Cat Thrown Off Bridge With 16-Pound Rock Rescued

[TheSteve]

I am saying that thousands upon thousands of live stock are killed for our pleasure, what is intrinsically different about their deaths. Why aren't you getting emotional about them. Don't get me wrong, it is completely wrong to kill a cat for no reason, but the level of outrage that an ANIMAL gets while there are thousands of people dying of famine, disease, and war as we speak. I am saying maybe somethings should be looked at in the proper perspective.

Try to look at this as rationally as possible, without the emotional element

If you think about it, there is a sort of sadistic element tot he fact that we could care less about what an animal goes through before it's death as long as it "tastes" good. It seems to me the message is that as long as that animal serves us well on the platter than our treatment of it on the prairy is irrelevant, because after all, we're going to be digesting it soon aren't we? But cats, they don't taste good, so they don't make good food, atleast not in our culture, so they should be treated better than the poor chicken who's being fried in popeyes at this very moment.

Should we not strive to make an animals death less painful before we eat it?

[Huly]

I am looking at it rationally but your statement still ticks me off. Their are a lot of issues in this world that needs to be corrected. I agree with you on that point but that does not give anyone the right to kill a helpless animal intentionally. Intentionally hurting anyone or anything is wrong. Have you ever worked with an animal rescue? Do you realize it is one of the hardest charities to receive funding? I do it everyday in my free time. It is not easy!

The issues you listed below are always the first to make news headlines. 90% of the time animal abuse cases are always last! Situations like this abuse case happens on a daily basis but it is rarely mentioned.

Come work with me in the animal rescue leagues and see for yourself.

[Destino]

The first difference that Liberty is intent. Causing suffering for the hell of it is widely considered wrong and disgusting behavior. Second animals that are kept as pets and, logically or not, are viewed as a friends of man and innocent creatures. Almost like children though not on the same level of value morally or legally.

Personally I have a problem with anyone that receives pleasure from causing a living thing great pain. In my experience people like that are cruel at their core and can't be trusted. The law often being the only reason they don't inflict pain on other people (assuming they don't).

[China]

Should we not strive to make an animals death less painful before we eat it?

Of course we should, but that's because the meat tastes better when there is less stress on the animal.

[TheSteve]

Of course we should, but that's because the meat tastes better when there is less stress on the animal.

Does this include cats as well?

[SkinInsite]

What, you never heard of the food chain.

[TheSteve]

I will say it's a good thing the cat was saved, because everyone knows where cats go when they die:(

[Prosperity]

I am looking at it rationally but your statement still ticks me off. Their are a lot of issues in this world that needs to be corrected. I agree with you on that point but that does not give anyone the right to kill a helpless animal intentionally. Intentionally hurting anyone or anything is wrong. Have you ever worked with an animal rescue? Do you realize it is one of the hardest charities to receive funding? I do it everyday in my free time. It is not easy!

The issues you listed below are always the first to make news headlines. 90% of the time animal abuse cases are always last! Situations like this abuse case happens on a daily basis but it is rarely mentioned.

Come work with me in the animal rescue leagues and see for yourself.

I can imagine, but we consider this act "wrong" because it makes US feel bad. I know I could never do that to an animal because I would feel sick to my stomach, but that is an emotional response that has some reason behind it but it is mostly reactionary. At the same time I have no problem eating a hamburger for my own pleasure.

And before anyone steps in and says killing livestock is necessary I have to ask them if it is true. Humans have had this level of protein intake for less than 200 years, we could probably cut out protein from animal slaughter all together if we wanted to (and if not all of it than the vast majority of it). We would have shorter lives because it isn't healthy, but it is not neccessary to kill animals to live. We do it for our pleasure.

Now I ask you what is the difference between a cow getting slaughered for our pleasure and a cat getting killed for our pleasure?

I think in the end it would be more practical to do this argument in degrees though, so I think it is best to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it is ok to kill an animal.

