit, not Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/337 "2015-05-04T19:34:15Z")
**Bricker** , it appears your legal opinions are correct. I emailed the [Texas Humane Legislation Network](http://www.thln.com/) for clarification about the legality of killing feral cats. Here is the text of the reply I received: > [@](#): > > Camille, > > In Texas it is not a crime to kill an animal that does not have an owner unless it is done “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly” by “torture” or “in a cruel manner.” “Torture” is defined as “any act that causes unjustifiable pain or suffering.” “Cruel manner” is defined as “a manner that causes or permits unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.” Therefore, if the feral cat died quickly and did not experience pain or suffering then no crime was committed. It would be up to a jury to determine whether there was “unjustified or unwarranted pain or suffering.” The jury would likely base its decision on whether the cat appeared to suffer after being shot and/or testimony from a veterinarian. > > -stacy > Stacy Sutton Kerby > THLN Executive Assistant / Government Relations > Texas Humane Legislation Network Also, it was pointed out to me by a Texas animal rescue group that the law itself exempts even cruel behavior in some situations: > [@](#): > > (f) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful: > (1) form of conduct occurring solely for the purpose of or in support of: > (A) fishing, hunting, or trapping; or > (B) wildlife management, wildlife or depredation control, or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law; or > (2) animal husbandry or agriculture practice involving livestock animals. This [Texas Bowhunting Ranch](http://leeranchbowhunting.com/rules/) allows and even incentivizes killing feral cats: > [@](#): > > Predators such as Bobcats, Porcupines, Raccoons, Feral Cats, Coyotes, and Skunks are OK to kill. $50.00 credit off your next hunt if you kill any predators. > > A wounded animal is considered a kill. If you draw blood and the animal is not recovered, your hunt for that portion of the package is complete. A missing arrow is considered a kill. I still maintain that bowhunting a cat is a cruel method of death, but in this case I doubt this vet will even be charged. The only question is how the DA will handle it. Will it even be presented to a grand jury? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/338 "2015-05-04T19:55:08Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You have made few factual arguments. Mainly you pooh-pooh others evidence as you claim it doesn’t meet the standards of a criminal trial. > > We dont have to meet your standards, we just have to come up with evidence that is convincing enough for the other posters here- and we have. You are the sole dissenter. This is not a criminal trial, and you are not Judge Bricker. Again, this is the BBQ Pit, not Great Debates. Ah, the old _ **nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo** _ argument, for [del]the win[/del] emphasis! ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/339 "2015-05-04T19:55:48Z")
> [@camille](#): > > I still maintain that bowhunting a cat is a cruel method of death, but in this case I doubt this vet will even be charged. Kudos on your legal research, but it may not apply in this case. This may very well have been someone’s pet, and not a feral at all. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/340 "2015-05-04T19:57:02Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Kudos on your legal research, but it may not apply in this case. This may very well have been **someone** ’s pet, and not a feral at all. Well someone apparently wants to maintain their privacy and doesn’t want to get involved, according to posts upthread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=18)