PDA

View Full Version : What Should Be the Punishment for Animal Cruelty?



DanseMacabre
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:21 AM
What should the punishment be for animal cruelty?

I have not yet decided my opinion. As an animal lover my knee jerk reaction is to subject a person to whatever abuse the poor animal had to endure.

Dagna
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:29 AM
I believe the death penalty should be the punishment for animal cruelty. People who are cruel to animals are mentally twisted and they pose as much a danger to our communities as serial killers.

DanseMacabre
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:35 AM
People who are cruel to animals are mentally twisted and they pose as much a danger to our communities as serial killers.

Indeed, animal cruelty is usually the first warning sign of a potential serial killer.

Soldier of Wodann
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:40 AM
Depends on how you define animal cruelty. I don't think someone should get the death penalty for kicking their dog. But for doing things like maiming and starving, I think a harsh punishment (not unnecessarily death) is a good idea.

Janus
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 07:42 AM
Well, being purposefully and unnecessarily (I don't see "humane" killing for food as unnecessary but as cruel) cruel to an animal,which is able to feel (insects etc. aren't) should be punished in a similar way as those who are this way to humans in my opinion.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 07:50 AM
I believe the death penalty should be the punishment for animal cruelty. People who are cruel to animals are mentally twisted and they pose as much a danger to our communities as serial killers.

We agree.

Janus mentioned killing animals for food as being non-cruel. I wonder if this is always true. Are there only a fine lines between animal cruelty, hunting, fishing, killing for food and buying meat in the market for food which was killed for you? Break this down for me, Janus.

Janus
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 02:38 PM
We agree.

Janus mentioned killing animals for food as being non-cruel. I wonder if this is always true. Are there only a fine lines between animal cruelty, hunting, fishing, killing for food and buying meat in the market for food which was killed for you? Break this down for me, Janus.

I explicitely said that it was cruel but because it's killing but its necessary for mankind. But I disapprove every act of unnecessary violence to them like making foi gras, a so called delicacy for the decadent upper class people, in which the ducks/geese are force-fed through a tube they put in them.

mischak
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 03:06 PM
Abuse to animals, children, and the elderly all fall under the same category of seriousness if you ask me. You have to be seriously sick and pathetic to think it's ok to harm something so defenseless. I have no tolerance for it and think it should come with serious penalties.


Depends on how you define animal cruelty. I don't think someone should get the death penalty for kicking their dog. But for doing things like maiming and starving, I think a harsh punishment (not unnecessarily death) is a good idea.

Unless your dog is attacking someone, kicking it is not ok, ever. It doesn't have to be extreme to qualify as abuse, there are obviously less serious forms of it.

Cythraul
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:55 PM
Well I'm afraid most people who buy meat and dairy from supermarkets are propogating the practice of animal cruelty.

Freydis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 04:58 PM
I don't think the death penalty is necessary. But I agree with mischak that it should have serious penalties.

But there is always a fine line. Whereas I don't find the seal hunt to be cruel, others may.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 05:11 PM
But there is always a fine line. Whereas I don't find the seal hunt to be cruel, others may.

Seal hunt isn't cruel?!?! I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Warning, graphic content!

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/08/02/canada-seal-hunt_5106.jpg

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/08/02/canada-flooded-with-seal-blood_5106.jpg

http://www.gan.ca/images/photos/sealhunt_18_large.jpg

http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/sealmn002-cu3.jpg

Freydis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 05:31 PM
You know what's also cruel? Systematically allowing every single traditional industry in a province to be banned, and its people to be starved to death.

A slaughterhouse looks no different. This shows an older method of hunting seals (with the hook), but most hunters these days use something called a rifle. ;)

edit: And I think you don't know what you're talking about. ^^

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 05:39 PM
You know what's also cruel? Systematically allowing every single traditional industry in a province to be banned, and its people to be starved to death.

Sure...


A slaughterhouse looks no different. This shows an older method of hunting seals (with the hook), but most hunters these days use something called a rifle. ;)

From what I understand, clubs are preferred instead of rifles because rifles damage the skin.

Anyway, my problems with the seal hunt are mostly :

the methods used (the club)
the age of the average seal that is killed (less than 3 months old)
the meat being wasted
the fact that the seal hunt is completely irrelevant for anything but the vanity of a few right people
the fact that all these puppies are slaughtered right in front of their familiesThat being said, I don't exactly support the methods used by slaughterhouses either.

Freydis
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 05:44 PM
the methods used (the club)

I don't recall you ever mentioning you are vegetarian or vegan... the same methods are used in slaughtering animals.


the age of the average seal that is killed (less than 3 months old)

Where is this statistic? As far as I know they kill mostly adult seals. There isn't a lot of skin on baby seals, nor is there a lot of meat.


the meat being wasted

Sorry, I had to lol at this. These people who hunt, their families eat seal. A lot of families in the communities that seal hunt eat purely seal as their protein intake. Of course, I know nothing of it, right?


the fact that the seal hunt is completely irrelevant for anything but the vanity of a few right people

Double lol. It's used to sustain communities. Do you want to pay welfare to these people because they have nothing left? These people eat the seals. I don't know where you're getting your information from.. bleeding heart environmentalists with lots of money who have no idea about the economy of Newfoundland..


the fact that all these puppies are slaughtered right in front of their families

No, mostly bull seals are slaughtered, as I have heard. I can see no reason in slaughtering the pups, it's not economically viable.


That being said, I don't exactly support the methods used by slaughterhouses either.

Do you think everything in life has to be sunshine and roses? Life is brutal, life is ugly, and life is short.

Janus
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 06:18 PM
I don't see any difference between pigs&cattle and seals&dolphins. They are killed to be used for consumation of their body parts. The only difference is that the latter is oh so cruel because the animals are usually perceived as cute.

PS: I'm still waiting for Sealclubbing to come out for Wii :D

SineNomine
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Ostracism (i.e. exile)/social exclusion is as good as any means for dealing with those who abuse animals.

Oswiu
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 12:33 AM
Ostracism (i.e. exile)/social exclusion is as good as any means for dealing with those who abuse animals.

I don't think it would really be of much use, as it's quite easy these days to survive, and carry on in your deviant behaviour, without the support of or connection to society. Many involved in this sort of thing aren't exactly their community's most active and valued members anyway. I think severe punishments are fully justified in this case, and agree with Mischak in equating it to abuse of children or the elderly, as the key thing here is sadism towards the vulnerable. Absolutely dishonorable.

As for the seals, I hope we can draw a distinction between those who kill the odd seal and then cart it off to eat it, and those who slaughter tens of pups at a time in the one place, leaving the skinned corpses for the mothers to look at. That's just sick, and there's little I wouldn't do to someone who thought that was acceptable.

Evolved
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 01:56 AM
Depends on how cruelty or neglect is defined. While I love animals, I don't believe animal life is equal to human life at all, so I'm not against killing animals for food or clothing (though it should be done as humanely as possible). I'm not against testing chemicals on animals (or on certain humans for that matter). And I don't think a person should be executed for kicking a dog, or not building a good enough dog house for it (an act which is defined by some animal protection agencies as neglect), etc. Deliberate acts of torture against an animal are a clear sign a person is abnormal and criminally inclined, they should at least be sterilized and depending on the magnitude of their crimes either be locked away for a long time or put to death.

Elysium
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 02:10 AM
Depends what's defined as animal cruelty. Some will say pre-serial killer torturing of animals is but others will say killing an animal (for food, resources, etc.) is animal cruelty.

The ones that torture animals should be punished but when you kill them for food there isn't a problem there.

mischak
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 04:19 AM
:rolleyes:
Depends on how cruelty or neglect is defined. While I love animals, I don't believe animal life is equal to human life at all, so I'm not against killing animals for food or clothing (though it should be done as humanely as possible)

My pets lives often surpass most other humans' lives in my eyes. :rolleyes:

Freydis
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 04:34 AM
People need to stop treating animals like children... they are not. I think there's a certain degree of respect needed to deal with the matter and would also agree that excessive, purposeful cruelty towards animals is wrong... I would not say it's cruel to build a poor doghouse for one's dog (unless it was lined with spikes or something..). Dogs have survived thousands of years without little huts to sleep in... outside and in. Maybe my attitudes towards animals are "outdated"...

mischak
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 04:52 AM
People need to stop treating animals like children... they are not. I think there's a certain degree of respect needed to deal with the matter and would also agree that excessive, purposeful cruelty towards animals is wrong... I would not say it's cruel to build a poor doghouse for one's dog (unless it was lined with spikes or something..). Dogs have survived thousands of years without little huts to sleep in... outside and in. Maybe my attitudes towards animals are "outdated"...

Or you can stop telling people how they should care for their pets. Dogs are not wild, they have been domesticated for thousands of years and rely on human help and interaction. As if a dog doesn't feel cold in winter in a shoddy doghouse. No, they don't need frilly beds to sleep in, but guess what, if someone wants to give that to them, it's their choice. There is nothing "wrong" with that, so no "need to stop" it. What there is no need for is criticism for a person extending affection to their pet and having a bond you obviously don't understand.

Deary
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 07:17 AM
Dagna and DanseMacabre have both made good points. In authorizing harsh punishments like the death penalty for animal abusers, we protect ourselves. Any person who shows no mercy for an animal is unlikely to show respect to those around him. In the worst cases, they end up being serial killers, but also rapists and domestic abusers. Justice is not served when these people slide by with only a misdemeanor. Who do you think will come next?

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 10:24 AM
I don't recall you ever mentioning you are vegetarian or vegan... the same methods are used in slaughtering animals.

First of all, humans are naturally omnivores. While vegetarianism is possible under certain conditions, it is not a natural way of life for us.

Second, I would have seriously considered becoming a vegerarian if I wasn't so fond of certain types of meat. Besides that, it's not like my becoming a vegerarian would save a single life in a world where mass production is the standard.

Third, I hope to be able to have my own farm sometime in the future, so I can make sure I know where my food comes from and I can make sure the animals have a decent life and death.


Where is this statistic? As far as I know they kill mostly adult seals. There isn't a lot of skin on baby seals, nor is there a lot of meat.

The younger the animal, the softer the skin. I think that's the reason for getting them young. Anyway, I got my data from here (http://www.gan.ca/campaigns/seal+hunt/factsheets/myths+about+the+seal+hunt.en.html).


Sorry, I had to lol at this. These people who hunt, their families eat seal. A lot of families in the communities that seal hunt eat purely seal as their protein intake.

Far more animals are killed each year than these hunters can actually eat.


Double lol. It's used to sustain communities. Do you want to pay welfare to these people because they have nothing left? These people eat the seals.

There are more humane ways to make a living but killing baby animals with clubs for their fur.


No, mostly bull seals are slaughtered, as I have heard. I can see no reason in slaughtering the pups, it's not economically viable.

In the long run, it definitely isn't economically viable. But people do it anyway, because the short term profit is high. For this same reason, we see the rain forests decline, deserts increasing, fish disappearing, ... People are too greedy and too little interested in the future of this planet.


Do you think everything in life has to be sunshine and roses? Life is brutal, life is ugly, and life is short.

I've seen chickens being slaughtered when I was ten years old. I come from the countryside and know what real life is about. That doesn't mean I should respect the kind of behavior you're defending.


People need to stop treating animals like children... they are not.

They aren't children, but many large mammals have an intelligence and behavioral level equivalent to that of small human children. Pets can be raised and trained in much the same way you do with a human child and their reactions to either a good or bad upbringing are equivalent.


I would not say it's cruel to build a poor doghouse for one's dog (unless it was lined with spikes or something..). Dogs have survived thousands of years without little huts to sleep in... outside and in. Maybe my attitudes towards animals are "outdated"...

Dogs don't need luxury, but they do need space and attention. Dogs are supposed to live on the countryside where they have a lot of space to run around and where they can play with the children. If you can't provide them space and attention, they're bound to get mentally screwed-up.

Evolved
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 02:05 PM
My pets lives often surpass most other humans' lives in my eyes. :rolleyes:

On some level I agree, if my cat were stuck in a burning building with random human a**holes I didn't like, I would probably save my cat first.

But it's important to note that our emotional attachments to pets are not as genuine as they seem, and it is doubtful they are truly reciprocated in the way human-human emotions are. We are motivated by something hard-wired into our brains to care for "cute" animals because their big eyes, tiny faces and helplessness remind us of human infants. People who are not capable of making this innate emotional connection and see a cat or a dog as a object to torture would likely not make a similar connection with a human infant, and so it shows they are abnormal, mentally defective, potential child abusers. It is not a coincidence there are more cases of animal abuse among the low IQ and criminal.

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 02:17 PM
But it's important to note that our emotional attachments to pets are not as genuine as they seem, and it is doubtful they are truly reciprocated in the way human-human emotions are.

It depends on the species. A cat tends to treat its owner more like a servant, while a dog tends to treat its owner like family. For a horse, it's something in between. Nevertheless, one can clearly observe animals showing the same emotions and thinking patterns as small human children in similar situations.

SineNomine
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 03:33 PM
One thing is for sure, I would definitely rescue my cat over nearly any unfamiliar human. I do not like obsequious animals like dogs, but I do not like seeing them being hurt.

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 03:52 PM
One thing is for sure, I would definitely rescue my cat over nearly any unfamiliar human.

If only my colleagues at work had that common sense. They almost killed me for saying more of less the same thing a few days ago. :D


I do not like obsequious animals like dogs, but I do not like seeing them being hurt.