Now I will grant you that animals have some level of intelligence and the closer their intelligence is to our the more animal rights they deserve.

It is ok to eat a cow because a cow is not particulary intelligent and it will help us both nutritionally and it tastes good.

It is not ok to kill a cat (in this case) because they are somewhat intelligent for animals and the benefit that is gotten out of the death is just the pleasure of the guy that threw him off the ledge.

But, can you really say that the difference between those two cases is so great that it is ok not to worry about the cow, but it is ok to wish mortal harm on the person that tried to kill the cat? I don't think so.

[bearrock]

I am saying that thousands upon thousands of live stock are killed for our pleasure, what is intrinsically different about their deaths. Why aren't you getting emotional about them. Don't get me wrong, it is completely wrong to kill a cat for no reason, but the level of outrage that an ANIMAL gets while there are thousands of people dying of famine, disease, and war as we speak. I am saying maybe somethings should be looked at in the proper perspective.

Try to look at this as rationally as possible, without the emotional element

The difference is that livestocks killed for consumption serves a legitimate purpose for the benefit of society while animals harmed at the hand of abusers and torturers serve no such purpose. The second part of your argument is a pure red herring. Are there greater atrocities being committed in the world? Of course. Does that mean we should be oblivious to other atrocities? If someone gets upset that their wallet was stolen, would it be acceptable for someone to say "Get over it, there are people dying." If someone hits my child, should someone say "I believe the outrage you feel is not commensurate with the harm done. There are children being raped and killed, please tone down your anger"? Who can say that the anger we feel over a particular issue is enough, not enough, just right? If you don't feel the same anger or if you feel no anger, then fine. But that doesn't make someone else's anger illegitimate or overblown.

If you think about it, there is a sort of sadistic element tot he fact that we could care less about what an animal goes through before it's death as long as it "tastes" good. It seems to me the message is that as long as that animal serves us well on the platter than our treatment of it on the prairy is irrelevant, because after all, we're going to be digesting it soon aren't we? But cats, they don't taste good, so they don't make good food, atleast not in our culture, so they should be treated better than the poor chicken who's being fried in popeyes at this very moment.

You assume too much with your post. Who here said that cruelty to animal is okay? If you take issue with people eating animals, then that's a different issue. But I don't believe anyone said that as long as the animal is a livestock, you can treat it however you want. That's why some people care about things such as free range grown cows and chickens, etc.

Furthermore, one can at least formulate an argument to a certain extent for the cheap living conditions of livestocks because it is at least arguable that supplying people with low cost meat (so that a broader section of the population can have access to meat) is a greater societal good that pleasure of animals. (I do not subscribe to this argument, but at least it is something that could be argued amongst reasonable people). But what societal good is there in pointless animal cruelty?

[Prosperity]

The first difference that Liberty is intent. Causing suffering for the hell of it is widely considered wrong and disgusting behavior. Second animals that are kept as pets and, logically or not, are viewed as a friends of man and innocent creatures. Almost like children though not on the same level of value morally or legally.

Personally I have a problem with anyone that receives pleasure from causing a living thing great pain. In my experience people like that are cruel at their core and can't be trusted. The law often being the only reason they don't inflict pain on other people (assuming they don't).

You made an excellent point about why we feel this way, but completely ignored whether it is logical to feel that way or not.

[Prosperity]

The difference is that livestocks killed for consumption serves a legitimate purpose for the benefit of society while animals harmed at the hand of abusers and torturers serve no such purpose. The second part of your argument is a pure red herring. Are there greater atrocities being committed in the world? Of course. Does that mean we should be oblivious to other atrocities? If someone gets upset that their wallet was stolen, would it be acceptable for someone to say "Get over it, there are people dying." If someone hits my child, should someone say "I believe the outrage you feel is not commensurate with the harm done. There are children being raped and killed, please tone down your anger"? Who can say that the anger we feel over a particular issue is enough, not enough, just right? If you don't feel the same anger or if you feel no anger, then fine. But that doesn't make someone else's anger illegitimate or overblown.

