THIS chaps my ass. Veterinarian brags on facebook over cat kill

[Doomsday]

Because social media allows something that's stupidly posted to reach a world-wide audience in a nanosecond.

So what?

If your ridiculous little hypothetical were to happen, and she posted it on telephone poles, then it never would have this type of audience...

One TV station picks it up, and then others.

You object to the mobile web, which enables millions to communicate things to the world they never could before? You're saying we should first consider if a issue is a viral social media thing, before we express our opinion on it and if it is we should just ignore it because it's like, social media and stuff?

There was a constable in my old town who flat out shot a dog in public... a mistake. And it made the local news. But he didn't post it on social media... Still working as a constable there.

Had he intentionally done it, maliciously done so, he probably does lose his job social media or not.

 

[Dodger12]

So excuse the fuck out of me if I don't want such a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine or any other kind of medicine. Otherwise why even have standards, or licensing in the first place?

Who cares what you or I want? If she made a mistake killing the cat which she thought was feral then she'll pay a price but that price shouldn't be to throw away someone's living. Let the public decide if they want to use her services as a veterinarian. The public is split in her community and she has her supporters. I'm not one to wants someone's head for killing a damn cat and throwing away years of medical school.

If it wouldn't have been that she was stupid enough to post a photo on Facebook, this wouldn't even be a national issue and she'd still be employed.

This isn't kneejerk "moral outrage." It's objection to the senseless bloodsport killing of a otherwise innocent animal, by a person who ostensibly dedicated her career to helping them. The cat wasn't even on her property, for fuck's sake.

It is kneejerk in a sense that folks see the visual aspect of this situation. Otherwise, no one would give a shit. You use the "N" word and it's no big deal outside of the people you were talking to. Use the "N" word and post the video online and you're fucked.

And look at you judging the "senseless bloodsport" while you probably wear your leather shoes and snakeskin boots. Got it.

 

[Dodger12]

But she posted it on social media, and it went viral. She lost her job, shut down her facebook page, the Vet's office website has been shut down, and people are calling for her license. And how many years did she have to go to school to get that license? 6-8?

All that thrown down the drain because she made two mistakes... killed a cat that she mistakenly thought was feral, and posted it on social media. Now her career and possibly her life are ruined. Cause she killed a cat.

Drives me nuts. The punishment should fit the crime but in this case, there may not even be a crime and even if there was, should a person have his/her life thrown away for killing a cat? I mean, what the fuck.

We have a President who lied under oath, fucked his intern while he's married to a woman who destroyed emails (possibly and probably breaking the law by doing so) and possibly covered up a terrorist attack on our people and embassy overseas. Yet she's running for President and you know many of these fools who are calling for the Vet's head will vote for HC regardless of her "mistakes." Selective indignation at it's best.

 

[Doomsday]

And look at you judging the "senseless bloodsport" while you probably wear your leather shoes and snakeskin boots. Got it.

Don't have either.

But of course, leather comes from cattle, which we raise and slaughter for food. Would be senseless to waste the hide. In fact only the horns and hooves are useless. And if you're killing snakes for their skin, it's not senseless bloodsport. It's for usefulness - and we DO eat rattlesnake too. You may not understand the words "senseless" and "bloodsport."

If she made a mistake killing the cat which she thought was feral then she'll pay a price but that price shouldn't be to throw away someone's living.

Once again you miss the point. IF she is convicted of animal cruelty, she SHOULD lose her DVM license. If not, that's fine with me too.

I'm not one to wants someone's head for killing a damn cat and throwing away years of medical school.

Me either, and I'm not saying that. But I take it you agree with the clinic's decision to fire her from their practice?

This is where you miss the boat - I agree with and support the clinic for firing her, but I wouldn't knock them for not doing so, either. It's their practice and their decision. Same way with the Sheriff - if he finds there's no law broken that's fine with me, but if he finds a prosecution that's fine with me too.

IF she is found guilty of animal cruelty charges then definitely, her license should be up for review at the very least. If the state pulls her license that's fine with me, and it is fine with me if they don't.

She can go to another practice or hang her own shingle out, and yes the market decides if she succeeds. Not a thing wrong with that either.

Assigning false intentions and opinions to people never works, isn't productive either.

 

[Doomsday]

should a person have his/her life thrown away for killing a cat?

Histrionics. Hysterics. Blatherskite and hyperbole.

She didn't just kill a cat. She bragged about it, said she should be "veterinarian of the year" and said they would never fire her because of how "awesome" she is. And she posted this to her followers, who then reposted it, and so on.

And no one's calling for her head, or for her life to be "thrown away." Never mind that even if she loses her license in her state, she still has her life.