Dogs aren't as obsequious as some people may think. They do have their own character and they do tend to do things they know are not allowed. They're just group animals used to living in a very strict hierarchy, whereas cats are solitary animals with completely different social structures.

SineNomine
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 04:01 PM
If only my colleagues at work had that common sense. They almost killed me for saying more of less the same thing a few days ago. :D
A lot of people find it odd. Probably because they do not think one can develop feelings for an animal as one can for a human.


whereas cats are solitary animals with completely different social structures.
Hence my preference for them. :)

IlluSionSxxx
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007, 04:05 PM
A lot of people find it odd. Probably because they do not think one can develop feelings for an animal as one can for a human.

They're just under the illusion that human life is more important than animal life by default. They'd even prefer saving a Down Syndrom human or a rapist over an innocant pet.


Hence my preference for them. :)

I'm used to both dogs and cats. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages as pets.

Old Winter
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 12:05 PM
As for a vegan i think you can all know what my opinion is.

skyhawk
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 03:48 PM
I have a dog and a cat. I love both . I love the independent nature of cats and their agility. I love the loyalty and social interaction of dogs.

As a sponsor/donator/helper for the RSPCA and subsciber to the Humane Society , not surprisingly , my opinion is that people who are cruel to animals are cowards of the worst order. Sad , wretched individuals.

I think the current sentencing of offenders is woeful ( I think the same with regards to humans too ) and would love to see much longer prison sentences dished out.

I accept the necessary slaughter of animals for human consumption but fear that mass production , profit dependent methods have led to much unneccesary suffering here too.

There is much work to be done , I feel. :( ( We still haven't managed to be humane with eachother yet )

Rhydderch
Saturday, December 1st, 2007, 12:12 PM
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of extremists here.

Animals are not beings. In my view, the reason cruelty to animals should be stopped is for the sake of humans. If one feeds his bloodlust on animals then it will likely lead to worse things; this is bad for him and bad for society.

But to be cruel to fellow humans requires a far worse character. One can certainly have the propensity to enjoy torturing animals but not have the heart to do it to humans.

But let me just say that I think the suggestion that severe penalties (such as death) for cruelty to animals, is absolutely preposterous! Some "greeny" types seem to have far less sympathy for fellow humans than for the beasts; quite perverse really, I mean, it's disturbed people who torture animals, but it's also disturbed people who have ideologies like this.

Just because it might lead to serial murder or something doesn't mean you treat it the same; you don't punish crimes for what they might lead to, but for what they actually are.


I think the current sentencing of offenders is woefulWell I think the harshness of some sentences these days for supposed animal cruelty is atrocious, and reflects a sick society ;) The odd (or perhaps not so odd) thing is, the greenies' view of the value of human life seems to progress downward when their view of the value of animal life goes up. They tend to be the ones most eager for abortion and euthanising the elderly or disabled. It's just perverse.

I believe that, by definition, it's not possible to commit a crime against an animal, but torturing them is just a symptom of a more than usually perverse soul, and anyone is capable of becoming very evil. It's not as if there is a point where you can say, "He's disturbed, he needs to be killed or locked up before he becomes criminal"; there are degrees of it.

skyhawk
Saturday, December 1st, 2007, 02:20 PM
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of extremists here.

Rhydderch , many people ( myself more than any other probably ) seem like extremists from your perspective. We are animal lovers with a great respect for the creatures of nature. I don't see why this is such a problem for you. Live and let live , eh?

Oswiu
Saturday, December 1st, 2007, 05:57 PM
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of extremists here.
Animals are not beings.
Eh? They 'be'!
I find this the most arrogant and absurd way of thinking. I used to have lots of arguments with my Catholic Grandmother on this point.

But to be cruel to fellow humans requires a far worse character. One can certainly have the propensity to enjoy torturing animals but not have the heart to do it to humans.
So people can happily do horrendous things to a dog, with it looking at them through its very similar to human eyes, and yet still be very kind and loving of humans? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

Just because it might lead to serial murder or something doesn't mean you treat it the same; you don't punish crimes for what they might lead to, but for what they actually are.
That can be a topic for debate. When we're on the low swing of the Law and Order cycle, maybe such an attitude has its place.

I believe that, by definition, it's not possible to commit a crime against an animal, but torturing them is just a symptom of a more than usually perverse soul, and anyone is capable of becoming very evil.
A crime is merely something that is recognised as unacceptable, and thus punishable, by a society. How does animal cruelty not qualify. Fraud or tax evasion is a crime, but doesn't actually cause any pain to a human being.

Brynhild
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 09:30 AM
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of extremists here.

Animals are not beings.


No? My then 8 week-old pup forewarned us when she knew my year-old daughter was ready to walk down to a creek at a holiday house we were staying at. We lost sight of our child only for a moment, as we were packing the car to go home. First time we heard her bark, so we knew something was up!

If animals aren't beings, how the hell do they know to react in situations that save people's lives?

Our dog is still with us 12 years later, as is my daughter. I have a lot to thank our pooch for. I have read a lot of dribble on this forum, but I've gotta confess, this one surely takes the cake!! :mad:

Cythraul
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 12:35 PM
I'm genuinely surprised at the number of extremists here.

Animals are not beings. In my view, the reason cruelty to animals should be stopped is for the sake of humans.
Anthropocentism like this is one of the biggest problems I have with the Church. Your views are very Christian and I mean no offence Rhydderch, because I usually enjoy your contributions on The Althing.

Dagna
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 12:51 PM
What??? Being is the state or quality of having existence. Animals exist and they feel pain just like us. Yes I am in favor of abortion or euthanasia. I am in favor of putting animals to sleep when they are sick too, not just humans. I believe there's a huge difference between euthanasia and animal cruelty!
It's perverse to let these cruel sickos run free in our communities and have them turn into serial killers. Have you ever heard of a serial killer who liked animals? I believe I haven't. The death penalty is the only solution for such sick minds. No mercy.

Freydis
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 03:47 PM
I don't see why the death penalty is necessary still. What exactly are the parameters for this sentencing?

Dagna
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007, 03:49 PM
I don't see why the death penalty is necessary still. What exactly are the parameters for this sentencing?
I believe the death penalty is necessary because the people who torture animals are cruel and vicious. Why should we spare their lives is the real question.

Rhydderch
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 02:56 AM
Rhydderch , many people ( myself more than any other probably ) seem like extremists from your perspective. We are animal lovers with a great respect for the creatures of nature.It's not a fondness for animals in itself that I find extreme (I'm quite fond of them myself, in fact), but the fact that people wish to put them on a level with humans, and attribute fully human feelings to them. I must say it's perfectly understandable to think of them too much in that way, but it's extremism when they really act out on it, and treat it as if it's the absolute truth.


I don't see why this is such a problem for you. Live and let live , eh?I'd be prepared to if it weren't an issue which affects others. The greenies wan't to force their ideology on everybody, and it's not just sadism they want to punish people for, but often for what basically amounts to failing to treat animals like humans. It's perverse and unrealistic.

When it comes to promoting certain punishments for animal cruelty, it's an issue which affects everybody.


Eh? They 'be'!So do houses. Are houses "beings"?

By a "being" I mean something that has an existence beyond the material; in other words a soul/spirit. A spirit is a "consciousness" if you know what I mean.

Perhaps I could express it as, Animals do not have an existence of their own.


I find this the most arrogant and absurd way of thinking.It's only such if it's untrue, or if there is no reason to believe it's true.


So people can happily do horrendous things to a dog, with it looking at them through its very similar to human eyes, and yet still be very kind and loving of humans?I don't know, but that's not what I said. I think that if someone gets a kick out of hurting an animal it's because there is a similarity with humans. But because it's not human, and he still sees it as a beast, it would not trouble his conscience as much. The more human-like an animal seems, the worse one has to be to enjoy seeing it suffer.


A crime is merely something that is recognised as unacceptable, and thus punishable, by a society. How does animal cruelty not qualify. Fraud or tax evasion is a crime, but doesn't actually cause any pain to a human being.I'm not saying it isn't a crime, but that it isn't a crime against the animal, and like I said, I believe there is no such thing.

I would actually say it's a crime against God though, ultimately.


No? My then 8 week-old pup forewarned us when she knew my year-old daughter was ready to walk down to a creek at a holiday house we were staying at. We lost sight of our child only for a moment, as we were packing the car to go home. First time we heard her bark, so we knew something was up!

If animals aren't beings, how the hell do they know to react in situations that save people's lives?I'm puzzled as to why you think this indicates they're beings.

Or are you saying that the dog had some kind of supernatural insight or instinct?

Brynhild
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 03:07 AM
I'm puzzled as to why you think this indicates they're beings.

Or are you saying that the dog had some kind of supernatural insight or instinct?

Feel free to puzzle over it all you like, Rhydderch. The sad fact of this matter is, if you had to ask in the first place, then you don't have a clue. Therefore, if you don't have a clue, then I'm not going to tell you!

Rhydderch
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 04:17 AM
Feel free to puzzle over it all you like, Rhydderch. The sad fact of this matter is, if you had to ask in the first place, then you don't have a clue. Therefore, if you don't have a clue, then I'm not going to tell you!Hehe, well if I don't know that's all the more reason to tell me isn't it? Why would you tell me if I already knew? :D

I don't consider the "supernatural knowledge" suggestion unreasonable, by the way, although I don't think it's an indication of the dog itself having a supernatural existence. But at the same time I wouldn't find it puzzling that you might see it as indication of that.

That's not what I was "puzzling over".

Brynhild
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 10:49 AM
Hehe, well if I don't know that's all the more reason to tell me isn't it? Why would you tell me if I already knew? :D

I don't consider the "supernatural knowledge" suggestion unreasonable, by the way, although I don't think it's an indication of the dog itself having a supernatural existence. But at the same time I wouldn't find it puzzling that you might see it as indication of that.

That's not what I was "puzzling over".

Well, it's probably because you provided the answer already! I never suggested anything about the supernatural or otherwise, you did. Time and time again, you play your petty mind games, making suggestions to the contrary to what people have actually said to you and constantly taking everything out of context. And if that isn't enough, everyone is stupid or foolish, simply because they don't share your view.

You need to climb down from your ivory tower, King Rhydderch. Start looking at the world for what it really is. You are, after all, just a small fish in a big pond!

Oswiu
Monday, December 3rd, 2007, 05:28 PM
It's not a fondness for animals in itself that I find extreme (I'm quite fond of them myself, in fact), but the fact that people wish to put them on a level with humans, and attribute fully human feelings to them. I must say it's perfectly understandable to think of them too much in that way, but it's extremism when they really act out on it, and treat it as if it's the absolute truth.
We can't argue on this, can we? You put humans up on a pedestal, and don't put animals on lower ones, like I would, but completely deny them a pedestal at all. You're looking at them as qualitatively different, whereas I'd just look at it as a quantitative matter. There's nothing I can see in humans that I don't see in the animal kingdom to some lesser or greater degree.

So do houses. Are houses "beings"?
Be as LIVE. :mad:

By a "being" I mean something that has an existence beyond the material; in other words a soul/spirit. A spirit is a "consciousness" if you know what I mean.
I've never really felt my own soul. I doubt I'd even have thought of the concept if I hadn't been hearing about it all my life.
Is soul consciousness? I think my dog is as conscious as I am. She can't conceptualise it as well, but she seems to feel it. She misses me when I'm away, and gets angry when she doesn't get her own way. There is a little Wille zu Macht in there! :D
I'm not convinced that my own existence is beyond material at all. Material factors alter it - alcohol, starvation, age. You can see consciousness develop in a baby, and decay in an old man. It's not something apart. To me!

Perhaps I could express it as, Animals do not have an existence of their own.
It amazes me that you can think that. You probably have spent as much time with dogs and horses as I have, and yet you don't get it. It puzzles me. The only way I can explain it to myself is that you see the world through this very strange (to me) Christian filter, that colours all your perceptions. I was brought up outside of this religion, but not especially dismissive of it, and I don't find such attitudes natural at all, there's nothing 'from first principles' in them for me. So they baffle me. :(

The more human-like an animal seems, the worse one has to be to enjoy seeing it suffer.
Conversely, the less human, the more ok it is to torture it? To pull the legs of insects, or do something horrible to worms or whatever still ranks in my moral sensibilities as something highly repugnant.
I'm obviously not going to execute anyone for it, but it's the same sick tendency that could expand up the 'Chain of Being'. Not a modern phrase, by the way, nor especially atheistical.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Well, it's probably because you provided the answer already! I never suggested anything about the supernatural or otherwise, you did. Time and time again, you play your petty mind games, making suggestions to the contrary to what people have actually said to you and constantly taking everything out of context.OK, I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. So what exactly are you saying?

Why does a dog knowing that a child shouldn't run away mean the former is a being?


And if that isn't enough, everyone is stupid or foolish, simply because they don't share your view.Depends which view.


You need to climb down from your ivory tower, King Rhydderch. Start looking at the world for what it really is. You are, after all, just a small fish in a big pond!Oh, away with this philosophical ranting! ;)

Brynhild
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 02:46 AM
OK, I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. So what exactly are you saying?

Why does a dog knowing that a child shouldn't run away mean the former is a being?

Depends which view.

Oh, away with this philosophical ranting! ;)

Is this really the best you can do? LOL

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 03:05 AM
Is this really the best you can do?What, you think I should have said more do you?

At least I did better than you :D

Brynhild
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 03:07 AM
What, you think I should have said more do you?

At least I did better than you :D

Did you indeed? Your vanity and conceit knows no bounds. You really are a dry argument!

