The Value of Human Life vs. Animal Life

[TwoXForr]

Cruelty to Animals

Gosh I wish this was really the biggest problem we were facing in the world.

I have had relatives involved in cock fighting, until they got busted. To me it is really not about the animals. Weather or not society or the individuals that make up society find an act as cruel is just a matter of the majority deciding what needs to be codified in law.

To me Vick having dogs fight, and then mistreating dogs tells me about Vick. He is a small, little person who takes pleasure in another creatures pain.

I like a hamburger as much as the next guy, and I don't consider it intentionally cruel to take them to the slaughterhouse. Hunting same thing, my family all hunts and would never think of letting an animal suffer if they had a say in the matter, one clean shot. But they all eat what they kill and I personally have never met a pure trophy hunter.

 

[Let it Bleed]

The main problem is that animals are living responsive creatures and thus are capable of triggering off a whole range of reactions in us, from love to the need to dominate. We are simply unable to be completely objective about them.

Of course, the same applies to our reactions to other humans. However there exists accepted and codified standards of treatment for humans. Additionally, people are capable of stating their own case in disputes.

Animals fit in different niches in our mental worlds. We see them as anything from friends to meat, from responsive and communicative souls to "brute beasts".

By defining an animal appropriately, it is possible to justify almost any sort of treatment of it and equally to justify almost any sort of action on its behalf.

A related problem is that our bases for assigning value to sentient creatures vary. At times, intelligence, the capacity to feel pain, religious value, scarcity and evolutionary closeness to Man have been proposed as measures for determining how we treat an animal species. Most of these fail dismally if only because they are so utterly unquantifiable and arbitrary.

Ultimately, it seems that our treatment of animals says more about ourselves than about them.

With that said, I would personally come to the aid and defense of my dog against any attack, be it human or animal. Conversely, I would not hesitate to send my dog in harms way to save even a stranger.

 

[The Tourist]

weird emotional gibberish ..."you are insane"

Why yes, yes I am. I was diagnosed Bipolar II.

be sure to lay down plastic before cutting

Well of course I would. I was also diagnosed as OCD.

Torture with a blade... damn.

Always fall back on your strengths in a crisis. I am a professional knife sharpener. And I studied anatomy in college as an adjunct to a degree in art for advertising.

Can you round up a few of your buddies

No prob. Do you validate for motorcycle parking and can you get a large quantity of beer in short notice?

 

[gordo_gun_guy]

Dog fighting harms people, and the culture that treats dogs like weapons does too. Think of all the pit bull mauling cases that you've heard about.

I think if you study the history of dog fighting in western civilisation, you'll see that mauling cases are more a product of forcing dog fighting underground than inherent to the sport. A proper fighting dog was strongly conditioned against biting people--they were expected to go full tilt against another dog, but still not snap at their handlers as they worked the pits. Maulings come from illegal backyard breeders who ignore this trait or try to create monster watch dogs out of a once noble fighting breed.

Here's a brief, internet history (for what that's worth):
http://www.realpitbull.com/history.html

I'm all for a manly respect for Nature's blessings; cherishing the animals I've hunted, valueing the loyalty of a pet, and such. But an undue concern for the plight of other's animals is just one more example of the feminization that is weakening our culture, right up there with the child self-esteem movement, political correctness, soccer and the metric system. (All right, the last two are debatable).

A fourteen year old kicking a puppy is disgusting.

Yes, it is. Because that deranged boy is cruelly violating the trust of an animal brought up as a pet. Even beyong the principles of Law, I believe in keeping your word, and living up to your end of a bargain. If someone thinks they need a pet and then abandons it when they realize the commitment involved, I've got no respect for that. And, if that abandoned pet is inflicted on society, it should be criminal, too.

 

[The Tourist]

Because that deranged boy...

...is usually a future Jeffrey Dahmer.

Any child who tortures animals, starts fires or other psychopathic behavior has the potential to become a serial killer.

Talk about insane.

When someone talks about cruelty to animals, I get a chill. I feel like I'm talking to a real nut-job, and it's spooky. And remember this opinion comes from a guy who has been around psychiatrists, hospital guards, depressed people, and the truly psychotic.

