Animal Cruelty/Dogfighting

[Justin8649]

So, we had an argument on IRC about this, and somebody made the brilliant statement of:

"Since humans are on top of the food chain, they have the right to commit animal cruelty"

I obviously disagree with the above statement and I will probably counter any argument that tries to support the above statement. I'll let you guys get the ball rolling.

 

[Atlas]

you two already shat on this thread:/

i personally dont believe in animal cruelty in any form (food and self defence aside), no matter how "high" we are on the food chain.

 

[obi]

chaos is higher on the smogon chain than that person, so therefore he has the right to attempt to send them a virus. George Bush has more power than that person, so Bush has the right to bomb that person's house.

"Might makes right" has some pretty unpalatable consequences for most people, and that's what justifying animal cruelty generally comes down to. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

 

[Maslada]

Humans are more advanced intelligence wise than animals and have self awareness which most animals lack. This makes an act of cruelty against animals, while still immoral, a lesser crime than an act against a fellow human being. One could argue that under this logic an act of cruelty against an infant would have less importance than a fully grown human but said child could become something great. While this is not guarenteed and said child could become the next Hitler that child could still become something important, something an animal can never become (obviously police dogs are different but the police aren't going to be cruel to them).

I think as long as an animals suffering is less than a humans enjoyment then I can only see it as acceptable. I doubt any sane human will get so much enjoyment out of skinning an animal alive that an act like that would be ok but dog fighting, as discussed in IRC, is fine as long as suffering is kept to a minimum. For instance, making sure the dog is kept properly when not fighting and treated properly when wounded (which may see the need for it to be killed).

But what do I know? Its 10:30 pm here and i've been up since 5 this morning...

 

[majesty]

As a breeder of various exotic animals, with a career looming at a zoo or something, I can tell you this with some certainty:

Being at the top doesn't give people the right to do anything cruel. Infact, it makes us responsible to do the right thing without exception. We know better, end of story. Cultivating animals on a farm is one thing, so vegans can STFU about that being cruel. However, things like dog fights are completely unnecessary as is beating of animals. Hell, even yelling at animals is bad- My kitten has to be misbehaving for a long time in a row and consistently being a jackass to get me to show any anger towards him.

That brings me to another point...farming. This isn't to be confused with things like puppy mills or overcrowded pig farms, I just mean your average farmer with some cattle. This is not cruelty, as some vegans might claim. Though this is a bit convoluted, I am left to paraphrase Maddox (www.maddox.xmission.com) just to paint the picture:

Being a cow would be awesome. You get all the free food and steroids you want and at the end of the day you don't have to go through the formality of old age.

Now, as bastardly as he is, that is a good point. What more could an animal ask for? Protection from predators and a constant food source is NOTHING to laugh at if you are an animal. Hell, being butchered in whatever 'cruel' ways you have seen would likely beat the hell out of being EATEN ALIVE BY WOLVES after a terrifying chase. Yes, they do eat their prey alive in many instances.

Sorry, I just have alot of vegan friends and some of them are quite adamant about this issue for the wrong reasons. Felt it applied.

Edit: Maslada posted as I was writing.

"Humans are more advanced intelligence wise than animals and have self awareness which most animals lack. This makes an act of cruelty against animals, while still immoral, a lesser crime than an act against a fellow human being."

Are you a fucking retard? Intelligence and anthrocentrism doesn't dictate that one act of cruelty is more severe than another based soley on merit of species. The act of cruelty is what dictates the degree of the crime. This is no different than saying "Oh, well, she was black so I guess the rape wasn't as bad as a rape of a white person".

 

[Bioshock]

Humans are more advanced intelligence wise than animals and have self awareness which most animals lack. This makes an act of cruelty against animals, while still immoral, a lesser crime than an act against a fellow human being. One could argue that under this logic an act of cruelty against an infant would have less importance than a fully grown human but said child could become something great. While this is not guarenteed and said child could become the next Hitler that child could still become something important, something an animal can never become (obviously police dogs are different but the police aren't going to be cruel to them).