 

[Doomsday]

a woman who destroyed emails (possibly and probably breaking the law by doing so) and possibly covered up a terrorist attack on our people and embassy overseas. Yet she's running for President and you know many of these fools who are calling for the Vet's head will vote for HC regardless of her "mistakes." Selective indignation at it's best.

It's more likely the sociopaths who believe it is perfectly okay for a veterinarian to go around killing animals for bloodsport - especially if it's just a "damn cat" - are who would also support Hitlery.

See how this works? Hyperbole and histrionics and assigning false intentions and opinions to people works both ways!

 

[eagle-9r-sknh8r]

Can anyone clean that pic up? She looks kinda trailer trash hot.

 

[peplaw06]

So what?

You asked why it mattered, that's what.

One TV station picks it up, and then others.

And it dies out with local tv stations and their audience of thousands, maybe a hundred people call. Something goes viral on social media and millions see it, swarm the website and shut it down, tens of thousands email the business... the targeted people get death threats from people who would never say that shit to their face, and they have to go into hiding. That shit doesn't happen when it runs on a local TV station or three.

You object to the mobile web, which enables millions to communicate things to the world they never could before? You're saying we should first consider if a issue is a viral social media thing, before we express our opinion on it and if it is we should just ignore it because it's like, social media and stuff?

Hey, captain "I never said that..." I never said that. Fucknut.

Had he intentionally done it, maliciously done so, he probably does lose his job social media or not.

He did intentionally do it... and it was on the news, got a little play on social media, and a little outrage. But nothing like this. Without social media, he wouldn't have even seen the little outrage that he did.

 

[peplaw06]

You're just arguing for the sake of argument... like always. You fucking agreed with me in the Britt McHenry thread about social media.... now it's an issue.

 

[Doomsday]

He did intentionally do it...

But, still no comparison to this. You won't provide a link to the actual story for details, otherwise we might know. Honest mistake in the line of duty is a far cry from this. It's a silly comparison.

Something goes viral on social media and millions see it, swarm the website and shut it down, tens of thousands email the business... the targeted people get death threats from people who would never say that shit to their face, and they have to go into hiding. That shit doesn't happen when it runs on a local TV station or three.

So what are you calling for? Welcome to the 21st Century, where most everyone has a mobile device capable of getting push notifications from social media. Don't post anything on the internet you don't want millions to fucking see. Personal responsibility still rules.

You fucking agreed with me in the Britt McHenry thread about social media.... now it's an issue.

No, I didn't. I said I understand your argument and SOMEWHAT agree with it. What I don't understand at all is what you're calling for or want to see, to solve this problem.

 

[peplaw06]

But, still no comparison to this. You won't provide a link to the actual story for details, otherwise we might know. Honest mistake in the line of duty is a far cry from this. It's a silly comparison.

... you asked for a link, so you MIGHT know, but make the assumption that it's no comparison, it was an "honest mistake in the line of duty," and a silly comparison. You know what they say when you assume. But I don't think you care if you look like an ass.

So what are you calling for? Welcome to the 21st Century, where most everyone has a mobile device capable of getting push notifications from social media. Don't post anything on the internet you don't want millions to fucking see. Personal responsibility still rules.

Calling for? How about a little thought before you grab the torches and pitchforks. People like you are in such a hurry to tar and feather people for something you see on your facebook news feed, you don't even think about it. It's like you scroll furiously through facebook just thinking "who's life can we fuck up today."

No, I didn't. I said I understand your argument and SOMEWHAT agree with it.

"I didn't say I agreed with you, I said I SOMEWHAT agreed with you." Your act is so fucking tired. I'm done talking with you.

 

[Dodger12]

But of course, leather comes from cattle, which we raise and slaughter for food. Would be senseless to waste the hide. In fact only the horns and hooves are useless. And if you're killing snakes for their skin, it's not senseless bloodsport. It's for usefulness - and we DO eat rattlesnake too. You may not understand the words "senseless" and "bloodsport."

Well some people eat cat too. What difference does that make? What....do you get to pick and choose which animal death is less egregious in your eyes? People kill animals for their fur, sharks for their fins, etc. It's my choice whether or not I buy from folks who's conduct may offend me. The market and the law should dictate whether or not this lady has a job, not some lunatics who want a pint of blood for a fucking cat.

Once again you miss the point. IF she is convicted of animal cruelty, she SHOULD lose her DVM license. If not, that's fine with me too.

I don't miss the point. If the lady is convicted, she should pay her debt to society and be allowed to earn her living. Doctors have had DUI's and probably been convicted of other crimes such as domestic violence, etc. People make mistakes, they right their wrong and I choose whether or not to use their services.