There is a phrase we use, "Put him down like a dog." It is an idiom we use meaning that person has little value in society and probably cannot be rehabilitated.

And I read these posts, and some truly disturb me.

Edit: If the mods are reading this thread, it might be time to lock it up. The profession of cruelty, at any level, is not what this forum should be about.

 

[Maxb49]

They may not realize it, but that's exactly the mindset of the ALF, a terrorist organization of the most insane type.

Oh sure, just label everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist. Why not call them communists while you're at it? A "mindset" (whatever that is), or better yet an ideology involves far more structure than a simple attitude or isolated action.

 

[Maxb49]

Some animals have the ability to think at a basic level and exercise sentience. Look up the African Grey Parrot. All life is valuable. Indiscriminate killing is the foundation for a society that does not value life.

 

[applesanity]

Some animals have the ability to think at a basic level and exercise sentience.

What's your point?

Smartest non-human animal on planet << Dumbest human on planet.

Thinking back on an episode of Futurama; the characters had just gone this whole ordeal of discovering a highly addictive, highly tasty snack, which turned out to be the larvae of a very powerful, trigger-happy alien race.

In the end, the people of Earth decide not to eat these larvae, on threat of death-ray.

In the last scene, they're all enjoying a giant dinner, and one of the characters say, "pass me the dolphin."

Another character says, "wait, aren't dolphins intelligent creatures?"

"Why yes, but this one lost all its money on lottery tickets."

"oh okay. In that case, pass me the speech center of the brain."

Dolphins != people.

I should note that during this particular episode, the leader of the super-powerful aliens has to deal with a granola-eating animal rights activist. This activist gets really annoying, so the alien eats him.

 

[Redworm]

Some animals have the ability to think at a basic level and exercise sentience. Look up the African Grey Parrot. All life is valuable. Indiscriminate killing is the foundation for a society that does not value life.

Actually virtually all animals exercise sentience. Pretty much everything under the phylum chordata can sense the world around them and certainly everything with a central nervous system.

Sapience, on the other hand, is self-awareness and few species exhibit traits that resemble it. Dolphins and gorillas are notable examples.

I'm not arguing that all life is valuable, just clarifying the difference between sentience and sapience.

 

[Maxb49]

Redworm,

I'm sorry. The word I was looking for was sapience. African Greys are sapient.

 

[Maxb49]

Applesanity,

Your argument is quite dangerous indeed. It would make human murder an acceptable act.

 

[applesanity]

No, my argument is that if you're not the dominent species, then you get no say. Especially if you've blown your money away on lottery tickets.

 

[elza]

Would I kill someone for intentionally harming my dog? No. I have no intention of having a needle stuck in my arm. Would there be serious retribution for it? You best you a$$ there would. And, as stated by others, it would not be pleasant for the recipient.

 

[Redworm]

No, my argument is that if you're not the dominent species, then you get no say. Especially if you've blown your money away on lottery tickets.

Ah but then you have those people that see those with darker skin or funny accents or only have part 1 of the "good book" as less than human and thus justify their killing because they are the dominant species.

 

[The Tourist]

Would I kill someone for intentionally harming my dog? No. I have no intention of having a needle stuck in my arm.

But please understand, I have no intention of having some scungili harm my dog. And if he dies, he dies. Felonious assault is a serious crime, and a dangerous one to practice. Try not to do it in front of the dog's owner.

But let's also demonstrate the "Darwin factor" in this thread.

Let's say you're a low-life, fresh with the sweet smell of crystal meth, and you decide to use this heady experience for a little excitement.

So you say to yourself, "Let's find an unstable biker who target shoots, sharpens blades and who has a working knowledge of anatomy and go kill his dog..."

There just comes a tipping point where observers point to his fetid remains and sigh, "Well, I'm with the biker on this one."

And that's my view on this. What kind of a sick weirdo attacks an animal? What kind of a demented chicken-choking perv then tries to justify his actions?

Does this walking brain-donor think he is ever going to get one moments rest from the unsavory people who are going to be chasing him?

