PDA

View Full Version : Alabama: Animal rights done right.



Harpy
26th August 10, 04:58 PM
For Ozz. And for those who don't believe animals deserve justice.

Scroll right to the end of the news link to see the pictures...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/08/pit-bull-who-was-set-on-fire-and-beaten-attends-parole-hearing-for-his-abuser.html

A pit bull that was sprayed in lighter fuel, set on fire and beaten with a shovel by his former owner attended the parole hearing of Juan Daniels who was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison for his act of cruelty. He will be eligible for parole in July 2012.

It is not difficult for every state and country to enact the same punishment for those who harm animals (other than in self defence).

I remember this case from a few years ago and am happy that the parole board stuck to it's guns despite the pleas of Daniels' family and friends. The dog, Louis Vuitton, lives with a new family now.

Kein Haar
26th August 10, 05:09 PM
I'd rather a few pitbulls get set on fire and people walk the streets, than have people like Lilith freak out when see an e-collar on my dog.

I mean, if I had to choose.

bob
26th August 10, 05:12 PM
That's like 63 dog years in jail.

Kein Haar
26th August 10, 05:17 PM
That's true, bob. Good observation.

hail him plz

Odacon
26th August 10, 05:26 PM
Fuck yeah.

AAAAAA
26th August 10, 05:29 PM
A pit bull that was sprayed in lighter fuel, set on fire and beaten with a shovel by his former owner attended the parole hearing of Juan Daniels who was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months in prison for his act of cruelty. He will be eligible for parole in July 2012.


Holy shit 9 YEARS. That is out of proportion.
Is the sentence linked to the cuteness and intelligence of the beast? To its position in the food chain? To its status as "friend" or "neutral" or "enemy" of men? What if he did the same to a sewer rat? Or to a bovine, maybe while working in a slaughterhouse? Don't those workers inflict atrocious sufferings to hundreds of beasts?

That guy is probably a lowlife piece of shit, but hey, 9 years in prison is ridiculous and hypocrytical. It'd be ok if it were a druidic society or something.

lant3rn
26th August 10, 05:30 PM
I'd rather a few pitbulls get set on fire and people walk the streets, than have people like Lilith freak out when see an e-collar on my dog.

I mean, if I had to choose.

Why would you need an e collar if you have trained your dog properly?

jvjim
26th August 10, 05:38 PM
It'd be ok if it were a druidic society or something.

We have a lot of drudes in Alabama.

jvjim
26th August 10, 05:40 PM
One things for sure, defendant had a shitty lawyer.

Spade: The Real Snake
26th August 10, 05:45 PM
and by "Shitty Lawyer" he means "Court-Appointed As You Cannot Afford One"

jvjim
26th August 10, 05:49 PM
In Montgomery, that's statistically probably not true, if it was tried since the economic collapse.

Ajamil
26th August 10, 06:42 PM
Why would anyone freak out over an e-collar?

What crime perpetrated toward a human would warrant you nine years? Could you get that for assault with a deadly weapon? Not saying setting a dog on fire should be given the same penalty as setting a human on fire, but I'm curious as to where this lies on the punishment scale.

Kein Haar
26th August 10, 06:43 PM
Or to a bovine, maybe while working in a slaughterhouse? Don't those workers inflict atrocious sufferings to hundreds of beasts?

No.

Commodore Pipes
26th August 10, 09:01 PM
Why would you need an e collar if you have trained your dog properly?

Maybe to properly train the dog?

WarPhalange
26th August 10, 09:03 PM
Holy shit 9 YEARS. That is out of proportion.
Is the sentence linked to the cuteness and intelligence of the beast? To its position in the food chain? To its status as "friend" or "neutral" or "enemy" of men? What if he did the same to a sewer rat? Or to a bovine, maybe while working in a slaughterhouse? Don't those workers inflict atrocious sufferings to hundreds of beasts?

That guy is probably a lowlife piece of shit, but hey, 9 years in prison is ridiculous and hypocrytical. It'd be ok if it were a druidic society or something.

Setting a live dog on fire.

I don't think slaughterhouse workers set live animals on fire.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
26th August 10, 09:06 PM
fuck animal rights. im going to go buy fifty leather jackets after eating some koala steaks and then im going to go slap a panda bear in the face with my dick.

nihilist
26th August 10, 09:20 PM
First they set animals on fire then they graduate to homos.

Angry Mandrill
26th August 10, 09:49 PM
i love that the dog attended the hearing. prolly to push for a harsher sentence, cuz nine years ain't nearly enough for naming the fucking thing Louis Vuitton.

Harpy
26th August 10, 11:14 PM
lantern - out of proportion to what? You just need to evolve the way you think about animals under the care of humans. Yes, sentences for human-on-human violence may at times seem insufficient, however this should be canvassed through other channels. NOT by treating human violence against animals as a lesser crime.

Did you SEE the burns the poor dog suffered? Can you imagine what justice you would expect if someone threw accelerant on you, set you on fire and beat you with a shovel through NO fault of yours? Daniels' sentence is absolutely fitting.

Nid - you fail with your attempts to read between the lines. Shut the fuck up.

Commodore Pipes
26th August 10, 11:44 PM
You keep equating animals with humans. You should stop doing that.

WarPhalange
26th August 10, 11:48 PM
You keep equating animals with humans. You should stop doing that.

There are humans out there that deserve to be classified below animals.

Also, I find it weird that people are clamoring for lower sentences for this guy just because he did it to an animal, as if it didn't hurt as much because it was a dog. I honestly don't see the difference between torturing animals and torturing humans.

Was he going to eat the dog? Was the dog trying to kill him? No? Then fuck him.

Commodore Pipes
26th August 10, 11:51 PM
There are humans out there that deserve to be classified below animals.


Why?


I honestly don't see the difference between torturing animals and torturing humans.


Really?

WarPhalange
26th August 10, 11:53 PM
Why?

You would save Bin Laden or Manson over a cute puppy?


Really?

Real talk.

Ajamil
26th August 10, 11:54 PM
What difference do you suggest there is in regards to the act of torture?

Commodore Pipes
26th August 10, 11:58 PM
The ability to imagine one's demise, for one. How many animals can do that, other than magpies, foxes, and certain kinds of swine?

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:10 AM
The pain caused isn't enough for equal justice? Avoiding a tangent on which lifeforms can predict death, why does thinking you might die affect a sentence of assault and/or torture? I believe it's been pointed out most toddlers have no conception of their own demise as well.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:17 AM
The pain caused isn't enough for equal justice?

You didn't ask about equal justice. You asked what I thought was a difference in torture.


The pain caused isn't enough for equal justice?

No. As expressed before, animals are chattel.


Avoiding a tangent on which lifeforms can predict death, why does thinking you might die affect a sentence of assault and/or torture?

It doesn't. Chattel animals don't have the same rights as a human. That affects sentences, or should.


I believe it's been pointed out most toddlers have no conception of their own demise as well.

It's also been pointed out that animals are chattel. Babies are not.

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:21 AM
If you think torture should be punished, then I am asking why you think one torturous act should receive different justice than the same act on a different species.

