The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What Should Be Considered Animal Cruelty?
Double_Faces
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
It light of the recent Vick details (see the part where he allegedly helped hang and drown the "weaker dogs"), I'm wondering something:
What is the difference between burning ants with a magnifying glass and what Vick supposedly has done? What makes crushing a bug on the street ok and hurting a dog not?
End question.
Begin Opinion:
I for one am disgusted at these new details. I thought it was bad enough raising dogs to kill other dogs purely for entertainment (I throw gambling into that pile) but now that he has been accused of killing the dogs with his own hands is a deeper level of disgusting. Let me spoiler some details for those who don't want disturbing text....
But why do I not feel this same feeling of disgust when a four year old burns ants? Is there a emotional attachment we humans have towards dogs/cats/ fuzzy things as opposed to insects? Of perhaps ants- like some other animals- have been shown to lack the ability to feel pain and so we sympathize with them less.
I know I've seen my dog in pain before, and it hurts. So this hurts to hear, but is it hypocritical to let ants burn but be up in arms about these dogs?
Below is the link to the study about lobsters and pain...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/tech/main673989.shtml
What is the difference between burning ants with a magnifying glass and what Vick supposedly has done? What makes crushing a bug on the street ok and hurting a dog not?
End question.
Begin Opinion:
I for one am disgusted at these new details. I thought it was bad enough raising dogs to kill other dogs purely for entertainment (I throw gambling into that pile) but now that he has been accused of killing the dogs with his own hands is a deeper level of disgusting. Let me spoiler some details for those who don't want disturbing text....
Apparently he's been accused of hanging the weaker dogs, and when some survived, he and his friends held them under water until they drowned.
But why do I not feel this same feeling of disgust when a four year old burns ants? Is there a emotional attachment we humans have towards dogs/cats/ fuzzy things as opposed to insects? Of perhaps ants- like some other animals- have been shown to lack the ability to feel pain and so we sympathize with them less.
I know I've seen my dog in pain before, and it hurts. So this hurts to hear, but is it hypocritical to let ants burn but be up in arms about these dogs?
Below is the link to the study about lobsters and pain...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/tech/main673989.shtml
SSBB Code: 0258 9993 5495
Double_Faces on
0
Posts
That's a whole other can of worms. That goes into the debate for and against zoos.
This thing is alot different.
That's kinda how I feel. I feel naive for assuming ants are fine with being dismembered, but I can see a dog's pain, and a dog isn't a drone like an insect is. I don't know, I think the natural feeling of guilt when we hurt certain animals is some kind of biological indicator.
Really, it's based on how we see the animal in everday life.
Millions of cows, pigs, and chickens are slaughtered (Not all humanely) each year but we don't bat an eyelash.
Meanwhile one dude kills some dogs and he is persucuted.
Cute animals and pets are often protected more than bugs or meat products.
I for one agree. I think it's hypocritical to say, ugh slaughter animals is gross, while eating a cheeseburger. But with our modern slaughterhouses and megamarts, the public has been removed from the gross or cruel part of the process.
No so with the bugs, er lobster. Many will tell you that anything but live, fresh lobster, is not real lobster, neigh edible. I've experienced this first hand, as I am married to a Mainer. Also, lobster does not do well frozen, or even fresh, yet dead, something the wife says has to do with a chemical the bug releases upon death.
I guess I'm rambling now, but my point is that yes, we should have our food, whether meat or vegetables/fruits as fresh as possible, from local sources. I would much rather get my steak from a local rancher then from walmart. So Mainers just get theirs as fresh as they can get, and enjoy it.
*Edit*
I guess I didn't really hit on the topic of pain. If some scientific study showed that cows experience immense pain during the slaughter process, I would still eat burgers and steaks. We have to realize, no matter how much pain they experience, they ultimately die, hence the amount of pain they experienced is null. Unless someone is going to make the argument that cows have souls, or some kind of afterlife, where they relive this torturous experience.
There is a huge difference between killing an animal to be eaten and watching two animals who are trained by a human to kill each other simply to get your rocks off.
Also, I was a complete douche to ants as a kid. I killed so many of them in pretty unpleasant ways. I kind of feel bad about it now.
Ends justify the means?
Just to be clear, I find the Vick/Dogfighting thing offensive too, just posed the question for discussion. It seems with animal nuts (PETA) that its all or nothing in regards to animal killing. In some twisted world, I'm sure that Vick (if he indeed did all that is accused) justified the killing as part of his hobby/business whatever.
I suppose that we could perform a thought experiment that as long as any animal dies, no matter how much they're tortured it doesn't matter if they die eventually?
We can then extend this "eventually" to infinity, for the sake of argument.
Um, I'll play, can we extend it to infinity if there needs to be a finite end/result.
The reason why I brought it up was that myself and my wife had an interesting discussion about this in regards to people. We are both Christians, but I like to pose questions that make us really discuss our faith. I usually bring things up like the whole the world is only X thousands of years type thing.
One day we were talking about death, and whether going in your sleep, or going when awake was a 'better' experience. Now the way I understand my faith is that all pain/sorrow/etc is removed once you reach heaven after death. I proposed that since this was true in what we believe to be our afterlife, it would not matter whether you died instantaneously, or were slowly tortured to death. Once dead, this experience of pain was essentially forgotten, much like our sins forgiven.
