The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
Animal Rights

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with people?!

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5
boxerdc On December 18, 2012

Deleted



,
#61New Post! Nov 21, 2008 @ 15:38:37
@lechensko Said


That he would post on the internet and brag on about it says everything about his intentions - it was all for show.



I think that you need to find this guy and set a very large glue trap right outside his front door.
doubtingthomas On April 26, 2010
Jesus is my homie





Monterey, California
#62New Post! Nov 21, 2008 @ 19:41:30
@mattyc Said

Pre-meditation requires rational thought. A cat views a mouse as a source of food, and that's it. There is no malice on the cat's part - it isn't causing it pain for pain's sake. As I said, there is no intention for the cat to be cruel. Cats don't have any concept of morality, nor they take into consideration the pointlessness of torturing its prey to death.

Oh, it knows that it will eventually kill it. But does it know that it is in pain?



@mattyc Said

Oh gee, answering my question with a question? Way to avoid it.

I asked first... just answer the question.

Actually, answer it on the thread I made so this one doesn't go OT. It is an interesting argument, but there are flaws to it which I will point out to you if you are willing to debate the issue with me.



Ok, I'll do my best to discribe my point of view, and why I answered your question with a question.

I stated and I quote "I feel its possible to act humanely to humans and not animals and still retain your humanity". I personaly think this is self explanitory. Humane..imo should only pretain to humans because it discibes how one human acts to another human. I'm not nessary sure how the term got to be transfered to animals other than humans.

When you said "Why?" I'm not sure what your stance was on the subject so I tried to clearify. I wasn't dodging the question, just trying to clear up your three letter response.

You seem to assume from what I can tell that its not normal for people to not truly give a s*** if a animal suffers before it dies. I'm going to tell you the bulk of the world doesn't seem to care if mouse suffers before it dies. Or if a fish gasps for life for 3 hours before it eventualy dries out and expires. Most people in the world just seem to want to make lives for themselfs and animals suffering isn't on the formost on thier minds. I'm not saying I have talked with every single person on this planet but I'm just going on my experences with cultures outside of America.

Not to get too OT, but we will stick with the cat and mouse example. You said ""A cat views a mouse as a source of food, and that's it.""
Based on my experence with cats this is incorrect. The cat will play with a mouse for hours even if its not hungry. I have seen this first hand, perhaps my cats are sadistic in nature but I doubt it. Agian I'm not talking about all cats of the world just the ones I have seen first hand do this.

Its in a cats nature to practice killing a mouse/fuzzy creature, so that it can get better at it. Its simply a evolutionary trait. The ones who learned the best way to hunt and chase pray, where more successful in hunts and where able to pass on thier traits to thier offspring.

You said that a cat has no concept of morality. I disagree. What prevents a grown cat from eating its own young? This is a viable food sourse. Kittens when born are totaly helpless, and yet they don't seem to be a very good food source for an adult cat. They even resemble at a early age a cats primary food source, which is small rodents.

Why would a cat not eat its young? Granted it would be counter productive to reproduction, but cats are social with each other, they arn't solitary. What would prevent a group of hungry adult cats from eating a group of helpless kittens while its mother is away?

The answer is morality. But you see the morality of a cat doesn't carry over from speices to speices. It could careless about eating a group of baby mice or baby chicks. You can see examples of this form killer whales to other predatory animals. Animals seem to have a sence of morality. The key to the equation is that it doesn't carry over from speices to speices.

I think its extremly hypocitical of people to say that this type of trap is wrong because it causes pain to a animal before it dies. You will see these same people eat chicken who have suffered nearly thier entire lives before they are dispatched, frozen, then packed into little boxes and eventualy microwaved and devoured. These same people seem to a have little to no care for humans of thier own speices if they are suffering on the street outside thier homes. But god forbid if a small rodent is glued to plastic plate before it eventualy dies.

You tell me who is the more human.

A person who drives past homeless people every day and ignores them.