Your answer is that the other species is chattel and they have no conception of dying?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:28 AM
The other species is chattel. This isn't an unjust distinction, like it was during slavery.

The ability to imagine one's death is unrelated to the legal issue. It demonstrates why torturing an animal is a boorish and morally cowardly act, but doesn't necessarily reflect on the legal status.

WarPhalange
27th August 10, 12:30 AM
No. As expressed before, animals are chattel.



It doesn't. Chattel animals don't have the same rights as a human. That affects sentences, or should.



It's also been pointed out that animals are chattel. Babies are not.

So you're seriously basing your entire opinion on what the law states on the subject?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:31 AM
I was lead to believe that we were discussing sentencing? What criteria would you have me use?

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:35 AM
Why is it a just distinction? Why is it not like slavery? The law you are suggesting sounds exactly like when humans could be classified under chattel. I think this is entirely cultural.

Edit: This was started by not seeing the difference between torturing animals and torturing humans, not the legal implication of such acts.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:36 AM
Why is it a just distinction? Why is it not like slavery? The law you are suggesting sounds exactly like when humans could be classified under chattel. I think this is entirely cultural.

I was hoping you would have stopped to think before you got here.

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:38 AM
I have thought on this for years. That's not an answer.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:43 AM
You really need someone to explain how chattel animals and HUMAN SLAVES are different?

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:45 AM
Do you need to see quotes showing how slaves WEREN'T HUMAN?

WarPhalange
27th August 10, 12:45 AM
You really need someone to explain how chattel animals and HUMAN SLAVES are different?

This is the central point here. Why is torturing animals a lesser crime in your opinion than torturing humans?

If it's because they are property, then would torturing human slaves be a lesser crime than torturing free humans?

What makes humans so special?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:47 AM
Do you need to see quotes showing how slaves WEREN'T HUMAN?

Yes.

Don't forget to define human.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:49 AM
This is the central point here. Why is torturing animals a lesser crime in your opinion than torturing humans?

If it's because they are property, then would torturing human slaves be a lesser crime than torturing free humans?

What makes humans so special?

Do you know much about slavery in America?

Ajamil
27th August 10, 12:49 AM
Define it for what era?

WarPhalange
27th August 10, 12:52 AM
Do you know much about slavery in America?

There has been slavery all over the world. Property is property. Would you see torturing a slave as a lesser crime than torturing a free person?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:53 AM
Define it for what era?

The era the quotes come from, silly. If you are going to provide quotes about how an era does and does not define humanity, we are going to need a baseline, aren't we?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:55 AM
There has been slavery all over the world. Property is property. Would you see torturing a slave as a lesser crime than torturing a free person?

No. And in South Carolina before 1825, neither did South Carolina.

Edit: However, I do see torturing an animal as a lesser crime than torturing a human slave. The question I am compelled to ask is: why don't you?

Adouglasmhor
27th August 10, 12:56 AM
fuck animal rights. im going to go buy fifty leather jackets after eating some koala steaks and then im going to go slap a panda bear in the face with my dick.


As most of us have seen your "dick" my bets on the panda to win.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 12:57 AM
As most of us have seen your "dick" my bets on the panda to win.

This is true.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 01:04 AM
Edit: This was started by not seeing the difference between torturing animals and torturing humans, not the legal implication of such acts.

I just noticed the edit. There is a difference between torturing animals who cannot imagine their own death and those who can. Torturing an animal that cannot imagine its death is mere cruelty, ignorant and brutal. Of course I don't condone it. Please don't draw that conclusion merely because I think torturing a human is worse.

Ajamil
27th August 10, 01:12 AM
Quote from here. (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm) I think I'd have to actually research instead of Google for more explicit quotes, however here even the rescuers use the words "creature" or "being" more often than "human."

As for a definition, I believe at this time a man had the self-evident right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a being was not afforded these rights, then you can't really say they were considered on the same level as a human.


She had taken in, on the coast of Africa, 336 males and 226 females, making in all 562, and had been out seventeen days, during which she had thrown overboard 55. The slaves were all inclosed under grated hatchways between decks. The space was so low that they sat between each other's legs and [were] stowed so close together that there was no possibility of their lying down or at all changing their position by night or day. As they belonged to and were shipped on account of different individuals, they were all branded like sheep with the owner's marks of different forms. These were impressed under their breasts or on their arms, and, as the mate informed me with perfect indifference 'burnt with the red-hot iron.' Over the hatchway stood a ferocious-looking fellow with a scourge of many twisted thongs in his hand, who was the slave driver of the ship, and whenever he heard the slightest noise below, he shook it over them and seemed eager to exercise it. I was quite pleased to take this hateful badge out of his hand, and I have kept it ever since as a horrid memorial of reality, should I ever be disposed to forget the scene I witnessed.



As soon as the poor creatures saw us looking down at them, their dark and melancholy visages brightened up. They perceived something of sympathy and kindness in our looks which they had not been accustomed to, and, feeling instinctively that we were friends, they immediately began to shout and clap their hands. One or two had picked up a few Portuguese words, and cried out, "Viva! Viva!" The women were particularly excited. They all held up their arms, and when we bent down and shook hands with them, they could not contain their delight; they endeavored to scramble up on their knees, stretching up to kiss our hands, and we understood that they knew we were come to liberate them. Some, however, hung down their heads in apparently hopeless dejection; some were greatly emaciated, and some, particularly children, seemed dying.

But the circumstance which struck us most forcibly was how it was possible for such a number of human beings to exist, packed up and wedged together as tight as they could cram, in low cells three feet high, the greater part of which, except that immediately under the grated hatchways, was shut out from light or air, and this when the thermometer, exposed to the open sky, was standing in the shade, on our deck, at 89'. The space between decks was divided into two compartments 3 feet 3 inches high; the size of one was 16 feet by 18 and of the other 40 by 21; into the first were crammed the women and girls, into the second the men and boys: 226 fellow creatures were thus thrust into one space 288 feet square and 336 into another space 800 feet square, giving to the whole an average Of 23 inches and to each of the women not more than 13 inches. We also found manacles and fetters of different kinds, but it appears that they had all been taken off before we boarded.

The heat of these horrid places was so great and the odor so offensive that it was quite impossible to enter them, even had there been room. They were measured as above when the slaves had left them. The officers insisted that the poor suffering creatures should be admitted on deck to get air and water. This was opposed by the mate of the slaver, who, from a feeling that they deserved it, declared they would murder them all. The officers, however, persisted, and the poor beings were all turned up together. It is impossible to conceive the effect of this eruption - 517 fellow creatures of all ages and sexes, some children, some adults, some old men and women, all in a state of total nudity, scrambling out together to taste the luxury of a little fresh air and water. They came swarming up like bees from the aperture of a hive till the whole deck was crowded to suffocation front stem to stern, so that it was impossible to imagine where they could all have come from or how they could have been stowed away. On looking into the places where they had been crammed, there were found some children next the sides of the ship, in the places most remote from light and air; they were lying nearly in a torpid state after the rest had turned out. The little creatures seemed indifferent as to life or death, and when they were carried on deck, many of them could not stand.

