La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Jimbms - You asked whether it would be cruelty to its prey and said "some would say yes". I could ask who these people are to determine whether you are making it up, instead I just pooh-pooh the idea of it being cruel. It isn't being selective and it doesn't serve some answer I was going to give. (And I don't care about the fucking snake). Although you have made a post where you just might like a direct response to the question you posed, I wasn't responding to answer those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Jimbms - You asked whether it would be cruelty to its prey and said "some would say yes". I could ask who these people are to determine whether you are making it up, instead I just pooh-pooh the idea of it being cruel. It isn't being selective and it doesn't serve some answer I was going to give. (And I don't care about the fucking snake). Although you have made a post where you just might like a direct response to the question you posed, I wasn't responding to answer those questions. OK that's it now, you have exceeded you standard of answer by a large margin, as such I cannot understand what answer you require, head now totally fucked instead of partial, must go reboot system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Perhaps the answer lies with intention. Owls eat mice, snakes eat rodents, dogs will eat kittens, etc. because this is natural behaviour to obtain the nutrition they need. Humans, however, are cursed with a conscience - we have notions of right and wrong (and hence cruelty) which other creatures do not seem to have - they just behave naturally with no concepts of right, wrong, cruelty, etc. which are inventions of the human mind. Arguably, the correct interpretation of the Fall in Genesis is that Man's troubles all began when he acquired a conscience and hence "began to know right from wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I take that Alex has no animal product or item derived or manufactured making use of anything from animal products in his/her house, car or personal effects. mmm must be a very bare houehold and a strange car they have. Not knowingly or intentionally Jimbms, since you not-quite ask. Anyway, my point still would stand even if I lived off the ill gotten gains of a slaughterman. Haha. However, I was making the same point you subsequently made I think... Chinahand; surely there is a massive difference between owning a cat that may catch the odd bird or mouse of its own volition, and owning a dog which you intentionally fight against other dogs for the sheer 'fun' of watching creatures hurt or kill each other. Or; intentionally taking your dog hunting after smaller animals like rabbits or foxes purely to watch the 'fun' ensue? I think Evil Goblin may have it right; it's the intention. The desire to go out and kill/watch killing. That desire seems to be a sick human thing. Killing is fine in animals who need to do so or in those who have instincts they can't resist, but surely; we're different. More evolved. I personally also try to reduce the killing done in my name...by avoiding meat/animals products etc. Personal thing that I'm aware is completely pointless and changes precisely fuck all, but hey...I'm glad I'm like that, and also unable to be any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Perhaps the answer lies with intention. Owls eat mice, snakes eat rodents, dogs will eat kittens, etc. because this is natural behaviour to obtain the nutrition they need. Humans, however, are cursed with a conscience - we have notions of right and wrong (and hence cruelty) which other creatures do not seem to have - they just behave naturally with no concepts of right, wrong, cruelty, etc. which are inventions of the human mind. Chinahand; surely there is a massive difference between owning a cat that may catch the odd bird or mouse of its own volition, and owning a dog which you intentionally fight against other dogs for the sheer 'fun' of watching creatures hurt or kill each other. Or; intentionally taking your dog hunting after smaller animals like rabbits or foxes purely to watch the 'fun' ensue? I think Evil Goblin may have it right; it's the intention. The desire to go out and kill/watch killing. That desire seems to be a sick human thing. Killing is fine in animals who need to do so or in those who have instincts they can't resist, but surely; we're different. More evolved. I personally also try to reduce the killing done in my name...by avoiding meat/animals products etc. Personal thing that I'm aware is completely pointless and changes precisely fuck all, but hey...I'm glad I'm like that, and also unable to be any other way. I'm not going to take this too far as I basically can see and understand the difference between intentionally feeding a kitten to a dog and intentionally feeding a rabbit to a snake. Both acts are bascically identically cruel (though the kitten seems to win in the charisma stakes, but only a bit - rabbits are also cute and cuddly!), but we allow the latter as there isn't a simple alternative - snakes need the warmth of the rabbit to sense it and to trigger their hunting instinct. So I would say intention has little to do with what makes it moral or not - both acts are deliberatley intended - its based around the alternatives - you do not need to feed a dog kittens to keep it alive - and I am pretty certain the intention here wasn't anything to do with fulfilling the nutritional needs of the dog - it was to make it agressive. I am interested in the defence that it is acceptable to intentionally feed a snake a live rabbit because