Cat Thrown Off Bridge With 16-Pound Rock Rescued

[zoony]

You must be great at parties.

:laugh: :laugh:

Liberty... the outrage would be similar if someone threw a baby calf off a bridge with a stone tied to its neck to an icy grave. So there goes your argument. :doh:

this is about animal cruelty, not slaughtering livestock

[herrmag]

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

Three major points, which you've already discussed, are the reasons why this case is so evil.

1. The cat was almost killed for really no purpose. If they didn't want the cat, take it to a shleter or, at the very least, let it go.

So, what gratification does the person who dropped it off the bridge get? Some kind of freakish death orgasm? If so, then I stand by every comment I've made about this situation and about people involved in these such cases.

2. Manner of killing IS important. Causing unnecessary pain for no real purpose does matter. Our society murders people every year through the death penalty, but it is done so in a "humane" way (e.g. limited pain). There is an ultimate purpose to the killing, and the theory is that society will be better off (just like killing animals for food leaves society an ample food source).

3. The purpose of the killing is also important. We are carnivores, by our very nature. It is an instinct we are born with, and which is nurtured from infancy.

Not all people succumb to that instinct (e.g. vegans). However, how many vegans are athletes? They sacrifice their own health to stand up for a belief. If they choose to battle nature/genetics, so be it. That does not make people that eat meat inherently evil.

Now, if we derived pleasure from killing that which gives us sustenance, I could stand to argue that meat eaters are evil. Unfortunately, killing animals for food is a necessary evil for the majority of the world. But again, that which we kill for food is NOT tortured (at least in this country). By making a conscious decision to limit/eliminate pain in the killing, you are NOT deriving the pleasure in the death itself, which is what I have such a giant problem with.

[Prosperity]

Let's get one thing straight, I am posting in this thread for my benefit, I want to understand how I can eat meat and still feel bad about animals getting hurt. When I look at this logically I know I am WRONG. Somewhere along the line I MADE A MISTAKE. I want to know what the mistake is and I want to know why.

:laugh: :laugh:

Liberty... the outrage would be similar if someone threw a baby calf off a bridge with a stone tied to its neck to an icy grave. So there goes your argument. :doh:

this is about animal cruelty, not slaughtering livestock

Yup real life is just like the tailgate on Extremeskins either way ethics hasn't popped up as a topic to any parties I have gone to. Maybe you old dudes guys go to different type of parties than college kids and discuss philosophy over drinks, but that is neither here nor there.

As for the consensus thing, is that your idea of a conversation? Everyone sitting around saying they agree with each other? Damn man, you have to think and grow you can't do either just going along with the consensus. You don't become great or even above average by going along with the consensus. Really, Really LAME, not much more I can say about that.

"there goes your argument"

Maybe if that was my argument :doh: but it clearly wasn't and a lot of people in this thread have decided that they are too lazy or too stupid to actually address the issue so they attack strawmen and claim victory all in one post :doh:

Oh and seriously, if you don't understand my argument don't respond to it, I'll try to help but if you (plural) keep ignoring it and writing irrelevant tripe then go ahead form your little consensus circle jerk and agree with each other and pat each other on the back till the sun rises because this has already been a big waste of tme and I am only doing it for the sake of completion.

summary:

This event caused a lot of emotion. It didn't surprise me that there was so much outrage over the event, I was just pointing out that the outrage might be a little overboard, and it is a bit hypocritical of us to be outraged to that degree when other animals have had similar things done to them purely for our pleasure. It is hypocritical if you want to look at this in a logical way, if you don't want to look at it logically then what is the point of even writing any more of this. So I presented the example of live stock.

The live stock argument:

P1 A cat and a cow have similar value (I personally like cats more than cows, because they are a bit smarter and furrier, but this is emotional and not really based in logic)

P2 The death of a cow and a cat ought to have similar emotional consequences

P3 They don't have similar emotional consequences

Therefore there is a logical disconnect somewhere along the line in the emotional responses

Of course people will say the a cow's death is absolutely necessary while the cat's death has no value. I agree to a point that the cow's death is more valuable, but it is not a necessity.

Eating meat is not neccessary for survival, many of the nutrients gotten that way could be gotten in a way that doesn't KILL the animal. Milk and eggs to name a few. Even we couldn't I would still consider it a pleasure because you can still live as a vegan and some cultures have lived that way for hundreds of years. It will be a harder life and you will be more prone to disease but YOU CAN LIVE AS A VEGETARIAN.