After enjoying for a short time the unusual luxury of air, some water was brought; it was then that the extent of their sufferings was exposed in a fearful manner. They all rushed like maniacs towards it. No entreaties or threats or blows could restrain them; they shrieked and struggled and fought with one another for a drop of this precious liquid, as if they grew rabid at the sight of it.
It was not surprising that they should have endured much sickness and loss of life in their short passage. They had sailed from the coast of Africa on the 7th of May and had been out but seventeen days, and they had thrown overboard no less than fifty-five, who had died of dysentery and other complaints in that space of time, though they had left the coast in good health. Indeed, many of the survivors were seen lying about the decks in the last stage of emaciation and in a state of filth and misery not to be looked at. Even-handed justice had visited the effects of this unholy traffic on the crew who were engaged in it. Eight or nine had died, and at that moment six were in hammocks on board, in different stages of fever. This mortality did not arise from want of medicine. There was a large stock ostentatiously displayed in the cabin, with a manuscript book containing directions as to the quantities; but the only medical man on board to prescribe it was a black, who was as ignorant as his patients.

While expressing my horror at what I saw and exclaiming against the state of this vessel for conveying human beings, I was informed by my friends, who had passed so long a time on the coast of Africa and visited so many ships, that this was one of the best they had seen. The height sometimes between decks was only eighteen inches, so that the unfortunate beings could not turn round or even on their sides, the elevation being less than the breadth of their shoulders; and here they are usually chained to the decks by the neck and legs. In such a place the sense of misery and suffocation is so great that the Negroes, like the English in the Black Hole at Calcutta, are driven to a frenzy. They had on one occasion taken a slave vessel in the river Bonny; the slaves were stowed in the narrow space between decks and chained together. They heard a horrible din and tumult among them and could not imagine from what cause it proceeded. They opened the hatches and turned them up on deck. They were manacled together in twos and threes. Their horror may be well conceived when they found a number of them in different stages of suffocation; many of them were foaming at the mouth and in the last agonies-many were dead. A living man was sometimes dragged up, and his companion was a dead body; sometimes of the three attached to the same chain, one was dying and another dead. The tumult they had heard was the frenzy of those suffocating wretches in the last stage of fury and desperation, struggling to extricate themselves. When they were all dragged up, nineteen were irrecoverably dead. Many destroyed one another in the hopes of procuring room to breathe; men strangled those next them, and women drove nails into each other's brains. Many unfortunate creatures on other occasions took the first opportunity of leaping overboard and getting rid, in this way, of an intolerable life."

Ajamil
27th August 10, 01:14 AM
There is a difference between torturing animals who cannot imagine their own death and those who can. Torturing an animal that cannot imagine its death is mere cruelty, ignorant and brutal.Torturing an animal that can is worse? Why?

Of course I don't condone it. Please don't draw that conclusion merely because I think torturing a human is worse.Never even entered my mind.

Edit: Alright, it's 2am and I need to sleep (stupid head cold). I will pick this up tomorrow, and since I doubt I'll be working (stupid head cold) I should be able to go visit the library and see what I can find.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 01:23 AM
Quote from here. (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm) I think I'd have to actually research instead of Google for more explicit quotes, however here even the rescuers use the words "creature" or "being" more often than "human."

As for a definition, I believe at this time a man had the self-evident right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a being was not afforded these rights, then you can't really say they were considered on the same level as a human.

"Creature" was generally a sympathetic term denoting creation by God in Genesis. It wasn't until hack writers like H.P. Lovecraft needed florid synonyms for 'monster' that it assumed more sinister connotations. "Being" is also frequently used to affirm a sense of self and an active mind, more than mere biological functions. I would not say either is particularly insulting or dehumanizing.

Still, the rescuers used the phrase 'human beings', and even the term 'children.' Not sure what you hope to accomplish with these quotes, though.

EDIT: Yeah, the little one is finally asleep, and it's time I joined him in slumberland.

Harpy
27th August 10, 02:24 AM
I just noticed the edit. There is a difference between torturing animals who cannot imagine their own death and those who can. Torturing an animal that cannot imagine its death is mere cruelty, ignorant and brutal. Of course I don't condone it. Please don't draw that conclusion merely because I think torturing a human is worse.
Comm - you're making huge assumptions thinking that humans are all-knowing about the workings of animal minds.

At the core of life is the instinct to survive. Given man-made law, man-made beliefs, an act against life by a human should be treated as such, no matter the species. I hold very strongly to this belief and see our 'baseline' (and laws) hopefully changing for the better to align with this perspective.

I also understand you don't condone cruelty against animals (or humans) but just want to discuss the issue in a civil way which is nice to see.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 02:58 AM
Setting a live dog on fire.

I don't think slaughterhouse workers set live animals on fire.

Then the discriminant is the use of fire. If he just killed the dog there'd be no problem, since that's what is done to so many animals daily everywhere to feed us with tasty meat.

But he was not going to eat the dog: he was just doing it for cruelty. What a scum. Let's lock him out for 9 years, so we notorious life-lovers can keep doing our thing, like legally killing other humans and beasts, even though we really hate it, but that's just our lifestyle and we have reasons, so it's different, not the same kind of life.

Sarcasm aside, what I don't like about this is that life and cruelty are treated as absolute good and bad, where in normal life they aren't at all. This is just a convenient outlet to feel good and not look at all the other things we as a society do, which don't fit at all with that disgust of torture.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 02:59 AM
Is the sentence linked to the cuteness and intelligence of the beast? To its position in the food chain? To its status as "friend" or "neutral" or "enemy" of men? What if he did the same to a sewer rat?


Will anybody answer this?

Harpy
27th August 10, 03:00 AM
You're getting it wrong.

nihilist
27th August 10, 03:17 AM
You keep equating animals with humans. You should stop doing that.

Human's ARE animals. And, if you think that torture is all fine and dandy then drop by and let's play.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 06:14 AM
Sarcasm aside, what I don't like about this is that life and cruelty are treated as absolute good and bad, where in normal life they aren't at all. This is just a convenient outlet to feel good and not look at all the other things we as a society do, which don't fit at all with that disgust of torture.


QFT. Sometimes I wonder if this sort of situation is just an opportunity to feel better about one's misanthropy.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 06:15 AM
And, if you think that torture is all fine and dandy then drop by and let's play.

For someone good at wordplay you don't seem to read a whole lot.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 06:30 AM
You're getting it wrong.

I'm asking a question that would help to shed light on what your stance is. Unless of course your stance is "lock up the fucker, poor doggy, I like dogs!"

billy sol hurok
27th August 10, 07:20 AM
Lock up the fucker, poor doggy, I like dogs!

I also like proper punctuation, but for you I'm willing to make an exception.

Here's another aggravating circumstance as yet unmentioned: it was his own dog. (Which, for the "chattel" crowd, may be a mitigating circumstance.) His own dog, who trusted in him for shelter and sustenance.

I wish him ill.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 08:30 AM
Lock up the fucker, poor doggy, I like dogs!

I also like proper punctuation, but for you I'm willing to make an exception.

Here's another aggravating circumstance as yet unmentioned: it was his own dog. (Which, for the "chattel" crowd, may be a mitigating circumstance.) His own dog, who trusted in him for shelter and sustenance.

I wish him ill.