 

[Doomsday]

you asked for a link

Actually I didn't, I stated that you won't provide one.

How about a little thought before you grab the torches and pitchforks. People like you are in such a hurry to tar and feather people for something you see on your facebook news feed, you don't even think about it. It's like you scroll furiously through facebook just thinking "who's life can we fuck up today."

Look at you, doing exactly what you're accusing me of. Not thinking. And you're not reading either. Otherwise you would know I don't fit into your pigeonhole you're trying to stick me in.

Your act is so fucking tired. I'm done talking with you.

Can't help it you don't want to be a honest broker in discussion. You lie about what I say, I am going to correct you. It's no act.

You just want people to consider the vehicle through which they hear or see something, before they comment on it. And if it was through social media or had anything to do with it at all, they should just keep their mouths shut. Do I have this right?

 

[Doomsday]

The market and the law should dictate whether or not this lady has a job, not some lunatics who want a pint of blood for a fucking cat.

As i said and have been saying.

If the lady is convicted, she should pay her debt to society and be allowed to earn her living.

The state licensing board will decide what if any action it should take. Animal cruelty is a felony in Texas, by the way.

My county vet called me earlier asking if I'd heard about this and wanted my take on it. I told him I was alot more interested in his take, since he owns a practice and has been a DVM for over 30 years. The Vietnam war veteran who lost alot of his physical abilities ten years ago from being kicked in the head by a horse he was treating, said: "She should lose her license and never be in our profession again, conviction or not. She broke our sacred oath we all take when we are licensed for practice and we take it very seriously."

I looked up that oath. Here it is:

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

This isn't just any fucking Joe job. She has NO right to it, she has to maintain her qualifications and her ethics and her oath.

What....do you get to pick and choose which animal death is less egregious in your eyes?

The law does.

Well some people eat cat too. What difference does that make? What....do you get to pick and choose which animal death is less egregious in your eyes? People kill animals for their fur, sharks for their fins, etc.

Is any of this just bloodsport, killing for the thrill of it and/or just for the sake of killing? That's the difference you continue to miss or just ignore.

 

[Doomsday]

Calling for? How about a little thought before you grab the torches and pitchforks.

You know what? How about a little bit of fucking thought and self discipline, before publicly posting crap on the internet where millions of people can view it and forward it? That's been true since the web started, you would reasonably think by now people fucking GET that.

IF one is stupid enough to post something on the internet he or she doesn't want millions of people to see, then they get what they fucking deserve for being that idiotic and narcissistic.

You want the millions out there to stop and think after reading, but say nothing at all about the morons stopping and thinking before posting the stupid shit? Pox on the minions for reacting, but no pox for the idiot doing the posting?

 

[Dodger12]

Histrionics. Hysterics. Blatherskite and hyperbole.

So says the guy who's used "bloodsport" in almost every post and has worked himself into a tizzy over the killing of what someone thought was a feral cat. Hysterics such as yours have made this issue far bigger than it is.

Is any of this just bloodsport, killing for the thrill of it and/or just for the sake of killing? That's the difference you continue to miss or just ignore.

It seems you ignore the lady's motive for killing the cat. She believed it was feral. She didn't kill it for the sake of killing it. And you want to talk about hyperbole? The social media brigade came out in force and want blood, regardless for the reason she killed the cat.

 

[Doomsday]

It seems you ignore the lady's motive for killing the cat. She believed it was feral. She didn't kill it for the sake of killing it. And you want to talk about hyperbole? The social media brigade came out in force and want blood, regardless for the reason she killed the cat.

You continued to give examples of animal killing for useful and legitimate purposes, none of which involved thrill killing.

Because a animal is feral isn't by itself a valid reason for killing it, unless of course it's just for the thrill of killing, which clearly this was.

TRAPPING feral pet animals is how this is done, not killing them with a hunting bow, firearm, poisoning, or any other way.

So says the guy who's used "bloodsport" in almost every post

Because you didn't seem to understand it, since all your animal killing examples didn't fit what happened here.

She killed the defenseless animal just for the sport of it, for the thrill. Pretending it mattered if it was feral or not was just a afterthought.

 

[Rock Slamdance]

WGAS?

 

[Doomsday]

It’s not valid to argue that killing cats using a bow and arrow would even qualify as a necessary evil. Such an act would be at least carried out with compassion and remorse. The glee, self-congratulation, and lack of remorse demonstrated by this vet is highly disturbing. You're essentially agreeing that "the only good feral cat is a dead one." That their lives are of so little meaning that they can be disposed of in as brutal a fashion as one sees fit.

 

[Doomsday]

More veterinarians weigh in.