Cats, our way


This is another one for the books. You know, under “Silly” section.

Let`s scroll back a little. Three guys tortured and mauled 40+ cats. They were caught and the people quickly organised against them, suing them for “causing death and pain for over fourty cats“.

Yes. That is correct. Cats.

In this great country of ours, where everything else is just peachy and there are not any real criminals, we go after the cat killers. It`s so absurd the person would not know either to laugh or cry.

At first they were acquitted of all charges but then after the appeal from the prosecution they were sentenced with public service. And now, they are suing back. For moral pain and suffering. Like any person would.

The “funny” (if you want to call it that) thing are the comments of the people. Seriously, some of them lost the simple touch with reality. The best of them are from the people who are equalizing human life with the life of a cat. Come fucking on! What, every time I run over a cat, I do involuntary cat slaughter?

Here`s one…

Me prav zanima, kako bi sodila komu, ki bi njenemu pudlju ali otroku prerezal trebušček in ga živega privezal z njegovimi črevi na plot.

Disturbing? A poodle OR a baby? Sheesh lady…go check your brain. This personification of animals has gone too far in our society. Personally, I think all of the 126 people (and counting) who left a comment on the page, siding with the cats ought to have their heads examined. Killing a man over 42 cats does not seem reasonable. No matter how much alcohol runs through your veins and feeds your demented mind.


16 komentarjev na “Cats, our way

  1. Marko

    I really wonder what kind of brain and heart do you have to have, that cruely killing 40+ cats seems a normal thing to you.

    I also fail to see why existance of other crimes would excuse this kind of sadism.

    Yes, there’s a need for head examination, but not where you propose.

  2. ursa

    A poznaš tole?

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

    Pastor Martin Niemöller

    Vedno se začne tam nekje pri mačkah …

  3. Tilen

    Domi I believe you just went too fascist…

    Killing cats for the sheer fun of it. That’s just wrong. I would chop those boys’ hands off.

  4. ill-advised


    I agree that killing cats for fun is wrong. Indeed I think that killing them for most other reasons is also wrong, and that torturing them without killing them is wrong as well. Probably even cookie would agree with that; but that is not the issue under debate here. The issue is the over-reaction of certain segments of the public, and their willingness to consider certain non-human animals (as long as they are sufficiently cute and cuddly, of course) as comparable or perhaps exceeding in value to certain people. For now, people are being compared (sometimes unfavourably) to poodles and cats; I suppose before long we will move on to comparing them rats and lice, and that’s when the Niemöller quote will get really relevant.


    Odlično, zdaj lahko nehamo in gremo domov 🙂

    Drugače pa se da to pogledati tudi z nasprotne smeri. Trenutno se začenja pri treh fantih, ki so mučili mačke. Pobesnela ljudska množica zahteva njihova čreva na kolu; ker jim jih sodstvo zaenkrat še noče dati, se poziva na linč. Zdajle torej prihajajo po morilce mačk; aha, in ker jaz na srečo nisem morilec mačk, naj bom lepo tiho?

    (P.S. Ampak ali se res vedno začenja kje pri mačkah? Potem bi jih pričakoval npr. v temle dokumentu, ki pa jih sploh ne omenja.)

  5. Domen

    Thank you for… [/automated reply script off]

    1. I did not say that they should get away with it or that the stuff they did was not disturbing. However, the amount of energy and press these people got was obscene. In our country, where the real crooks run free and where nobody does anything about it (even the people who are usually very eager to organise and lynch are being quiet) they go after the cat- killers with great ferociousness and even bigger agility. Why? Because these three guys are schmucks and the courts will again appear victorious, saving us from the “hideous” criminals. Priority bothers me. The amount of coverage bothers me. This particular agenda setting bothers me. People know no moderation.

    2. The comments posted on by supposedly normal people are for me even more disturbing than the “original crime”. Equalizing an animal and a baby is NOT appropriate, no matter how much you love your dog. So if they are appalled by the cat-killings, where nobody even mentioned taking a human life…where does that put us? Cause it`s really interesting how quickly people make a connection with something that is totally unbased and irrelevant. They were killing cats. CATS. No people, babies or any other kind of higher life forms were included. And yet, everbody is talking about PEOPLE, like cats were just an appetizer.

    3. Ursa, the cliche “It starts with cats…” does not apply and is a classic stereotype. Many serial killers of our day and age did not practice on cats before they moved on to people. It`s not related and is usually made up by the media, which do a trace back, i.e. they find a serial killer and then look for any previous animal torture. Which is absurd. Might as well look for a favourite TV show.

