What is this world coming to?

[Jono2]

cats are pets, people have emotional connections to them.  same with dogs, fish, etc.

ants and other insects, people don't care for.  Thus the disparity between the animals.  You don't keep ants as pets, and when they're loose in your house, they're pests.  They're bothersome, and they "attack" us.  they disrupt our lifestyles (by infesting our foodstuffs).

animals don't do that, and if they do, they can be trained not to.

that is why there is the disparity.

Obviously there was no emotional connection between the kids and the cats.  So, if that's your only argument, then your comment is absolutely invalid in this situation--and unreasonable too, since just not having an emotional connection with an animal doesn't give me the right to kill it. And, are you saying humans don't eat fish?  The blatant hypocrisy and your inability to be criticized as such is too much.  And dogs are not always tame you know; they may not attack their owners, but some can be very hostile towards strangers.  Okay, so only animals human care for are to be treated equally and only they deserve respect?  What kind of logic is that?  You might as well be on the same moral level those kids are at.   

if you extend such, no animals are to be killed for food, and thus, as living things, plants shouldn't either.

so humans should just sit on their asses and starve to death?

[darkmario]

Cut the crap.  I don't see how you can judge two kids so harshly when you were once one.  Are you going to say you have never in your life killed an animal?  Unless you have been some sort of isolated vegetarian all your life--that respects all animal life equally--, then you are a hypocrite.  How are two cats different than say, two ants?  Or two chickens? Or two cows?  So, yeah, the act of hanging may seem specially morbid, but they are kids; kids are capricious and stupid.  I'm not saying that they can hang as many animals as they want; I'm just saying that  this hardly deserves an article--and neither does it need the righteous hypocrisy from some "pious" nerds.  In my opinion, the situation merited only an upbraiding from the parents of the two kids.

Dude,no one is judging the kids.Kids are influential,you can't help that.We are talking about bad parenting.

And you can't compare the life of of two cats with insects.

[Eizweir]

I accidentally killed a frog with a lawn mower before.
Am I a bad person?  D=

[Jono2]

Cut the crap.  I don't see how you can judge two kids so harshly when you were once one.  Are you going to say you have never in your life killed an animal?  Unless you have been some sort of isolated vegetarian all your life--that respects all animal life equally--, then you are a hypocrite.  How are two cats different than say, two ants?  Or two chickens? Or two cows?  So, yeah, the act of hanging may seem specially morbid, but they are kids; kids are capricious and stupid.  I'm not saying that they can hang as many animals as they want; I'm just saying that  this hardly deserves an article--and neither does it need the righteous hypocrisy from some "pious" nerds.  In my opinion, the situation merited only an upbraiding from the parents of the two kids.

Dude,no one is judging the kids.Kids are influential,you can't help that.We are talking about bad parenting.

And you can't compare the life of of two cats with insects.

why can't you compare them?  that's the point he's making.

[britneymahboy]

Are you going to say you have never in your life killed an animal?

I haven't.  I'm not the one who killed the meat I eat, and I've never killed any other animal.  Some bugs yes, but they aren't classified as animals.  And in addition, cats, as well as a few other animals, are kept as pets.  A pet is something that a family has to love and treat as one of the family.  They can be trained for other uses, but primarily, that is why someone has a pet.  The act of killing the cat completely goes against the main reason of having it.  I'm sure people won't equate their pets' lives as high has the actual people within their family, but the death of a pet isn't something usually taken lightly either.

So what you are saying is "I didn't kill It; therefore I'm allowed to eat it"?  That's a very narrow and vexing point of view.  Imagine if you apply that same mindset to other life situations:  "I knew my sister stole the money, yet I still accepted the gift she bought for me with it."  I have to disagree, killing it is just as bad as eating it.  Actually, if you remember, the purpose of killing animals such as cows, fish, and chicken, is for you to eat them.  Cows and chickens can make, although unorthodox, pets.  You might also want to abandon the notion that insects are not animals.  If I remember correctly, they are actually the most diverse and prolific of the animal kingdom.  The death of a pet is a highly subjective issue. It is safe to assume that normal parents would have taken measures according with the amount of affection they had for the pet. But if they had none then do you think that it deserved less respect? Because that's what your theory about a pet having only as much value as you place on it sounds like; therefore making the death of the cats something trivial.  I don't care for the death of a cat; I honestly don't.  If I did care, I would feel almost uneasy.   How ridiculous is it for me to take the death of an animal whom I had no affection for terribly disheartening while chocking on a piece of chicken?  If you want to judge the kids harshly, then go right ahead. To me you are still being self-righteous and overly moralistic.