Or

A person who doesn't by glue traps because he is concerned about a pests suffering.

I personaly think its utterly rediclious to expend energy caring and having a sence of morality about something I'm trying to kill. Blows my mind when people do. Straiten out your own speices before you start fighting for other speices.
mattyc On March 22, 2013




Toronto, Canada
#63New Post! Nov 21, 2008 @ 23:24:18
@doubtingthomas Said

Humane..imo should only pretain to humans because it discibes how one human acts to another human. I'm not nessary sure how the term got to be transfered to animals other than humans.


But that's not the definition of the word "humane". You cannot just twist a definition like that just to suit your argument. It's a valid definition because just like to humans, you can show compassion to other species.

Quote:
You seem to assume from what I can tell that its not normal for people to not truly give a s*** if a animal suffers before it dies. I'm going to tell you the bulk of the world doesn't seem to care if mouse suffers before it dies. Or if a fish gasps for life for 3 hours before it eventualy dries out and expires. Most people in the world just seem to want to make lives for themselfs and animals suffering isn't on the formost on thier minds.


You are right in saying this, but you are making a big leap in saying that most people do not care. And if you're truly correct, then that is a big shame and a blight on our humanity.

Quote:
I'm not saying I have talked with every single person on this planet but I'm just going on my experences with cultures outside of America.


Then you can't really say for sure, can you?

Quote:
The cat will play with a mouse for hours even if its not hungry. I have seen this first hand, perhaps my cats are sadistic in nature but I doubt it. Agian I'm not talking about all cats of the world just the ones I have seen first hand do this.


Cats will not just play around with the mouse and leave it. The cat will eat it later. The playing around is merely to hone their hunting skills.

Quote:
You said that a cat has no concept of morality. I disagree. What prevents a grown cat from eating its own young? This is a viable food sourse.


Animals have been known to eat their young if there is no other food source. It is merely a parental instinct that is pretty much universal, including with insects, to defend their young. They do not think about right or wrong in this case, if that were true then they would apply this reasoning to many other things. But they do not.

Quote:
Why would a cat not eat its young? Granted it would be counter productive to reproduction, but cats are social with each other, they arn't solitary. What would prevent a group of hungry adult cats from eating a group of helpless kittens while its mother is away?


Even ants have a social structure. That doesn't mean they think morally.

Hungry adult cats will prey on the young that are not in their pack, cannibalism is quite common in the animal world. I guess the main reason is because their own species can understand one another and relate better, but are incapable of thinking about other species because they are not intelligent enough. However, we are, so to compare "cat morality" to our own is quite silly.

Quote:
The answer is morality. But you see the morality of a cat doesn't carry over from speices to speices. It could careless about eating a group of baby mice or baby chicks. You can see examples of this form killer whales to other predatory animals. Animals seem to have a sence of morality. The key to the equation is that it doesn't carry over from speices to speices.


It's not morality, because morality requires brain power that they are incapable of.

Quote:
I think its extremly hypocitical of people to say that this type of trap is wrong because it causes pain to a animal before it dies.


It's not hypocritical. It's wrong because it's over the top and not really necessary to inflict.

Quote:
You will see these same people eat chicken who have suffered nearly thier entire lives before they are dispatched, frozen, then packed into little boxes and eventualy microwaved and devoured.


Ah yes, because we are hypocrites for eating dead meat. I've heard this argument before. Do you think that in most cases slaughterhouse workers go out of their way to inflict as much pain as possible instead of just killing it and being done with it? In most countries it is required by law to humanely treat livestock and ensure a humane death as possible. Hell even the poor who raise their own animals take very good care of them before they kill them and gut them for meat. You are not taking into consideration that a lot of people who work with farm animals have respect for them because they are being bred and killed for their consumption. Don't believe in PETA propaganda.

You also are making a big claim that chicken suffer their entire lives. Do they? While some of these animals might be mistreated in some isolated cases, that in itself is wrong anyway and is not really the fault of people who eat meat, rather the instigators.