What if it was your son? Would you think it'd be right for him to be in jail 9 years for torturing a dog? I ask since I see you can only reason in emotional terms, so let's put EVEN MORE emotions on the scale.

billy sol hurok
27th August 10, 08:36 AM
I'd be too busy wondering how I'd managed to raise such a vile sociopath -- and why. That is, if the shame didn't kill me first.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 09:00 AM
Do you think that he'd deserve 9 years of his life in jail for doing that? That is the issue, not the cruelty of the behaviour. I see nobody's going to address that. It's so much easier to just feel.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 09:29 AM
Edit: Jesus, stupid repost. I've been having problems with my connection all day.

nihilist
27th August 10, 11:12 AM
For someone good at wordplay you don't seem to read a whole lot.

OK smartass, Use your rationale to defend why it is less horrible to torture a cat than a one year old human child.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 11:23 AM
OK smartass, Use your rationale to defend why it is less horrible to torture a cat than a one year old human child.

You really don't see the difference? I don't mean in your specific example: I mean between a human and an animal?

For one, the baby will probably make a worse noise.

nihilist
27th August 10, 11:29 AM
You really don't see the difference?

A one year old cannot imagine it's own suffering. That ability comes later in life.


I'm giving you a chance to explain the difference.

If you don't have an answer, I won't chide you for a lack of reading cause that would just be cowardly. ;)

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 11:41 AM
A one year old cannot imagine it's own suffering. That ability comes later in life.


I'm giving you a chance to explain the difference.

If you don't have an answer, I won't chide you for a lack of reading cause that would just be cowardly. ;)

That's fair. :) I don't think the difference between torturing an animal and torturing a human is based in its ability to imagine its own suffering. That's just one distinction. That's what my admittedly snide remark about reading came from.

I am actually quite sympathetic to animals, but my central problem is with equating animal torture with human torture, and the reason is this: such an egalitarian idea, that animals and humans are equal, and the entire concept of animal rights, are completely alien to animals themselves.

It is an order imposed on them by well-meaning humans, but that doesn't make it any less unnatural. What prison sentence does the cat in the example who plays with its prey get?

I concede that while some advanced primates can show empathy to other primates, even primates of a different species, that does not extend to all animals. Chimpanzees eat other primates all the time, and they are pretty advanced.

No, this idea is a human one, and while it might not be shared by all humans, I cannot believe it is shared or ever will be shared by ANY animal. And the humans that don't share it, or don't share it to that degree, can change their minds. I do not think this capacity exists in animals.

Like I said, I don't condone animal torture. I do not thik animals should be tortured at all, and I don't think those who do should avoid punishment. However, I think equating humans with animals, and even discussing the 'rights' of animals, are ultimately unsupportable positions. I was all set to troll this toward slaves = animals, or humane society=nazis, but I think I have already started to alienate people when all I really want to do it make a point: though the position that animals shouldn't be tortured is a valid one, saying it's because they have equal rights, or even any rights at all, is unsustainable under scrutiny and debases the concept of rights. it is noble to defend animals, but I think there needs to be a better, more compelling argument for it.

Okay, I am late for a lunch meeting, so I will be offline for a few hours. I'm not running away; I really am interested in this topic. And even though I admit my methods were trollish, I think I make a valid point.

nihilist
27th August 10, 11:55 AM
Of course it's a HUMAN idea. Cats don't set up victim's tribunals.

The fact that many murderers and rapists start off by torturing animals is a good reason why there should be (Human) laws against it.

That is, unless we, as a society deem it OK to torture and kill at will.

I think that if a sadistic rape-killer believes that it's OK to rape-kill then he/she should be treated in accordance with those beliefs.

My plan is simple: The rape-killers in the rape-killer prison get rape-killed by the incoming rape-killers and then wait for the new rape-killers to arrive and dispense new and exiting rape-killing.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 01:48 PM
http://nunonbreak.com/Aug10/swallow.jpg

An African swallow or a European swallow?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 01:49 PM
Of course it's a HUMAN idea. Cats don't set up victim's tribunals.

The fact that many murderers and rapists start off by torturing animals is a good reason why there should be (Human) laws against it.

That is, unless we, as a society deem it OK to torture and kill at will.

I think that if a sadistic rape-killer believes that it's OK to rape-kill then he/she should be treated in accordance with those beliefs.

My plan is simple: The rape-killers in the rape-killer prison get rape-killed by the incoming rape-killers and then wait for the new rape-killers to arrive and dispense new and exiting rape-killing.

Oh, I thought you were sincere there for a moment.

nihilist
27th August 10, 01:52 PM
But who rape-kills the rape-killers after they killed all of the rape-killers?
There can be only one.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 01:57 PM
There can be only one.

You're really good at this, actually. I don't have the stomach for a long-term troll, but it just seems so effortless with you.

billy sol hurok
27th August 10, 02:20 PM
Let's work backwards then.

Bobby Ray sets your car on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Bobby Ray sets his own car on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Bobby Ray sets your child on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Bobby Ray sets his own child on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Bobby Ray sets your dog on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Bobby Ray sets his own dog on fire, whops it with a shovel. His sentence?

Ajamil
27th August 10, 04:53 PM
"Creature" was generally a sympathetic term denoting creation by God in Genesis. It wasn't until hack writers like H.P. Lovecraft needed florid synonyms for 'monster' that it assumed more sinister connotations. "Being" is also frequently used to affirm a sense of self and an active mind, more than mere biological functions. I would not say either is particularly insulting or dehumanizing.

Still, the rescuers used the phrase 'human beings', and even the term 'children.' Not sure what you hope to accomplish with these quotes, though.I was trying to show that even with an objectively acknowledged similarity of species, slaves were not considered on the same level of human as the slavers. The thread has gone in a different direction, so I'll drop it and concede the point to save time.


If he just killed the dog there'd be no problem, since that's what is done to so many animals daily everywhere to feed us with tasty meat.

But he was not going to eat the dog: he was just doing it for cruelty. What a scum. Let's lock him out for 9 years, so we notorious life-lovers can keep doing our thing, like legally killing other humans and beasts, even though we really hate it, but that's just our lifestyle and we have reasons, so it's different, not the same kind of life.

Sarcasm aside, what I don't like about this is that life and cruelty are treated as absolute good and bad, where in normal life they aren't at all. This is just a convenient outlet to feel good and not look at all the other things we as a society do, which don't fit at all with that disgust of torture. There's no possibility of living without taking other life. Only on the lowest spaces of the food chain can this be achieved. Recognizing that, there must be some acceptance of killing. This does not mean that we shouldn't try to minimize the pain involved in such things, or that we should allow unnecessary killing/harm.

In what aspect of normal life is setting a living being on fire not considered cruel? And yes, I would like the person who set sewer rats on fire to be imprisoned.


What if it was your son? Would you think it'd be right for him to be in jail 9 years for torturing a dog? I ask since I see you can only reason in emotional terms, so let's put EVEN MORE emotions on the scale. Absolutely. I may have a terrible perspective being without son, but the fact that my child could do such an act would horrify me.

