How did we go from killing animals to torturing them?With gigantic leaps in failed logic my friend.
My logic is infallible.
The lack of empathy you're displaying here scares the hell out of me. And anyone who would torture animals for fun is someone I would not trust around human beings.
There is a great deal of study of such mindsets. I will refrain from further comment.
Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for this thread reminding me how crazy humans are, and causing me to consider again the level of armament currently in my arsenal to deter that craziness from violence in my direction.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it okay for me to torture my puppy? It's my property, to do with as I please, right?Assuming you mean that you're torturing it just for personal entertainment or something of that sort.
Legally? I'd say that depends on jurisdiction. Morally, I don't see the problem as long as any excess aggression the dog might display as a result is confined to you. So keep it locked inside if you're going to do something that could make it more dangerous to random passers by.
I'd not something I'd do myself, mind. I just don't see it as rising to the level of morality. Dogs aren't people.
I'd be against torturing a adult chimpanzee, though.
How about an immature chimpanzee? Or a human baby for that matter?
Your opinions here appear to me to be at odds with the political views and beliefs that are mentioned in your profile Samnell (I don’t think you can claim an animal to be a consenting party when it comes to humans inflicting violence on them, and violence in real life is violence in real life whether its perpetrated against a human or animal), so I’m going to assume you’re commenting so to get a reaction rather than due to actual conviction.
Having said that, people (as a whole) seem to have a whole lot of shades of grey when it comes to animal rights and morality in relation to animals. Things that are generally viewed as okay to do to a crab are not okay to do to a mouse, things that are generally okay to do to a mouse are not okay to do to a cow, things that are generally okay to do to a cow are not okay to do to a dog and so on. It is a tricky area filled with ethical pitfalls.
Maybe people who wear furs in states with handgun licenses will start packing heat underneath those furs.
Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.
Well, what about the type of person who would feel badly for killing them for the sake of necessity? (seriously, it's a thing)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What stuns me is more people on this thread seem to be more upset over the mistreatment of animals than some loony toon wanting another human being, as young as twelve, murdered.
I've seen no one excusing her. We've seen some excusing of mistreatment, however.
Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.Well, what about the type of person who would feel badly for killing them for the sake of necessity? (seriously, it's a thing)
That's different. Killing for meat isn't the same as torturing for fun.
That's different. Killing for meat isn't the same as torturing for fun.Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.Well, what about the type of person who would feel badly for killing them for the sake of necessity? (seriously, it's a thing)
True, but I'm pretty sure the animal you're eating/wearing/whatever never even knew the difference, right?
What is your point?
People continue to teach their families that murder is ok based on some misplaced belief in "tradition".
People continue to teach their families that murder is ok based on some misplaced belief in "tradition".
?
I take it you have no point. OK.
I take it you have no point. OK.
Might have been saying something about the necessity of wearing of wearing animal products, but not in fully formed sentences, so there you are.
Cute in a layer of seal fur; TO ARMS!
Again, no logical point was made.
How did we go from killing animals to torturing them?
Do you mean in this thread or just as a species? The former I can answer readily, the latter I cannot even fathom.
We were never talking about "killing animals" we were talking about the morality of fur. When a good deal of the fur traded comes from fur farms like those depicted in the video I linked, where the fur is torn from the animal while it is alive and struggling and screaming and its skinless body is thrown on a pile with other such animals to slowly, agonizingly, die...then yeah that becomes animal torture.
I am not saying torture is inherent in the fur trade, but I do think that we have a moral responsibility in ALL things to minimize suffering.
As for all the non-sequitur pictures of people with wearing fur, do you doubt that the animals from which that fur was harvested were eaten for food? I have to imagine they were, or at the very least that those animals were dead when skinned.
Again, no logical point was made.How in the halibut to you argue that point as illogical?
How do you argue that a series of non-sequitur photographs with no commentary IS some sort of logical argument?
/boggle
I think after the second or third month on the island I would have killed Gilligan... and then skinned him for a pup tent.
.
..
Mr. Howell = Greed
Mrs. Howell = Sloth
Ginger = Lust
Mary Ann = Envy (of Ginger mostly)
Professor = Pride
Skippy = Gluttony and Wrath
Gilligan = Dressed in Red and always manages to keep everyone trapped on the island. ]:->
Yeah, good luck on your plan there. LOL
|
I am not saying torture is inherent in the fur trade, but I do think that we have a moral responsibility in ALL things to minimize suffering.