It is one thing killing animals and eating meat, it is another thing entirely to torture something to death when there is no need. From a pure cold utilitarian viewpoint, it is a waste of energy and achieves nothing. If you want to throw morality out the window, then farm animals that are brutally treated tend to have bad meat. Just because someone eats animals does not mean they shouldn't be disgusted by pointless cruelty. And no, killing animals for food doesn't count... for the reasons above.

You don't seem to see the difference in this, which is sad.

Quote:
These same people seem to a have little to no care for humans of thier own speices if they are suffering on the street outside thier homes.


You are making baseless assumptions. Of course you are #1 in terms of welfare, but that doesn't stop you from ignoring the welfare of others. If someone is having a hard time, it doesn't really give them a right to make others suffer, if anything they should be learning from their own suffering and realising why it is bad in the first place so they shouldn't go around doing it.

Quote:
But god forbid if a small rodent is glued to plastic plate before it eventualy dies.


God forbid anything suffers when it's not required, really.

Quote:
You tell me who is the more human.

A person who drives past homeless people every day and ignores them.

Or

A person who doesn't by glue traps because he is concerned about a pests suffering.


The 2nd one, because at least the person is doing something to minimise something rather than ignoring it. And since you've only given me two specific scenarios, don't go around telling me that the person who drives past homeless people does other good things, or that the person who refuses to buy glue traps doesn't give a s*** about humans.

Quote:
I personaly think its utterly rediclious to expend energy caring and having a sence of morality about something I'm trying to kill. Blows my mind when people do. Straiten out your own speices before you start fighting for other speices.


But it's important. The means are always important regardless of the ends. In the end you're really killing something that can't help being what it is, and is not really guilty of anything - the best we can do is minimise pain if we are going to kill it. Brushing it off just because it's going to die anyway is abhorrent. It detracts from being a kind person in the first place. It's extremely callous too, sometimes it is even against the law.

If you are going to use the logic of "but it's going to die anyway, so it doesn't matter how it dies" then that means you are accepting killing your own dog in a gruesome and painful manner for example when it needs to be putdown for whatever reason. You can't just pick and choose, it has to stay consistent otherwise there is no point having this logic at all.

I don't see why we cannot fight for both issues simultaneously. It's not one or the other, they are not mutually exclusive - even if you don't have the time or resources to do anything, you can still care about both in spirit.

Attitudes like yours, in principle, make the world a worse place. And before you label me a hypocrite for eating a piece of dead meat, am I wrong? While there is a lot of suffering, and I admit that we cannot stop it fully... there are bound to be situations where one's actions can minimise it. One example is putting an animal out of its misery if it's in pain and said pain is caused by us.

Why add any more suffering to a world that is already full of it? Because it's ridiculous to care, according to you? It makes no sense at all. Prolonging suffering because it's going to die anyway? That's disgusting.
kentoo On October 26, 2010




Salmon Arm, Canada
#64New Post! Nov 21, 2008 @ 23:55:08
@doubtingthomas Said

So when a cat kills a rat and plays with it before its demise, you think its always supprised by the consiquences of the rat dying, and then decideds to eat it?

The cat and the rat both know the outcome of the struggle from the begining and the end.

Hence also pre-meditated.

I wonder if the cats behaviour is one out of self preservation. It makes an attack and then retreats from harms reach to await the death of its prey? Of course a mouse might not be a good example but a larger animal may be capable of injuring the cat at close quarters hence it has developed this stratedgy. Or the strategy has come about by evolution.
doubtingthomas On April 26, 2010
Jesus is my homie





Monterey, California
#65New Post! Nov 22, 2008 @ 02:51:59
Well I could pick appart your response sentence by sentence but instead I'll try discribe where I'm comming from. First by no means do I feel torchering animals is needed. 1st its a waste of time. 2nd it makes a mess. Just want to get that out of the way.

