sociopathic old lady throws cat in a dustbin

[Militsia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11071277

shocking. i hope some people decide to take the law in their own hands.

That is horrible, where I come from we shoot stray cats, it is the humane course of action. Ofcourse we first check if the cat has a tag or chip. As a cat owner myself I hate that people just release their cats instead of taking care of the problem themselves. If you of some reason are unable or unwilling to keep your cat, do not just release it outside.

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes and we have used out "natural trait" to overcome all disadvantages of lack of strength/agility/etc and we used our "natural trait" to be superior to all other creatures. And why wont bird have no "need" for aircrafts? Aircraft can fly faster, longer than bird - they dont have it cos they cant develop it rather than they dont need it.

Has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong about something?
You sound like a broken record. Superior. Superior. SuperiorsuperiorSUPERIOR!!! We use our intelligence to overcome problems, yes. Other creatures use other traits to overcome problems. If we want to cut down a tree, we make saws. Beavers just gnaw away at the tree. Elephants uproot it. Do not all methods have the same end result? Yes? Then who are you to say that one method is 'superior'?

[Great Nepal]

Yes and we have used out "natural trait" to overcome all disadvantages of lack of strength/agility/etc and we used our "natural trait" to be superior to all other creatures. And why wont bird have no "need" for aircrafts? Aircraft can fly faster, longer than bird - they dont have it cos they cant develop it rather than they dont need it.

Has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong about something?
You sound like a broken record. Superior. Superior. SuperiorsuperiorSUPERIOR!!! We use our intelligence to overcome problems, yes. Other creatures use other traits to overcome problems. If we want to cut down a tree, we make saws. Beavers just gnaw away at the tree. Elephants uproot it. Do not all methods have the same end result? Yes? Then who are you to say that one method is 'superior'?

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

[Old Tyrannia]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Because each method has pros and cons.
First of all, planes must be built. They use up resources to be built, and take time. Birds don't need to build anything to fly; they can simply take off. And they're immune to all the technical difficulties which planes might suffer from. Cons- they can't fly as fast or for as long. The same applies to your other examples.

Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

All traits have their pros and cons. The bigger the pros, the bigger the cons. Penguins can swim superbly, but to do so have given up the ability to fly. Equally, humans have become dependant on their technology. Sure, we can achieve much- but if we lost our technology somehow, we'd be helpless. We're just animals, ultimately. Let's return to my earlier mentions of ants; they achieved many of the things that humans have, long before us- agriculture, building, military... But they did it not with intelligence, but with instinct. On one hand, ants cannot advance technologically, because everything they do is out of instinct; but equally, if you examine an ant's 'society', you'll find that they are perfectly organized; no crime or infighting. They do fight other ants' nests, but they do not fight within a nest; most human states have had a civil war at some point in their history.

I rest my metaphorical case.

[Great Nepal]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.

Now, this is where it gets interesting. Because each method has pros and cons.
First of all, planes must be built. They use up resources to be built, and take time. Birds don't need to build anything to fly; they can simply take off. And they're immune to all the technical difficulties which planes might suffer from. Cons- they can't fly as fast or for as long. The same applies to your other examples.

Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

All traits have their pros and cons. The bigger the pros, the bigger the cons. Penguins can swim superbly, but to do so have given up the ability to fly. Equally, humans have become dependant on their technology. Sure, we can achieve much- but if we lost our technology somehow, we'd be helpless. We're just animals, ultimately. Let's return to my earlier mentions of ants; they achieved many of the things that humans have, long before us- agriculture, building, military... But they did it not with intelligence, but with instinct. On one hand, ants cannot advance technologically, because everything they do is out of instinct; but equally, if you examine an ant's 'society', you'll find that they are perfectly organized; no crime or infighting. They do fight other ants' nests, but they do not fight within a nest; most human states have had a civil war at some point in their history.

I rest my metaphorical case.

1. Yes, it takes time and resources - but it isn't a issue at all. And as for the technical difficulties, we can repair it and Birds can suffer from many things like shot etc and they cant repair it as fast as we can. Yes if we lost our tech, we are helpless but it isn't possible as even if somehow every tech on earth goes blank, we have the knowledge and blueprints on how to rebuild them. And it isn't possible to wipe out knowledge. As for ants, yes they have been able to do all those before us, but they sort of "stopped" there whereas we started late but we didn't stop and we managed to "overtake" them.

[Old Tyrannia]

1. Yes, it takes time and resources - but it isn't a issue at all.

Of course. If it doesn't fit in with your view, it's not an issue

And as for the technical difficulties, we can repair it and Birds can suffer from many things like shot etc and they cant repair it as fast as we can.

Indeed, we can repair it. But not if the plane has already crashed. And birds can be hurt, yes, but that requires and outside influence.

Yes if we lost our tech, we are helpless but it isn't possible as even if somehow every tech on earth goes blank, we have the knowledge and blueprints on how to rebuild them. And it isn't possible to wipe out knowledge.