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:04 AM
Did you indeed?Yeah, you failed to answer the question.


Your vanity and conceit knows no bounds.Does it?


You really are a dry argument!Am I?



Sorry, that might be the best I can do :D

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:15 AM
By a "being" I mean something that has an existence beyond the material; in other words a soul/spirit. A spirit is a "consciousness" if you know what I mean.
I believe you should prove this theory so please prove that
- such thing as a soul/spirit exists
- humans have a soul/spirit
- animals don't have a soul/spirit

Thank you.

The Lawspeaker
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:18 AM
I believe the death penalty should be the punishment for animal cruelty. People who are cruel to animals are mentally twisted and they pose as much a danger to our communities as serial killers.
Agreed... it is most of the time the first warning sign that a person is dangerous.
These people deserve to be locked up for life... far removed from society.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:21 AM
Agreed... it is most of the time the first warning sign that a person is dangerous.
These people deserve to be locked up for life... far removed from society.
I agree, but I still believe the death penalty is the only way to remove them from society. Prisoners can still be among prisoners, prison staff and they can receive visits. Prisoners can torture the rats or bugs in their cells if they find any. Therefore they still are part of a (small) society.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:07 AM
There's nothing I can see in humans that I don't see in the animal kingdom to some lesser or greater degree.You can't see the kind of concept I'm referring to. You might see equivalent behaviour in animals as in humans, but both have quite a physical similarity, with all the functions of the brain etc. However this doesn't mean a human and animal are both "selves" (I know that sounds silly, but I can't think of a better word).


Be as LIVE. :mad:What about trees then? :D


I've never really felt my own soul.But you are your own soul.


I doubt I'd even have thought of the concept if I hadn't been hearing about it all my life.You'd be no less aware of the reality of it.


Is soul consciousness?Basically, yes. It's the self, or perhaps I could say "conscious self".


I think my dog is as conscious as I am. She can't conceptualise it as well, but she seems to feel it. She misses me when I'm away, and gets angry when she doesn't get her own way. There is a little Wille zu Macht in there! :D
I'm not convinced that my own existence is beyond material at all. Material factors alter it - alcohol, starvation, age. You can see consciousness develop in a baby, and decay in an old man. It's not something apart. To me!As I said, I don't think it's really something you can see. How do we know that consciousness "develops" in a baby, for example? I don't think we should necessarily expect to know simply by observing them. I'm inclined to think that babies are more aware than we tend to give them credit for. They just can't express themselves, and don't understand English or any other adult language :)

We don't remember being babies (well I don't anyway), but that probably has more to do with inadequate use of memory as a baby.


It amazes me that you can think that. You probably have spent as much time with dogs and horses as I have, and yet you don't get it. It puzzles me. The only way I can explain it to myself is that you see the world through this very strange (to me) Christian filter, that colours all your perceptions. I was brought up outside of this religion, but not especially dismissive of it, and I don't find such attitudes natural at all, there's nothing 'from first principles' in them for me. So they baffle me. :(Well, it's impossible not to have some kind of filter, some kind of assumption on which to base one's interpretation of data. In your case it's some non-Christian filter, but I don't think one is inherently more natural (in the sense of being a reflex attitude) than the other.


Conversely, the less human, the more ok it is to torture it?I wouldn't put it like that.


To pull the legs of insects, or do something horrible to worms or whatever still ranks in my moral sensibilities as something highly repugnant.But not as repugnant as doing it to a dog or cat, surely?


I'm obviously not going to execute anyone for it, but it's the same sick tendency that could expand up the 'Chain of Being'.Everyone has a perverse tendency in them, which could expand to an excessive degree. Like you were saying about animals and humans, I think it's a matter of quantity, not quality. People who like to cause suffering in creatures don't have a fundamentally different mindset, their perverseness is just stronger than other people's.


I believe you should prove this theory so please prove that
- such thing as a soul/spirit exists
- humans have a soul/spirit
- animals don't have a soul/spiritWhat would you accept as proof?

sophia
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 11:24 AM
There is something Humans have that - at least some animals don't have (I would say even some mammals don't have - although there are animals I suspect do have it some of the time, and sometimes I wonder if all humans do have it). Unfortunately describing that thing is quite hard.
I don't know if anyone has read Ludwig Klages Geist and Seele - but that goes into some detail on the matter (he calls it Geist, and its not just like the spirit in the most common sense of the term - he also sees it as a bad thing, which is arguable but I am not personally convinced).

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 11:30 AM
What would you accept as proof?
I believe it is provable in scientific terms that to live we need a beating heart. The same way you should prove that there is a soul/spirit inside us and that it doesn't exist inside animals. Something that would be accepted as proof in a court of law.

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 11:42 AM
What would you accept as proof?

I don't think a person like Dagna is open to any rational arguments, especially when trying to prove something that goes beyond the mere rational. She appears to be much too closeminded from that, based on numerous experiences with her.

Further, I have to add that I don't think you can prove the existence of a soul within our current understanding of science. Modern science doesn't contradict nor confirm the existence of a soul, but humanists seem to interpret the lack of evidence for a soul as evidence for the lack of a soul... which is absurd, of course. But if there is a soul, there is no rational reason to believe that animals do not have it.

Whether animals do or do not have a soul, should be irrelevant in this discussion, though. Also irrelevant should be the attitude of people who torture animals towards humans. Many animal species are individuals with primitive sentient capacities who deserve to be treated with the same respect for life we have for humans. Whether they have a soul or whether animal torturers might treat other humans bad should not play a role in one's judgement on animal cruelty.

sophia
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Whether animals do or do not have a soul, should be irrelevant in this discussion, though. Also irrelevant should be the attitude of people who torture animals towards humans. Many animal species are individuals with primitive sentient capacities who deserve to be treated with the same respect for life we have for humans. Whether they have a soul or whether animal torturers might treat other humans bad should not play a role in one's judgement on animal cruelty.Indeed. I remember very clearly reading when I was about 8 or 9 something (and I don't remember who said it) which said "what is important is not whether animals can think or have a soul, but whether they can feel".

IlluSionSxxx
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 12:40 PM
Indeed. I remember very clearly reading when I was about 8 or 9 something (and I don't remember who said it) which said "what is important is not whether animals can think or have a soul, but whether they can feel".

... and animals do feel. Advanced mammals (dogs, cats, horses, ...) feel pleasure, pain and a various range of emotions of the complexity of those of a small human child. We are we to treat them as inferior just because they can't philosophise, write a novel or invent the wheel? 95% of all humans can't do any of those things either ;)

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 03:43 PM
I believe the death penalty is necessary because the people who torture animals are cruel and vicious. Why should we spare their lives is the real question.

Sorry I haven't responded to this. You didn't really answer my question very clearly...

Why should we spare anyone's life? People have been cruel and vicious towards me with no punishment. Do you think abusive partners (be it men or women) should be executed? What about children who burn ants with glass? How about people who insult others needlessly?


... and animals do feel. Advanced mammals (dogs, cats, horses, ...) feel pleasure, pain and a various range of emotions of the complexity of those of a small human child. We are we to treat them as inferior just because they can't philosophise, write a novel or invent the wheel? 95% of all humans can't do any of those things either ;)

Plants feel pain too. Insects feel. Most things do feel. So are we to treat everything on the same level as us?

I didn't go to school so a dog could have more rights than I do.

Cythraul
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Animals do feel, and they do have a soul like every living thing on this planet. To forsake the well-being of our animal companions on this planet is to shoot outselves in the foot. A disrespect for animals (pets, livestock, sea-life and any other kind) is a disrespect for the universal life we are a part of.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 03:47 PM
Sorry I haven't responded to this. You didn't really answer my question very clearly...

Why should we spare anyone's life?
I believe we should because some people's lives are worth more than others and because we need to keep our communities free from serious threats.

People have been cruel and vicious towards me with no punishment. Do you think abusive partners (be it men or women) should be executed?
Definitely, I believe they should be executed if the abuse consists of physical violence.

What about children who burn ants with glass?
Children are still in the process of growth. I believe only adults should be executed.

How about people who insult others needlessly?
No, I believe verbal violence should not be a capital crime.

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:03 PM
I believe we should because some people's lives are worth more than others and because we need to keep our communities free from serious threats.

How are animals' lives worth more than people?


Definitely, I believe they should be executed if the abuse consists of physical violence.

Would you execute the one you love because he hit you?

What if you slapped someone in anger? Do you believe that you should then be executed?


Children are still in the process of growth. I believe only adults should be executed.

Sorry, that's a double standard. Children are capable of incredible cruelty.


No, I believe verbal violence should not be a capital crime.

What it if drives the person to suicide?

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:19 PM
How are animals' lives worth more than people?
They aren't. The lives of people who commit no crimes are more worth than the lives of criminals.

Would you execute the one you love because he hit you?
I believe if he did this on a regular basis I'd be happy to push the button myself.

What if you slapped someone in anger? Do you believe that you should then be executed?
No, I am not talking about one-time mistakes. If I inflicted physical violence on them on a regular basis then yes, I believe I would deserve to be executed.

Sorry, that's a double standard. Children are capable of incredible cruelty.
Children can still be educated and they are less responsible than adults. It's not a double standard that people can vote only once they reach adult age. By the way children are not allowed to be executed legally as the current system is.

What it if drives the person to suicide?
I believe that if you kill yourself it is your own responsibility.

skyhawk
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:28 PM
Whether animals do or do not have a soul, should be irrelevant in this discussion, though. Also irrelevant should be the attitude of people who torture animals towards humans. Many animal species are individuals with primitive sentient capacities who deserve to be treated with the same respect for life we have for humans. Whether they have a soul or whether animal torturers might treat other humans bad should not play a role in one's judgement on animal cruelty.

I am in total agreement with the above statement.

Animal cruelty is indeed a direspect for life, imho.

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 04:47 PM
They aren't. The lives of people who commit no crimes are more worth than the lives of criminals.

But I don't see why execution is an answer?


I believe if he did this on a regular basis I'd be happy to push the button myself.

You don't understand, then, the dynamics of an abusive relationship. It is not so easy to do so. I said "love".


No, I am not talking about one-time mistakes. If I inflicted physical violence on them on a regular basis then yes, I believe I would deserve to be executed.

Why?


Children can still be educated

So can adults.


and they are less responsible than adults. It's not a double standard that people can vote only once they reach adult age.

What exactly is the adult age? Once someone goes through puberty they can reproduce (early to mid teens). That's adulthood enough, isn't it? I was so annoyed through my teenage years when I could not vote. I thought it was unfair.

There is nothing a child hates more than being told that they cannot make good decisions. Especially if they are over the age of 12 or 13.


By the way children are not allowed to be executed legally as the current system is.

You didn't think I was aware of it?

I live in a country where we don't execute any people and we have less problems.


I believe that if you kill yourself it is your own responsibility.

Again, in this, you lack understanding. It's the causes of suicide... not the actual act of it that are other people.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:04 PM
But I don't see why execution is an answer?
Because theya re dangerous and a threat to our communities. If we keep them alive we risk too much. If we execute them, there is no loss.

You don't understand, then, the dynamics of an abusive relationship. It is not so easy to do so. I said "love".
I had relationships when you were a baby girl. I understand love better than you think, I believe love should not come in the way of justice. We must be objective.

Why?
Because I forfeit my right to live by destroying the life of another.

So can adults.
Perhaps some, but children are easier to educate. There is a reason why school does not start at 21 years.

What exactly is the adult age? Once someone goes through puberty they can reproduce (early to mid teens). That's adulthood enough, isn't it? I was so annoyed through my teenage years when I could not vote. I thought it was unfair.

There is nothing a child hates more than being told that they cannot make good decisions. Especially if they are over the age of 12 or 13.
18/21 years of age, as in most countries. They hate it because the truth hurts. If they were capable of making decisions at such a young age then most countries wouldn't use the 18/21 rule.

You didn't think I was aware of it?
I don't know, I was trying to make a point that it is not just my opinion, that it is a widely accepted concept.

I live in a country where we don't execute any people and we have less problems.
And I live in a country with dangerous psychos. I ask you too, like the others who believe there are other solutions, what should we do with vicious killers like Charles Albright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Albright), Jeffrey Dahmer (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FJeffrey_Dahmer) or Charles Manson (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FCharles_Manson)? These serial killers almost always start by teasing and torturing animals.

As a child, serial killer and rapist Ted Bundy—ultimately convicted of two killings but suspected of murdering more than 40 women—witnessed his father’s violence toward animals, and he himself subsequently tortured animals.

Earl Kenneth Shriner, who raped and stabbed a 7-year-old boy, was known in his neighborhood for hanging cats and torturing dogs.

David Berkowitz (a.k.a. “Son of Sam”), who pleaded guilty to 13 murder and attempted murder charges, shot a neighbor’s Labrador retriever.

Brenda Spencer, who opened fire at a California school, killing two children and injuring nine others, had repeatedly abused cats and dogs, often setting their tails on fire.

Serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer impaled the heads of dogs and cats on sticks.


http://thebosun.wordpress.com/2006/08/01/serial-killers-and-animal-abuse/

I know... I believe perhaps we should ship them all to Canada so that you can house them. Or perhaps we should let them babysit your pets. Perhaps then you will understand why we Americans favor capital punishment.

Again, in this, you lack understanding. It's the causes of suicide... not the actual act of it that are other people.
I believe that if you suffer from an inferiority complex and someone keeps telling you you are ugly and you kill yourself, it is your fault, not theirs. You kill yourself. You could have chosen not to, you could have chosen to ignore them or pay them back somehow, but you chose to kill yourself. You are guilty of your own death. The cause of suicide is your own lack of self esteem.

