If I were this woman I’d need at least 45k, to help pay the lawyers for my murder trial after I killed that jackass who killed my cat. My flesh son would take care of the dog and my flesh daughter would do a dance of joy because she can’t stand the cats.
I think I’m going to call them my flesh children from now on.
Well, all everything exists in your head - but emotional representation is not exclusive to the limbic system.
Wait a minute - isn’t this true? I don’t know about needing to vociferously claim it, but that’s only because it is fairly obvious. Right? I mean, they aren’t human, are they?
whoosh! (I freaking hope, anyway)
She calls her cats her children. This does not mean that she raises them like humans. There’s a huge difference. But if you insist on calling her crazy, then I must ask you where you got your degree in psychology. And ask what metric you used to evaluate her psychological state. Be specific.
People here really seem to have a problem with words. Have you ever even heard of an “expression”? Do I think you literally wear your ass for a hat? Do I think you literally felch goats? Why aren’t you going after those expressions?
Do you READ or are you just being obtuse? For the second time:
IF SOMEONE (HUMAN OR ANIMAL) TRIES TO KILL MY PETS, ALL BETS ARE OFF. YOU’RE ON MY PROPERTY TRYING TO DO HARM TO MY PETS AS IN TRYING TO END THEIR LIVES, YOU WILL GET THE SAME.
Now try and read my posts instead of making asinine comments.
In terms of sickness, you’re better off fucking your pets than killing people for them. One of those makes you you a messed-up sicko; the other makes you a homicidal psychopath.
HEY! Quit trying to sneak reasonable discussion into this thread, you fleshposter.
A pet is part of the family. You never plan to get so attached, but you do. It’s not sick or crazy, it’s normal. I am very attached to my various critters, and I have plenty - dogs, cats, even chickens. They’re fun to be around, they’re fun to watch, and each in its own way, does show affection. To find a family pet mauled is upsetting - you raise and take care of it for years, and if you don’t feel anything, then something is wrong with you.
The settlement seems way too high. But, according to the OP, this dog owner had let the chow roam free repeatedly and didn’t care about the damage it caused or might cause. In that case, it looks like the judge was interested in teaching the guy a harsh lesson. I know in many farming communities, they would have followed the Three S policy - shoot, shovel, shut up. They have plenty of experience with dogs that the owners refuse to control, and the dogs tend to mangle livestock. So they shoot it. All the dog owner had to do, was exercise the same control over his dog that most of us do. Keep it with you, or in a fenced yard. Don’t let it roam free on the streets. He chose not to, and then chose not to appear in court. Now he pays.
And you can go fuck yourself with a rusty fucking spoon. So if someone comes in your house and tries to kill you, your kids, and your pets . . . you’re not going to retaliate?
I would do the same fucking thing if someone tried to kill my husband or my kids. You are the sick individual who would let someone come onto your property and say “yeah, just kill them all, I don’t need them”.
Fuck you asshat. I am protecting my family at all costs. You on the other hand just don’t give a fuck.
Are you kidding me? Some dog comes into MY yard and kills my pet there would be emotional distress alright, because I’d be one pissed off bitch. But then I always said I could never live next door to the Osbourne’s because if that bad-mothering harridan threw hams onto my property I’d end up doing time for having socked her in the mouth.
I opened this thread a normal person and now I’m a homicidal psychopath with twin flesh children and two furbabies. Thanks a lot Doors!
And just to confound things further, there’s the dog that apparently had more human feelings than “flesh-people”. :dubious:
See, this thinking is pathological to Knorf. You shouldn’t kill another animal if they are killing yours. He also thinks that if someone came into your house or your yard and was beating your pets, you should just let them do it. And I’m the one who’s crazy.
:rolleyes:
Oh, get over the term “flesh babies” already, people. Sheesh. It’s a frickin’ expression! Ever heard the term “kids”? If you use it, does that mean that you’ve devalued your children to the level of baby goats? Let’s not even touch “rug rats.”
But I do regret using the the term. I had no idea it would get this place in such an uproar. Let me lay this one on you: Squid Infants! Start your conniption fits.
Uh… you added a bit there. If someone was trying to kill me and/or my kids, then yes, deadly force could be used. Someone trying to kill my dog/cat/pet anteater? Physical confrontation possible, but I’m not about to get out my 9mm and start shooting.
You are adding here again.
I wil also protect my family up to and including possibly killing someone, but I’m not going to shoot someone for threatening my hypothetical pet.
Yikes!
I certainly would not use lethal force, especially not to defend a pet, since you’re asking.
Where, exactly, did I say that?
Wow. Just, wow. You’re off the deep end: far, far off.
When in my post did I make a single comment about your house, kids, or husband. No, I was responding to your enthusiastic willingness to kill people for your pets.