    4. Bizzare crimes do not deserve bizzare punishment. They needed to be calmly evaluated and then punished according to the law. The Law. Not the public lynch mob rules, which are very flexible. May he who is without a sin, cast the first stone…

  6. ursa


    1. Agree. Totally.

    2. Agree. In part. No … just a moment. I agree with all of it except where you argue that comparison of an animal and a human being is not appropriate. I agree that in this case it’s totally out of hand and ceased being appropriate. I also agree that my dog does not equal my child and also my dog does not equal your child. So my disagreement with the comparison not being appropriate is more of the philosophical variety. Will come back to that later.

    3. You misunderstood me on this one which is primarily my fault. Also, I think my choice of quote was a bit problematic in light of what was discussed on this blog in the last week or so. The quote I copy/pasted is my favourite on discrimination and I only remembered its connection to nacism after I hit the submit button. What I added about the cats had no connection to the stereotype about kids who torture animals becoming people who kill other people. It was to underline my belief that it starts a lot sooner than with the Jews. If the whole thing was about cockroaches, I would have probably put cockroaches in that sentence. I guess I agree on no. 3 as well although from my point of view (regarding the point I wanted to make with my comment but failed) it’s slightly off topic. Not your fault, as I said.

    4. Yes. Agree. Although – you know what they say about law and justice, don’t you? Just checking 🙂

    All the other 1000 points I’ve missed:

    I won’t (and basically don’t in general) argue about human life being worth more than animal life. I know I did exactly that on my blog and that’s my personal opinion, the rule I try to live by, because it brings no disadvantage to humans. The other truth (beside my own) is that I live in a society that has its own set of rules. And in this society human life is worth more than animal life for a reason. A dog (let’s take a dog for a change) can be a lot more lovable than a lot of people. It doesn’t talk back for example. It always does what it’s told if you’re willing to put in the effort. A lot of people will take a dog over a human in a heartbeat because they feel that work/benefit ratio is a lot better with a dog than with a human. If you pass a law that says the life of a human has the same value as the life of a dog we will be killing each other over the middle finger you showed to my dog. I support the kind of hierarchy you defend for the purpose of keeping some kind of order in the society.

    As far as the real value of life is concerned … that’s what I wrote in the post on my blog (I’ve put it there instead of here for a reason – the subject I wrote about wasn’t the same as the subject you wrote about). I can’t for the life of me dig out a single good enough reason why a cat’s life is worth less than mine. There are reasons, oh yes … a gazillion of them. But in the big picture they all fade. At least for me.

    Still @Domen – btw … together with your comment your post really does bring across a good point worth discussing. The post itself was just provocative but the two of them together … pretty good.


    I’m rolling in tar and feathers for not thinking enough before posting 🙂

    I’ve explained above why the unwanted nazi connection and why cats. Don’t get hung up on it because I’m probably among the last who would label anyone a nazi. And of course things don’t literally always start with cats. Looking at your blog – the difference between literally and figuratively shouldn’t be lost on you.

  7. Lilit

    Imas prav, da so reakcije “publike” dosti prevec ekstremne. Poclovecevanje zivali je zadnje case zelo “in”.
    Samo po drugi strani se mi zdi popolnoma bolano, da jih tozi za “dusevne bolecine”. In ce primerjam, kaj me bolj moti – poclovecevanje zivali ali mucenje zivali… je jasno, kaj je hujse.

    Meni osebno se zdi kazen premila. (Reci kar hoces, ampak hladnokrvno zaklat 42 mack in o tem pisat dnevnik je… vsaj za psihiatricno evaluacijo). Ampak OK, to je samo moje mnenje.

    Dejstvo je, da je to, kar so naredili, moralno, eticno ali karkoli, precej grozno. Zato so tudi doziveli “moralno” kazen – izobcenje in izkljucitev iz sole. Dejstvo je tudi, da je mucenje zivali z zakonom prepovedano. Zato so dobili tudi pravno kazen.
    Dejstvo je, da so naredili neumnost in bili kaznovani. Nekaj naredis – sprejmi posledice tega.

    Se mi zdi, da vse bolj postajamo Amerika.

  8. Mayhem

    Kako lepo je, ko ima človek vedno nekaj zarad česa se lahko jezi. In zanimivo kako enostavno najdeš eno stvar v katero se lahko zapičiš in ignoriraš vsa ostala dejstva. Mislim, da je jasno zakaj se dogajajo take stvari. Ljudje rabijo škandale in afere. Rabijo nekaj da potem o tem govorijo. Vse skupaj je itak samo pesek v oči, ker (tako kot praviš) so pravi kriminalci še vedno na prostosti (nekateri pa tudi na oblasti).