there isn't any other choice, because there is of course the alternative that owning any animal which cannot be domesticated to only take humanely killed food should be illegal - I'm not unsympathetic to that argument, but it would of course lead us back to cats. It always amazes me how the owners of the domestic moggy ignore the cruelty they permit in artificially breeding these animals and being so negligent in their ownership of them to kill billions of animals each year. I've already said I am doubtful that intention is a sufficient moral argument you have to look at motive and consequence - and law makes the point that if something is so directly consequent on an action that it will basically inevitably result then it does make those responsible for these consequences liable for them. I don't think that the owners of cats can simply say they do not have responsibility for the cruelty their animals cause. This cruelty has nothing to do with the need to feed these animals and is left to go unchecked in a manner which if it was displayed in a dog would get it muzzled. Cats are too wild not to be cruel - we willfully ignore that cruelty. I've always been very struck by that. Cats are responsible for orders of magnitude more animal suffering than dog fights, fox hunting etc. Sure charisma has lots to do with it - but cats kill endangered birds and wreck ecosystems - to just shrug our shoulders and go "its just behaving naturally" isn't really the point - we breed and keep these animals artificially for our enjoyment - and hence have to accept the consequent cruelty. The cat has no concept of cruelty - but we by allowing it to so behave permit and do take on responsibility for the death and pain it causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewhatdamaged Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 Never caught those responsible on the IOM for tieing up and throwing that dog at the reservoir did they? Despite the reward. I remember that, was one of the worse cases of animal cruelty i have ever heard on the IOM You're right though, never did catch the asshole. I just hope there is such a thing as karma and he gets hit by a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I remember that, was one of the worse cases of animal cruelty i have ever heard on the IOM You're right though, never did catch the asshole. I just hope there is such a thing as karma and he gets hit by a bus. Perhaps the Isle of Man Bank did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmannin Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Hah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Does all this mean Gerbil boxing is now illegal too? Even when they have knitted boxing gloves and wear Action Man helmets, and there is a vet just down the road in case of emergencies? I do hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 surprised no comment about the police officer who let his two dogs fry in the police van He was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,500 towards costs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/22/police-dog-handler-animal-cruelty I think that case illustrates two things 1. we often know nothing of the full background when we read it in the paper, the extract about the NZ case with the kittens and feeding them to the pit bull, had no info about the perpetrator except he was Maori. It is hard to truly comment in that case. The UK papers have given a lot of info about the background here so comment is easier. 2. Thank heavens we have a flexible sentencing systenmwhich can take into account individula factors, which whilst not excusing accept mitigation. Imagine how trivial the whole process would be if it was only fixed penalties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 surprised no comment about the police officer who let his two dogs fry in the police van He was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,500 towards costs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/22/police-dog-handler-animal-cruelty I think that case illustrates two things 1. we often know nothing of the full background when we read it in the paper, the extract about the NZ case with the kittens and feeding them to the pit bull, had no info about the perpetrator except he was Maori. It is hard to truly comment in that case. The UK papers have given a lot of info about the background here so comment is easier. 2. Thank heavens we have a flexible sentencing systenmwhich can take into account individula factors, which whilst not excusing accept mitigation. Imagine how trivial the whole process would be if it was only fixed penalties I have to agree with you their John, the policeman cited depression and OCD as an excuse for forgetting about the dogs and I believe this was partially accepted and the question could be aske what if it had been children in the car and not dogs. On the same tack as you say nothing has been said about the kitten incident for example how do we know it is not a Maori tradition to train attack dogs by using live small animals, I know even if so it is not a good excuse but to me it is as reasonable an excuse as the negligent police officers and I would bet you as an advocate could make a case about how native customs and traditions can be used in mitigation in a case like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LenaSpb Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Serious question...I love animals.I have 2 cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Serious question...I love animals.I have 2 cats. Beastiality is illegal here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.