Of course it's possible to wipe out knowledge; books can be burnt, computers destroyed. People can be killed, and let's face it, only a tiny amount of the population actually understands how most of the things we deal with on a day-to-day basis work.

As for ants, yes they have been able to do all those before us, but they sort of "stopped" there whereas we started late but we didn't stop and we managed to "overtake" them.

Bloody hell, did it occur to you to read what I was saying? I said quite clearly that humans have continued to develop technology whereas ants haven't; that's a benefit of intelligence over instinct. Ants are stuck. However, knowledge can be lost; instinct can't. If every ants' nest on earth was somehow destroyed, providing a breeding population survived they could happily rebuild everything that was lost, in time. Humans wouldn't be able to. Every trait has it's pros and cons; you simply refuse to accept the clarity of my argument, so you dodge around the meaning and pretend you misunderstand.

[Abdju]

it isn't possible to wipe out knowledge.

Fail.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Reports of reprisal attacks across the United Kingdom. Three old ladies missed Murder She Wrote after being lured into a skip by a litter of kittens. There are unconfirmed reports of thirty-one senior women becoming trapped in a Mini, setting a new world record in the process.

Long-range strategic furball attacks are being launched from cat sanctuaries across the country. There are rumours of an Operation CATNIP (CAT National Incineration Program) being instigated by the British Prime Minister Sir Lord David Cunteron III. UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon is to fly in to try and facilitate a cease fire and advocate partition of the United Kingdom. Former President George W. Bush is also to fly in a rival mission opposing partition - his previous experience in helping the human being and fish coexist peacefully may be crucial to resolving the dispute.

Moronthisstorylater.

[SD_Film Artists]

No, I didn't miss the point - we dont have echolocation cos we have alot better ways to do the same thing. And again - we developed plane whereas birds didn't and you cant take it out of equation.

Jesus! You don't seem to understand what I'm saying! My point is that you can't say something is superior based on one quality- in this case, our intelligence. Bats aren't superior because they have echolocation; as you say, we don't need it. Equally, they don't need technology. You then go on to contradict yourself- you say that bats aren't superior because of echolocation because we don't need it, but we're superior to birds because we have planes whereas they don't need it? Every species has it's natural advantages. You can't say one species is superior because of a single trait. For instance;

Lions can't fly. Therefore, eagles are superior.

This statement fails to take into account how lions are larger, stronger and work in groups. You can't judge a species on one trait. Different animals achieve things in different ways; what we use our intelligence for, other animals use pure strength/agility/etc.

*looks in thread again*

Oh dear NSG, has this thread really turned into a 'humans vs animals' debate?

[SD_Film Artists]

Of course it's possible to wipe out knowledge; books can be burnt, computers destroyed. People can be killed, and let's face it, only a tiny amount of the population actually understands how most of the things we deal with on a day-to-day basis work.

Ah that reminds me of an Armstrong & Millar sketch, where someone goes back in time to help an inventor only to say "well jet plains they...er..the wings create lift and..er.....

[Lietvos]

Am I the only person who thought that video was hillarious? Lol, I mean come on that was pretty damn funny, someone should do some spoof video of her throwing an assortment of other pets into manholes or in front of oncoming traffic and things. Quality stuff. Anyway though, yeah she's probably a lunatic.

[Cabra West]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

[Cabra West]

I don't know if that's been posted yet, but apparently, the woman in question thinks it was just a joke, since it was "just a cat"...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100825/tuk-cat-joke-was-meant-to-be-funny-6323e80.html

When I first saw the video, I thought she was just a bit deranged and possibly confused, but having read this, I think she needs to be put somewhere they can look after her 24/7. Heaven knows what else she might find "funny"...

[Andaluciae]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11071277

shocking. i hope some people decide to take the law in their own hands.

You're not a very nice person are you? The woman needs mental help. She's not likely sociopathic, but more likely to have other mental issues that prevented her from thinking rationally. And you'd prefer "people to take the law into their own hands" rather than have her given treatment?

she was rational enough to pick the cat up, put it in the bin and close the lid. still if it turns out that she's got mental health problems then yes i would like her to seek treatment, sectioned in a secure facility until she's cured. otherwise i hope they find her hanging from a tree.

It's a fucking cat.

[Andaluciae]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

Eh? Don't they have to, you know, get food?

[Abdju]

I don't know if that's been posted yet, but apparently, the woman in question thinks it was just a joke, since it was "just a cat"...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100825/tuk-cat-joke-was-meant-to-be-funny-6323e80.html

When I first saw the video, I thought she was just a bit deranged and possibly confused, but having read this, I think she needs to be put somewhere they can look after her 24/7. Heaven knows what else she might find "funny"...

Saw it in the papers this morning. What amazes me also is her complete stupidity. She claims she thought the cat would "wriggle out" of the bin and escape by itself, though quite how it was meant to "wriggle" up a drop lid far heavier than the animal itself, and located at the top of a smooth sided plastic wheelie bin, with no space from which to jump is a mystery to me. It was bloody obvious the cat couldn't escape. The advantage of this case having generated such publicity is that hopefully the RSCPA will (for once in it's often unproductive life) put pressure on their authorities to make an example of her and deter others, though I doubt it.