I think as long as an animals suffering is less than a humans enjoyment then I can only see it as acceptable. I doubt any sane human will get so much enjoyment out of skinning an animal alive that an act like that would be ok but dog fighting, as discussed in IRC, is fine as long as suffering is kept to a minimum. For instance, making sure the dog is kept properly when not fighting and treated properly when wounded (which may see the need for it to be killed).

But what do I know? Its 10:30 pm here and i've been up since 5 this morning...

Are you aware that in most dog-fights the animals fight until one can no longer fight? This means that one will obviously be so crippled that it can barely move, or killed.

Just because we are more intelligent does not mean that we should torture beings of lesser intelligence.

 

[Maslada]

Edit: Maslada posted as I was writing.

"Humans are more advanced intelligence wise than animals and have self awareness which most animals lack. This makes an act of cruelty against animals, while still immoral, a lesser crime than an act against a fellow human being."

Are you a fucking retard? Intelligence and anthrocentrism doesn't dictate that one act of cruelty is more severe than another based soley on merit of species. The act of cruelty is what dictates the degree of the crime. This is no different than saying "Oh, well, she was black so I guess the rape wasn't as bad as a rape of a white person".

Thats a subjective view, if animals lack the emotional capacity to suffer as much as humans do then I can believe that an act against a human is worse than a one against an animal.

EDIT:

Are you aware that in most dog-fights the animals fight until one can no longer fight? This means that one will obviously be so crippled that it can barely move, or killed.

Just because we are more intelligent does not mean that we should torture beings of lesser intelligence.

Yes I was aware of that and I think it needs to change, which won't happen as long as it remains an unregulated underground activity.

 

[majesty]

I'd like to add that by Maslada's logic, Stephen Hawking has a right to exact whatever sick pleasures he may (not that he does) have upon Maslada. He has more intelligence, therefore his entertainment takes priority over your suffering.

Edit: Maslada, next time you are beating a kitten let me know what it's like to look them in the eye. I don't care how much you enjoy it, you can see that the animal is in pain. You are such a dense fuck.

 

[Justin8649]

but said child could become something great. While this is not guarenteed and said child could become the next Hitler that child could still become something important, something an animal can never become

Many dogs are almost as important as family members to most people. Many dogs have saved families from burning buildings. Many dogs have had completely insane acts of bravery to save people. How is that not great? Dogs by nature are not fighters.

I think as long as an animals suffering is less than a humans enjoyment then I can only see it as acceptable. I doubt any sane human will get so much enjoyment out of skinning an animal alive that an act like that would be ok but dog fighting, as discussed in IRC, is fine as long as suffering is kept to a minimum. For instance, making sure the dog is kept properly when not fighting and treated properly when wounded (which may see the need for it to be killed).

Really? Dog fighting where suffering is kept to a minimum? Seriously? Please explain that one to me.

By the way, did you know that most dogfighting ringleaders steal dogs from random neighborhoods and use them as bait to get the other dogs prepared for fights and things to that tune?

 

[Maslada]

I'd like to add that by Maslada's logic, Stephen Hawking has a right to exact whatever sick pleasures he may (not that he does) have upon Maslada. He has more intelligence, therefore his entertainment takes priority over your suffering.

Edit: Maslada, next time you are beating a kitten let me know what it's like to look them in the eye. I don't care how much you enjoy it, you can see that the animal is in pain. You are such a dense fuck.

No human has so much intelligence over another human that any act of violence can be justified. Even the most intelligent animal have a fraction of the emotional capacity of humans. I'm not saying cruelty to animals is good, but there are far worse things going on in the world for me to worry about what someone is doing to a kitten.

Edit to Justin:

How dog fighting exists at the moment, no suffering isn't kept to a minimum. There is no need for a dog fight to continue till one is dead. Also stealing dogs is wrong, I don't think that is justified.

 

[Justin8649]

I'm not saying cruelty to animals is good, but there are far worse things going on in the world for me to worry about what someone is doing to a kitten.