I am actually quite sympathetic to animals, but my central problem is with equating animal torture with human torture, and the reason is this: such an egalitarian idea, that animals and humans are equal, and the entire concept of animal rights, are completely alien to animals themselves.So because they'd do it to us? Even if it were true that other species don't have empathy, this shouldn't hold any weight against the laws that govern humans. Humans know the pain felt from a dog's nervous system is equitable to ours, therefore humans should be held to similar standards when dealing with crimes involving such pain.

though the position that animals shouldn't be tortured is a valid one, saying it's because they have equal rights, or even any rights at all, is unsustainable under scrutiny and debases the concept of rightsWhy does the idea of animals having rights debase the concept of rights? I feel this is just resistance to massive change such a concept would bring into our world. There are already animal cruelty laws on the books, which give an implication of the rights animals have. I don't think animals should have all the rights a human does, only because with today's understanding and ability to communicate cross-species would make them untenable.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 05:26 PM
So because they'd do it to us?

What is the 'it' here?

Truculent Sheep
27th August 10, 05:43 PM
It's an act of sadism which outrages public decency. Humans have a duty of care over their animals - to what extent and in what form is often arguable, but in this case it's not. The sentence is roughly the right one, I think.

Cullion
27th August 10, 06:01 PM
It'd be ok if it were a druidic society or something.

I really should have done Druid Month properly back at the solstice.

I don't think most people know what they're dealing with when the D word comes up.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 06:18 PM
I really should have done Druid Month properly back at the solstice.

I don't think most people know what they're dealing with when the D word comes up.

It's a power word!

Maybe I should have said "jainist" to make my point. But please, do expand, maybe in another thread.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 06:45 PM
In what aspect of normal life is setting a living being on fire not considered cruel? And yes, I would like the person who set sewer rats on fire to be imprisoned.

...

Absolutely. I may have a terrible perspective being without son, but the fact that my child could do such an act would horrify me.


Again, I'm not talking about it being horrifying to you as a father, but about the justness of taking his youth away for having been cruel to a dog. Or a sewer rat. You are losing perspective of what a human life is worth, in my opinion.



So because they'd do it to us? Even if it were true that other species don't have empathy, this shouldn't hold any weight against the laws that govern humans. Humans know the pain felt from a dog's nervous system is equitable to ours, therefore humans should be held to similar standards when dealing with crimes involving such pain.


Actually I agree, we are humans and we have freedom to decide, that's why it's a responsibility of ours to be kind to animals, exactly because they are not our peers and they are ultimately defenseless. That's what strikes you all as unjust, and of course it is, and this clouds the gross disproportion of the punishment, to satisfy your indignation over something that has a big emotional grip.



It's an act of sadism which outrages public decency. Humans have a duty of care over their animals - to what extent and in what form is often arguable, but in this case it's not. The sentence is roughly the right one, I think.


Very well put, appeal to public decency is a great way to avoid discussion, as your next sentence said. Basically: everybody likes doggies, and btw there's nothing to argue here because, just look at it.

What fails me is how you translate that into 9 years of fucking jail. You throw up years like they were nothing.

Harpy
27th August 10, 06:56 PM
creativo - 9 years and six months sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentence for a human who sets fire and beats another human or animal. We are not reducing the significance of human life (moreso acknowledging that our right to life is no more superior to an animals). You're extrapolating with that assumption.

Daniels was 23 when he committed the offence. If he was a minor there would be a different set of rules (as there are for human minors who kill, rape or commit crimes in general...though even that has been known to be overriden for harsher sentences).

I'd say that there hasn't been any spewing of emotion on this thread when discussing the case. So how about you stop using the 'emotional indignation' charge?

I believe a few others have distinctly differentiated cruelty against animals as opposed to the killing and consumption of living things.

Cullion
27th August 10, 07:07 PM
It's a power word!

Maybe I should have said "jainist" to make my point. But please, do expand, maybe in another thread.

short answer: druids weren't evenly vaguely vegetarian, and human sacrifice and cannibalism were common practices in their religion.

Maybe they were 'in touch with nature'. But it was a nature that was 'red in tooth and claw' rather than a 'suburban hippy enjoying a camping weekend' kind of nature.

The pre-Roman Celts used to eat their defeated enemies' hearts and decorate their homes with their skulls. Their religion involved regularly sacrificing people to the gods by strangling them and pushing them into the nearest sacred pool or river, with a few coins or other valuable goods scattered along with them.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 07:14 PM
creativo - 9 years and six months sounds like a perfectly reasonable sentence for a human who sets fire and beats another human or animal. We are not reducing the significance of human life (moreso acknowledging that our right to life is no more superior to an animals). You're extrapolating with that assumption.


Our problem is not to treat animal as men, but other men as men. You should think hard about what you are "acknowledging" because it just isn't true, since we routinely exterminate animals for the most varied reasons and in all manners, including cruel ones, since forever. Not you, of course. You could never kill an animal, because it'd be like killing a person. That's why I'm not even trying to debate with you.



Daniels was 23 when he committed the offence. If he was a minor there would be a different set of rules (as there are for human minors who kill, rape or commit crimes in general...though even that has been known to be overriden for harsher sentences).

I'd say that there hasn't been any spewing of emotion on this thread when discussing the case. So how about you stop using the 'emotional indignation' charge?

I believe a few others have distinctly differentiated cruelty against animals as opposed to the killing and consumption of living things.

Yes they did. What is not being differentiated is cruelty against animals and against men. I have a problem with that, it's a premise I refuse, and I haven't seen a good reason to accept it yet.

Truculent Sheep
27th August 10, 07:36 PM
Very well put, appeal to public decency is a great way to avoid discussion, as your next sentence said. Basically: everybody likes doggies, and btw there's nothing to argue here because, just look at it.

Then let me go into more detail. Societies do need certain codes and mores to function - most people would agree with that, and certainly any issue with these conventions is with what they discriminate against rather than why they are there in the first place.

For example, we can safely assume that most Western societies no longer see gay sex or unmarried couples living together to be obscene. Whereas, anything involving child abuse or cruelty to animals remains frowned upon.

With this in mind, what is a constant in this case is that it is considered taboo to abuse the defenceless or vulnerable. This is for a good practical reason - a society that protects the vulnerable is arguably a good, healthy one. To transgress these public expectations of behaviour is therefore rightly condemned because it undermines one of the pillars of a stable, safe society.

If we assume that this translates into a duty of care that applies to those who can't protect themselves, such as children, or who are not people but still can experience suffering and who depend on us, such as domestic pets, then again to transgress is rightly seen as repugnant.

Hence why the book was thrown.


What fails me is how you translate that into 9 years of fucking jail. You throw up years like they were nothing.

Executive summary of the above argument: The man is a criminal who performed a crime in circumstances that turn the stomach of most right-thinking people. Let him spend nine years in prison because he deserves to. Because the man is a shit.

Harpy
27th August 10, 07:54 PM
Daniels' mother did not let him borrow her car so he decided to take his anger and frustration out on her dog. He could have well done the same to his mother (I'm taking a leap here but still a possibility).

creativo - cruelty would be deemed an act not necessary for survival or sustenance at it's most basic level. Animal culls are in general conducted in an efficient, cost effective manner. I may feel sad and not agree with the taking of those
lives but I do understand that those who perform the cull usually do it for the sake of their crops, livestock, to reduce the spread of disease
etc.