The Red Herring argument- you are right it is mostly a red herring argument, but I was contending that animals have no where near the same rights as humans and an "atrocity" committed against an animal deserves no way near the response that would be appropriate for an "atrocity" committed against a human.

As for consumption, well it is not vital to survival so I won't consider it a need, but rather a luxury. You can certainly survive as a vegetarian or even a vegan.

I already said that consumption is a more valuable pleasure than the sadist's will, but it is not so much more that a cow can be ignored and a cat mourned for without being a hypocrite.

[TheSteve]

The difference is that livestocks killed for consumption serves a legitimate purpose for the benefit of society while animals harmed at the hand of abusers and torturers serve no such purpose. The second part of your argument is a pure red herring. Are there greater atrocities being committed in the world? Of course. Does that mean we should be oblivious to other atrocities? If someone gets upset that their wallet was stolen, would it be acceptable for someone to say "Get over it, there are people dying." If someone hits my child, should someone say "I believe the outrage you feel is not commensurate with the harm done. There are children being raped and killed, please tone down your anger"? Who can say that the anger we feel over a particular issue is enough, not enough, just right? If you don't feel the same anger or if you feel no anger, then fine. But that doesn't make someone else's anger illegitimate or overblown.

What legitimate purpose does killing livestock for consumption serve? In my mind it is only for the pleasure of the tongue. One can easily have a healthy diet WITHOUT meat and get adequate protien. So when it boils down to it, you have one sick person abusing animals for their pleasure, and you have society as a whole killing animals for its own pleasure and benefit. What is the difference? That one carcass is being eaten while the other is simply disposed of? We don't consume all slaughtered livestock. Does the fact that the animals were treated "a little" better before their killing for our selfish gain make that killing okay? It seems to me you have an issue with the method, not necessarily the fact that the animal was trying to be killed.

You assume too much with your post. Who here said that cruelty to animal is okay? If you take issue with people eating animals, then that's a different issue. But I don't believe anyone said that as long as the animal is a livestock, you can treat it however you want. That's why some people care about things such as free range grown cows and chickens, etc.

Furthermore, one can at least formulate an argument to a certain extent for the cheap living conditions of livestocks because it is at least arguable that supplying people with low cost meat (so that a broader section of the population can have access to meat) is a greater societal good that pleasure of animals. (I do not subscribe to this argument, but at least it is something that could be argued amongst reasonable people). But what societal good is there in pointless animal cruelty?

Again, if method makes the end goal reputable then what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with killing a cat for our own pleasure, only the way in which we go about it. (Which is not to say I would, but some apparently do). Livestock serve only to bring us pleasure, and it is not a necessary pleasure at that. We can live without meat.

[bearrock]

I can imagine, but we consider this act "wrong" because it makes US feel bad. I know I could never do that to an animal because I would feel sick to my stomach, but that is an emotional response that has some reason behind it but it is mostly reactionary. At the same time I have no problem eating a hamburger for my own pleasure.

And before anyone steps in and says killing livestock is necessary I have to ask them if it is true. Humans have had this level of protein intake for less than 200 years, we could probably cut out protein from animal slaughter all together if we wanted to (and if not all of it than the vast majority of it). We would have shorter lives because it isn't healthy, but it is not neccessary to kill animals to live. We do it for our pleasure.

Now I ask you what is the difference between a cow getting slaughered for our pleasure and a cat getting killed for our pleasure?

I think in the end it would be more practical to do this argument in degrees though, so I think it is best to do a cost benefit analysis to determine whether it is ok to kill an animal.

Now I will grant you that animals have some level of intelligence and the closer their intelligence is to our the more animal rights they deserve.

It is ok to eat a cow because a cow is not particulary intelligent and it will help us both nutritionally and it tastes good.