As for all the non-sequitur pictures of people with wearing fur, do you doubt that the animals from which that fur was harvested were eaten for food? I have to imagine they were, or at the very least that those animals were dead when skinned.
Absolutely.
And knowing what little I do about that culture, that is assured.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about the nutria fur trade that is trying to both deal with an invasive species in a cruelty free manner and create american jobs? Can we agree that unnecessary cruelty to animals is at least to be discouraged without agreeing that fur needs to be stopped as a fashion trend? All aspects of animal products have examples of cruelty, but I don't want us to stop eating eggs because some @!#holes practice an abhorrent method of raising chickens, how is fur different?
On the topic of the woman, how old is she, they mention she lives with her parents, but she appears to be in her late 20/early thirties from the picture, is she just a haggard idiot, or an young idealistic idiot that had a horrid picture taken? I mean either way she's an idiot. Like the people protesting seal abuse outside a restaurant that boils lobsters alive.
I assume you're speaking hypothetically, but here in the US animal cruelty is a felony in several states, if not a federal felony.
41 states have a first-offense felony cruelty law (Nevada joined the list back in September 2011). Six states have a subsequent offense felony cruelty law (Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, & South Dakota). The remaining three states: Alaska, Iowa, & Pennsylvania, only has them as misdemeanors.
Here in Ohio, we're trying to bring attention to Nitro's Law (a/k/a HB 108) to have it changed from a subsequent-offense felony to a first-offense.
EDIT: my reference is geared toward animals that are usually classified as "companions" (i.e. domestic cats, dogs, etc).
True, but I'm pretty sure the animal you're eating/wearing/whatever never even knew the difference, right?That's different. Killing for meat isn't the same as torturing for fun.Yea, I have to side with Jeff and Benicio here. That's REALLY creepy, Samnell. My family keeps cats, so I have experience with pets, and I can't imagine wanting to be around the type of person who'd hurt them for fun.Well, what about the type of person who would feel badly for killing them for the sake of necessity? (seriously, it's a thing)Well, even to the animal there's a difference between a sudden painless death and slow protracted torture.
But we're actually discussing the mentality of a person who would enjoy torturing animals. Not willing to kill them for food or because it's a job. Not like eating meat or wearing fur or leather without thinking too much about the creatures they came from.But torturing for fun. Enjoying cutting into them or flaying their skin and breaking their bones, while listening to their cries of pain and fear until the struggles get weaker and weaker and finally stop. Anyone who can enjoy that has serious problems and should be in treatment if not locked safely away. If he has so little empathy for animals he likely has little more for humans.
ZOMG, I can't believe I have to say so in public, but pain for the sake pain is, like, obviously wrong, right?
There are those that enjoy dealing pain to themselves. Is it wrong?
There's nothing wrong with a nice padded room and a wrap-around jacket...
I am not saying torture is inherent in the fur trade, but I do think that we have a moral responsibility in ALL things to minimize suffering.
As for all the non-sequitur pictures of people with wearing fur, do you doubt that the animals from which that fur was harvested were eaten for food? I have to imagine they were, or at the very least that those animals were dead when skinned.
Absolutely.
And knowing what little I do about that culture, that is assured.
I'm not sure what part of my post your comment is aimed at.
You absolutely doubt that those animals were killed for food?And you're assuring me that, all the cultures pictured, torment the animals while skinning them and don't eat the meat?
Smurf
|
|
I am not saying torture is inherent in the fur trade, but I do think that we have a moral responsibility in ALL things to minimize suffering.
As for all the non-sequitur pictures of people with wearing fur, do you doubt that the animals from which that fur was harvested were eaten for food? I have to imagine they were, or at the very least that those animals were dead when skinned.
Absolutely.
And knowing what little I do about that culture, that is assured.
I'm not sure what part of my post your comment is aimed at.
You absolutely doubt that those animals were killed for food?
And you're assuring me that, all the cultures pictured, torment the animals while skinning them and don't eat the meat?
Let me clarify, I absolutely agree that we have moral responsibility to minimize suffering, and I would almost guarantee that the animals whos fur is worn in the pic were both used for more than just their skins, AND were quite dead when skinned.
That clear it up?
Smurf
Waitwait, don't smurf this thread!
There totally should be a Butcher Smurf though, right?