    Ne, nisi rekel, da bi jih (morilce mačk) morali pustiti. Ampak nikjer v tem postu nisi obsodil tega dejanja. Ne, samo razburjal si se podolgem in počez. Pa kaj, če folk na piše take komentarje da te srat prime? Lahko bi vedel, da vsak reagira po svoje. Nekdo bi bil morda celo vesel ob tej novici, drugi žalostni, tretji razočarani, četrti jezni in petim bi bilo vseeno. Ne zdi se mi prav, da se nekdo tako izživlja nad drugim živim bitjem. Naj bo to mačka, pes ali opica. Omenjal si še povožene mačke. Če bi zaradi tega ljudi zapirali, bi bili naši zapori premajhni za vse “cestne morilce”. Tukaj že zahajamo na megleno področje kjer bi se dalo še veliko debatirati.

  9. Marko

    Prepiranje po blogih se mi sicer zdi precej brez veze, ampak vseeno…

    V prvih petih odstavkih z ničemer ne daš niti slutiti, da se ti zdi takšno ubijanje sporno. Celo več, ton daje vedeti, da se ti njihovo početje ne zdi sporno oz. vsaj ne preveč, kar zabetoniraš z izjavo, da bi v njihovem primeru vsak tožil nazaj.

    Sodeč po tvoji logiki, da bi vedno morali obsojati in preganjati le največje probleme, te moti izključitev iz šole zaradi sadizma, ne moti pa te, da te lahko izključijo že zaradi večjega, ne pa pretiranega števila neupravičenih izostankov (izjava je tu le za demonstracijo nesmiselnosti izhodišča).

    V nadaljevanju se ukvarjaš s komentarji ljudi na novico in spet nikjer z ničemer ne namigneš, da je bilo njihovo dejanje kakor koli sporno in ton sporočila ostane enak. Bedaki so ljudje, ki se razburjajo, ne pa trije sadisti.

    Aja, pa še to… “What, every time I run over a cat, I do involuntary cat slaughter?”

    Ja, praktično po definiciji besed (v primeru da ne voziš preko že mrtve mačke). Sploh pa, kako pogosto pa se tebi to dogaja? (every time…)

  10. domen

    Sej samo debatiramo 😉

    Ne “samo” največje probleme, ampak malo prioritiziranja bi pa vseeno lahko imeli, tako mediji kot tudi sodišča. To, da nekdo toži državo za 5 milijonov (itak bo tožba zavrnjena) za duševne muke se mi zdi neumno. Ampak to, da potem to ljudje in mediji zagrabijo, to se mi zdi pa še bolj neumno. In pri celi stvari se mi zdi najbolj neumno to, da skušajo ta zločin popredalčkat in iz njega narest ne vem kakšno afero, ko je pa vse jasno. Kaki sodišče, sodnik za prekrške bi jim mogu naložit kazen v obliki obveznega dela (pucanje dreka in podobno) in čao. Ne pa da mediji v svoji lenobi in zdolgočasenosti pobirajo in pumpajo počeno žogo -> to je bil namen prvih petih odstavkov.

    Kar se izključitve iz šole tiče, mi je v bistvu vseeno. To je odvisno od politike, ki jo vodi določena šola in sam nimam dovolj kompetenc za presojanje, katera politika je boljša. Sploh, ker je to ena tako siva stvar, da to ni res. In da se pravila vedno nekaj spreminjajo in prilagajajo in ti pravilniki šole nič ne pomagajo, če maš pravega fotra oziroma pravega fotra nimaš. Izključitev iz šole je bila bolj pritisk s strani fotrov in medijev, kot pa kaj drugega. IMHO.

    V celem prispevku nisem nikjer izrekel strinjanja s tem početjem. Rekel sem samo, da je zločin disproporcionalen z ostalimi svinjarijami, ki se še vedno dogajajo v naši državi, pa noben ne mrdne. Rekel sem samo, da so komentarji ljudje, ki hočejo te tri mulote ubit na 1001 način, pretiravanja in tudi to ni prav. In da če lahko ljudje javno linčajo posameznike imajo potem ti posamezniki pravico tožit nazaj. Ker javni linč ni napisan v nobenem zakoniku oziroma ni te kazni napisane v nobenem pravnem zakoniku. Noben sodnik ne bo reku “Mesec zapora pa javni linč!” v obsodbi. Ravno zato pa imamo sodišča!

    Glede števila mačk…to je podobno filozofskemu vprašanju, koliko kamnov na kupu sestavlja kup kamenja. So trije kamni kup? Štirje? In če prevedem…koliko mačk je še dovoljeno ubiti in na kakšen način? Ker pri ljudeh je jasno…ubiješ enega in si najebal. Pri mačkah pa ni. Povoziš mačko, mogoče ne do smrti, da se potem revica matra in vleče po cesti s prednjimi tačkami, medtem ko si ji ti z vozilo zmaličil zadnji del, da ji čreva gledajo na plano in zadnjih nog sploh ne more uporabljat, pa se it ne bo nič zgodilo. Ubiješ pet mačk (leglo) ker jih je pač preveč in nimaš kam z njimi in to serjejo po vrtu, pa se ti ne bo nič zgodilo. Vsak vikend streljaš mačke z balkona tretjega nadstropja, jih oslepiš in pohabiš…pa se ti ne bo nič zgodilo. Kje je potem tukaj logika in pravica?