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Because they are dangerous and a threat to our communities. If we keep them alive we risk too much. If we execute them, there is no loss.

I guess eventually they'll say this about farmers too. They kill animals! My god! So cruel!


I had relationships when you were a baby girl. I understand love better than you think, I believe love should not come in the way of justice. We must be objective.

I am 18. Don't patronise me.


Because I forfeit my right to live by destroying the life of another.

Destroying.. hum.. so mentally destroying someone too?


Perhaps some, but children are easier to educate. There is a reason why school does not start at 21 years.

There's a reason that we have doctors in school when they're adults.


18/21 years of age, as in most countries. They hate it because the truth hurts. If they were capable of making decisions at such a young age then most countries wouldn't use the 18/21 rule.

The truth hurts? Well if we're not capable of making decisions, why do some countries allow those under 18 to consume alcohol? Surely that's an adult decision.

Maybe you should be more accepting of those younger than you. Age has nothing to do with intelligence. I know some incredibly stupid people who are far older than me, as well as some incredibly intelligent people who are younger than me. I sure as hel would prefer the intelligent ones to vote.


And I live in a country with dangerous psychos.

Well what are the causes of this?


I ask you too, like the others who believe there are other solutions, what should we do with vicious killers like *snip*

Life imprisonment.


I know... I believe perhaps we should ship them all to Canada so that you can house them. Or perhaps we should let them babysit your pets. Perhaps then you will understand why we Americans favor capital punishment.

What about vicious killers such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woodcock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_Crawford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Fyfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Johnson_%28serial_killer%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Paul_Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Legere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wayne_McGray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson

Oh and can't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton

They're all Canadian. Less than what would be in America, but remember America has 10 times the population. And guess what, they're imprisoned and I don't see any problem with it. ^^


I believe that if you suffer from an inferiority complex and someone keeps telling you you are ugly and you kill yourself, it is your fault, not theirs. You kill yourself. You could have chosen not to, you could have chosen to ignore them or pay them back somehow, but you chose to kill yourself. You are guilty of your own death. The cause of suicide is your own lack of self esteem.

Get off of your high horse.

edit: If it is unclear to anyone, I don't advocate animal cruelty. I just advocate common sense.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:35 PM
I guess eventually they'll say this about farmers too. They kill animals! My god! So cruel!
Killing animals for food is a different thing. I believe you should read my earlier posts, I am not an advocate of equality of human and animal life.

I am 18. Don't patronise me
You patronised me about relationships. It is a simple truth, I have experience with relationships and love for a long time so I do know what it is.

Destroying.. hum.. so mentally destroying someone too?
I believe it is harder to destroy someone mentally than physically. Would you rather someone called you ugly every day or that they amputated one of your hands?

There's a reason that we have doctors in school when they're adults.
?

The truth hurts? Well if we're not capable of making decisions, why do some countries allow those under 18 to consume alcohol? Surely that's an adult decision.
Some countries are the exceptions to the rule. 16 is the youngest age at which someone can consume alcohol. Not 12 or 14.

Maybe you should be more accepting of those younger than you. Age has nothing to do with intelligence. I know some incredibly stupid people who are far older than me, as well as some incredibly intelligent people who are younger than me. I sure as hel would prefer the intelligent ones to vote.
But reality does not correspond with your preference. I accept those who are younger than me as long as they do not lecture me about life experience, which I have more since I have been in this world longer.

Well what are the causes of this?
That we are not tough enough when it comes to the law.

Life imprisonment.
Why? What is it about them that grants them the right to live? Why should they live in prison for life and waste our tax money?

What about vicious killers such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woodcock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Boden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Martin_Crawford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Fyfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Johnson_%28serial_killer%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Paul_Jordan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Legere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wayne_McGray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Olson

Oh and can't forget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton

They're all Canadian. Less than what would be in America, but remember America has 10 times the population. And guess what, they're imprisoned and I don't see any problem with it. ^^
You would still have no problem with them if they were able to escape or if they started committing crimes again? Would you house them at your place? I would prefer they were executed in my community because they do nothing to serve it.

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Killing animals for food is a different thing. I believe you should read my earlier posts, I am not an advocate of equality of human and animal life.

You're just an advocate to execute someone who commits any sort of violence... but it seems you just cared more about animals than people ^^.


You patronised me about relationships. It is a simple truth, I have experience with relationships and love for a long time so I do know what it is.

I was talking about abusive relationships.


I believe it is harder to destroy someone mentally than physically. Would you rather someone called you ugly every day or that they amputated one of your hands?

I'd rather have my hand amputated then suffer mental abuse again. Like I said before, it isn't just calling someone ugly. It's someone or more than one person constantly beating one down mentally until one feels like one is utterly worthless. It's slow and painful.


?

There's a reason why med school starts after university.


Some countries are the exceptions to the rule. 16 is the youngest age at which someone can consume alcohol. Not 12 or 14.

Many countries don't have a rule or it is completely disregarded. I know when I was in the UK when I was around 11 or so, I had some alcohol. *shrug* Rules are broken often.


But reality does not correspond with your preference. I accept those who are younger than me as long as they do not lecture me about life experience, which I have more since I have been in this world longer.

You haven't experienced everything.

You're not my mother, you can't tell me what to do. ^^

Being older doesn't give you the right to assume that the young know less.


That we are not tough enough when it comes to the law.

I don't see how murdering someone for murder is just.


Why? What is it about them that grants them the right to live? Why should they live in prison for life and waste our tax money?

They can be used in other manners in prison.

Every single living thing has a right to live. We've already said this in the thread.

They'll die eventually.


You would still have no problem with them if they were able to escape or if they started committing crimes again? Would you house them at your place? I would prefer they were executed in my community because they do nothing to serve it.

Karla Homolka was released and she has not been heard from again. She even has had a child with her new husband and it has not been reviewed.

I would prefer that criminals be reformed than be murdered.

Dagna
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 05:57 PM
You're just an advocate to execute someone who commits any sort of violence... but it seems you just cared more about animals than people ^^.
I don't believe I have ever written that anyone who commiys any sort of violence should be executed. On the contrary.

I was talking about abusive relationships.
So was I. When someone abuses you, the love is not the same.

I'd rather have my hand amputated then suffer mental abuse again. Like I said before, it isn't just calling someone ugly. It's someone or more than one person constantly beating one down mentally until one feels like one is utterly worthless. It's slow and painful.
Yes, that is what you say now. But if you had someone with a knife holding your hand would you change your mind? We will never know.

You haven't experienced everything.
I have, and you saying I haven't just proves your ignorance.

You're not my mother, you can't tell me what to do. ^^
I am not your mother and I did not tell you what to do. I do not care what you do with your life. I am writing my opinion on animal cruelty and its punishment.

Being older doesn't give you the right to assume that the young know less.
I don't believe it is a matter of right... it is a matter of logic. I am 29. I started having serious relationships at 18. Unless you started having serious relationships at 7, and at 7 years of age you cannot possibly have everything a relationship involves anyway, you do not have more experience than I do.

I don't see how murdering someone for murder is just.
Murder is unlawful. Capital punishment is lawful, therefore it is not murder.

They can be used in other manners in prison.
Examples?

Every single living thing has a right to live. We've already said this in the thread.

They'll die eventually.
Since they will die eventually anyway why should we waste our money to keep them in prison until it happens?

If every single living has the right to live, why do we eat animals and plants?

Karla Homolka was released and she has not been heard from again. She even has had a child with her new husband and it has not been reviewed.

I would prefer that criminals be reformed than be murdered.
Has she been of any benefit to the community? Besides, she is only a small case.

Freydis
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 08:37 PM
I don't believe I have ever written that anyone who commiys any sort of violence should be executed. On the contrary.

You basically want people who commit physical violence executed.


So was I. When someone abuses you, the love is not the same.

But one can't just leave them.


Yes, that is what you say now. But if you had someone with a knife holding your hand would you change your mind? We will never know.

Go and get the knife then. How about at Union Station around 21h?


I have, and you saying I haven't just proves your ignorance.

Like I said, get off your highhorse. It is impossible to have experienced every possibility in one human lifespan.


I am not your mother and I did not tell you what to do.

You said not to lecture you ^^


I do not care what you do with your life. I am writing my opinion on animal cruelty and its punishment.

And I'm responding.


I don't believe it is a matter of right... it is a matter of logic. I am 29. I started having serious relationships at 18. Unless you started having serious relationships at 7, and at 7 years of age you cannot possibly have everything a relationship involves anyway, you do not have more experience than I do.

I have several varied experiences from the age of around 14 on which I don't feel like talking about.

So I've had about half of your experience in time with the matter... but how much variation?

You realise that I didn't just magically leap from 7 to 18 right?

But this is really offtopic. I will stop.


Murder is unlawful. Capital punishment is lawful, therefore it is not murder.

What is law? Law is based upon the state which is an entity based on its monopoly of force. A state by definition is violent. ;)

Lawful murder is no different than murder. What about genocide? It's performed under the laws of the time in some cases. Is that lawful?


Examples?

If you want to punish them so much, send them to the gulag to work. A good book describing life in a gulag is "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn.


Since they will die eventually anyway why should we waste our money to keep them in prison until it happens?

Because we don't need blood on our hands.


If every single living has the right to live, why do we eat animals and plants?

We don't necessarily have to eat animals. Plus harvesting a plant, for the most part, does not kill it.

I eat animals and plants because I'm a psychopathic murderer, obviously. :rolleyes:


Has she been of any benefit to the community? Besides, she is only a small case.

One of the most notorious serial killers in Canadian history is a "small case"? o_O

Renwein
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007, 10:09 PM
For what it's worth, I would rather live in a society of seal clubbers that cared for one another than one to which's members their 'pets lives often surpass most other humans' lives'. It's especially sad coming from people who are supposed to value their human kinships i.e., nationalists/ethnic preservationists (sometimes I wonder if they actually are these, or just moaning internet misanthropes) that they would sooner pull their pet from a fire than a stranger... (which could be me... or anyone else here, if they chanced across such an event IRL) :(. Surely these comments reflect a flaw in society... (& I would give preference to rescuing a human no matter where they came from). Worse still is that i) a large number people in this thread seem to think like this and ii) they are proud of it!!

So I don't expect anyone to appreciate my comments but crazy animal rights people make me queasy, not because I like or want to defend animal cruelty, but because they make statements such as saving their cat rather than a human is 'common sense' (WTF!) or scornfully insist people are mistaken when they say that a 'human life is by default more important than an animals'. (even funnier that these comments were made by a so-called 'NS', lmao!!) If someone would rather save their pet than a human who is regarded and known to be despicable, I can understand that, but that shouldn't be the default position, but the exception. ;)

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 02:55 AM
I believe it is provable in scientific terms that to live we need a beating heart.OK, well that's physical evidence for a physical thing, how about spiritual evidence for a spiritual thing?


The same way you should prove that there is a soul/spirit inside us and that it doesn't exist inside animals.Perhaps, but someone who disagrees also should prove that both humans and animals have a soul, or that neither do.


Something that would be accepted as proof in a court of law.Yes, but, such as what?

Brynhild
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 04:08 AM
Back to the topic at hand.............

People do deserve to be convicted for a heinous crime, and I believe that includes cruelty to animals. We can't generalise that people who are cruel to animals are going to become serial killers, because that isn't always the case. People are cruel, but when they're children, they don't fully understand the concept of cruelty, until they have to face a consequential situation. Once a consequence is laid out for the child to see, he/she then has to make that decision - will they, or won't they behave that way again? Most people learn from their cruel deeds (whatever they are) and strive to be better people for it. There are, unfortuanately, those who either don't know or don't care what they do, and they are the ones to worry about.

As for the punishment befitting the crime, what is that exactly? While I'm all for capital punishment when a particularly heinous crime is proven and the felon rightfully convicted, I am cautious in its use. Many people have been wrongfully convicted, and pardoned after an execution. So, first of all, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed this crime.

I want harsher penalties enforced on those that commit horrible crimes to animals. But then again, I am an animal lover who believes that they are beings, able to love their owners, they feel pain and suffer, just like humans do. The only difference between humans and animals is that humans are meant to think in a more complex way, while animals live solely on instinct and their basic needs for survival. However, that doesn't make them any less deserving of our love and care. Even those animals who are slaughtered for our intake of meat and protein should be given consideration and thanked. After all, they are our food source!

I'm probably just a nutter who loves animals more than I do a lot of humans. At least with my pets, I know where I stand with them, as they do with me. They are so easy-going, free from any egotistical ideology that is the common frailty in all humans. And they're good fun to be with too! :D

Heil
Jenni

Dagna
Wednesday, December 5th, 2007, 02:11 PM
You basically want people who commit physical violence executed.
Indeed, if the physical violence is regular and/or heinous.

But one can't just leave them.
Yes, one can leave them and it is for the best. If they do not leave them and continue to accept an abusive relationship they have themselves to blame.

Go and get the knife then. How about at Union Station around 21h?
I do not commit any physical violence.

Like I said, get off your highhorse. It is impossible to have experienced every possibility in one human lifespan.
I don't believe I claimed such.

You said not to lecture you ^^
No I said,

I accept those who are younger than me as long as they do not lecture me about life experience, which I have more since I have been in this world longer.

Perhaps you are accustomed to others telling you what to do and interpret everything as such?