The more I think on this, it is even worse that a human who deems himself superior chooses to deny that other life forms feel pain, fear and suffering. Who are WE to judge? Who are we to toy with those less able, with no voice, those
that trust us with their lives. I don't own a pet but I have seen the blind faith that an animal puts in it's owner. To abuse that has got to be one of the sickest things I can think of. Has Daniels apologised? Felt remorseful? Even attempted to make a statement saying he'd put in 1000 hours at an animal shelter to redeem himself?

Commodore made a laughable statement implying that a human child would cry louder than a kitten if hurt, ergo humans feel more pain. I can't believe no one has ridiculed him for that yet.

At the end of the day ignorance of the law is no excuse. This just might make that next rape-killer or group of bored teens think harder.

AAAAAA
27th August 10, 08:24 PM
Then let me go into more detail. Societies do need certain codes and mores to function - most people would agree with that, and certainly any issue with these conventions is with what they discriminate against rather than why they are there in the first place.

For example, we can safely assume that most Western societies no longer see gay sex or unmarried couples living together to be obscene. Whereas, anything involving child abuse or cruelty to animals remains frowned upon.

With this in mind, what is a constant in this case is that it is considered taboo to abuse the defenceless or vulnerable. This is for a good practical reason - a society that protects the vulnerable is arguably a good, healthy one. To transgress these public expectations of behaviour is therefore rightly condemned because it undermines one of the pillars of a stable, safe society.


Right.



If we assume that this translates into a duty of care that applies to those who can't protect themselves, such as children, or who are not people but still can experience suffering and who depend on us, such as domestic pets, then again to transgress is rightly seen as repugnant.

Hence why the book was thrown.


You are equating the defenselessness of a dog to that of a child, and stopping at that. In your reasoning, since the dog shares the impotency of a child, it is the same as a child and shall be regarded the same. It is not, of course you wouldn't swap a puppy for a kid. And if the only thing informing the law, or your opinions, is this shared characteristic, I think it is a shallow analysis and an inhumane law.



Executive summary of the above argument: The man is a criminal who performed a crime in circumstances that turn the stomach of most right-thinking people. Let him spend nine years in prison because he deserves to. Because the man is a shit.


It turns my stomach. I won't let him spend nine years in prison because that will destroy his life much worse than that of the dog. Then, he'll be shit for sure.

Truculent Sheep
27th August 10, 08:47 PM
Right.

Yes it is.


You are equating the defenselessness of a dog to that of a child, and stopping at that. In your reasoning, since the dog shares the impotency of a child, it is the same as a child and shall be regarded the same. It is not, of course you wouldn't swap a puppy for a kid. And if the only thing informing the law, or your opinions, is this shared characteristic, I think it is a shallow analysis and an inhumane law.

Where do I actually say this?



It turns my stomach. I won't let him spend nine years in prison because that will destroy his life much worse than that of the dog. Then, he'll be shit for sure.

Serves him right. Sadists like that don't deserve to be part of society.

Harpy
27th August 10, 08:48 PM
creativo - What's this 'swapping a dog for a child' business??!

That issue has not even been brought up nor is it relevant.

I'm glad you can feel sympathy towards Daniels. That is the mark of man with a heart. I just hope one day you can appreciate our caretaker role towards all living animals and that a society that does not condone violence against animals and humans is a much better society than one that decides that animals are second class.

Women were considered second class (still are in some parts of the world), certain ethnic groups were not given the same rights as their 'conquerors'...it was only about 40 years ago that Aboriginals were given the right to vote in Australia. Greenpeace used to be seen as a group of butters, the RSPCA as a luxury of advantaged life...now they are established within the social construct of our society. My point is that the change will come in terms of laws, education, evolution where we all truly see life as one.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 08:58 PM
We are not reducing the significance of human life (moreso acknowledging that our right to life is no more superior to an animals).

But Lily, this is what I think isn't accurate. We have a massive human population on this planet - should we euthanize people to use as animal feed? Yet animals are killed for food all the time. Many animals only have life to begin with so they can be food. Clearly the human right to life is superior.



Commodore made a laughable statement implying that a human child would cry louder than a kitten if hurt, ergo humans feel more pain. I can't believe no one has ridiculed him for that yet.

I never said that the human baby would feel more pain. I said that the human baby would make more noise. Clearly, the baby in that instance would be significantly more annoying to torture.

Harpy
27th August 10, 09:27 PM
Comm - totally off topic...how's fatherhood?

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 09:31 PM
Wonderful. He really is a joy. I can't believe how fast he is growing, and at the same time I can't believe that he is someday going to walk, and talk, and strive, and grow into a man.

Commodore Pipes
27th August 10, 09:33 PM
Also, I want to make sure this is clear: I don't think it's okay to torture animals. I think TS's point about our duty to steward them is true. I just don't believe that they should ever be considered the equal of a human.

Harpy
27th August 10, 09:57 PM
Comm - good to hear about your baby :) Raise him well and use Dagon's story as his personal boogieman.

I also know we're all just wrestling with words but essentially don't think it's right to hurt any creature for enjoyment. Otherwise I would have gone mental.

nihilist
27th August 10, 10:07 PM
It's not so much about animal 'rights' as it is dispensing biblical justice to fuckheads.

I'm all about the phrase: 'turnabout is fair play'.

nihilist
27th August 10, 10:12 PM
Also, any toothless imbecile can break stuff or pull the wings off flies.

If that is all an individual is capable of accomplishing then the world is better off without them.

These hapless individuals will be the first against the wall at Camp Rape-Kill.

Truculent Sheep
27th August 10, 10:18 PM
Also, I want to make sure this is clear: I don't think it's okay to torture animals. I think TS's point about our duty to steward them is true. I just don't believe that they should ever be considered the equal of a human.

There was a debate a decade ago on whether chimps should be granted human rights. One major flaw with this argument was that if you granted a chimpanzee equality in the law, then by definition, they would also have to bear equal criminal liability for their actions too.

Given some chimp behaviours, this might have lead to some, err, 'interesting' and indeed absurd court cases. It also makes a nonsense of such anthropomorphism. One might ponder the limits of humanity if there were still some habilenes or Homo Erecti knocking around, but there aren't, and no extant species can come close to our state of being.

The flipside of this is that we can choose to be kind and benign, therefore we should.

nihilist
27th August 10, 10:23 PM
Act humanely, get treated as such.

Act inhumanely:

RAPE-KILL!

Harpy
27th August 10, 10:23 PM
It's not so much about animal 'rights' as it is dispensing biblical justice to fuckheads.

I'm all about the phrase: 'turnabout is fair play'.
You're going all Schwarzanegger on this. I approve.

nihilist
27th August 10, 10:26 PM
It's really how I feel.

nihilist
27th August 10, 10:29 PM
If some Polar bear sticks his nose in the tent though, he's getting his face punched in.

Harpy
27th August 10, 10:43 PM
Absolutely. It's hard for me to accept that a person in a developed nation cannot clearly see the right and wrong of it.

HappyOldGuy
27th August 10, 11:43 PM
One major flaw with this argument was that if you granted a chimpanzee equality in the law, then by definition, they would also have to bear equal criminal liability for their actions too.