[Person012345]

Yes and we have used out "natural trait" to overcome all disadvantages of lack of strength/agility/etc and we used our "natural trait" to be superior to all other creatures. And why wont bird have no "need" for aircrafts? Aircraft can fly faster, longer than bird - they dont have it cos they cant develop it rather than they dont need it.

Has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong about something?
You sound like a broken record. Superior. Superior. SuperiorsuperiorSUPERIOR!!! We use our intelligence to overcome problems, yes. Other creatures use other traits to overcome problems. If we want to cut down a tree, we make saws. Beavers just gnaw away at the tree. Elephants uproot it. Do not all methods have the same end result? Yes? Then who are you to say that one method is 'superior'?

He sounds like someone saying "white people are genetically superior to black people, look at test results, crime etc." First thing, it's BS, second thing, even if one thing is superior to another, that doesn't mean we should be allowed to treat the inferior thing like an inanimate object.

[Farnhamia]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

Eh? Don't they have to, you know, get food?

That's pretty much a myth, since they do return to land to breed and do that at least once a year. That said, they can remain airborne for very long periods of time. Linky.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Reports of reprisal attacks across the United Kingdom. Three old ladies missed Murder She Wrote after being lured into a skip by a litter of kittens. There are unconfirmed reports of thirty-one senior women becoming trapped in a Mini, setting a new world record in the process.

Long-range strategic furball attacks are being launched from cat sanctuaries across the country. There are rumours of an Operation CATNIP (CAT National Incineration Program) being instigated by the British Prime Minister Sir Lord David Cunteron III. UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon is to fly in to try and facilitate a cease fire and advocate partition of the United Kingdom. Former President George W. Bush is also to fly in a rival mission opposing partition - his previous experience in helping the human being and fish coexist peacefully may be crucial to resolving the dispute.

Moronthisstorylater.

Brilliant.

[Cabra West]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

Eh? Don't they have to, you know, get food?

That's pretty much a myth, since they do return to land to breed and do that at least once a year. That said, they can remain airborne for very long periods of time. Linky.

"Young albatrosses may fly within three to ten months, depending on the species, but then leave the land behind for some five to ten years until they themselves reach sexual maturity"

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/albatross.html

They do need to eat, yes, but since they live on fish, landing isn't required as such. And they drink sea water.

[Farnhamia]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

Eh? Don't they have to, you know, get food?

That's pretty much a myth, since they do return to land to breed and do that at least once a year. That said, they can remain airborne for very long periods of time. Linky.

"Young albatrosses may fly within three to ten months, depending on the species, but then leave the land behind for some five to ten years until they themselves reach sexual maturity"

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/albatross.html

They do need to eat, yes, but since they live on fish, landing isn't required as such. And they drink sea water.

I stand corrected, Cabra. But really, that's talking about teenage albatrosses. What do you expect?

[New Maadim]

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

They probably have already... they're just not going to let you know.

Spies are so annoying...

[Cabra West]

I stand corrected, Cabra. But really, that's talking about teenage albatrosses. What do you expect?

*lol
I hate being nitpicky, but that was a "interesting fact" I had only just learned about myself a few days ago... and I still can't get over the utter amazement.

[Natapoc]

Awwwww Poor kitty! 15 hours without food, water or a litter box.

The woman should do community service with a Pit Bull Rescue Shelter. Let her try to dump one of them in a trash bin.

Sadly, most pit bulls are kind animals and, despite the stereotype, the majority would not harm her at all if she tried to put one in a trash can.

Have her work with human children or teens. She would be lucky to survive trying to put one of those animals in a trash bin.

[Lackadaisical2]

In your situation yes. But you are using too simple one - lets take flying. If we want to fly we take aircraft. Birds take there wings. In the end we are able to fly longer and faster than birds.
Now take going across water. We take speed boat, Elephants just walk across, Fish swims across. In the end we are able to go across water faster, longer than both Elephants and Fish.
Now take traveling long distance on ground. We take car. Cheetah runs. In the end we are able to go across land faster, longer than Cheetah.

An albatros can fly several years without ever having to land.
Let me know when we develop a plane capable of that.

Eh? Don't they have to, you know, get food?

That's pretty much a myth, since they do return to land to breed and do that at least once a year. That said, they can remain airborne for very long periods of time. Linky.

"Young albatrosses may fly within three to ten months, depending on the species, but then leave the land behind for some five to ten years until they themselves reach sexual maturity"

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/albatross.html

They do need to eat, yes, but since they live on fish, landing isn't required as such. And they drink sea water.

They can't swim? Seagulls for example don't need land to well, land on.

"They also float on the sea's surface, though the position makes them vulnerable to aquatic predators."

Makes more sense than flying for ten years.