So I've had about half of your experience in time with the matter... but how much variation?
I have had time and variation.

You realise that I didn't just magically leap from 7 to 18 right?
I did not claim you did.

What is law? Law is based upon the state which is an entity based on its monopoly of force. A state by definition is violent. ;)

Lawful murder is no different than murder. What about genocide? It's performed under the laws of the time in some cases. Is that lawful?
I believe genocide is different, it is killing innocents en masse. The people who receive the death penalty are not innocent.

If you want to punish them so much, send them to the gulag to work. A good book describing life in a gulag is "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn.
I am more concerned with removing the threats from our communities. The only definite removal is through the death penalty.

Because we don't need blood on our hands.
Sometimes it is necessary to enforce the death penalty. Morals are of no use if we sympathize with the murderers.

We don't necessarily have to eat animals.
Prove it? I believe meat is necessary to the diets of most people.

Plus harvesting a plant, for the most part, does not kill it.
What about when we cut trees?

I eat animals and plants because I'm a psychopathic murderer, obviously. :rolleyes:
No. There is nothing wrong with eating animals and plants.

One of the most notorious serial killers in Canadian history is a "small case"? o_O
She is but one, that is what I meant.


OK, well that's physical evidence for a physical thing, how about spiritual evidence for a spiritual thing?
Such as?

Perhaps, but someone who disagrees also should prove that both humans and animals have a soul, or that neither do.
If something exists you need to prove it. If it doesn't exist it needs no proof. I believe there is none and no serious law would base itself on such claims. Therefore the burden of proof lays on you.

Yes, but, such as what?
I don't know, I am not the one who is saying humans have a soul.

Rhydderch
Friday, December 7th, 2007, 03:30 AM
Such as?My point is that your example was a case of physical evidence for a physical thing. If you can't find physical evidence for the spiritual, that doesn't mean there is no soul; inability to find it is perfectly consistent with the soul's existence.


If something exists you need to prove it.Says who? You're saying there is no difference between humans and animals in this respect, I'm saying there is. The burden of proof is no less on you than on me.


If it doesn't exist it needs no proof. I believe there is none and no serious law would base itself on such claims. Therefore the burden of proof lays on you.The problem here though is that since you think there is no such thing as the soul, then you don't even accept that what I say is the means of proving it is real. It's like you telling a blind man who doesn't accept that there is such a thing as sight, that two cars are different colours. He doesn't even accept that the type of evidence you're referring to is real, so he'll want you to give him evidence that involves touch, hearing, taste or smell; and of course, you can't give it to him. Would the burden of proof be on you, because you're saying that a difference exists, when he's saying there is no difference?

The business of the burden of proof being on the one who claims something exists, applies when both parties accept that certain evidence should be there if the claim is true. Because otherwise there could be plenty of evidence for the claim, yet one party is just not seeing it. If you don't accept the reality of certain types of evidence, then you won't accept the claim no matter how much evidence there is.

You won't find the evidence unless you look in the right place. To say that you don't believe in the soul, on the basis that there is no evidence for it, is circular reasoning.


I don't know, I am not the one who is saying humans have a soul.At the end of the day, spiritual evidence can only be seen by spiritual means. If one is spiritually blind, the concept of spiritual evidence is meaningless.

So, my claim can be proven, but only by God, through his written Word. He can open ones eyes.

Brynhild
Monday, December 10th, 2007, 04:35 AM
The subject of spirituality - proof or otherwise - really belongs in another section of this forum.

Gefjon
Friday, December 14th, 2007, 11:01 AM
I agree with the death penalty but only in cases of recidivism (sort of like I agree with the death penalty for serial killers). There's no excuse to purposely torture an animal, you gotta be a sick bastard to wanna do that again and again. If that's your definition of having fun then you deserve to be playing the harp.

Ossi
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 02:35 AM
There's nothing exaggerated about the death penalty for animal torture in my opinion. Line the bastards up. It would be doing society a big favor. Additionally kids should receive compulsory education on treatment of animals.

Mrs. Lyfing
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 04:30 PM
I watch animal planet a lot, I was watching last night, a man had a few bears, and two tigers. He was keeping them in cages only big enough for them to barely turn around. They had been in them their whole lives. He took them to fairs and things for public use. To entertain.

The animal cops were there to seize them. :) I kept Ewwing and Ohhing at the poor animals. They had no water or food. I couldn't understand what is wrong with the man treating them this way. I never will understand people who have no heart obviously, who can mis treat animals.

I say a great punishment would be, put the man in a small cage for a long while, with no water or food and see how he likes it!

Bärin
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 04:38 AM
I totally agree with the death penalty for such scum. I have no compassion for animal torturers.

Crimson Guard
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 06:18 AM
Animal abusers and torturers usually evolve into human murderers. Its one of the marks of a psychopath. Based on the seriousness of the crime, I think the death penalty should be enacted.

Animal Planet is a good program btw.

Cythraul
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 08:42 AM
I hate to sound like a stuck record but...

Well I'm afraid most people who buy meat and dairy from supermarkets are propogating the practice of animal cruelty.

I've noticed that some of the strongest opponents of animal cruelty in this thread are the same people who have a zero-tolerance policy against things like miscegenation, inter-Germanic immigration and other preservationist concerns. And yet, unless you eat only meat, eggs, milk, and cheese that you know the source of, you do not have a zero-tolerance attitude towards animal cruelty. Everytime you buy a piece of chocolate from a supermarket, or eat at a restaurant that isn't known to be 100% free-range, you are contributing towards the suffering of animals.

I'm not suggesting you go vegan, but if you are genuinely so intolerant of animal cruelty, you need to be extremely mindful of what and where you eat, or you need to perhaps consider campaigning against factory farming.

CrystalRose
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 09:42 AM
I always said if i had cows, chickens..(mini horses!!!!)
I would never slaughter them. I'd take my butt to the market and buy beef and chicken there :D (not any better) I don't know that i agree with slaughter factories which animals are in poor living conditions.. the ASPCA sticks animals in cages and that's cruelty in it's own way. This leaves us with lab grown meat? Ew.
When i think of animal cruelty i think of the poor cats and dogs that are skinned alive over in asia.. tortured etc. :(

At least happy cows come from california. ;)


Stories like this piss me off..

Animals skinned alive for USA fur market
Feb. 2005


Undercover investigators from Swiss Animals Protection/EAST International recently toured fur farms in China's Hebei Province, and it quickly became clear why outsiders are banned from visiting.

Undercover investigators from Swiss Animals Protection/EAST International recently toured fur farms in China's Hebei Province, and it quickly became clear why outsiders are banned from visiting.

When undercover investigators made their way onto Chinese fur farms recently, they found that many animals are still alive and struggling desperately when workers flip them onto their backs or hang them up by their legs or tails to skin them. When workers on these farms begin to cut the skin and fur from an animal's leg, the free limbs kick and writhe. Workers stomp on the necks and heads of animals who struggle too hard to allow a clean cut. When the fur is finally peeled off over the animals' heads, their naked, bloody bodies are thrown onto a pile of those who have gone before them. Some are still alive, breathing in ragged gasps and blinking slowly. Some of the animals' hearts are still beating five to 10 minutes after they are skinned. One investigator recorded a skinned raccoon dog on the heap of carcasses who had enough strength to lift his bloodied head and stare into the camera.

China supplies more than half of the finished fur garments imported for sale in the United States. Even if a fur garment's label says it was made in a European country, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered elsewhere—possibly on an unregulated Chinese fur farm. http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/123128.php

Warning: Video very graphic and may be disturbing to many.

http://myweb.hinet.net/home16/east-tw/fur.wmv

http://www.east.org.tw/16/fur.wmv

myweb.hinet.net/home16/east-tw/fur.wmv

Crimson Guard
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 10:16 AM
Thats very sickening. I am usually something of a misanthrope when it comes to humans, however I dont like seeing animals get injured and killed like that. The human perpetrators should be hung with barbed wire and disemboweled .

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 01:07 PM
Bullfighting, foie gras, shooting sparrows for sport and throwing goats off church towers?

Can anyone list any more traditional methods of European animal abuse?

Rik
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 01:46 PM
The context oof the hurting of an animal matters.
In my opinion :

Killing for hunt : Yes
Killing pure out of pleasure : No

Hunting as a sport : No
Hunting as for survival : Yes

The way of hunting / using it for survival :

A quick gunshot/arrowshot : Yes
The (ancient) method of catching the animal and quickly (so it feels as less pain as possible) breaking its neck/slitting the throat/beheading it :
It matters wich animal it is , using any of these methods to kill a bird isn't wrong in my opinion . Beheading/breaking the neck of larger animals (dogs , cats , cows , horses, ...) is. Beheading can be done with larger animals , but only if it is already dead.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 05:00 PM
Yes, but in the UK we have foxhunting for sport and for ecology.

The hounds take the place of the wolf in our ecological system and serve to keep the fox population healthy and represent a much fairer system than shooting.

The UK does not have wolves any more. They were eradicated.

ChaosLord
Monday, July 28th, 2008, 10:27 PM
Personally, I find animal cruelty distasteful and a sign of degeneration in a society. From reading the numerous posts my definition of animal cruelty is the neglect, abuse, and torturing of a domesticated animal (cat, dog, ferret, etc.). A person who starves and beats their pet for no reason whatsoever but for sheer amusement or passive-aggression would constitute as animal cruelty. Most punishments for animal cruelty now are only fines and some jail time, but I do agree that more severe implications are needed. Not only do we need issued fines and jail/prison sentences, but we also need prohibited animal ownership/contact (much like a restraining order), and an eye-for-an-eye policy. This policy would have the torturer suffer the exact cruelty that the victimized animal(s) suffered. This would give the torturer a more broad spectrum of what the animal went through.

If these previous consequences do not suffice then we simply drop them in a cage of hungry wild animals and let them fend for themselves. People tend to hurt and victimize animals for sport and amusement, so we'll give the animals the same opportunity. Do I value animals or people? In some ways yes, because we humans have encroached upon habitats and have given little respect to the animals who inherited this planet.

Animals won't cause "global warming", mass pollution, or over-population. This is a human thing and we have let it get out of hand and disrupted a balance between man and beast. Animals have always been a part of the human psyche as we see in many cultures that animals are revered as guides, guardians, totems, and aspects of the (sub)(un)conscious. To say animals are of less value than humans is a fallacy. Maybe we humans are lesser than animals because we have lost or forgotten our respect to them and continue to overpopulate and destroy the habitats that we live in.

Hunting nowadays is nearly irrelevant unless you live in a tribal community away from civilization. Killing for sport is just ego-masturbation, though I do agree that hunting is sometimes necessary in preserving and stabilizing populations; hence why we have deer hunting and turkey hunting seasons. This I am not opposed to as long as the animal does not go to waste and the hunting is done respectfully. No place does as much inhumane hunting and gathering of animals as Asiatic countries do, China in particular. The animal cruelty and inhumanity that goes on there is nothing like you see in the West. Animals here are gathered (illegally most of the times) from other countries and shipped in mass numbers in cramped conditions to China where they are systematically abused, processed, and tossed away like refuse. Animals are skinned alive here and tossed into large garbage containers where they remain alive for hours, before dying of shock. These animals are mainly raccoons, along with dogs and cats that are actually stolen and seized from peoples' homes. Here is the proof and it is very graphic;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf6Ab8nNRgI
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DNIZ92noeyQQ

The bigger problem is that this fur is being done in china and sold to the U.S., since we cannot do this here.

The big question is are animals worth preserving? Yes. It's because the animal populations continue to decline and species are becoming extinct while the human population continues to explode and encroach upon more and more land. The question should be is our current growth and population worth preserving? Thank for the rant. I know it will probably offend some people and most of you will not agree with me, but animal cruelty and preservation is something I take to heart.

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 01:09 AM
My late mother was a member of NAVS and various other animal rights organizations. From them, she received publications describing and often showing horrendous acts of cruelty to animals. Reading and viewing these, she would work herself into a feverish, near-hysterical state of emotional agitation.

She had heart disease and this used to prostrate her so that she would have to spend several days in bed. Yet, although I had a different form of heart disease myself, she was angry that I would not subject myself to this kind of stress. I was selfish and heartless and insensitive to the suffering of animals.

It was exactly because I was NOT heartless and insensitive and DID feel compassion for the suffering of animals that I could not allow myself to read these publications. Yes, I was selfish. I would not flagellate myself for the misdeeds of others. Knowing the effects which this stress would have on MY health I selfishly spared myself from it. How callous of me ! :rolleyes:

Cruelty to anmals inspires disgust, anguish, and deep distress in me. The higher animals, i.e., those having the most complex nervous systems, are capable of feeling suffering every bit as poignant as any experienced by a human being.

I am not going to play games with J.S. Mills' calculus of human values here. Suffering is suffering. It is irrelevant whether animals are more or less important or valuable than human beings. They suffer and, as Lucy van Pelt put it "Pain hurts !" Whether you are a mouse or a man, PAIN HURTS ! We have no moral right to inflict it unnecessarily on any sentient creature.

It doesn't matter whether animals have souls or whether humans have souls. What matters is that both can suffer pain. He who inflicts pain knowingly , without compunction, and unnecessarily on any sentient organism is thereby and to that extent, so much the less human.

I keep emphasising "unnecessarily" because, we omnivores not only CAN eat both animal and vegetable foods, for optimum health, we MUST. If we didn't need animal protein, we wouldn't have the teeth we do . We would have the teeth of herbivores. We have omnivorous dentition because we need to be able to eat meat.