Animal Raep!!!

U1Fz6rq1n-c

nihilist
28th August 10, 12:33 AM
Indian name: Spoons With Seals

Spade: The Real Snake
28th August 10, 12:05 PM
FRESH FISH!

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 01:12 PM
Where do I actually say this?



If we assume that this translates into a duty of care that applies to those who can't protect themselves, such as children, or who are not people but still can experience suffering and who depend on us, such as domestic pets, then again to transgress is rightly seen as repugnant.


You say that the duty of care should be applied equally towards children and animals, because they are both defenseless. From that I get you'd treat them equally. Children and animals I mean.



Serves him right. Sadists like that don't deserve to be part of society.

Oh well, I'll just accept that this sentence satisfies your desire for justice. To me, it is unjust because it's disproportionate.

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 01:19 PM
I'm glad you can feel sympathy towards Daniels. That is the mark of man with a heart. I just hope one day you can appreciate our caretaker role towards all living animals and that a society that does not condone violence against animals and humans is a much better society than one that decides that animals are second class.


Animals are second class in out society and our world. Our whole existence is based on the fact that animals are second class. This is obvious to me. Even if I don't like that, it's just hypocritical of me to pretend otherwise. How many things you own or use derive from animals, and aren't essential for you (as in, not strictly survival food)? And that's just a banal example.



Women were considered second class (still are in some parts of the world), certain ethnic groups were not given the same rights as their 'conquerors'...it was only about 40 years ago that Aboriginals were given the right to vote in Australia. Greenpeace used to be seen as a group of butters, the RSPCA as a luxury of advantaged life...now they are established within the social construct of our society. My point is that the change will come in terms of laws, education, evolution where we all truly see life as one.

You are again putting women and aboriginals on the same plane of animals. Those are people, others are animals. Get over it.

I agree the change can come gradually, but a change where we love animals on one side and continue to just exploit them in all the possible ways, including feeding, on the other side, is just a fašade change, good for those who want to feel they are good people and keep going on with their business. Real change should be immensely more radical and isn't going to happen.

Ajamil
28th August 10, 01:24 PM
What would you consider a proportionate punishment?

The reason behind mentioned the previous second-class nature of certain humans is to show that the "obvious" aspect of animals being second-class can change. Why do you think this "isn't going to happen?" Because it isn't happening now?

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 02:02 PM
What would you consider a proportionate punishment?

I'd ask for a shorter time, one that doesn't mean your life is ruined. Hard to quantify, but I'd say two years at most. Even better, I'd seek a way to make him a functional person and make him realize the kind of suffering. I'd love to set him on fire, but it's no longer en vogue. Personally, I'd prefer that than nine years imprisoned.



The reason behind mentioned the previous second-class nature of certain humans is to show that the "obvious" aspect of animals being second-class can change. Why do you think this "isn't going to happen?" Because it isn't happening now?

I don't really think that we, as a species, should stop eating animals, or using their byproducts. We evolved doing that, before we started settling with agriculture, and in evolutionary terms we are still the same.

When we'll be pure minds inside the matrix or what have you, then maybe, but homo sapiens does exactly that: takes supremacy over other animals and uses them for its needs. Including dogs, who are our friends because they worked for us, while nowadays they are made quasi-human substitutes for human affection that we lack. We still exploit them, in a way. Sewer rats, for instance, aren't our friends because they spread diseases and "steal" our food, and we cannot make them work for us. So we generally kill them, with venom, with fire, in any way we can, and we don't care how much they suffer as they die, and there's not a taboo for killing them even though they are just poor stupid animals.

HappyOldGuy
28th August 10, 02:30 PM
Shut up you two. This thread is now about lily's lesbian sex tape.

nihilist
28th August 10, 02:37 PM
Where is part deux? I mean the tape where she seals the deal.

HappyOldGuy
28th August 10, 02:41 PM
Orgy scene

XkRgmDGJwCY

nihilist
28th August 10, 02:47 PM
Smells like FRESH FISH!

Truculent Sheep
28th August 10, 04:01 PM
You say that the duty of care should be applied equally towards children and animals, because they are both defenseless. From that I get you'd treat them equally. Children and animals I mean.

Learn to read.



Oh well, I'll just accept that this sentence satisfies your desire for justice. To me, it is unjust because it's disproportionate.

It's not disproportionate if the act was inherently depraved.

Harpy
28th August 10, 05:09 PM
creativo: "Oh no, the baby's on fire!!! Oh noes, the puppy is on fire!!! Which one should I choose to save?!"

creativo - the animal by products are a result of our rearing and slaughtering animals for food. Instead of turning it into waste, humans try to use every part (blood and bone fertiliser, animal hide, glue fillers etc) and also maximise profit. That's really not that difficult to explain.

Harpy
28th August 10, 05:11 PM
Shut up you two. This thread is now about lily's lesbian sex tape.
I still innocently open theads and see my name being used as the benchmark for fat whale, lesbians feeding each other McDonalds, lulzith references, etc.

I'm moving to Alabama.

HappyOldGuy
28th August 10, 05:22 PM
But did you watch the video?

nihilist
28th August 10, 05:25 PM
I still innocently open theads and see my name being used as the benchmark for fat whale, lesbians feeding each other McDonalds, lulzith references, etc.

I'm moving to Alabama.

You've brought this on yourself, I hope you know.

Harpy
28th August 10, 05:35 PM
I never said I didn't like it.

nihilist
28th August 10, 05:40 PM
You tramp.

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 06:50 PM
It's not disproportionate if the act was inherently depraved.

Depravation towards a dog shouldn't warrant as much punishment as depravation towards a child, be it inherent or not. I hope you're not saying that, because you'd have to extend it to those who rip off flies' wings and such if so.

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 06:54 PM
creativo: "Oh no, the baby's on fire!!! Oh noes, the puppy is on fire!!! Which one should I choose to save?!"


Sounds like you'd have to flip a coin.



creativo - the animal by products are a result of our rearing and slaughtering animals for food. Instead of turning it into waste, humans try to use every part (blood and bone fertiliser, animal hide, glue fillers etc) and also maximise profit. That's really not that difficult to explain.

Exactly, and aren't those animals unjustly killed, having our same rights? Even more so if "maximized" for OUR profit. Ah sure, they live great lives and are put mercifully to sleep with a cuddle at the end, so there's no useless suffering. But torturing a dog is useless and doesn't make a profit, so let's destroy the perpetrator's life, as we love all that breathes.

Truculent Sheep
28th August 10, 07:02 PM
Depravation towards a dog shouldn't warrant as much punishment as depravation towards a child, be it inherent or not. I hope you're not saying that, because you'd have to extend it to those who rip off flies' wings and such if so.

Don't worry, I'd also extend that protection to strawmen too.

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 07:33 PM
Don't worry, I'd also extend that protection to strawmen too.

ah, so you agree with me, in that



Depravation towards a dog shouldn't warrant as much punishment as depravation towards a child, be it inherent or not.


You could have just said it, since I didn't attach that opinion to you but stated mine. But "strawman" is the safe word here.