It is not ok to kill a cat (in this case) because they are somewhat intelligent for animals and the benefit that is gotten out of the death is just the pleasure of the guy that threw him off the ledge.

But, can you really say that the difference between those two cases is so great that it is ok not to worry about the cow, but it is ok to wish mortal harm on the person that tried to kill the cat? I don't think so.

You base your arguments on assumptions that I don't think everyone shares. No one said, and I don't believe anyone should say, that intelligence is the criteria for rights of any being. Then can we harm a human being if their intelligence is low enough? If you want to argue that human beings are somehow intrinsically different, what exactly is that difference? I think the better view is to say that any harm or killing without purpose to any being is wrong.

That is why my problem in this case wasn't that it was a cat as opposed to a cow or a chicken. If someone pointlessly tortured a cow, I would be disgusted by that as well. If, however, someone killed a cat or a dog for consumption (as they do in some cultures), I would not be outraged (the mere fact that I wouldn't do it is not enough for the action to be wrong).

Lastly, consuming animals to live healthier and provide a larger source of food to the world is not for pleasure. It's for survival.

[Prosperity]

You base your arguments on assumptions that I don't think everyone shares. No one said, and I don't believe anyone should say, that intelligence is the criteria for rights of any being. Then can we harm a human being if their intelligence is low enough? If you want to argue that human beings are somehow intrinsically different, what exactly is that difference? I think the better view is to say that any harm or killing without purpose to any being is wrong.

(intelligence doesn't mean smart, but rather conscious thought in this case)

Frankly considering intelligence allows for MUCH MUCH more animal rights. If I don't consider intelligence than I have to say that humans and animals are different. If I do that then I can't rationally justify ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS. I don't think humans are intrisically different than animals, but there are differences in degrees and I am using intelligence for that purpose.

That is why my problem in this case wasn't that it was a cat as opposed to a cow or a chicken. If someone pointlessly tortured a cow, I would be disgusted by that as well. If, however, someone killed a cat or a dog for consumption (as they do in some cultures), I would not be outraged (the mere fact that I wouldn't do it is not enough for the action to be wrong).

Lastly, consuming animals to live healthier and provide a larger source of food to the world is not for pleasure. It's for survival.

I know a lot of vegans, they would be surprised to learn that they are about to die (if I am reading your post correctly).

I have a question for you

If I ate a hamburger not because I was hungry, but because I was glutunous and I liked the taste, would you consider that wrong? By your logic it would be just as bad as the cat incident.

[Destino]

You made an excellent point about why we feel this way, but completely ignored whether it is logical to feel that way or not.

There is a reason I ignored it, because logic and feeling aren't roads that cross predictably or consistently. People have any number of reasons to feel the way they do and sometimes no reasons at all.

I did however make one argument in support of feeling this way. That being what enjoyment gained by cruelty says about a person. I think that any logical reasonable person that caught a teenager joyfully torturing a cat would feel justified in not wanting to trust said teenager to babysit their children. It may not be the worst thing a person can do but it certainly speaks as to what kind of person you are underneath the layers of BS.

[Prosperity]

There is a reason I ignored it, because logic and feeling aren't roads that cross predictably or consistently. People have any number of reasons to feel the way they do and sometimes no reasons at all.

I did however make one argument in support of feeling this way. That being what enjoyment gained by cruelty says about a person. I think that any logical reasonable person that caught a teenager joyfully torturing a cat would feel justified in not wanting to trust said teenager to babysit their children. It may not be the worst thing a person can do but it certainly speaks as to what kind of person you are underneath the layers of BS.

Really what does it say about what type of person I am?

God forbid anyone ever play devil's advocate lest Destino will think them a horrible person.

[bearrock]

Liberty, TheSteve

It appears that the difference in our positions stem from a disagreement in fundamental assumptions: whether eating meat is beneficial to our survival in a strictly medical sense.