Alas, eating meat requires killing animals. We must accept this as a fact of life. But, if we must kill to live, it is morally incumbent upon us to do so in such a way as to minimise the pain and suffering of the animals which we must kill to live. We have no right to cause animals to suffer in order to gratify our tastes for unnatural animal foods. I refer specifically to veal and paté de foie gras.

In my ignorance, I long assumed that veal was but the flesh of a young beef critter. Then, quite by chance, I drove by a farm where calves were raised for veal. I saw those animals cooped up in what I can only describe as overgrown doghouses, secured by a chain which gave the animal just enough
range of movement to void its wastes outside its pen. They were kept there 24/7 until they were old enough to slaughter. That's why veal is so tender and has that nice light colour.

I have never eaten veal since. I realise that this has no impact on the industry, but at least I am not contributing to this form of animal abuse.

As others have mentioned, paté de foie gras (paste of fat liver) is obtained from the livers of geese which are FORCE-FED a fat-rich diet. The process is the reverse of stomach pumping. Inasmuch as I am not especially fond of liver paté anyhow, I need not feel guilty about having tried it before I learned how it is made.

I do not object to hunting "for the pot". Trophy hunting is, IMNSHO, an abomination. I have long agreed with a friend of mine who taught his children
"Never kill anything unless you intend to eat it or it intends to eat you." Indeed, game meat is probably usually, more wholesome than the meat of domesticated food animals.

You can be certain that a deer, bear, moose, or boar shot in the forest has not been taking growth hormones, sex hormones, and what-all else the ranchers put into the feed of their beef cattle. :eek:

A skilled hunter, whether he use a firearm or a bow, can kill his prey swiftly and with a minimum of suffering. It is doubtful that the killing is done any less painfully in a slaughter house .[From what I have heard, quite the opposite.]

Trophy hunting belongs with bull-fighting, bear baiting, cock-fighting, and dog-fights as morally reprehensible. The last four because they are cruel, the first because it is wasteful and "sacrifices" the animal to the hunter's vanity.

Most of the imaginative and colourful penalties advocated by some of our members are impossible in the United States because the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."[YES, I am quite aware that the government-sanctioned use of torture in the Iraq conflict and upon suspects imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay is equally unconstitutional. I am strongly opposed to it.]

I am not going to get into the argument over capital punishment here. I have stated my views in previous posts in other threads. I certainly agree that the penalties for cruelty to animals are altogether too lenient. Fines are ineffective as a deterrent to ANY crime. Cruelty to animals calls for a jail sentence.

Unfortunately, imprisonment is no longer, even if called so, "imprisonment at hard labour." Stamping out marker plates is not hard labour, boring, yes, but not hard. Still, loss of liberty and privileges can be painful enough for some. For the really depraved, though, it is probably not very effective. For jail sentences to be effective as a deterrent to recidivism, they must be long enough to make an impression. I leave it to the experts to decide what durations are appropriate.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 06:06 AM
Do I value animals or people? In some ways yes, because we humans have encroached upon habitats and have given little respect to the animals who inherited this planet.

Maybe we humans are lesser than animals because we have lost or forgotten our respect to them and continue to overpopulate and destroy the habitats that we live in.If we humans are only animals, and no better, then what's this about respect? Do lions respect the zebras they "inhumanely" tear to bits? What about cats that play around with the injured mouse or bird they've caught, inflicting unnecessary pain as they toss it up and hit it again and again?

And as for overpopulating, and encroaching on habitats, animals are constantly doing that to each other; those who don't do it would certainly have no worries about doing it if they could; it's just that they can't. So if humans are just another animal, their encroachment on habitats and overpopulating the world most certainly isn't something that makes them inferior to the other animals. We just happen to have the power to do it (according to that viewpoint).


It doesn't matter whether animals have souls or whether humans have souls. What matters is that both can suffer pain.Well actually, it depends what you believe a soul actually is. I say that the soul is the self, the being and consciousness. And I say that only humans have (or better, are) souls.
So that means the "suffering" of animals really only exists in our consciousness. The animals are bodies, and we're physically similar to them, wired in much the same way, so things that are destructive to the body produce similar reactions in humans and animals.

This doesn't mean that I think cruelty to animals is OK, however I think it's wrong only for the sake of humans, not the animals themselves. Someone who gets a kick out of torturing an animal only does so because he's imagining it as if it's suffering like a human; so it's definitely perverse and could well end up with the person doing this to fellow humans.
But I don't really think it's the job of a government to be legislating about cruelty to animals, except when it's a case of someone destroying somebody else's property (the animal); so again, it's for the sake of humans.

Cruelty to animals is perverse in the same way as if someone could make (somehow) a very human-like dummy, and then gets a real kick out of torturing it. It certainly betrays quite a depraved tendency (and I would say it's sinful, turning against God), but is not exactly something one can legislate on. I think it's really up to families to stamp this sort of behavour out of their members.

Crimson Guard
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 06:19 AM
Unlike animals, we have to dominate nature and control with various degrees of success. We do belong to the Animal kingdom obviously , but as far as being animals, I dont know. usually what is meant calling a human animal is; dirty, murderous, primitive, uncultured and stuff like that. I suppose if we humans are animals, then would be like Black Africans are today, completely backward and unproductive. What separates man from animal is our creativity, ingenuity and rationality ect. We should respect nature and the laws of nature, the moment we see ourselves as gods, i think we'll be doomed. So that being said, we need to have more care for our planet and its various lifeforms which all have a purpose, otherwise we're not gonna be any better than locusts, which wouldn't surprise me if its why our elite want to dominate Mars and space. We'll ruin one planet and move to another. As the saying goes, "With great power, comes great responsibility".

Cythraul
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 08:55 AM
Well actually, it depends what you believe a soul actually is. I say that the soul is the self, the being and consciousness. And I say that only humans have (or better, are) souls.
...
This doesn't mean that I think cruelty to animals is OK, however I think it's wrong only for the sake of humans, not the animals themselves.
Well I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that the rest of us, with our Germanic perspective on animals and existence find your beliefs to be quite alien and... let's say, specialized. Anthropocentric views like yours are just as poisonous to the human soul, and the Germanic spirit as animal cruelty.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 03:44 PM
Well I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that the rest of us, with our Germanic perspectiveHehe, hardly a traditional Germanic perspective, more like a perspective that results from being indoctrinated by liberals, along with 'tolerance' and multiculturalism, feminism etc. Perhaps you'll say that the Germanic people before Christianity had this attitude, but you'd need to provide some evidence; I'm certainly not going to accept such a claim.

And like I said, the animals certainly don't seem to have a great deal of respect for other types of animal.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which belief is Germanic and which isn't (nor should what we want to believe be an issue), what matters is which one is true :)

It's odd how on this forum there is so much talk about the liberals and how they indoctrinate people with anti-nationalistic type beliefs, yet probably most on the forum show obvious signs of having been heavily influenced by liberal philosophy in all other respects, and yet don't seem to realise it.

Cythraul
Tuesday, July 29th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Hehe, hardly a traditional Germanic perspective, more like a perspective that results from being indoctrinated by liberals, along with 'tolerance' and multiculturalism, feminism etc. Perhaps you'll say that the Germanic people before Christianity had this attitude, but you'd need to provide some evidence; I'm certainly not going to accept such a claim.
What you basically just implied is that compassion and equality were invented by liberals and the politically 'left'. Surely you can't honestly believe that, can you?

The early Germanics, all religion aside, relied on their livestock for food, travel and clothing. Animals were treated with respect. Now, in terms of their religious beliefs, they, like all Pagans believed in the spiritual web that connects us all - animals included. Certain creatures were synomynous with certain gods and were similarly sacred. Recent studies have shown the similarities between Heathenism and American Indian belief, so one can quite confidently draw a comparison between the American Indian's belief in animal souls and the Germanic's. It wasn't until the arrival of Christian anthropocentrism that Europe began treating animals like mere sacks of meat.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 04:55 AM
What you basically just implied is that compassion and equality were invented by liberals and the politically 'left'.I implied that treating animals as if they're on a level with humans is not a traditional Germanic perspective. I'd say one is stretching it to claim that the Ancient Germanics believed in equality and compassion for all fellow humans, let alone animals. The same can be said of all ancient barbarians.
Compassion for others and equality (in terms of inherent worth, not necessarily rank or position in society) is a reflection of God's image, an alignment with God's holiness; the further an individual or society turns from God, the more these qualities will degenerate and disappear.

Respect for God's creation, as His creation, is a good thing, but when you start treating animals as equal with humans in worth, that's when it goes wrong.


The early Germanics, all religion aside, relied on their livestock for food, travel and clothing. Animals were treated with respect. Now, in terms of their religious beliefs, they, like all Pagans believed in the spiritual web that connects us all - animals included. Certain creatures were synomynous with certain gods and were similarly sacred.This argument doesn't carry much weight when you find out the sorts of horrendous things they (Germanics, Amerindians etc.) did even to fellow men.


Recent studies have shown the similarities between Heathenism and American Indian belief, so one can quite confidently draw a comparison between the American Indian's belief in animal souls and the Germanic's. It wasn't until the arrival of Christian anthropocentrism that Europe began treating animals like mere sacks of meat.But how much does belief in animal souls (per se) inspire people to treat them with respect, as equals? After all, belief in human souls didn't stop them doing terrible things to each other.

I'd bet they treated animals how they saw them, creatures that man can overpower and use for his own benefit, regardless of how much they may have featured in religious beliefs. If gods could be exploited and overpowered, why not?

Cythraul
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 08:48 AM
I implied that treating animals as if they're on a level with humans is not a traditional Germanic perspective. I'd say one is stretching it to claim that the Ancient Germanics believed in equality and compassion for all fellow humans, let alone animals. The same can be said of all ancient barbarians.
I didn't say they believed in equality for all fellow humans. They were very tribal and those members of their tribe were honoured above all others, and when your tribe depends upon livestock for survival, those livestock are offered a degree of respect. Do you think strong bonds were not forged between a warrior or traveller and his/her horse? To elaborate on equality - pre-Christian Germanics viewed the Earth as a life-giving goddess, and many of the more important gods were female in nature. Women had greater equality than they did during the later middle-ages too.



Compassion for others and equality (in terms of inherent worth, not necessarily rank or position in society) is a reflection of God's image, an alignment with God's holiness; the further an individual or society turns from God, the more these qualities will degenerate and disappear.

I'm judging by this, and your use of the word 'barbarian' earlier that you honestly believe the pre-Christian Germanics to have been degenerates!?... that before finding 'God', Germanics knew nothing about compassion and equality. Well if you believe that, we really do have an ocean of disagreement between us - one that will never be crossed.



This argument doesn't carry much weight when you find out the sorts of horrendous things they (Germanics, Amerindians etc.) did even to fellow men.

What, like the kinds of things men now do to each other in the name of the Abrahamic faiths? The Old Germanics were no more or less human than the New Germanics. They had their faults too, but their spiritual worldview encompassed animals as well as humans. The early Germanics were not anthropocentric in their outlook.



But how much does belief in animal souls (per se) inspire people to treat them with respect, as equals? After all, belief in human souls didn't stop them doing terrible things to each other.

They didn't do terrible things to their kin (without very good reason) and the same went for their animals. Their kin, humans and animals alike, were treated respectfully (and that doesn't mean the animals weren't killed, it just means they were kept and slaughtered in a kind manner). I'm sure the Old Germanics justified any barbarism or cruelty by viewing the recipients of such treatment as alien to their tribe, or because the recipient had committed a terrible crime. Livestock do not commit crimes, they are passive, submissive and undeserving of cruel treatment.



I'd bet they treated animals how they saw them, creatures that man can overpower and use for his own benefit, regardless of how much they may have featured in religious beliefs. If gods could be exploited and overpowered, why not?
"You bet" - of course you do! Your Christian beliefs are so ingrained that you probably won't ever accept that early Germanics had a positive non-Christian way of dealing with animals (and people).

I'm not expecting to change your mind (as you won't mine), but as a final word - early Germanics were not degenerate barbarians. Barbarian-like under certain circumstances, like war - yes, but during home and community life? No!

Oswiu
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 02:36 PM
It's very difficult to discuss old Germanic attitudes to animals, but the absence of recorded abominations (such as can be found for many other ancient and classical peoples) does tend to indicate in favour of a rather more palatable approach than that of many other peoples.

I'm reading Fraser's 'Folklore in the Old Testament' now, and there's a whole chapter on absurd courtcases held to convict animals like cows, rats, beetles and even caterpillars under the aegis of the Church in western Europe. Even in Athens at its prime, there was a court at which the archons considered cases involving animals and inanimate objects. King Numa of Rome outlawed two oxen used in a blasphemous act. Tacitus mentions no such wild curiosities for preChristian Germania.

SineNomine
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008, 03:20 PM
I recall those actually - they came up in one of my philosophy classes, as an odd example of attempting to convict animals of moral failings they couldn't even be aware of in principle.

OneEnglishNorman
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 08:17 AM
It irks me when politicians claim credit for their own kind, for the act of outlawing dog or cock fighting.

These activities are simply out of fashion and perceived as bad taste. Civilisation arrived at that view and citizens were not pushed into it by benign lawmakers.

You couldn't pay most people to stand there and passively watch a dog fight.

Rhydderch
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 08:30 AM
I didn't say they believed in equality for all fellow humans.Yes but if they didn't believe in equality of all humans, who obviously share a lot more similiarity with each other than with any type of animal, then it hardly seems likely that they would believe in equality of animals and humans.


and when your tribe depends upon livestock for survival, those livestock are offered a degree of respect.But the same could be said even of many inanimate objects.