Ajamil
28th August 10, 07:38 PM
So what gradient are you using? Burning a dog should be punished, but not burning a rat? Punishing torture of flies is silly - how about fish? Reptiles? Birds? When does the need for punishment start?

Are you sure this isn't being influenced by how much you can relate to the subject? Would you feel worse hearing about some unknown person in Syria getting stoned to death, or having your pet dog killed by bludgeoning?

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 08:39 PM
So what gradient are you using? Burning a dog should be punished, but not burning a rat? Punishing torture of flies is silly - how about fish? Reptiles? Birds? When does the need for punishment start?

Are you sure this isn't being influenced by how much you can relate to the subject? Would you feel worse hearing about some unknown person in Syria getting stoned to death, or having your pet dog killed by bludgeoning?

I'd punish the same people than you would. Domestic, harmless, defenseless animals. Where I differ, and to me it's a big difference, is the extent of the punishment, not it being wrong.

The question should be, some unknown pet dog bludgeoned to death, vs unknown Syrian. Or, my Syrian friend vs my pet.

Ajamil
28th August 10, 08:44 PM
That isn't the same as me. I wouldn't make a distinction between domestic or wild in the case of torturing. A dog is not defenseless, nor harmless - so those are also not true. And you didn't tell me what gradient you are using for these punishments, unless you mean to say you would punish a person for burning flies, just with a lesser sentence. Even then, you still would have some sort of scale for determining appropriate punishments.

The question was one of familiarity. A human with no emotional connection, or a non-human with deep emotional connection. I'm guessing the emotional connection plays a greater role in your desire to punish than the type of species.

nihilist
28th August 10, 09:23 PM
Burning a dog should be punished, but not burning a rat? When does the need for punishment start?

When one uses a non-approved barbecue sauce.

AAAAAA
28th August 10, 09:25 PM
That isn't the same as me. I wouldn't make a distinction between domestic or wild in the case of torturing. A dog is not defenseless, nor harmless - so those are also not true. And you didn't tell me what gradient you are using for these punishments, unless you mean to say you would punish a person for burning flies, just with a lesser sentence. Even then, you still would have some sort of scale for determining appropriate punishments.


Hard to find a clear threshold, but if I had to, I'd keep with hot blooded animals; the bigger and more similar to us, the worse. I agree with the spirit of the law, as I said; what I don't agree is the amount of the punition.

Domestic, wild, harmless weren't describing the only possible animal, I was just trying to draw a picture. Purposeless torture (well, with the purpose of sick pleasure) is equally bad to wild and domestic animals.
With "harmless" and "defenseless" I was referring to the situation, not the potential. If you're a dog's owner, he's probably harmless to you; if you're armed, he's defenseless too.



The question was one of familiarity. A human with no emotional connection, or a non-human with deep emotional connection. I'm guessing the emotional connection plays a greater role in your desire to punish than the type of species.

Sure, that was the point of my answer to you too. I wouldn't feel equally bad for my dog and for my friend; and if I did, I shouldn't call for similar punishment for the culprits just because of those feelings.

Ajamil
28th August 10, 11:16 PM
the bigger and more similar to us, the worse. This is what I don't understand. To me it's just an acceptable form of bigotry. Something is different, therefore it's not as bad when it's exploited or hurt.

I wouldn't feel equally bad for my dog and for my friendWould you feel worse for your dog than an unknown person?

Commodore Pipes
29th August 10, 12:16 AM
This is what I don't understand. To me it's just an acceptable form of bigotry. Something is different, therefore it's not as bad when it's exploited or hurt.


Which is worse, the Humane Society or the Holocaust?

nihilist
29th August 10, 12:50 AM
I draw a distinct line between Ricky Rat and Mickey Mouse.

AAAAAA
29th August 10, 07:06 AM
This is what I don't understand. To me it's just an acceptable form of bigotry. Something is different, therefore it's not as bad when it's exploited or hurt.
Would you feel worse for your dog than an unknown person?

Yes, it is a form of bigotry that I think is more acceptable than pretending an absolute equality between animals in regards to men. And much more acceptable, to me, than thinking that we can exploit animals while regarding them as equals. We exploit animals, they aren't equals.

Of course I'd feel worse for my dog than an unknown person, that's how our emotions work. That doesn't mean my dog is more important than the unknown person, except from my emotive p.o.v. . Surely it shouldn't be for the law.

Ajamil
29th August 10, 07:07 AM
Which is worse, the Humane Society or the Holocaust?The Holocaust - their mission was complete extermination.

EuropIan
29th August 10, 07:09 AM
The Holocaust - their mission was complete extermination.
http://editorial.sidereel.com/Images/Promos/Exterminator_Family.jpg

Ajamil
29th August 10, 07:34 AM
Goodness Gracious Me; recurring characters:

The Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) Exterminator - A Buddhist monk that is often hired in jobs that will force him to kill living beings, as an exterminator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exterminator), a mafia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia) murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murderer) and even as surgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon) (where he found how to kill cancer cells), which conflicts with his religion and enables him to do the job, being surprised that people would want him to kill. As an exterminator, he was determined to make the mice reflect upon their actions until they reach Nirvana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana). He has an "exterminator" friend that would make the mice to reincarnate as pebbles, "which are much easier to catch". His catchline is "Kill?! No, we mustn't kill".
Dern copywright laws.

Not much difference really. Our lifestyle allowed the snakes/ants/Jews/Muslims/being we don't like to live in our territory, and this causes us fear and discomfort. Instead of altering our lifestyle or coexisting, we hire other people to come kill them.

Tonuzaba
29th August 10, 11:58 AM
...Commodore made a laughable statement implying that a human child would cry louder than a kitten if hurt, ergo humans feel more pain. I can't believe no one has ridiculed him for that yet...

I am actually not sure if the baby would make worse noises.

nihilist
29th August 10, 12:14 PM
Cats have actually learned to mimic baby cries to gain human sympathies and attention.

Commodore Pipes
29th August 10, 12:35 PM
Cats have actually learned to mimic baby cries to gain human sympathies and attention.

That's true. They are devious little beasts. That's why torturing them isn't as bad.

HappyOldGuy
29th August 10, 12:53 PM
That's true. They are devious little beasts. That's why torturing them isn't as bad.

Plus it's good practice for babies.

nihilist
29th August 10, 01:12 PM
9:00 am: Potty training

10:15 am: Cat torture 101

Truculent Sheep
29th August 10, 01:47 PM
You could have just said it, since I didn't attach that opinion to you but stated mine. But "strawman" is the safe word here.

I like how I write one thing and you read another. Man of straw, I ought to report you for cruelty to crows.

Tonuzaba
29th August 10, 04:57 PM
Actually cats and babies are pretty close in my book in terms of both being smaller beings with no real means of defense against a grown up human.

Unless we're talking about somewhat larger cats, which gives me an idea of a possible sentence for the human torturers (WARNING/SPOILER ALERT - includes scenes with hard to torture cats):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkyrvB5nPW0&has_verified=1

Ajamil
29th August 10, 05:24 PM
And here I thought you meant this guy:

G0tiT7KlACM

Big Dozer
29th August 10, 06:54 PM
Fuck yeah.


Ditto