Your original post:
After this, you’ve concocted some scenario that was not in the post to which I responded, and set up a straw-man in place of my post to knock over.
And with that, I bow out of this thread. I’m sorry I said anything.
Hey…I’m on a roll…*
Bad coder! Bad coder!*
You wouldn’t dare say that is I was… a pet! 
To late.
“Flesh Babies vs Fur Babies.”
I think we have the makings of an SDMB classic here, folks.
Indeed there is. It’s unfortunate that I’ve met people who not only call refer to their cats as their children, but also treat them as such. I no longer assume that people who call their pets their children don’t also treat them as such.
:rolleyes: You’re such a fucking tool. If someone’s behavior strikes me as crazy, then I’ll call them crazy and treat them as such. You’re perfectly willing to convince me that said behavior is not crazy, of course. My degree will come into question only if I happen to be in court, trying to get said crazy person locked up.
Because I’ve never met someone who literally felt I wore my ass for a hat, nor have I ever met anyone who literally thought I felched goats. I have, unfortunately, met too many uptight, crazy cat people like you and your beau. But then, if they only creature I could relate to, either on an intellectual or emotional level, was a cat, I guess I might be a bit defensive, too.
I know you don’t take such a materialist view of the world, Liberal. So if you have an argument, share it. If you’re just stirring shit up, then we’re done with this discussion.
Except that in human relationships, the bond is reciprocal. With pets, it’s not. The cats like me, sure. But when I moved out of my mom’s place and went to college, the cats didn’t exactly pine away for me either. In fact, I’m pretty sure they didn’t recognize me when I visited. It’s possible to love an animal without anthropomorphizing it; I don’t have to pretend that my cats have the same regard for me that a child would, or even that I do for them. They simply don’t have that capacity. It doesn’t make them worthless furry flesh-sacks, as Airman Doors seems to think - it makes them cats. I love them, and I occasionally refer to them as my babies, but I’m not under the illusion that the relationship is even similar to the bond between parent and child. Like I said, if you die and they run out of food, they’ll eat your corpse. That’s their nature.
Admittedly, I don’t like children much. I think they’re ugly and unpleasant. For some reason, whatever genetic wiring we have to generate parental instincts towards human young is just absent in me. So chances are, I’ll end up a cat owner and not a parent during my life. That doesn’t mean they’re equivalent to children. They’re still cats.
No, and most of us at least are not trying to argue that. It just means that the love you feel for a pet is not the same thing as the love you feel for another human being. Human bonds require reciprocality of a sort that cats just don’t have the capacity for. My cats are very affectionate (especially when they’re hungry.) But it’s not the same as the true interchange that a human relationship is founded on.
Are you making this statement seriously? Because it seems incongruous coming from the person who was making vague threats because people didn’t agree with him.
I have several at the moment, and I’ve had several more who passed away over the years. My cats are priceless too; I couldn’t put a value on my relationship with them. But it’s just untrue that a cat is capable of the kind of two-sided nurturance that another human being is. Admittedly my cats show a surprising insight into human emotion for creatures with brains the size of golf balls - they come and sit on my lap when I’m upset, when their are (inter-human) arguments, the cats watch and occasionally squeak to try to get us to stop.
But then, when one of the people in the household is gone, the cats show no signs of missing them - it’s clear that, to the cats, humans are pretty much fungible. They like us fine, but they’d like anyone who fed them and pet them. I’m not on some crusade against pet ownership here - as I said in my first post, I love my cats. But that doesn’t require me to be under the delusion that our relationship is even similar to that between two humans.
Since I was the first person, I think, to bring up mental health, I’m guessing you’re referencing what I said. I don’t think owning cats is crazy. I don’t think loving one’s cat is crazy. I just think pretending that pets are equivalent to children is crazy.
I especially hate it when people act as though their pets are children and thus are insulted when their friends invite them over but don’t wish to host their menagerie.
Excuse me? Disagreement is not “intolerance”. It’s a word with a specific meaning, a pretty loaded one at that, since it refers to the opposite of bigotry. Are you claiming that those who disagree with you are bigots? Because that’s the implication of this sentence.
It was clearly wrong to call her a loner, as she obviously has a boyfriend.
Either you’re arguing against straw men or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. No one has argued the point you’re so successfully arguing against, because that point would be stupid. Everyone knows a cat and a child are physically different - if you’re arguing something everyone already knows and agrees with, you’re just wasting your metaphorical breath. The argument is that a cat and a child are not equivalent - the relationships a person has with their “furbaby” and their “fleshbaby” are different, and qualitatively different at that. You have as much as admitted this several times already. Since you agree with our point, why do you keep arguing?
And who has claimed that catlovers are a threat to humanity?