Also, even if it was a necessity, many people, especially in wealthy countries eat food because they like the taste, not because of the nutritional value. An animal was killed just so we can eat a tasty burger even though we already had enough protein. This is true, that is why there are so many fat people. If it isn't neccessary would you say that the people that eat for taste are almost as bad as the people that kill for fun?

[Again, I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, don't call me a hippy vegan because I hate those people, but the problem is I think they might be right, if they are right then we ought stop eating animals because it is cruel, if they are wrong then why does this cat have so much emotional value? Or I should say, is the emotional value logically consistent?]

Now if you want to address these points you are very welcome to, I will try to give an answer, maybe I can find my own somewhere along the way.

2. Manner of killing IS important. Causing unnecessary pain for no real purpose does matter. Our society murders people every year through the death penalty, but it is done so in a "humane" way (e.g. limited pain). There is an ultimate purpose to the killing, and the theory is that society will be better off (just like killing animals for food leaves society an ample food source).

3. The purpose of the killing is also important. We are carnivores, by our very nature. It is an instinct we are born with, and which is nurtured from infancy.

We are carnivores? Well I suppose we definitely have the biological impulse to eat meat, no surprise there. BUT our biological tendencies do not make RIGHT OR WRONG they are just biological, they have no basis in ethics, just science. The guy that threw off the cat may have had a biological tendancy to sadism, is that OK?

[stevenaa]

Liberty,

You're looking at it all wrong. There is no hypocrisy when comparing the demise of the cat and the slaugher of the cow. The emotional response to the cat's situation isn't at all about it's potential death. In fact, in all cases of animal cruelty, the emotion isn't about the death, it's about the cruelty that precedes death. That is why you don't/shouldn't feel the same way about the cow. The death and cruelty are two seperate issues. h

[BlueTalon]

Let's get one thing straight, I am posting in this thread for my benefit, I want to understand how I can eat meat and still feel bad about animals getting hurt. When I look at this logically I know I am WRONG. Somewhere along the line I MADE A MISTAKE. I want to know what the mistake is and I want to know why.

This is a lot easier than you're making it.

There are humane ways of killing animals and there are inhumane ways of killing animals. Until you can understand and acknowledge this basic concept, you're going to be in mental/emotional turmoil.

Let's review:

Quick, relatively painless death -- OK.

Gratuitous pain and suffering -- Bad.

Now let's move on to eating meat. It is necessary to kill an animal before eating it, unless you (A) don't care how much pain you cause the animal and ( can run fast. Whether you are an evolutionist (humans are at the top of the food chain) or a biblical creationist (humans are stewards of creation and are specifically allowed to eat meat), there is no intrinsic logical or moral problem with killing an animal and eating it. Since that's not your main issue anyway, we're back to the method of killing an animal. As a refresher:

Quick, painless death -- OK.

Slow, suffering death -- Bad.

If you really want to follow convoluted twists of logic into an emotional and moral morass, you can. If that's your choice, I suggest you quit eating meat.

[MissU28]

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

for the first..and probably the only time in my life...i agree with weaponx. Wow.

[Spaceman Spiff]

for the first..and probably the only time in my life...i agree with weaponx. Wow.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Prosperity]

This is a lot easier than you're making it.

There are humane ways of killing animals and there are inhumane ways of killing animals. Until you can understand and acknowledge this basic concept, you're going to be in mental/emotional turmoil.

Let's review:

Quick, relatively painless death -- OK.

Gratuitous pain and suffering -- Bad.

Now let's move on to eating meat. It is necessary to kill an animal before eating it, unless you (A) don't care how much pain you cause the animal and ( can run fast. Whether you are an evolutionist (humans are at the top of the food chain) or a biblical creationist (humans are stewards of creation and are specifically allowed to eat meat), there is no intrinsic logical or moral problem with killing an animal and eating it. Since that's not your main issue anyway, we're back to the method of killing an animal. As a refresher:

Quick, painless death -- OK.

Slow, suffering death -- Bad.

If you really want to follow convoluted twists of logic into an emotional and moral morass, you can. If that's your choice, I suggest you quit eating meat.

And I suggest you read my posts. The logical problems I presented were very simple and straight forward. What you really are saying though is, "your logic is correct but I still don't want to say it." So instead of addressing the points you attack logic itself.