So by your logic, just because worse things are happening, then it is ok for other bad stuff to happen.

???????

 

[majesty]

For instance, making sure the dog is kept properly when not fighting and treated properly when wounded (which may see the need for it to be killed).

note how he basically says it's okay to fight them to the point of having to put them down...aka fight them to death. I fail to see how that's much different than what happens right now.


I don't understand the logic he is trying to use, I think you're right Justin.
By the way, Not caring about the welfare of a kitten in your own neighbourhood is DEFINATELY not as important as some war being fought on the other side of the planet...or not. Do what you can, where you can.

And this wasn't addressed, but he also mentioned that as long as the 'higher' being is entertained more than the animal suffers (subjective scale anyone?) then it's okay. In what sick world are you even entertained by animal suffering? Nevermind the inherant moral wrongness of that idea.

 

[Maslada]

No, Justin. I don't want a kitten to get beaten. Acts of violence against a kitten would most likely be out of anger rather than enjoyment (except by psychopaths who shouldn't count as 'humans' in the sense they can decide what is morally right). People who do such things to a kitten should not own one.

I don't particuarly want a dog to get mauled by another either, but its gonna hapen anyway so it should at least be regulated to make sure it doesn't go beyond being violent more than it causes enjoyment in the people who participate. Many people enjoy dog fighting so they can't be all called psychopaths like a person who beats a kitten can possibly be.

Edit to above poster: I don't enjoy animal cruelty, but some people do enjoy it. Just look how wide spread cock fighting, dog fighting and bull fighting is. They are VERY widespread and have been throughout the ages. Are all these people freaks? They can't ALL be.

 

[Bioshock]

No human has so much intelligence over another human that any act of violence can be justified. Even the most intelligent animal have a fraction of the emotional capacity of humans. I'm not saying cruelty to animals is good, but there are far worse things going on in the world for me to worry about what someone is doing to a kitten.

Actually you are wrong. Retarded people have lesser intelligence then most normal human beings. [sarcasm] They are retarded, and therefore can't feel pain as we do. With this said, it is ok to torture retarded people because we can enjoy it, and they wont suffer much since they are incapable of suffering[/sarcasm]

 

[Maslada]

Actually you are wrong. Retarded people have lesser intelligence then most normal human beings. [sarcasm] They are retarded, and therefore can't feel pain as we do. With this said, it is ok to torture retarded people because we can enjoy it, and they wont suffer much since they are incapable of suffering[/sarcasm]

Maybe my first post didn't put it as well as I meant. Torture is always going to create more pain than pleasure no matter what is being tortured. Hell dog fighting only just meets what I believe is the limit of the pain being less than the pleasure and only if it were made much more ethical than it is now (stop stealing, stopping fights at a much earlier cut off, first blood for instance). Dog fighting isn't going to stop so it should be brought up to something less cruel.

 

[majesty]

If you are able to regulate it in its entirety, as you suggest, you have the capacity to make it stop.

 

[Maslada]

But why would they stay underground and keep it as it is now when they can be completely legal? I'm sure the people who participate in dog fighting would much rather get up to standard than risk having all their dogs taken away and put down and face criminal charges.

 

[majesty]

Because cruelty is still cruelty and there is no reason why it should be legalized other than your misguided and hideous moral views on this.

 

[Maslada]

Hey, I just hold a view that the people who like this activity enjoy it enough to justify the pain the dog receives as long as this is as limited as possible to keep it from going underground.

Theres no point in me continuing in this discussion because your arguments back that the suffering is greater is not provable 100% either way. From what I know of animals, I don't believe they can suffer as much as humans can. If you don't believe that then thats fine, we just have to disagree. It doesn't make either of us "fucking retarded" like you asserted about me in your opening post.

 

[Surgo]

One could argue that under this logic an act of cruelty against an infant would have less importance than a fully grown human but said child could become something great. While this is not guarenteed and said child could become the next Hitler that child could still become something important, something an animal can never become

You fail to take your own argument to its logical conclusion. The animal could have a certain mutation that would start or continue an evolutionary tree that would eventually end in a sentient species. So the animal could theoretically be important, just as the child could.