Do you think strong bonds were not forged between a warrior or traveller and his/her horse?Highly likely, but then attachment to one's own horse certainly wouldn't have to be accompanied by a philosophical belief in the equality of animals in general with humans. I'm sure there are plenty of people who generally treat animals with what you would call "disrespect", or are "anthropocentric" in their view toward animals, yet are strongly attached to a particular pet. Think of a fairly typical farmer; you might well consider the treatment he gives his cows or sheep to be too rough and even callous, but he might have quite a bond with his dog.


To elaborate on equality - pre-Christian Germanics viewed the Earth as a life-giving goddess, and many of the more important gods were female in nature.Well I think this just shows that their beliefs about the gods doesn't necessarily give much of an indication as to how they viewed things in the material world. Most heathen societies have had major goddesses, yet generally the rule of women was almost if not entirely unheard of


Women had greater equality than they did during the later middle-ages too.mmm, well I wouldn't really know. I'm not sure that it effects the point much though, either way.


I'm judging by this, and your use of the word 'barbarian' earlier that you honestly believe the pre-Christian Germanics to have been degenerates!?... that before finding 'God', Germanics knew nothing about compassion and equality.Let me elaborate; a society or individual without the true God tends to become progressively worse, as they commit more and more evil (in doing so turning further from God) because fallen man is innately evil unless God changes him, it's in his nature to oppose God, but he still has a conscience (i.e. a sense of God, the essence of goodness/holiness). So compassion and belief in equality of inherent worth (or any other virtue, for that matter) become less and less characteristic of a society as it degenerates. But I'm certainly not claiming the heathen Germanics were the ultimate degenerates, but to whatever extent these virtues were present among them, they must (I would say) have been less characteristic of them than of a society in which Christianity is at least a strong influence. And I think it's fair to say the evidence bears this out; look at any society (past or present) which has never had a strong influence of Christianity. I think many Westerners simply don't realise how much more pleasant it is to live in a country with a true Christian background.


What, like the kinds of things men now do to each other in the name of the Abrahamic faiths?Christ did say to his followers that men would inflict all sorts of things on them, and in doing so think that they are doing God a service. Obviously He was saying that such people were actually enemies of God, which is why they were enemies of his people.

So such people are opposing God, whether they claim to be doing it for him or not.


They didn't do terrible things to their kin (without very good reason) and the same went for their animals. Their kin, humans and animals alike, were treated respectfully (and that doesn't mean the animals weren't killed, it just means they were kept and slaughtered in a kind manner). I'm sure the Old Germanics justified any barbarism or cruelty by viewing the recipients of such treatment as alien to their tribe, or because the recipient had committed a terrible crime. Livestock do not commit crimes, they are passive, submissive and undeserving of cruel treatment.How do you know this?


"You bet" - of course you do! Your Christian beliefs are so ingrained that you probably won't ever accept that early Germanics had a positive non-Christian way of dealing with animals (and people).Any good qualities in a man who is not reconciled to God are attributable to his having not degenerated beyond that point. "Good" in that sense is a relative term, depending on the moral standards of whoever uses it, which in turn depends on how far he himself has plunged from God.


Barbarian-like under certain circumstances, like war - yes, but during home and community life? No!Well, my point wasn't really about whether they acted the barbarian in home and community life, however I don't think we really have enough evidence be able to know exactly how they behaved day to day. I'm certainly not claiming they were monsters in every day life by our standards.

Cythraul
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 09:50 AM
Rhydderch, as with previous discussions here, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's not that I don't have worthy retorts to your last post, it's that those retorts would be correct and true according to my worldview, whilst false according to yours - and vice versa. Your beliefs regarding animals are synonymous with your Christianity so the only argument of any purpose would have to concern the question of whether Christian dogma is righteous or not, or perhaps whether it should ever be applicable to Germanics. And there is of course already a thread dedicated to this. In closing, I'll just say that I detest anthropocentrism, and the inherent links that the Abrahamic faiths have to this mindset are one of the strongest reasons that I find these faiths so alien.

Rhydderch
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 11:47 AM
Rhydderch, as with previous discussions here, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. It's not that I don't have worthy retorts to your last post, it's that those retorts would be correct and true according to my worldview, whilst false according to yours - and vice versa.Fair enough.


Your beliefs regarding animals are synonymous with your Christianity so the only argument of any purpose would have to concern the question of whether Christian dogma is righteous or not, or perhaps whether it should ever be applicable to Germanics.Well, if my worldview is correct, it has to be applicable to Germanics. If I were to accept that it's not applicable I would be discarding Biblical teaching altogether.


In closing, I'll just say that I detest anthropocentrism, and the inherent links that the Abrahamic faiths have to this mindset are one of the strongest reasons that I find these faiths so alien.
Shouldn't the question of which view, if either, is correct be more important than which one is alien or desirable/undesirable? Perhaps that's what you meant.

Cythraul
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 11:58 AM
Shouldn't the question of which view, if either, is correct be more important than which one is alien or desirable/undesirable? Perhaps that's what you meant.
No, because I don't just mean culturally alien. That kind of mindset is alien to me philosophically, ethically, spiritually and culturally. Therefore it is without a doubt wrong in my eyes, and would be even if there was irrefutable evidence that my Germanic ancestors were as anthropocentric as the Abrahamics.

Rhydderch
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 01:28 PM
No, because I don't just mean culturally alien. That kind of mindset is alien to me philosophically, ethically, spiritually and culturally. Therefore it is without a doubt wrong in my eyes, and would be even if there was irrefutable evidence that my Germanic ancestors were as anthropocentric as the Abrahamics.
Do you feel you have good grounds to believe this view is incorrect? I'd be interested to know why, although perhaps this isn't really the place to discuss it.

Cythraul
Thursday, July 31st, 2008, 01:44 PM
Do you feel you have good grounds to believe this view is incorrect? I'd be interested to know why, although perhaps this isn't really the place to discuss it.
I have my own moral compass and have always lived by it. I imagine my reasons for opposing anthropocentrism are quite possibly as unverifiable as your reasons for believing in the Christian God. But I'll have a go anyway.

Philosophically - Why do we deserve to be the superior, chosen race? We are the most evolved, but equally we have done much harm to the world. We do not deserve the exclusive rights to a soul.
Ethically - Mistreatment of animals (or humans for that matter) denotes a weak person. There's no way of justifying needless cruelty and whether animals have a soul or not, you can still see just as much pain and suffering in their eyes as you can a suffering human.
Spiritually - I believe the spirit world permeates all living things. Animals are vital to knowing thyself and understanding the nature of existence.
Culturally - Speaks for itself. The tradition of my forefathers - whom I respect above all others - is the one that is most natural for me to follow.

Rhydderch
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 04:53 AM
But aren't all these only reasons why you would like your worldview to be correct, rather than actual evidence for the truth of it?


Philosophically - Why do we deserve to be the superior, chosen race?mmm, well that's a somewhat odd way of looking at it; the way I see it is simply that God created man as a being, and the animals as part of the creation in which he placed man. That's just the way it is, the way God has done it; not a case of deserving or not deserving.


We are the most evolvedAs a matter of fact I don't accept the theory that all organisms come from a common ancestral lifeform, but I guess that's another issue. . . . .

Mind you, some of your arguments against my worldview would probably have more weight if I did believe in the theory.


but equally we have done much harm to the world. We do not deserve the exclusive rights to a soul.Yes, man was created perfect, in God's image, but subsequently rebelled against him, becoming evil; the world, which was created for man, was cursed because of him. So even if he only deserves punishment and nothing good now, we can't exactly speak of someone/something "deserving" to have been created in a particular way (for obvious reasons).


Ethically - Mistreatment of animals (or humans for that matter) denotes a weak person. There's no way of justifying needless cruelty and whether animals have a soul or not, you can still see just as much pain and suffering in their eyes as you can a suffering human.Yes, that's almost exactly what I said in a previous post; deliberate cruelty to animals (for its own sake) betrays a particularly perverse tendency in someone, and is definitely wrong. But like I said, it's not ultimately for the sake of the animal that I would say it shouldn't be done.

Cythraul
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 12:46 PM
Thanks for your response Rhydderch, but this is like men of disparate stature arguing over the length of ten paces. Our points on the matter are invalid to the other and cannot be reconciled whilst you believe in 'God' and I do not.

Flash Voyager
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 01:46 PM
Isn't animal ownership a sophisticated and unintentional form of animal abuse?
The animal is enslaved, taken from his natural environment and thrown into a home or cage where it can only live within certain confines for the rest of his life.

SineNomine
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 03:05 PM
How I wish I were "abused" like my cats are then. :D

ChaosLord
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 06:20 PM
Isn't animal ownership a sophisticated and unintentional form of animal abuse?
The animal is enslaved, taken from his natural environment and thrown into a home or cage where it can only live within certain confines for the rest of his life.

That is quite possible, but some animals have been domesticated for so long that they have lost their instincts for surviving in the wild and have been bred in large numbers essentially making them house-pets.

Loddfafner
Saturday, August 2nd, 2008, 06:59 PM
I think a much better case could be made that dogs and cats have domesticated humans rather than vice versa. More seriously, we have coevolved. Wolves that showed gratitude for table scraps got more of them while humans that let dogs help them hunt got more meat. Those that let cats hang around got more grain for obvious reasons.

aamed
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 07:47 PM
I wrote a relevant essay for my webpage a few weeks ago:




Further Discussion of Intrinsic Value

That which is intrinsically valuable, if it exists, can never be known, for it would leave no evidence of its value. Evidence of value is always of value from someone's perspective; that is, someone values something. If something is non-intrinsically valuable to me or to others, this thing is valuable due to the existence of the entities which value it. Without the entity which values the thing, the thing ceases to be valuable. If I say “love is good for humans”, this is a statement of non-intrinsic value. If I say, “love is good”, this is a statement of intrinsic value. We have no evidence whatsoever for the second statement.

Intrinsic value is one of the comforting lies given to us by religion. Yet, disturbingly, most have grown so dependent on the lie that even after abandoning the concept of religion, they cling tightly to the notion of intrinsic value. Find someone who claims that love is good (it will not take long), and ask them why love is good. They will rattle off a list of reasons why love is good for humans or even life itself, and in doing so they will mention countless other things which they claim to be of intrinsic value. Ask them why these other things are valuable, and they will describe a giant circular web of value.

It would be tedious to always speak in terms of non-intrinsic value. “Love is good for humans”, “food is good for humans”, etc. But this is not just an issue of semantics; the vast majority actually believes in intrinsic value, and this leads to perverse consequences.

“Food is good.” Imagine if a group believed this and spent their lives creating a giant storage of food – with no intention of consuming it, for they did not wish to destroy that which was intrinsically valuable. With such a concrete example, the foolishness is obvious, yet such perversions are commonplace.

“The environment - forests, oceans, whales, etc. - is valuable.” Like “food is good”, this statement is nonsense. The environment is valuable because the environment is valuable to us. The environment is of non-intrinsic value. Yet, some see the evidence of the non-intrinsic value and take it as evidence for intrinsic value. These lunatics care more for the whales and the trees than for their fellow man. Some go so far as to claim that human reproduction is immoral...

It happens again and again. Something is valuable from some perspective, so fools enamored with the concept of intrinsic value remove the perspective. This error explains the vast majority of unnatural systems of value.

Particularly common is confusion about the value of feelings and emotional states: love, hate, anger, happiness, sadness, pain, pleasure, etc. None of these things are good or bad. None of these things are always good or bad for us. Each of these is good for us when functioning consistently with its purpose, and each is bad for us otherwise. The enlightened individual sees beauty in all of these things and has the ability to be consciously satisfied while sad, angry, or in pain.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 11:11 PM
Here (http://www.slate.com/id/2196205/) is an article of interest of the sort of dilemmas that face those committed to views giving animals an absolute sort of value.

Siebenbürgerin
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:32 AM
I don't believe in the death penalty for animal cruelty. But I think the peoples who like to tease and torture the animal should be immediately given a neurological and psychiatric exam, because we should avoid letting a criminal develop loosely.

In my view, peoples who buy pets and are cruel to them should be punished and their pet should be taken away. These peoples baffle me. If you can't take care of the animal, why buy it? Why take a responsibility you don't want? There are some peoples who treat small puppies or kittens as cute present objects, without imagining the reality, that they're going to grow in some months and occupy more space and time. :|

SpearBrave
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:43 AM
Isn't animal ownership a sophisticated and unintentional form of animal abuse?
The animal is enslaved, taken from his natural environment and thrown into a home or cage where it can only live within certain confines for the rest of his life.

Most animals that are kept by humans are bred for that purpose it is very natural for people to raise livestock and companion animals. To think otherwise is putting humans down. This kind of thinking tends to come from urban areas were some people do not have a clue about real life.

Nachtengel
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 11:48 AM
Isn't animal ownership a sophisticated and unintentional form of animal abuse?
The animal is enslaved, taken from his natural environment and thrown into a home or cage where it can only live within certain confines for the rest of his life.
I don't know, but it's a tad too late to treat domesticated animals otherwise. A domesticated animal would have less chances to survive in the wild. A dog has some common instincts with the wolf, but it differs that it is designed to trust humans. I don't think a pet feels abused by its master if it is raised in a human environment. For a dog, it's all it knows. It's normal.

Zimobog
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 06:47 PM
I want to arrest and examine any wolf that would devour the tounge and liver out of a reindeer calf without first apologizing and killing it in a painless manner.