I want to focus on what you said here, I realize its sligtly out of context but I think the message is clear.

@mattyc Said

You can't just pick and choose, it has to stay consistent otherwise there is no point having this logic at all.


@mattyc Said

While there is a lot of suffering, and I admit that we cannot stop it fully... there are bound to be situations where one's actions can minimise it.


You said, You can't just pick and choose... it has to stay consistent.

So lets see how consistant you Matty stay, in order to have your logic at all.

How far does you morality toward animals other than humans extend?
From what you said, you eat "dead meat".

Well is it dead meat that was killed with a strait razor, and bleed to death? Or dead meat that was killed with an axe? Or dead meat that was alive long enuff to be put in a pot and boiled alive? How about dead meat that was from a bull fight, a bull that was effectivly torchered to death for hours in the hot sun infrount of a crowd, for entertainment. Would you eat that dead meat?

What kind of dead meat do you eat? Don't you feel the animals that where alive at one time deserve your compassion not to be eaten? I'm sure the animal that you wanted to eat would have been much happier alive and well in a field some where instead of dead on your dinner table. By you eating it, you are in effect supporting its methoud of death.

You havn't given me a clear cut example of which animals deserve your compassion and which don't. You tell me that I can't just pick and choose, my own morals. When in fact you yourself are picking and choosing. You don't support the use of glue traps but you support the death of an animal for your own source of protein. A protein source you could easly subsitute with a veriety of diffrent vegtiable sources.

I'm going to make an assumption here and it is most likley going to get me in trouble, but I think I'm going to be spot on with my assumption.

You yourself have never bow hunted. You have never shot an animal with a NON fatal blow and tracked it for a 1/4 mile till it bleed and exausted itself to death. Never walked up to the face of a animal that was suffering for hours before you came to in and where forced to dispatch it. Never gotten out your hooks and rope and strung it up on a tree and gutted it right there on the spot. Never felt the warm inards in your bare hands of an animal that was breathing hours before your encounter. Never looked intense suffering in the face and said "gosh darn This is going to be good eating!!".

You have never caused great suffering in the animal you plain on devouring, for the pure goal providing food. Your "Dead Meat" is just another package you pick up from the store. You have very little real idea of how that animal was treated hours if not days before it came to its timely demise.

This disconnection people like yourself have with thier food is an extremly modern idea. I see it alot with people I personaly know. Peopel who would be discusted to slaughter thier own animals before eating them. But they could tell you 100 diffrent ways to cook the animals they refuse to kill themselfs.

I'm straying off topic a bit, and for that I'm sorry, just stick with me for a min.

Where I'm going with this example is. That same disconnect people have with thier food is the exact same line of thinking that supports your possition that a animal shouldn't suffer before it dies. That meat is just a package at the supermarket. A package can't suffer before it dies, its not possible. Its not a live living breathing creature that you need to make suffer so you can eat it.

I think its that very same disconnect that provides you with the moral high ground. Because you yourself where never forced to kill and make an animal suffer in unspeakable ways before it provided you food.

I think its that very same emotional response in a that takes over when trying to rid yourself of a pest from your household. You want to be rid of the pest but you don't want to hear is scream for its life. You want a neet tidy little unsuffering package. A way to stay clean emotionaly speaking of the tremendous suffering in the world. To say that you didn't contribute in your tinny little way. Almost like someone somewhere is keeping score on your actions. The less things you pysicaly make suffer and eventualy die the closer you are to heaven. Who knows.. ??


@mattyc Said

Why add any more suffering to a world that is already full of it? Because it's ridiculous to care, according to you? It makes no sense at all. Prolonging suffering because it's going to die anyway? That's disgusting.



My line of thinking makes perfect sence to me and a great many other people I personaly know. Empathy toward humans and retaining your humanity can be done at the expence of all other creatures of this world.

There I said it.. go ahead and rail me!