    Moti me to, da določene stvari/dejanja niso napisane v zakonih (pravilnikih, podaktih…) in potem ljudje mislijo, da s tem dobijo carto bianco za katerokoli kazen. Da če nič ne piše, potem je vse dovoljeno. Boš rekel, da je to uredu?

    Nikoli nisem rekel, da odobravam izvorno dejanje. Nikoli ne bom rekel, da je katerakoli oblika mučenja (sploh močnejšega nad šibkejšim) pravilna in da jo podpiram. Tudi v primeru ne, ko bi mučenje prineslo dobrobit celotnemu človeštvu (kar se tudi dogaja, z eksperimenti na živalih ipd…). Javni linč in izpostavljanje posameznikov, ki je neproporcionalno z zločinom se mi pa tudi zdi prav tako, če ne še bolj bolano.

    In za informacijo…v petih letih mojega statusa kot voznik sem povozil 3 mačke. Nenamenoma. Je pač skočila na cesto.

  11. Tilen

    Koliko si jih pa namerno fental, pohabil ipd.?

    Sorry, ampak mučenje živali kaže na resno duševno motnjo izvajalca. Tudi to, da streljaš na sosedovega mačka, ki ti serje po vrtu, ni OK. OK?

    Kazen za tako početje mora biti primerna. Pucanje dreka, kot praviš, pač ni. Takega falota je potrebno poslati na terapijo. Pa naj doktor presodi kdaj mu gre bolje, ne sodnik. Do takrat pa na primerno zaprt oddelek.

  12. Brian King

    Human arrogance that says that human life is more important than any other creature on the planet …. this is why the balance of nature of off in the world right now. If we continue to upset this balance of nature, we will just be participating in our own extinction.

    Survival of the fittest vs. peaceful co-existence. I know which group I want to be in.

  13. lemuel

    Brian King, last time I checked the “balance” was kept by “Nature” making animals kill each other in great numbers. I would say that killing 40 cats was most likely a step in the direction you propose. Killing animals whose numbers have greatly multiplied thanks to their parasitic exploitation of human emotional distress just restores the balance you call for. 😉

  14. domen

    I agree with Tilen and Brian. I feel like I am repeating myself in saying that I do not approve nor condone such behaviour and that this is not the point right now.

    @Tilen – what exactly is appropriate? How do we define that? The written laws carry a preset warning and people usually know what is going to happen to them if they for example kill a person or rob a bank. They know that and some of them are deliberately breaking the law. As for unwritten laws, the society should take care of proper education and bringing-up. If you will recall another group of teens who burned a homeless person to the death? Click
    for refresh of memory… Do we give those two groups (cat killers vs. homeless person firestarters) the same punishment? Do we even put them in the same category? And if we do, how many cat lives equals a human life? I am sorry, but these are the things that need to be seen as a relative, not as an absolute. Does these crimes mean that we have to change the laws? That the law will know no age difference?

    Psychologists say that the primary socialization is the most powerful “personality shaper” and the primary socialization is over by the time you enter primary school/kindergarten. And that traits learned by primary socialization dominate every other behaviour development you get over the years. What does that mean? That if your parents fuck up in the first five years, you`re better off dead? Or that you ought to be put under special surveillance? Maybe we should kill or eliminate the ones that are “bad apples”, doing something similar to what Hitler was doing?

    And what exactly are these crimes telling us? That the end of the world as we know it is coming? That soon, everything will change and these are the first signs of the great change? Anarchy uber alle? 🙂

    So if these crimes are indeed signs, what do we do about it? Do we send the sinners off to the ward and pretend nothing is wrong? Do we punish them and forget that the crimes ever occur? And hope that if we set a strong enough precedent, others will deter from such actions?

    @Brian – Agreed. Completely and totally. We have no natural predator. We are on the top of the “Badasses chart of our planet Earth” and of course we do not know how to behave. The question is, why do we tolerate some forms of arrogance and we bring down the hammer on other forms? Is it because we feel we have to do something and doing something is better than doing nothing? Or is it because in doing “something”, we are saying to ourselves – “Look, we are not ALL bad.”, therefor justifying other arrogant behaviour?

    Again, the things that bother me here are:

    1. Disproportionality
    2. Solutions, that are more worrisome than the original problem
    3. Inconsistency in regards to other criminal activity we have in our society


Vpišite komentar