Animal Cruelty

@someone_else Said

I agree, we all have our own ideas. Nobody here is trying to prevent that guy from dumping his dog off the bridge. I personally don't think that animals deserve to be treated better than people and I would much rather advocate against cruelty to other humans. But the question wasn't simply, is it right or wrong, it was "was it cruel?". Wasn't that the discussion?

So, then, is it only cruel if it's wrong? Can it be right and still be cruel?

@doubtingthomas Said

Well.. wouldn't "Cruel" fall into the realm of "wrong"? Are we just kinda slicing up definitions at this point?

I'm not really sure if you can be cruel and right at the same time. I supose you can because I have been dumped by girls in my past. It was right to them.. but cruel to me. I'm not holding a grudge or anything I'm just using that as an example.

If you step back and look at it, its just a dog.

@doubtingthomas Said

I think the point of these topics in this forum is to call people out and make them take a stand. You can't do that without taking one side or the other. Right or wrong.. cruel or humane.. they are really just made to get you going and be hyper aware of cruelty to non human animals.

@someone_else Said

Okay...here's how I see it. The original term "animal cruelty" was "cruelty to animals" and that can be seen two different ways.
1) Cruelty directed towards animals - which I am opposed to, but not actively opposed. I'm not going to try to stop anyone from doing it, but if I actually saw someone who did something like that, I'd probably ask why and ask why they thought that was an okay thing to do.

Or

2) Cruelty from the perspective of the animal - that is definitely what this was. I'm sure the dog thought it cruel.




That may be true, but it's not often effective in this capacity. All in all, there are more important things to worry about.

@doubtingthomas Said

Well said and I agree.

I personaly don't like to apply empathy to all animals in general. There are some animals that i feel are deserving of my empathy and some that arn't.

Now at the center of where we draw the line between this non human animal empathy receivership is really the crux of this topic.

What exactly would make you change your personal rules that you have set already with Non-human animals? What are the factors? Is it pure convience?

Let me explain.

Your starving and its a survival situation, would you kill your childhood pet to survive? You would never think to harm your pet in normal cercomstances. Does your animal instinct to survive trump your empathy for your non-human companion? Since there is a obvious difference between your non-human companion and your fellow man... if you where in a survival situation with a human in the place of a dog, would your human to human empathy be more or less than your human to non human empathy?

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? Human to human empathy is stronger than human to non-human empathy and a extreme situation only brings this to the surface, when normaly its hidden behind convience and luxury.

In the case of dog being launched off the bridge... what factors make this possible for this child to feel its ok. I mean he isn't finding amusement by launching his fellow children off the bridge (yet). His human friends are some what off limits. What factors play in this kind of distinction?

I think the same factors are at play when it comes to you and I when we pick and choose which animals are deserving of our empathy. This kid could be a nice kid (obvioulsy not to dogs at this time) and he could go though his life not hurting another soul. But for this one instance... his non-human empathic feelings are repressed. In the case of serial killers.. this feeling is obviously permenently repressed. Are hostel tendancies toward animals the same as humans? If so, what part of the brain makes this distinction?

Quote:
Your starving and its a survival situation, would you kill your childhood pet to survive?

@someone_else Said

I agree, we all have our own ideas. Nobody here is trying to prevent that guy from dumping his dog off the bridge. I personally don't think that animals deserve to be treated better than people and I would much rather advocate against cruelty to other humans. But the question wasn't simply, is it right or wrong, it was "was it cruel?". Wasn't that the discussion?

So, then, is it only cruel if it's wrong? Can it be right and still be cruel?

@DuLu Said

If it's cruel, it's wrong -- animal or human!
Morally for sure. And as far as animals are concerned -- depending of funding,
ASPCA could be informed, with possible legal repercussions.