Just keep in mind I am just saying and admiting to what you yourself and likly the rest of the world practice already. Its not discusting or wrong, its humanity in its purests ugly form. Now please pass me a plate of that "dead Meat".. with a side of suffering.

Definition of "Humane" is "Of pretaining to humanistic Studies"

Definition of "Humanistic" is a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.

Did I twist the defentions to suit my arguement? Maybe, but lets hope you can see where I'm comming from.
mattyc On March 22, 2013




Toronto, Canada
#66New Post! Nov 22, 2008 @ 17:46:34
@doubtingthomas Said

First by no means do I feel torchering animals is needed. 1st its a waste of time. 2nd it makes a mess. Just want to get that out of the way.


Then we really don't have anything to argue about here.

Quote:
How far does you morality toward animals other than humans extend?
From what you said, you eat "dead meat".


To all animals with the capacity to suffer.

Quote:
Well is it dead meat that was killed with a strait razor, and bleed to death? Or dead meat that was killed with an axe? Or dead meat that was alive long enuff to be put in a pot and boiled alive? How about dead meat that was from a bull fight, a bull that was effectivly torchered to death for hours in the hot sun infrount of a crowd, for entertainment. Would you eat that dead meat?


I would not eat meat from a tortured animal. Your boiling alive example is too extreme - farm animals are not boiled alive. Maybe some animals are in Chinese markets, but I would never eat anything from there anyway.

Quote:
I'm sure the animal that you wanted to eat would have been much happier alive and well in a field some where instead of dead on your dinner table. By you eating it, you are in effect supporting its methoud of death.


Oh please, we are omnivores. We have already discussed about the method of death, no need to repeat ourselves.

And you are dismissing something very important to all of this - intent. The intent to be cruel, to cause pain, etc. It is a cornerstone of what cruelty really is... well, at least the cruelty we inflict upon humans and animals alike.

Quote:
You havn't given me a clear cut example of which animals deserve your compassion and which don't. You tell me that I can't just pick and choose, my own morals. When in fact you yourself are picking and choosing.


Isn't it obvious though? Any animal with the capacity to feel pain is deserving of my compassion because if I hurt it, I know it is going to feel it. So if I am hunting for food or for population control, I am going to sure that the animal's death will be quick and painless as possible.

Quote:
You don't support the use of glue traps but you support the death of an animal for your own source of protein. A protein source you could easly subsitute with a veriety of diffrent vegtiable sources.


I support the killing of animals when needed, but not in a torturous manner. You think it is one and the same.

As for your vegetarian argument, this involves it's own dilemmas too. How do you think vegetables are harvested? Animals die while they are being harvested by machines, or killed off if threatening crop. These supplements, most likely in pill form to cover for certain vitamins or proteins, were tested on animals. So either way you cannot avoid death.

And I will say it again - death is not the issue here, you're going off tangent. It is a part of our life that we have to kill animals, and we can't avoid that. But most of the time we can avoid making them suffer... and by that I mean by killing them in slow and painful ways, or just generally mistreating them as if they were objects that felt nothing. THAT can be minimised, and doing something about it isn't a detriment to our own species, but a credit to our humanity. That we are kind to other species, even if sometimes we have to kill them. In some cases, killing is the kind thing to do - or the lesser of two evils if you will.

Quote:
You yourself have never bow hunted. You have never shot an animal with a NON fatal blow and tracked it for a 1/4 mile till it bleed and exausted itself to death. Never walked up to the face of a animal that was suffering for hours before you came to in and where forced to dispatch it. Never gotten out your hooks and rope and strung it up on a tree and gutted it right there on the spot. Never felt the warm inards in your bare hands of an animal that was breathing hours before your encounter. Never looked intense suffering in the face and said "gosh darn This is going to be good eating!!".


