Cat Thrown Off Bridge With 16-Pound Rock Rescued

[BlueTalon]

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

What it says about you (and TheSteve) is that you're willfully ignorant or morally repugnant.

The goal of killing an animal in the process of slaughtering it for meat/skins/other products is to do it as quickly as possible. As was mentioned previously, an animal that is stressed when killed produces inferior meat, so from that standpoint alone it is desireable to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. On the other hand, and animal abuser/torturer is interested in causing pain. If you can't understand or acknowledge the difference, you're either brain-dead stupid or just unwilling to do it.

That being said, in any case where someone was slaughtering an animal for consumption but doing it in an intentionally sadistic manner, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But only in such cases.

By the way, it interesting how you hyperlefties want to tell us how to live -- eat vegetarian or vegan. Besides such a diet being risky (if one isn't careful about getting all necessary nutrients), please explain the logistics of how we would feed the world's population on a vegan diet.

Dang, it just struck me -- I'd be willing to bet that the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between animal cruelty and beef are the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between a thug cold-bloodedly killing innocent people and the state putting that thug to death.

[Destino]

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.

I really have no problem with anyone playing the devil's advocate at all. I think I was pretty clear Liberty as to what I was talking about, and it sure as hell isn't intellectual opposition. If you are just playing devil's advocate it means you enjoy a good debate, something I do all the time.

But you want to know what it says so here you go - If a person gains pleasure from torturing pets then it tells me that that person a sick freak that I wouldn't trust them with a house plant let alone anything of real value. To me it means that deep down inside the person is not good. I'd wonder if their was any good in them at all or if they simply acted a certain way for fear of punishment.

Hope that answered your question.

[Prosperity]

I really have no problem with anyone playing the devil's advocate at all. I think I was pretty clear Liberty as to what I was talking about, and it sure as hell isn't intellectual opposition.

But you want to know what it says so here you go - If you gain pleasure from torturing pets then it tells me that you're a sick freak and I wouldn't trust you with a house plant.

If you are just playing devil's advocate it means you enjoy a good debate, something I do all the time. Hope that answered your question.

Why do you think I enjoy torturing animals? That is the most idiotic thing you have ever said on this board.

It is no different than saying I am a murderer if I don't want murderers to be tortured, or to say I am a nazi if I protect their freedom of expression.

The problem I have with you in this thread is you haven't even bothered really adress any of the points I have brought in this thread. Bearrock has, why can't you?

[TheSteve]

What it says about you (and TheSteve) is that you're willfully ignorant or morally repugnant.

The goal of killing an animal in the process of slaughtering it for meat/skins/other products is to do it as quickly as possible. As was mentioned previously, an animal that is stressed when killed produces inferior meat, so from that standpoint alone it is desireable to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. On the other hand, and animal abuser/torturer is interested in causing pain. If you can't understand or acknowledge the difference, you're either brain-dead stupid or just unwilling to do it.

Why does it matter what the method is if the killing is wrong? And if the method determines whether or not the killing is wrong, then killing isn't wrong. And if killing isn't wrong why does the method matter? What you're saying is you would despise me if I tortured a cat, but if it was just a bullet to its head(quick and painless, but still senseless) then you would hold me in no less regard?

Dang, it just struck me -- I'd be willing to bet that the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between animal cruelty and beef are the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between a thug cold-bloodedly killing innocent people and the state putting that thug to death.

I could make a better argument against the death penalty than attempting to justify killing animals for no reason. That's a stretch. :laugh:

I think your proposition is incorrect though, because a lot of lefty anti death penalty people eat meat and have no problem with it.

[Prosperity]

What it says about you (and TheSteve) is that you're willfully ignorant or morally repugnant.

The goal of killing an animal in the process of slaughtering it for meat/skins/other products is to do it as quickly as possible. As was mentioned previously, an animal that is stressed when killed produces inferior meat, so from that standpoint alone it is desireable to kill it as quickly and painlessly as possible. On the other hand, and animal abuser/torturer is interested in causing pain. If you can't understand or acknowledge the difference, you're either brain-dead stupid or just unwilling to do it.

That being said, in any case where someone was slaughtering an animal for consumption but doing it in an intentionally sadistic manner, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. But only in such cases.

By the way, it interesting how you hyperlefties want to tell us how to live -- eat vegetarian or vegan. Besides such a diet being risky (if one isn't careful about getting all necessary nutrients), please explain the logistics of how we would feed the world's population on a vegan diet.

Dang, it just struck me -- I'd be willing to bet that the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between animal cruelty and beef are the same people that can't/won't tell the difference between a thug cold-bloodedly killing innocent people and the state putting that thug to death.

I am not telling you to be a vegan, I eat meat, does that come as a surprise to you? In fact I specifically said I did somewhere in one of my posts. Try and follow the thread please.

The whole point I am getting at is that we need to look at how we behave and find any contradictions in our views.

I have already adressed the rest of your points, if you want to retort do so but I am not going to keep repeating myself.

[Destino]

Why do you think I enjoy torturing animals? That is the most idiotic thing you have ever said on this board.