For that matter, please define the guy who even starts a thread on this topic.

 

[miboso]

From my point of view, it's not that animals are equal to humans, but you can judge humans by how they treat animals, and other people.
That doesn't mean that I see anything wrong with the eating and wearing of animals.

 

[The Tourist]

That doesn't mean that I see anything wrong with the eating and wearing of animals.

This is actually two separate issues. And a poor debater will try and blur the edges.

First, as I've said before, we're the good guys. Yes, many of us hunt. But we do so legally, we do so mercifully and we participate in 'free chase.' We do not cage up a poor or sick animal and butcher it for sport.

Having said that, don't let anyone mix hunting with cruelty. And somehow the concept of cruelty has entered a debate on the 'food chain' and the dominance of man over animals.

And a message to the creator of this thread. I care for my dogs. I take them to the doctor. I sat and held my dog when she was shaking--trembling--because she had gotten many shots at the same office. She is not only my responsibility, but I love her.

Now, that feeling and compassion for the animals in my care has seemed to become the butt end of a few jokes here. Fair enough. However in your next breath we dog owners are belittled for providing protection--armed action against human aggressors--in a declaration of this love.

There's an easy fix to this supposed disconnect in thinking.

Get it through your head that animals as pets are very important to people. The tragedy of your miserable life, with no one to love, is not part of our lexicon. And in your bitter loneliness, you do not derive the right to denigrate the feelings and actions of those in more successful pursuits.

I am told that many of my brothers carry "pocket dogs" inside their leather jackets. If you feel strident and secure in your place of dominance, it should be a simple task to whack them back into line by the force of your intellect and take the animal from them.

But I am reminded of other loud-mouths who throw red paint. You'll notice that they only harrass older women in mink. They never throw this red paint on Angels, who also wear animal skins.

I'd still like to hear your rebuttal. That is if you think any of us crazies can understand all of those big words.

 

[applesanity]

Ah but then you have those people that see those with darker skin or funny accents or only have part 1 of the "good book" as less than human and thus justify their killing because they are the dominant species.

Then those people should clue themselves in on what the definition of "species" is.

I don't know why, but this very serious thread about the (mis)treatment of animals and their worth compared to the homo sapiens sapiens species is hilarious.

What kind of a sick weirdo attacks an animal?

Michael Myers, in the movie, Halloween, now playing at a theater near you.

 

[The Tourist]

Well, this stuff bothers a lot more people than you've been led to believe.

In the front page of today's paper, The Wisconsin State Journal, there's an article discussing this very principle. Clearly, many sickos torture the animals of their spouses to get back at them.

And again, I ask for a serious rebuttal on this topic.

I want to see a clear, concise and comprehensive opinion on why a stance like mine is incorrect. Not some short flippant answer with a puerile joke, but a well thought out response. I don't think I'll get one, but not for the reason you might think.

There's a gentleman in the martialarts circle by the name of Phil Elmore. And while I have several differences with him, he is a very good writer. He has written a treatise on trolls that applies here.

He designates a group called 'sophist trolls.' It's a group that stirs the pot on a seemingly intellectual topic, and then sits back as the fireworks begin. And that definition and agenda apply here.

I don't think the actual subject of animals and their safety was ever the intended focus. After all, many of us are hunters or live in a rural area. For people who like firearms, you can bet there are hunting dogs, companion dogs, dozens of cats that haunt old barns and 4H animals being raised by their children.

The injury to this group would set off any clear thinking man, and after a good night's sleep, I feel that is the real purpose.

You'll notice that I never got a rebuttal. Why would there be a response? He got my dander up, I lashed out, he laughed and insulted me and disappeared back under the rock.

I've stated my opinion, in a clear fashion, and I don't feed the trolls.

 

[applesanity]

Well, this stuff bothers a lot more people than you've been led to believe.

My apologies for the confusion. Not meant to trivialize you; I'm saying that I don't think anyone here is really disagreeing with one another. I'm reading though these posts and nobody is really saying that it's okay to beat up a animal for fun, or that there's nothing meaningful about the bond between pet and owner.

There's nothing to rebut because I'm not disagreeing with you, tourist.