[britneymahboy]

cats are pets, people have emotional connections to them.  same with dogs, fish, etc.

ants and other insects, people don't care for.  Thus the disparity between the animals.  You don't keep ants as pets, and when they're loose in your house, they're pests.  They're bothersome, and they "attack" us.  they disrupt our lifestyles (by infesting our foodstuffs).

animals don't do that, and if they do, they can be trained not to.

that is why there is the disparity.

Obviously there was no emotional connection between the kids and the cats.  So, if that's your only argument, then your comment is absolutely invalid in this situation--and unreasonable too, since just not having an emotional connection with an animal doesn't give me the right to kill it. And, are you saying humans don't eat fish?  The blatant hypocrisy and your inability to be criticized as such is too much.  And dogs are not always tame you know; they may not attack their owners, but some can be very hostile towards strangers.  Okay, so only animals human care for are to be treated equally and only they deserve respect?  What kind of logic is that?  You might as well be on the same moral level those kids are at.   

if you extend such, no animals are to be killed for food, and thus, as living things, plants shouldn't either.

so humans should just sit on their asses and starve to death?

Completely the opposite.  Actually, what your remarks towards the two children and their parents, if applied so fervently to other occasions of animal death, imply what you just said.  I like eating animals.  I have but a trifle of care for the death of the two cats.  What I'm saying is that you might want to reconsider castigating the children or their parents for common child behavior--as terrible as it may seem.  All the kids deserved is punishment by their parents; because, honestly, who would like to clean that mess up more than once. 

[phatyo]

Nitnendo dosnt have a GTA on there consoles. Those kids are just stupid, Holy crap when I played GTA III when I was 8 I didnt go out stealing! Also you can't rape anyone! I knew that kind of stuff had to stay in the game. I'll feel bad for Rockstar cause this is the parents fault.

[Jono2]

you make my head ache... :\

I never felt any connection to the dead cats.  I never expressed any opinion on this.  All I said is that some people treat certain animals (the domesticated ones) as closer emotional ties than others.  This is because society treats these animals as such, and it is of course "righteous" and "good" to treat them well, but "horrible" and "wrong" to not.  Nobody has qualms over a mosquito dying, or fish for that matter.

I wasn't saying the kids had emotional ties to the cats, I was saying people in general do.  Society does.  I never even talked about to kids.

[britneymahboy]

you make my head ache... :\

I never felt any connection to the dead cats.  I never expressed any opinion on this.  All I said is that some people treat certain animals (the domesticated ones) as closer emotional ties than others.  This is because society treats these animals as such, and it is of course "righteous" and "good" to treat them well, but "horrible" and "wrong" to not.  Nobody has qualms over a mosquito dying, or fish for that matter.

I wasn't saying the kids had emotional ties to the cats, I was saying people in general do.  Society does.  I never even talked about to kids.

First, I meant "you" as people who were acting like somebody had just set a building on fire and killed 50 persons.  Two, I'm caring less and less about making you seem the absolute error of your ways. lol Three, which society?  The hypocritical and moral to a fault society in which they live? And  kids at that age hardly have a sense of society and its expectations.  Imagine, if you (as whole) have so much trouble seeing the obvious fallacies of your stand, then imagine how much trouble a kid at the age can have at seeing that killing an animal, for which they apparently had no emotional attachment for, is wrong.  I mean, about everyday they eat animals, but then they are told that they can't kill some; how confusing is that! 

[ThePowerOfOne]

you make my head ache... :\

I never felt any connection to the dead cats.  I never expressed any opinion on this.  All I said is that some people treat certain animals (the domesticated ones) as closer emotional ties than others.  This is because society treats these animals as such, and it is of course "righteous" and "good" to treat them well, but "horrible" and "wrong" to not.  Nobody has qualms over a mosquito dying, or fish for that matter.

I wasn't saying the kids had emotional ties to the cats, I was saying people in general do.  Society does.  I never even talked about to kids.

...I care about fishies dying =(

[Jono2]

you make my head ache... :\

I never felt any connection to the dead cats.  I never expressed any opinion on this.  All I said is that some people treat certain animals (the domesticated ones) as closer emotional ties than others.  This is because society treats these animals as such, and it is of course "righteous" and "good" to treat them well, but "horrible" and "wrong" to not.  Nobody has qualms over a mosquito dying, or fish for that matter.

I wasn't saying the kids had emotional ties to the cats, I was saying people in general do.  Society does.  I never even talked about to kids.