It is no different than saying I am a murderer if I don't want murderers to be tortured, or to say I am a nazi if I protect their freedom of expression.

I edited my post but to answer your question.

I posted this:

"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."

And your response began with:

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

When someone responds with "type of person I am" to a post that has NOTHING to do with intellectual arguments and focuses instead on the act and it's significance, once can reasonably assume they are admitting to the before mentioned act. IMO it was a bad choice of words on your part.

[Prosperity]

I edited my post but to answer your question.

I posted this:

"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."

And your response began with:

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

When someone responds with "type of person I am" to a post that has NOTHING to do with intellectual arguments and focuses instead on the act and it's significance, once can reasonably assume they are committing said act. Be more careful with your choice of words next time.

You said "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."

you said "a person" and then you said "you" if your post kept a parallel structure there would not have been a misunderstanding.

Whatever, doesn't matter now

[TheSteve]

I edited my post but to answer your question.

I posted this:

"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."

And your response began with:

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

When someone responds with "type of person I am" to a post that has NOTHING to do with intellectual arguments and focuses instead on the act and it's significance, once can reasonably assume they are admitting to the before mentioned act. IMO it was a bad choice of words on your part.

I think Liberty was confused because you used the specific "you are" when up until that point your post was just dealing with a teenager in general. Once you say, "you are" it can be reasonably assumed you are talking specifically to the person you were replying to. You didn't say, "what type of person you would be".

[Destino]

The problem I have with you in this thread is you haven't even bothered really adress any of the points I have brought in this thread. Bearrock has, why can't you?

I consider your cries for logic to be useless as much of what we place value on in life is not done so logically. I already stated that in this thread. Your choosing to ignore it is your problem.

If we tried to value life logically then you'd run into some scarey Peter Singer type arguments. For example comparing the value of a sick and dying infant to a healthy cow. Which one consumes societies resources and which one provides? Do the values society places on them logically match up to these answers? No they do not. Why? Because life is not valued by societal benefit or logic. It is alued by bias towards ones own species and emtotional attachment to other species. This is why killing a fish doesn't bother anyone outside of PETA headquarters but killing a cat pisses a lot of people off.

[twa]

Would ya'll feel better if they were executing the cat for killing thier parakeet?

:wavetowel :gang:

[Destino]

Would ya'll feel better if they were executing the cat for killing thier parakeet?

Parakeet deserved it.

[Prosperity]

I consider your cries for logic to be invalid and I've already stated what that is so. Much of what we place value on in life is not done so logically. I already stated that in this thread. Your choosing to ignore it is your problem.

If we tried to value life logically then you'd run into some scarey Peter Singer type things. Like comparing the value of a sick and dying infant to a healthy cow. Which one consumes societies resources and which one provides? Do the values society places on them logically match up to these answers? No they do not. Why? Because life is not valued by societal value or logic. It valued by bias towards ones own species and emtotional attachment to other species. This is why killing a fish doesn't bother anyone outside of PETA headquarters but killing a cat pisses a lot of people off.

You don't think human life can be valued logically? If not, when do you know to use emotion or logic, or how much of either?

[Destino]

You don't think human life can be valued logically? If not, when do you know to use emotion or logic, or how much of either?

It can? Then tell me, whose life is more valuable and why. How is this determined?

Value is subjective. The variable is how we feel about someone or how they are related to us. Emotional "feeling" is not always logical.

[Prosperity]

It can? Then tell me, whose life is more valuable and why. How is this determined?

I'll figure that out, in the meanwhile can you tell me how you can forsake logic in one case but keep it in other cases.

[Destino]

I'll figure that out, in the meanwhile can you tell me how you can forsake logic in one case but keep it in other cases.

Simple. Emotional arguments are not always logical. Value, in the context of this discussion, is determined in large part by emotional response.

But I could be wrong - Have you figured out the logical means of determining value yet Liberty?

[Prosperity]

Simple. Emotional arguments are not always logical. Value, in the context of this discussion, is determined in large part by emotional response.

But I could be wrong - Have you figured out the logical means of determining value yet Liberty?

No the world doesn't make sense I give up :laugh:

I really do agree with you, but I want to find a completely logical way to get to the answer. When you say "emotional response" do you take that into account only in this case or in every case? Everything has an emotional response, everything from the value of life, to the value of murder, rape, torture. And as we know emotional responses are different for each person so that will leave us with a COMPLETELY relativistic view on morality, and any value system in general. We won't have any right or wrong, we will just have different people feeling different things.

[TheSteve]

Liberty, is it possible that logic at its core is based on emotional desire? Nothing is purely logical if you think about it.

[BlueTalon]

Why does it matter what the method is if the killing is wrong? And if the method determines whether or not the killing is wrong, then killing isn't wrong. And if killing isn't wrong why does the method matter? What you're saying is you would despise me if I tortured a cat, but if it was just a bullet to its head(quick and painless, but still senseless) then you would hold me in no less regard?