Would you be ok with any pet owners out there killing their pets "painlessly"? What if it was a needle with poison instead of a rope and a rock? Somehow I doubt I would be ok with that, and Huly or any other animal lovers won't be either.

If an animal's worth is comparable to a Human's worth (comparable NOT equal). Then we can surely understand that death is much worse than physical pain. Look at our laws, you can only get the worst punishments if you take away life. Death is death, torture before death is bad, but can you really say that the death itself is better than torture?

[DeanCollins]

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).

I think you answered your question somewhat here. Logic is a tool, that is learned and used in the left side of the brain, emotions are psychological protection mechanisms (mostly) located in the right brain. It's good to look at problems from both sides. Some only require the left, but It's troublesome to only think from one side of your brain. I lifted this portion of an education article, to illustrate this.

http://brain.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

"Reality-Based Vs. Fantasy-Oriented Processing

The left side of the brain deals with things the way they are-with reality. When left brain students are affected by the environment, they usually adjust to it. Not so with right brain students. They try to change the environment! Left brain people want to know the rules and follow them. In fact, if there are no rules for situations, they will probably make up rules to follow! Left brain students know the consequences of not turning in papers on time or of failing a test. But right brain students are sometimes not aware that there is anything wrong. So, if you are right brain, make sure you constantly ask for feedback and reality checks. It's too late the day before finals to ask if you can do extra credit. Keep a careful record of your assignments and tests. Visit with your professor routinely. While this fantasy orientation may seem a disadvantage, in some cases it is an advantage. The right brain student is creative. In order to learn about the digestive system, you may decide to "become a piece of food! And since emotion is processed on the right side of the brain, you will probably remember well anything you become emotionally involved in as you are trying to learn."

Liberty, you may be a right brain student according to this. I know that I am.

[Prosperity]

Here is my last post in this crappy thread.

Because of the obvious logical disconnect the way I thought about this and the way most other people thought about this were wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are only two correct (non contradictory) stances we can take on this issue.

A. Animals ought to have a great enough value that they should not be tortured or killed for our pleasure. Since we can live without killing animals it isn't even a survival issue. Therefore anyone that takes this position has to logically also be a vegetarian. (This is the position of BT, Huly, and others in this thread).

B. Animals (most of them) are so much lower than us that they are basically property and nothing more. (I think intelligent animals like dolphins, elephants, or even dogs can be excluded from this group) Since they are property there is nothing intrisically wrong with eating them. However since most animals resemble us in emotions we can say it is morally repugnant to torture them because the end result is similar to human torture. However, just because it is morally repugnant doesn't mean it ought to be illegal, since the animal itself has little value by itself. (though I can think of ways to make it illegal without having a contradiction, loopholes mostly).

I choose B.

------------------------

PS

DC, you might be correct that right brain person but in real life my emotions are always the first reaction, but I try to suppress emotions that don't make logical sense afterwords. (ie this entire thread)

[Monkart]

Here is my last post in this crappy thread.

Because of the obvious logical disconnect the way I thought about this and the way most other people thought about this were wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are only two correct (non contradictory) stances we can take on this issue.

A. Animals ought to have a great enough value that they should not be tortured or killed for our pleasure. Since we can live without killing animals it isn't even a survival issue. Therefore anyone that takes this position has to logically also be a vegetarian. (This is the position of BT, Huly, and others in this thread).

B. Animals (most of them) are so much lower than us that they are basically property and nothing more. (I think intelligent animals like dolphins, elephants, or even dogs can be excluded from this group) Since they are property there is nothing intrisically wrong with eating them. However since most animals resemble us in emotions we can say it is morally repugnant to torture them because the end result is similar to human torture. However, just because it is morally repugnant doesn't mean it ought to be illegal, since the animal itself has little value by itself. (though I can think of ways to make it illegal without having a contradiction, loopholes mostly).

I choose B.

------------------------

PS

DC, you might be correct that right brain person but in real life my emotions are always the first reaction, but I try to suppress emotions that don't make logical sense afterwords. (ie this entire thread)

OKAY!!!

The logical reason this thread is crappy, is because you posted 25 TIMES on it. More then 1/4 of all post, so even you can't stomach the :pooh: you are spitting out. Some times logic is as simple as that :thumbsup:

OK captain Kurk, you can beam Spock up now!