Now that I've gone off subject with my Christian hoodoo voodoo, what were we talking about again?
This is true, while the death of the dog did not really effect the dog (other than he ceased to exist) but the way of his death is now effecting alot of people.
But I definitely thing we are going off track now.
I'm just not sure what your final stand is, that cows have souls and thus dying allows them to be free of the pain they had to experience, or that they don't have souls and who cares about pain YUM YUM BBQ?
This whole "torture is ok as long as it ends in death" is pretty cold in my mind. I suppose it would be as if Vick were doing this to a small child who also didn't know any better. These animals do not know they are going to a painful experience simply so a dude with money can smile for a few minutes.
And if he did do the other things his friends say he did, then he is just fuckin nuts.
I guess, that cows don't have souls, that no matter how they died, they wouldn't remember, so YUM YUM.
I guess I brought up the 'my beliefs' thing was to spur discussion as to whether it matters if we kill for fun/food/whatever. If you believe that cows do have souls, and an afterlife that is Christian like, then the way the cows died doesn't really matter to the cows. But like it was mentioned before, the way the animals die does effective the killer, and all those around or hear about the killing.
This issue came up a year or so ago about the guys at the chicken slaughterhouse that would abuse the chickens by kicking them, etc. Yeah, people were appalled by their actions, thus it had an effect, but ultimately did it matter to the chickens?
Just to be clear, I'm with the op on this, in that killing for no reason, cruelly, is appalling. But since the op brought up the idea of pain (lobsters) I figured I would go down this path.
I wasn't saying torture was 'ok', but that ultimately, albeit coldly, it did not matter to the dog once dead. I guess that is cold, but I'd like to think that the dog, after death, did not have a recollection, or continuing pain from it's own death.
But hey it's late, and I'm probably not making sense. In the end, cruelty to animals is wrong, not so much because the animal thinks it is (depending on the level of animal, we make the determination of pain awareness, like the before mentioned lobster), but because we cannot fathom the idea of a person finding pleasure in inflicting acts of pain onto an animal. It goes against our basic beliefs. But, like you said, we can be cruel to animals and find it ok (ants), and inflict death on animals as long as it's for a righteous reason (food), so to Vick, he must have rationalized this somehow to be righteous.
Also, I'm very weary of what accused people say against bigger fish in plea bargains. It will be very interesting to see if any of it is true.
Putting a hole through a cow's head (Which is one of the devices used to kill a cow b efore it's turned into meat) is quick and painless. It's also done becasue the animal is needed as a source of food.
Drowning a dog becasue it's no good to you as a fighting animal is not quick, it's not painless, and it's not being done to serve any purpose beyond someone's sick entertainment.
Or a dude who lets a horse horsedick him to death?
That being said, my personal opinion is that Vick should be put away for life, what he's done is disgusting and completely inhuman.
Yeah, that's not actually true.
It was a huge beat-up by the media. In actuality it was a suggested as a protest over the fact that a couple of months prior the zoo had euthanised some baby animals for much the same reason. I'll see if I can find the details.
EDIT: Here we go http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887892.htm
And this is relevant to absolutely anything how? In neither case is the animal being subjected to cruel treatment.
People in developed countries don't for the most part need to consume any animal. It doesn't really serve any purpose other then entertainment.
The alternative is the (near?) extinction of all food animal species.
Also massive ruin of National Forests when hunters are no longer paying to keep them from being ruined by farmers.
Don't know about the aquatic environments though. Fish might be better off.
I'm pretty sure many humans get benefits from meat that they are unable to get from any other nutritional source. Also, while humans have "messed with the natural balance" to a huge degree, I'm pretty sure stopping the eating of all animals would more incidents of animal population control.
Eating also keeps these damned animals in fucking check
Kind of like the Stoic meme.
Pain doesn't count if you don't remember? How would you like it if I tortured you for a few hours every night, then drugged you up so you forgot?
Yes, but as an omnivorous being, meat is an expected part of the diet. There are other ways to get the nutrients you get out of meat, but I don't see any particularly reason to stop being omnivorous at this point. Although I guess the thought of having to go to the zoo to see what a cow, pig, or chicken looks is kind of cute.
It's not even that, it's that you could spend all day torturing him to death, but since he died at the end it doesn't matter.
I feel bad... but I had veal parm last week.
Yeah, but he thinks you would remember in heaven.
I'm pretty sure this is so. It seems somewhat reasonable, as the more we can identify with a particular animal, the more we feel we can empathize with its plight.
Well, in the case of ants, there is no plight to empathize with. Might as well feel bad for rocks getting split.
Also why we don't care as much about peasant farmers in Cambodia as we do about Canadians in Toronto. The definition of human/valuable life starts with us and diminishes as you go outward. That's why the stoics recommended mixing with as many different kinds of people from all walks of life as possible.
I'm pretty sure that fucking animals is legally considered animal abuse, and I know that PETA has a pretty dim view of it.
Morally, it's not really the same, as long as the animals aren't being hurt or coerced, or anything. Still fucking nasty, and the person doing it is pretty messed up in the head.
I'm going to respectfully keep my comments the hell out of this thread, now.