My assumption regarding the necessity of animal protein stems from several reasons: (1) Vitamin B12 is only found in animal food; (2) Vitamin D3 (which, unlike Vitamin D2, is only found in animal fat) is a much more efficient source of Vitamin D then plants or sunlight in quantities unlikely to cause skin cancer; and (3) Vitamin A is only available in animal fats (Beta Carotene cannot be converted to Vitamin A without aid of animal fat).

I believe that reasonable amounts of animal meat in our diet is necessary for a healthier living because certain necessary nutrients can only be obtained from or with the aid of animal food. (Before someone says pills, the nutrients in those pills are either from or supplemented with animal food. I have yet to seen a purely vegetarian Vitamin B12 supplement). That is why I catagorize animal killed for consumption as not purely for our pleasure, but for survival.

I also have a completely side question if anyone feels like answering. What is the difference between a Vegetarian and a Vegan? I didn't know they were different lifestyles until Liberty's post.

[TheSteve]

Really what does it say about what type of person I am?

God forbid anyone ever play devil's advocate lest Destino will think them a horrible person.

Why would you want to mimic the devil unless you were an admirer of the devil himself? :laugh:

[Prosperity]

Liberty, TheSteve

It appears that the difference in our positions stem from a disagreement in fundamental assumptions: whether eating meat is beneficial to our survival in a strictly medical sense.

My assumption regarding the necessity of animal protein stems from several reasons: (1) Vitamin B12 is only found in animal food; (2) Vitamin D3 (which, unlike Vitamin D2, is only found in animal fat) is a much more efficient source of Vitamin D then plants or sunlight in quantities unlikely to cause skin cancer; and (3) Vitamin A is only available in animal fats (Beta Carotene cannot be converted to Vitamin A without aid of animal fat).

I believe that reasonable amounts of animal meat in our diet is necessary for a healthier living because certain necessary nutrients can only be obtained from or with the aid of animal food. (Before someone says pills, the nutrients in those pills are either from or supplemented with animal food. I have yet to seen a purely vegetarian Vitamin B12 supplement). That is why I catagorize animal killed for consumption as not purely for our pleasure, but for survival.

I also have a completely side question if anyone feels like answering. What is the difference between a Vegetarian and a Vegan? I didn't know they were different lifestyles until Liberty's post.

That is a fair post, the only way I can respond is that I know of people that never eat any meat at all and yet they still survive and there are also cultures that have done it that way for many years (Jainism the religion in India is one of these). Also I don't know if it is possible to get any of those specific nutrients without killing the animal (milk or worst case scenario surgical procedures).

Also I think Vegans don't consume any animal products at all, not even milk, while vegetarians are less strict.

If we came to the conclusion that animal consumption is not necessary for survival would you agree with my points?

[bearrock]

(intelligence doesn't mean smart, but rather conscious thought in this case)

Frankly considering intelligence allows for MUCH MUCH more animal rights. If I don't consider intelligence than I have to say that humans and animals are different. If I do that then I can't rationally justify ANY ANIMAL RIGHTS. I don't think humans are intrisically different than animals, but there are differences in degrees and I am using intelligence for that purpose.

If you mean intelligence in that way, then swap person of low intelligence with person in a coma and we still have the same question. If you don't consider intelligence (conscious thought), why do you have to say that humans and animals are different? Would they be equal as two living beings?

I know a lot of vegans, they would be surprised to learn that they are about to die (if I am reading your post correctly).

I have a question for you

If I ate a hamburger not because I was hungry, but because I was glutunous and I liked the taste, would you consider that wrong? By your logic it would be just as bad as the cat incident.

As for the vegans, read post above. I'm not saying they'll die, but without supplements made from or with the aid of animal food, they'll be at a greater risk for health problems.

As glutunous eating, I would point out that the difference between that and the abuse of the cat is that you receive some physical benefit from the consumption of the hamburger. I guess I would place it below consumption of animal food out of hunger and above abuse of animal for sadistic reasons.