First, I meant "you" as people who were acting like somebody had just set a building on fire and killed 50 persons.  Two, I'm caring less and less about making you seem the absolute error of your ways. lol Three, which society?  The hypocritical and moral to a fault society in which they live? And  kids at that age hardly have a sense of society and its expectations.  Imagine, if you (as whole) have so much trouble seeing the obvious fallacies of your stand, then imagine how much trouble a kid at the age can have at seeing that killing an animal, for which they apparently had no emotional attachment for, is wrong.  I mean, about everyday they eat animals, but then they are told that they can't kill some; how confusing is that! 

it's confusing because I:

1. can't figure out what you're saying (it's late (i don't know why i'm even replying to this))
2. don't know where you stand.
3. don't know if you're making typos or not, because if you are, then it changes the meaning of your entire statement.

I never took a position, or pitied the children, or said they were bad, or anything. :\

people in general was meant to be the same thing as "society".

people in general care for little furry things because they're cute.  that's why some animals are pets.  they're not threatening.  other things are not pets, because they're frightening.  If there is no fear toward an animal, and there is no intention of eating the animal, there is no logical reason for attacking it, and the only explanation is hatred toward the animal.  The blame cannot be directed at the parents, because obviously the kids just didn't like the animal.  The blame can't be directed at the children, because who are we to say that you aren't allowed to hate something?

[britneymahboy]

you make my head ache... :\

I never felt any connection to the dead cats.  I never expressed any opinion on this.  All I said is that some people treat certain animals (the domesticated ones) as closer emotional ties than others.  This is because society treats these animals as such, and it is of course "righteous" and "good" to treat them well, but "horrible" and "wrong" to not.  Nobody has qualms over a mosquito dying, or fish for that matter.

I wasn't saying the kids had emotional ties to the cats, I was saying people in general do.  Society does.  I never even talked about to kids.

First, I meant "you" as people who were acting like somebody had just set a building on fire and killed 50 persons.  Two, I'm caring less and less about making you seem the absolute error of your ways. lol Three, which society?  The hypocritical and moral to a fault society in which they live? And  kids at that age hardly have a sense of society and its expectations.  Imagine, if you (as whole) have so much trouble seeing the obvious fallacies of your stand, then imagine how much trouble a kid at the age can have at seeing that killing an animal, for which they apparently had no emotional attachment for, is wrong.  I mean, about everyday they eat animals, but then they are told that they can't kill some; how confusing is that! 

it's confusing because I:

1. can't figure out what you're saying (it's late (i don't know why i'm even replying to this))
2. don't know where you stand.
3. don't know if you're making typos or not, because if you are, then it changes the meaning of your entire statement.

I never took a position, or pitied the children, or said they were bad, or anything. :\

people in general was meant to be the same thing as "society".

people in general care for little furry things because they're cute.  that's why some animals are pets.  they're not threatening.  other things are not pets, because they're frightening.  If there is no fear toward an animal, and there is no intention of eating the animal, there is no logical reason for attacking it, and the only explanation is hatred toward the animal.  The blame cannot be directed at the parents, because obviously the kids just didn't like the animal.  The blame can't be directed at the children, because who are we to say that you aren't allowed to hate something?

I don't know what to say really.  I didn't make any serious typos--I think.  I go back and forth, because I exemplify the reasoning behind some of the comments, and then I make my point of view on them.  The semi-colon indicates a connection to the preceding sentence; I wasn't asking you why you were confused about my comments--actually I never once even assessed your confusion in any of my comments.  I'm sorry you feel confused though.  Obviously this is going nowhere.  To put it simply: there's nobody to really "blame" per se.  The kids should have been scolded, but there's hardly any need to act so miffed about what they did.

[Shujinco2]

woah,just woah.

  didn't rockstar get in trouble for it's gta games before?

Oh and i heard the term Hot coffee before what does it mean?( I know what hot coffee literally means
)

I believe it was the sex part in San Andreas.

I believe it was a hack or mod of some sort.

But, anyway, poor kitties. Them Sick twisted kids. >:(

[Jono2]

woah,just woah.

  didn't rockstar get in trouble for it's gta games before?

Oh and i heard the term Hot coffee before what does it mean?( I know what hot coffee literally means
)

I believe it was the sex part in San Andreas.

I believe it was a hack or mod of some sort.

But, anyway, poor kitties. Them Sick twisted kids. >:(

it was a hack to gain access to content that you wouldn't normally get.  It was in the game, but completely inaccessible without hacking the game.

Why it brought up such a poopstorm, nobody knows.

[DededeCloneChris]

I accidentally killed a frog with a lawn mower before.
Am I a bad person?  D=

Since nobody wants to answer you...

Nope, you're not. It was accident. ;)

But cats being the center of kills is just stupid.