I have never bow hunted, but having lived on a farm I have hunted before. I don't see what point you're making considering I am fine with hunting as long as you don't make the animal suffer unnecessarily. Now, I have already stated to you that sometimes cruelty and suffering cannot be avoided, but we should ensure not to prolong it where possible. Do you have a problem with this? Do you think it is not important?

Quote:
You have very little real idea of how that animal was treated hours if not days before it came to its timely demise.


And you do?

I know how the laws of my country work, and I know what the conditions are in slaughterhouses because I have seen it with my very own eyes. There is no mistreat and abuse, except in isolated incidents where they are dealt with appropriately.

Quote:
This disconnection people like yourself have with thier food is an extremly modern idea. I see it alot with people I personaly know. Peopel who would be discusted to slaughter thier own animals before eating them. But they could tell you 100 diffrent ways to cook the animals they refuse to kill themselfs.


There is no disconnection. I have hunted and killed for food myself in the past, I have seen the processes that acquires us meat on our plates and it is not as bad as PETA would like you to believe.

Quote:
I think its that very same disconnect that provides you with the moral high ground. Because you yourself where never forced to kill and make an animal suffer in unspeakable ways before it provided you food.


"Unspeakable ways" - what does that mean, exactly? And please don't make assumptions - you're making things up out of thin air. When I hunted I always ensured that the animal was dead very quickly. From what you're saying it seems that you made something suffer for the hell of it.

Quote:
I think its that very same emotional response in a that takes over when trying to rid yourself of a pest from your household. You want to be rid of the pest but you don't want to hear is scream for its life. You want a neet tidy little unsuffering package.


No, I just don't want it in unnecessary agony when I'm killing it. Just like with every other animal.

Quote:
Empathy toward humans and retaining your humanity can be done at the expence of all other creatures of this world.


No, it can't. You're just being totally hypocritical, and most certainly unethical. Your humanity includes the ability to be kind, and by ignoring the plight of other species, or mistreating them (and you know what I mean by this), you are shooting yourself in the foot. Even if you take care of your fellow man well, and kick your dog, you're still being unkind.

Being mean is being mean... this is exactly what I mean by picking and choosing. For example, you can't just be good to one person, then set a cat on fire, and suddenly say that you're humanity is intact. Because the intention to be so unkind in the first place unravels it.

Quote:
Just keep in mind I am just saying and admiting to what you yourself and likly the rest of the world practice already. Its not discusting or wrong, its humanity in its purests ugly form. Now please pass me a plate of that "dead Meat".. with a side of suffering.


Well to put it another way, I would say the human species has a long way to go yet.

Quote:
Definition of "Humane" is "Of pretaining to humanistic Studies"

Definition of "Humanistic" is a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.


Rofl.

It also means:

"marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering"

"Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion"

Those are the major definitions. That is how the word is regularly used in our language. You know EXACTLY which term were are referring to here, now you are tying to ignore it?

Quote:
Did I twist the defentions to suit my arguement? Maybe, but lets hope you can see where I'm comming from.


Oh, I know where you are coming from. You don't give a s*** about animals at all, and can't see the difference between a quick kill and a slow, painful one. You think that as long as the ends are the same, the means are irrelevant. I don't agree with that, in fact, I think it is totally bogus but if you want to continue believing it then fair enough, I am not going to convince you otherwise.
doubtingthomas On April 26, 2010
Jesus is my homie





Monterey, California
#67New Post! Nov 22, 2008 @ 18:27:53
I think we can agree to disagree at this point. I'm not instrested in fighting with you or taking your response apart line for line. Not that I can't or don't want to, I just think it would help in your case.

GL and regards.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Mon Dec 10, 2012 @ 17:45
9 2536
New posts   Pets & Animals
Sun Oct 17, 2010 @ 19:27
22 2503
New posts   Animal Rights
Wed May 26, 2010 @ 22:23
16 2736
New posts   Religion
Sat Jun 09, 2012 @ 03:36
10 8232
New posts   Random
Thu Jan 12, 2006 @ 10:37
17 973