[TheSteve]

Liberty, TheSteve

It appears that the difference in our positions stem from a disagreement in fundamental assumptions: whether eating meat is beneficial to our survival in a strictly medical sense.

My assumption regarding the necessity of animal protein stems from several reasons: (1) Vitamin B12 is only found in animal food; (2) Vitamin D3 (which, unlike Vitamin D2, is only found in animal fat) is a much more efficient source of Vitamin D then plants or sunlight in quantities unlikely to cause skin cancer; and (3) Vitamin A is only available in animal fats (Beta Carotene cannot be converted to Vitamin A without aid of animal fat).

I believe that reasonable amounts of animal meat in our diet is necessary for a healthier living because certain necessary nutrients can only be obtained from or with the aid of animal food. (Before someone says pills, the nutrients in those pills are either from or supplemented with animal food. I have yet to seen a purely vegetarian Vitamin B12 supplement). That is why I catagorize animal killed for consumption as not purely for our pleasure, but for survival.

I also have a completely side question if anyone feels like answering. What is the difference between a Vegetarian and a Vegan? I didn't know they were different lifestyles until Liberty's post.

I don't know about Vitaminb12, but Vitamin D3 your body produces on its own, and Vitamin A can be gained without killing animals.(Egg Yolk, Dairy Products,etc.

And for the record, I eat meat.

[bearrock]

I don't know about Vitaminb12, but Vitamin D3 your body produces on its own, and Vitamin A can be gained without killing animals.(Egg Yolk, Dairy Products,etc.

And for the record, I eat meat.

Your right about Vitamin A (combining Beta Carotene and Egg Yolk, dairy, etc). And yes Vitamin D3 can be obtained from your skin's reaction with sunlight. But sunlights give you Vitamin D only during certain times of the year and only during certain times of the day. And even then it may take you couple of hours of direct sunning to obtain the daily recommended amount.

[Prosperity]

If you mean intelligence in that way, then swap person of low intelligence with person in a coma and we still have the same question. If you don't consider intelligence (conscious thought), why do you have to say that humans and animals are different? Would they be equal as two living beings?

This in my opinion part of the hardest question I have ever been faced with, which is "what ought to be considered human life?"

A person in a coma with a destroyed brain imo is dead, what made them an individual is gone.

If the brain can somehow regrow once it is "dead" than I have no idea how to judge any of this and would have to restructure all my thoughts on this subject.

Also, if humans and animals are the same then why not humans and insects? Or why not humans and bacteria? There is a difference in degree imo.

As for the vegans, read post above. I'm not saying they'll die, but without supplements made from or with the aid of animal food, they'll be at a greater risk for health problems.

I agree, but

1. Is a longer life a necessity or a pleasure in THIS case?

2. Is a more comfartable life a necessity or a pleasure?

3. Is there a way around the problem that doesn't involve killing? ie milk, eggs (as long as we ignore the abortion debate for chickens), surgicially removing what we need (I know it sounds rediculous but this is all hypothetical)

As glutunous eating, I would point out that the difference between that and the abuse of the cat is that you receive some physical benefit from the consumption of the hamburger. I guess I would place it below consumption of animal food out of hunger and above abuse of animal for sadistic reasons.

glutonous eating doesn't provide health benefits, that is why we have so many obese people.

[Prosperity]

It may not be the worst thing a person can do but it certainly speaks as to what kind of person you are underneath the layers of BS.

I am serious tell me why you said that, or are you just going to make a post like that and run.

[TheSteve]

Your right about Vitamin A (combining Beta Carotene and Egg Yolk, dairy, etc). And yes Vitamin D3 can be obtained from your skin's reaction with sunlight. But sunlights give you Vitamin D only during certain times of the year and only during certain times of the day. And even then it may take you couple of hours of direct sunning to obtain the daily recommended amount.

Isn't vitamin D present in milk though? So there are ways to get these vitamins without killing animals. You just have to use animal products, which if animals aren't being killed there's really no logical reason for humans not to use them.