I want to arrest and examine any shark that would take only one bite out of a bluefin tuna and leave the rest alive and suffering.

I want to arrest and examine any brown bear that would only eat the skin of a salmon and leave the rest to flop in the sun.

I want to arrest and examine any mother moose that would stand about munching leaves fifty feet away while a black bear rips her bawling calf apart.

I think it is cute when humans think about forcing their own morals on predators and prey, but since animals themselves don't care it is pointless. Wanting "humane" treatment is so... human.:thumbdown

The further a person is removed from nature the deeper they feel for these non-issues.

I challenge anyone who doubts that the circle forever turns to move north.

Nachtengel
Monday, July 20th, 2009, 09:40 PM
I want to arrest and examine any wolf that would devour the tounge and liver out of a reindeer calf without first apologizing and killing it in a painless manner.

I want to arrest and examine any shark that would take only one bite out of a bluefin tuna and leave the rest alive and suffering.

I want to arrest and examine any brown bear that would only eat the skin of a salmon and leave the rest to flop in the sun.

I want to arrest and examine any mother moose that would stand about munching leaves fifty feet away while a black bear rips her bawling calf apart.

I think it is cute when humans think about forcing their own morals on predators and prey, but since animals themselves don't care it is pointless. Wanting "humane" treatment is so... human.:thumbdown

The further a person is removed from nature the deeper they feel for these non-issues.

I challenge anyone who doubts that the circle forever turns to move north.
As I said in the other topic on animals, unlike sick human psychos, animals don't kill other animals for fun. Their killing methods are certainly no humane ones, but they do it for a reason. Sometimes they prefer not to kill at all, so they wouldn't waste precious resources (like venom which takes time to produce). Humans are able to kill animals quickly and painlessly. Why shouldn't they?

Zimobog
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 02:11 AM
As I said in the other topic on animals, unlike sick human psychos, animals don't kill other animals for fun.

Todesengel, thanks for responding to my post.

I know that many readers of this are sensitive to the suffering of animals so I apologize for the graphic descriptions I am about to employ. Please forgive it if you can. I have not included any examples of domesticated animals being killed (such as sheep by coyotes, cattle by mountain lions, dogs by wolves, etc.) because I only wish to impart that wild animals do kill for fun.

Sure, animals kill for food but they enjoy every minute of it. For example, watch wolves make a kill and the aftermath. If a person has any familiarity with canine behavior they will recognize this as enjoyment. The tails are wagging, the animals leap and dance, everyone is licking each other's faces and there are smiles all around. Fun for everyone but the moose.

Animals do kill for "fun" also, and to simply practice killing, and to make war on animals they just don't welcome in their territory.

I have seen wolves kill coyotes for fun. Chase them, tear them to pieces, and leave them for the ravens. Because the coyotes were "looking" at them. I have seen wolves dig up and kill wolf pups of other packs.

I have seen two immature bald eagles repeatedly dive bomb a family of loons until both parents and all the ducklings were dead (one of the loons was dropped from a hundred feet and the other so punctured by the repeated attacks that it actually sank after it expired). Not one was eaten and not one was a threat to the eagles. My feeling is that the eagles found it "fun".

I have seen sharks tear into whole pods of seals and eat less than one. Do sharks think that this is fun? I say they do.

I have seen two ravens attack ducklings and leave them broken and dying, peeping pathetically on the water's edge. They ate none of them.

Even the city-dwellers here have surely seen a game of "cat and mouse"?

I could go on with more examples of times I have seen animals in the wild kill for "fun" or having "fun" while killing. This is readily observed by people who view animals on the animals terms here in the wild backcountry.


Their killing methods are certainly no humane ones, but they do it for a reason. Sometimes they prefer not to kill at all, so they wouldn't waste precious resources (like venom which takes time to produce).

Animals make their own choices about killing or not killing based on what they wish to do at the moment, not because of a moral code or peer pressure. Maybe they choose not to because the cost vs.. benefit wasn't worth it them at the moment.

I admit I haven't seen snakes killing for fun, but they are so expressionless I couldn't tell if they liked it or not. I have seen them kill, however. Poison is very effective as is constriction. It is good for the snake, not the prey.



Humans are able to kill animals quickly and painlessly. Why shouldn't they?

You mean poison them like a snake would, or just throwing explosives into schools of fish? No thanks.

I think it is the responsibility of the hunter/fisher/trapper to use the best most humane methods of taking his/her prey. I for one have passed up shooting a moose before because of the angle and distance of the shot I could not be 100% sure that my bullet would enter his vitals and not his lungs or viscera. I have passed up animals that were too young or too old. I have never fired indiscrimately into moving herds of caribou or shot wolves from airplanes.

Ok, that said... I am not comfortable letting non-hunters decide what is humane enough for my kills, as they have no experience or are hostile to the idea that humans are predators. That is a right that I reserve for myself and I answer only to my Gods and my fellow predators.

There are many ethical hunters and trappers out there, but hunting or trapping ethics is a debate for hunters and trappers to have with ourselves.

Matrix
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009, 04:01 AM
I'm not fussed about slaughtering or hunting animals. The kind of animal cruelty that I think is dangerous is the one where people purposely take an animal to torture it and nothing else. If animals in the wild do that too, I don't care. They're not my problem. Humans are. A human who loves to torture (animals or humans) can pose a threat to the community he's part of.

Mother Earth
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 05:30 AM
There is no reason to torture animals. With a bit of skill, we can avoid the situations where they're a real threat to us. So why torture them? It's sick, really sick. As for people who abuse their pets, as they say, if they can't take care of them, they shouldn't get any. No one is obligated to keep a pet, but if you take the responsibility upon you, it has to be carried out.

Berlichingen
Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 09:06 AM
I'd be in favor of executing people who torture/kill animals for fun.

No one denies that our countries need a bit of "cleaning up". It's not like someone whose first impulse when finding a puppy or a kitty is to kill it will go on to be a great inventor, a loving mother, et cetera. Furthermore, many sociopaths kill/torture animals before working up the guts to do the same to humans. By exterminating such scum we may be saving human lives as well.

Roemertreu
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 01:27 PM
I don't really think animals have rights per say. I wouldn't say that it's OK to be cruel, but I've never been able to understand the notion that rights can come without duties. I have the right to free speech, but it comes with the duty not to be a jerk. I have the right to bear arms, and the duty to only use arms in self-defense or hunting.

Animals can't comprehend the duty part of the deal. Give a dog the right to a free meal, and he'll eat it without thinking that he ought not to pee on the rug (that's why training is required)

Besides which, rights leads to some truely retarded scenarios -- like whether you should save a human child or a puppy if you could only save one. And most AR people have never seen a real wild animal. They hate humans with a passion and talk about how "nice" nature is and how animals just want to frolic and play and contemplate their navels. Not any animals I know. But whatever, I'm just a cruel human...

Nepenthe
Friday, March 17th, 2017, 06:29 PM
Punishment: slow and painful vivisection.

Nothing makes my blood boil more than humans intentionally inflicting pain on animals.

Mrs vonTrep
Friday, March 17th, 2017, 07:45 PM
They should be sent to some kind of labour camp that is hopefully very, very hard on them and where they can work to pay for their own existance so the rest of society doesn't have to.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, March 17th, 2017, 11:40 PM
Todesengel, thanks for responding to my post.

I know that many readers of this are sensitive to the suffering of animals so I apologize for the graphic descriptions I am about to employ. Please forgive it if you can. I have not included any examples of domesticated animals being killed (such as sheep by coyotes, cattle by mountain lions, dogs by wolves, etc.) because I only wish to impart that wild animals do kill for fun.

Sure, animals kill for food but they enjoy every minute of it. For example, watch wolves make a kill and the aftermath. If a person has any familiarity with canine behavior they will recognize this as enjoyment. The tails are wagging, the animals leap and dance, everyone is licking each other's faces and there are smiles all around. Fun for everyone but the moose.

Animals do kill for "fun" also, and to simply practice killing, and to make war on animals they just don't welcome in their territory.

I have seen wolves kill coyotes for fun. Chase them, tear them to pieces, and leave them for the ravens. Because the coyotes were "looking" at them. I have seen wolves dig up and kill wolf pups of other packs.

I have seen two immature bald eagles repeatedly dive bomb a family of loons until both parents and all the ducklings were dead (one of the loons was dropped from a hundred feet and the other so punctured by the repeated attacks that it actually sank after it expired). Not one was eaten and not one was a threat to the eagles. My feeling is that the eagles found it "fun".

I have seen sharks tear into whole pods of seals and eat less than one. Do sharks think that this is fun? I say they do.

I have seen two ravens attack ducklings and leave them broken and dying, peeping pathetically on the water's edge. They ate none of them.

Even the city-dwellers here have surely seen a game of "cat and mouse"?

I could go on with more examples of times I have seen animals in the wild kill for "fun" or having "fun" while killing. This is readily observed by people who view animals on the animals terms here in the wild backcountry.



Animals make their own choices about killing or not killing based on what they wish to do at the moment, not because of a moral code or peer pressure. Maybe they choose not to because the cost vs.. benefit wasn't worth it them at the moment.

I admit I haven't seen snakes killing for fun, but they are so expressionless I couldn't tell if they liked it or not. I have seen them kill, however. Poison is very effective as is constriction. It is good for the snake, not the prey.




You mean poison them like a snake would, or just throwing explosives into schools of fish? No thanks.

I think it is the responsibility of the hunter/fisher/trapper to use the best most humane methods of taking his/her prey. I for one have passed up shooting a moose before because of the angle and distance of the shot I could not be 100% sure that my bullet would enter his vitals and not his lungs or viscera. I have passed up animals that were too young or too old. I have never fired indiscrimately into moving herds of caribou or shot wolves from airplanes.

Ok, that said... I am not comfortable letting non-hunters decide what is humane enough for my kills, as they have no experience or are hostile to the idea that humans are predators. That is a right that I reserve for myself and I answer only to my Gods and my fellow predators.

There are many ethical hunters and trappers out there, but hunting or trapping ethics is a debate for hunters and trappers to have with ourselves.

Great post. It's true animals have feelings and some animals seem to be decent and merciful while some take great pleasure in cruelty. I've seen YouTube videos of lions intentionally not harming helpless animals when they could be having them for lunch. They will even protect them from harm by other members of the pride. It's possible for your cat or dog to be very sweet and loving to you, but give in to predatory instincts when they leave the house, just as it's possible for a loving husband to go out and shoot a deer and bring it home for supper. People here have noted their cats doing the same thing, delivering birds and mice to their owners as a sort of contribution to the communal pot.

When people are premeditated in being cruel to animals, there is something seriously wrong with that person, though. Some kids are dumb and play too rough with their much smaller cat or dog, but I don't mean that. Someone who would pour gasoline on a dog and light it and then laugh at the poor animal's misery or someone who would put a kitten in the microwave just to see what would happen... these people are just evil, and would probably treat a toddler just the same. Once they see what they've done, if they continue to do it, society would probably be best served by their permanent absence.

Blod og Jord
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 08:39 PM
What they really would deserve is for them to be abused and tortured in the same way they did to the poor animal. Eye for an eye, poetic justice.
But then we would be lowering ourselves to same level.
So capital punishment, which would rid society of them, and ensure they can't abuse anyone again.
I don't care if animals kill for fun. We're humans, so we have to get our act together.
As for the claim that rights always must come with duties that's not true. Children have rights not to be abused also but they aren't responsible to be given duties. Animals don't need to understand their rights, and we don't need to expect something in exchange for their rights. Just like our children, we must protect our animals from abuse and extinction.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 10:45 PM
Many cases of what at first appears to be domestic animal cruelty are actually cases of neglect to varying degrees from relatively minor to severe. This is due to ignorance, laziness, lack of caring, or financial ability on the part of the caretakers, who probably shouldn't have taken on the responsibilities of being a 'pet' owner to begin with.

All cats and dogs should be spayed, or neutered, vaccinated, and chipped before being placed in the care of people who have been carefully screened to determine if they would make proper caretakers, because vertebrate animals are not disposable toys that can be tossed for whatever excuse can be made.

As for cases involving deliberate abuse, the suspected perpetrators should be granted due process, and if found guilty they should receive mandatory prison time, after which they should never be allowed to legally own any vertebrate animal again.

Leliana
Wednesday, March 29th, 2017, 09:52 PM
Where do we draw the border? How many insects are being killed when they crash onto our windscreen on the highway?

Catterick
Wednesday, March 29th, 2017, 10:19 PM
That isn't deliberate, though. Its not like pulling the legs off flies, or something like that.

Gefjon
Thursday, March 30th, 2017, 07:07 PM
Insects can't feel pain though, they have no central nervous system.

Catterick
Friday, March 31st, 2017, 01:46 AM
Huh? Hymenopterans have the largest brains, per body weight, of all animals. OF course they have a central nervous system, and pain receptors. The question is whether they can percieve pain, which is undemonstrated. Their brains are structurally unlike those of ours meaning inference from analogy rather than homology.

LillyCaterina
Wednesday, January 24th, 2018, 01:48 AM
That would depend on the severity of the case, of course. But personally, I'd like to do to the abusers what they did to the animal. However, since I'm not legally allowed to do that, these creeps should be charged with a serious felony, that can't be commuted to a lesser charge.

Seriously, I don't understand why anyone could take pleasure in deliberately hurting anyone or anything that was not an immediate threat to them. And even then, I certainly wouldn't enjoy it.