 

[Big Bayou]

I might as well chime in with my personal rationale for being a vegetarian and a pacifist...

1. No living being, whether or not it can feel pain or emotions, whether or not it is even conscious of its own mortality, deserves to be harmed/killed unless

• You are a carnivore, unable to survive on anything but flesh.
• The living being in question directly poses a threat to your life that can only be diverted by ending its life.

2. Emotional capacity hardly grants elevated status amongst living things. So what if you've evolved the ability to fire your synapses at a ridiculous rate and feel emotions like love or excitement? How does that let you deem the life of, say, a housefly as having less value than your own? What about its life, so completely and utterly different from yours, gives you any reason to take it away? Length? Access to memory? Level of comfort? Those are all human components that have nothing to do with a fly.

3. I am a middle-class, White American and I am perfectly capable of living a full, unimpeded life without having to eat meat. It is not necessary to my personal survival nor does meat contain any nutrients I could not otherwise get from different food sources; therefore there remains absolutely 0 reason to consume the flesh of a creature killed expressly to stimulate my taste buds.

Ahimsa, baby. Every life matters just as much as your own.

PS:

From what I know of animals, I don't believe they can suffer as much as humans can.

Why should the ability to suffer, physically or otherwise, allow a creature's life to be impeded? The majority of Earth's creatures aren't striving for an emotionally pleasing life. Don't simplify the world by reducing it to Human terms.

Some excerpts from a relatively brief summary of nociception:

In conclusion, it is currently impossible to prove whether animals are capable of emotional pain, but it is equally impossible to disprove it. The debate is largely a moral one, and comes down to personal perspectives.

As we cannot get into the minds of animals, or meaningfully measure emotional pain in animals, perhaps we should accept that animal pain is different from human pain, and is something we will never be able to describe fully. Nevertheless, even if animal pain may be distinct from human pain, is that a reason to consider it less important either biologically or ethically?

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture2.html

 

[Jediment]

@ Maslada.

I'm finding it difficult to believe the kind of fucking moron you are. You assume that because animals have no vocal cords and are thus unable to speak, they are some form of pathetic microorganism crawling around the feet of humans with no free will or general intelligence of their own. Domesticated animals are intelligent species; they are adapted to their environment in such a way that they need not use vocal communication with others nor display what humans refer to as "intelligence" on a regular basis. In a human social environment, being intelligent involves knowing things like math, reading, science, etc. In a canine or feline social environment, being intelligent means nothing of the sort. Just because animals don't exhibit intelligence in the way humans do has nothing to do with them being "lesser beings" as you call them. They're not lesser beings just because we have them as pets.

And how much value does entertainment actually have? Is it worth taking something else's life just for fun? In a natural environment the answer is obvious. If anything kills a smaller or weaker animal solely for play and doesn't actually prey upon the animal (unless it's an herbivore, though those don't typically kill other animals), it could have made a potentially fatal decision. Animals don't kill for entertainment and neither should people.

 

[Hipmonlee]

BB, I was under the impression that it was utterly impossible to live without B12 from cud chewing animals.. That Vegans generally get injections of it that come from animals.

Or do you get it from milk or something and maybe only vegans have that problem? I dunno..

Have a nice day.

 

[Big Bayou]

Yeah that's a vegan problem; I know a few that have to take supplements containing B12 regularly. Personally, I think milk drinking is fine (It does have B12), provided the source cow is not being factory milked and being injected with nutritional chemicals. B12 is also in eggs too, so lacto-ovos don't really have to deal with that whole shtick at all.

 

[BlueAizu]

I really don't like people who like to torture animals "just because they want to." Self defense is fine with me, as is the animals killing each other, since that's technically nature stuff.

I also can't believe how some jerks like to force animals to kill each other and post a video about it on Youtube. It's people like that which the world would be much better off without.