I'm not the one making the case that killing an animal is inherently wrong. The method matters a great deal, because it reflects the goal of the killing. If your goal in killing an animal is to butcher it for food or put it out of its misery because it is sick or injured, then a bullet in the head is very humane. Even if your goal is just to thin out the cat population, a bullet to the head is not objectionable. -- not nearly as objectionable as torturing it. But if your method of killing is stabbing it with a pencil or tying it to a rock and throwing it off a bridge or running over it with a car or a lawnmower, that indicates you are more interested in causing pain.

So yes, I would hold you with more regard if you killed humanely than if you killed inhumanely.

I could make a better argument against the death penalty than attempting to justify killing animals for no reason. That's a stretch. :laugh:

I think your proposition is incorrect though, because a lot of lefty anti death penalty people eat meat and have no problem with it.

I wasn't making an argument, I was noticing a potential parallel.

[Prosperity]

Liberty, is it possible that logic at its core is based on emotional desire? Nothing is purely logical if you think about it.

But those emotions have to be based on something? Whether it is just biological extinct or something more. Logic is independant of our emotions though we have used logic to get to emotional ends (God, Values, ethics).

The problem I see is that we are left with contradictions with whichever side we choose. That to me seems impossible, but I can't see how we can use emtion as a value in one case but logically not use it in others. So basically it is all logic or all emotion, and they both have contradictions. I see nihlism at the end of the logical path and I know there has to be more, if there isn't then we have to create it, but if we create it is arbitrary. If we go the emotional route we are nothing but a bunch of biological instincts. Both lead to exactly the same place which is nothingness. If we could prove God existed then we woudln't even have to worry about such things, but damnit we can't even do that.

Sorry about rambling, I am going to go drink, too much thinking at the moment

[Prosperity]

Sorry about rambling, I am going to go drink, too much thinking at the moment

Hmmm actually it makes more sense to me now, logic is like an equation and emotion can be used to get to the answers by giving values to some of the variables, downside to that is that we can only agree on the answers if we have the same values, if not then it comes down to figuring out whose emotions are more valuable.

The emotional value of human life is obviously (obvious to me) greater than animals. So we can still compare animals to humans and we can recognize them as lesser beings. Once we can do that then logic takes over, and my point still stands.

So basically, we can't abandon logic all together, but because we have to base some values purely on emotion there is no way we can ever really justify morality or ethics except on a purely individual level. We can never say you are right or wrong, only that your emotions aren't the same as mine. So much for that... I am going to think of a logical way around that, but I am pretty much stumped when it comes to that poin.

I still don't see how this is relevant to this thread, because if we use emotion to figure out the value of life, human or otherwise, we still have to see if the values we give are consistent (cow vs. cat, cat vs. human).

[WeaponXDawkins]

Hmmm actually it makes more sense to me now, logic is like an equation and emotion can be used to get to the answers by giving values to some of the variables, downside to that is that we can only agree on the answers if we have the same values, if not then it comes down to figuring out whose emotions are more valuable.

The emotional value of human life is obviously (obvious to me) greater than animals. So we can still compare animals to humans and we can recognize them as lesser beings. Once we can do that then logic takes over, and my point still stands.

So basically, we can't abandon logic all together, but because we have to base some values purely on emotion there is no way we can ever really justify morality or ethics except on a purely individual level. We can never say you are right or wrong, only that your emotions aren't the same as mine. So much for that... I am going to think of a logical way around that, but I am pretty much stumped when it comes to that poin.

I still don't see how this is relevant to this thread, because if we use emotion to figure out the value of life, human or otherwise, we still have to see if the values we give are consistent (cow vs. cat, cat vs. human).

You REALLY like to hear yourself speak, don't you? :doh:

[nuposse87]

Sadly two years ago some hoodlums in my neighborhood took a stray cat, stuck it in a wheelbarrow, doused it with oil and burned it alive. I can't stand those types of people. They're sub-human.

[herrmag]

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

I for one once worked in a job where I had to walk with food inspectors that inspected meat plants. I can tell you for a fact that the methods used in order to kill live stock are 1000 times more humane than what was posed in this article. Believe it or not, there are laws on how to properly kill cows.

As for thousands of people dying from AIDS, etc.....Should we become totally insensitive to the horrible types of people that abuse animals simply because there are people dying of famine and disease?

Damn dude, you just have to argue anything that goes against the consensus vote in a thread, don't you? You must be great at parties.

[Prosperity]

I for one once worked in a job where I had to walk with food inspectors that inspected meat plants. I can tell you for a fact that the methods used in order to kill live stock are 1000 times more humane than what was posed in this article. Believe it or not, there are laws on how to properly kill cows.

As for thousands of people dying from AIDS, etc.....Should we become totally insensitive to the horrible types of people that abuse animals simply because there are people dying of famine and disease?

Damn dude, you just have to argue anything that goes against the consensus vote in a thread, don't you? You must be great at parties.

huh? Is that manner of death really much worse? I mean death is death, torture and death is worse, but it isn't night and day.

I already addressed those points in my other posts.

BTW I didn't even mention AIDS

[Prosperity]

You REALLY like to hear yourself speak, don't you? :doh:

You don't have to listen buddy, you can go your merry way.

Besides it was relevant, unlike your post.