Animal cruelty and its punishment

[cory_g]

A few days ago there was case presented on TV in my country (Romania) about a group of three teenagers beating a poor cat to death (http://www.protv.ro/filme/imagini-socante-pisica-omorata-in-scara-blocului-de-cativa-tineri.html?id_file=30427#30427)

!!! I prevent everyone that the images are extremely shocking!!!

I was appaled, it made sick to witness such violence! The worst about the case is that they were eventually apprehended and they only got a fine of 500$ for this!

We really have no animal protection here and it's outrageous that those #@%&%$# should be getting away with a small sum of money that their parents would pay. On top of that, being interviewed afterwards on the matter, they showed absolutely no remorse and said they had done it just to be cool. :handbag:

Though I started the topis from a specific case, I want to discuss animal cruelty in general, your views on the issue, the punishment you consider suitable for such acts of violence, etc.

[Fayreview]

There is no punishment quite right for a crime like this the torture of animals in more or less unforgivable.

That is not to say I don't believe in eating animals. But atleast in that case they are killed instantaneously and for a purpose. Mindless torture is something else entirely.

[Daisie]

Ugh, that's horrible. People who torture animals are sick, despicable human beings, and they're one step away from doing the same thing to other people.

Now, it's not going to happen, but here's my proposed sentence for animal abusers: mental health screening, enormous fine, five years in jail, being put on a blacklist so that they can never adopt, buy, or register a pet animal ever again. And it shouldn't depend on the animal. Isn't there a law in the US that states that rat and mouse abuse isn't a criminal offense? That makes me sick, especially because I used to have a pet rat who was sweet, happy, and quite intelligent.

[nixie_SC]

The punishments should be exactly the same as what they did to the animal :)

[joe_mulcahy]

I agree with you and others on this forum who have said that the punishment is in no way fitting of the crime. I would in this case say that these people should be punished in precisely the same way that the poor cat was. In the long run, it would be a good thing, as these hooligans wouldn't be alive to hurt another being again.

Edit: and that video clip was horrible and make me ill to watch.

[PennyTheCorgi]

That poor kitty..:( Why do people insist on hurting animals that have never done anything to deserve that kind of treatment? The area I live in is bad for animal cruelty and mistreatment nad I'v rescued more then my fair share of injured/sick/abused animals. The worst part is, they get away with it. The punishment for abusing an animal should be just as sever as the one for abusing a child. After all, most of the times the animal can't do anything to protect its self.

[lockshockbarrel]

Now, it's not going to happen, but here's my proposed sentence for animal abusers: mental health screening, enormous fine, five years in jail, being put on a blacklist so that they can never adopt, buy, or register a pet animal ever again. And it shouldn't depend on the animal. Isn't there a law in the US that states that rat and mouse abuse isn't a criminal offense? That makes me sick, especially because I used to have a pet rat who was sweet, happy, and quite intelligent.

I think that's a good idea, and I definitely agree with you on the rat & mouse thing. I've also owned rats, for five years, and they are just as capable as looking frightened and making pitiful sort of noises, in other words, you'd have to be a horrible person to torture a rat just the same as a dog or cat.

[sabrown100]

What about this video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

[lovelybones_SC]

I think that is just sick! I don't think animals need to suffer like that. I think that whoever gets caught doing it, goes to jail for a long time and not being able to buy any more animals. That video, cory_g, made me start to cry and can't believe stupid people like that would do that to a innocent little cat.

[Miki_SC]

Is there anyone here who isn’t disturbed by this kind of thing? Really though, the majority of people must not be bothered or the penalties would be more severe.
I'd really like to hear someone saying that a fine is perfectly sufficient for cruelty like that.

[RubyAmbition]

There is no punishment quite right for a crime like this the torture of animals in more or less unforgivable.

That is not to say I don't believe in eating animals. But atleast in that case they are killed instantaneously and for a purpose. Mindless torture is something else entirely.

I kinda agree with this..But I don't eat animals, which probably makes my opinion more extreme...

Animals in slaughterhouses aren't killed quickly. The workers slit their throats, making them bleed to death.

Animal cruelty is also quite bad. Teens that do that sort of thing can end up as murderers of people in the future. Scary, eh?

[GeeWayrocks]

I agree with Manda. If they show no mercy beating a CAT to death, will the show mercy beatign a HUMAN to death?

[Ghanima Atreides]

Gah. I'm sorry I opened this thread. Now I feel sick to my stomach...honestly, if I ever came across someone doing that to an animal, I wouldn't be able to control myself and hit with whatever's handier.

*proud owner of three kitties*

[Ferret]

I agree with everyone here. People don't get the correct punishment. How you can beat a cat to death is beyond me... I feel bad if I accidently nudge my cat by accident!

This made me cry though:


Dogs used as Shark Bait (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1019_051019_dogs_sharks.html)

[Rabid]

Animal cruelty is just about one of the worst things a person can do, in my book. I can honestly say that, if I ever came across someone who had tortured/ was in the middle of torturing an animal, I would be hard pressed not to slap them silly. Everything possible should be done to punish those who abuse animals- long jail time, high fines, psychiatric counseling to ensure that they'll never do it again, etc. It's despicable and vile.

The worst part of it is that the animal doesn't understand what's happening. A human being tortured is capable of understanding- they know that it could be a political situation, a hostage situation, punishment for a wrong-doing, etc. I'm not saying that human torture is right (because it surely isn't), but I think animal torture is worse because they can't comprehend what's happening. They don't know why they're beaten or being fed to the sharks- they think they've done something wrong, in most cases.

This is terrible. No one should have to suffer like that, especially animals.

[voodookatie]

They should sentence the same punishment for the person as the person did for the animal: keep the animal in a too small cage, put the person in a small cell, beat the animal for no reason, beat the person.

I used to work at a pet store (got done today, actually, so that I could get a job out to sea) and for the most part a lot of people take care of their animals, but it's stupid ridiculous when they decide to buy a turtle (red eared sliders are the only turtle allowed to be sold in my state) and then put this turtle into a ten gallon tank, when a ten gallon is way too small. Or buy a finch bird cage for their cockatiel. It's horrible the state of some of the animals we rescued.

[longears15]

Animal cruelty is everywhere unfortunately, and it seems that successful prosecutions are rarely brought. That's before you even begin to consider how insignificant the penalties tend to be if people are convicted. These definitely need to be more harsh- though I think that also applies to many other crimes as well- someone beating a cat to death is hardly going to be given a long jail sentence when someone else can commit violent assault on another person and be out again within a couple of years :(

In my experience, the large welfare organisations (those with the power to seize animals, bring charges, etc., such as RSPCA) frequently don't even bother to investigate. I have been involved in too many situations (as part of the rescue team for a small welfare organisation) where animals are almost dead- no food, no water, sometimes horrible chronic injuries, sometimes deliberate cruelty- and they've refused to take an interest. With things as they are, I don't think the penalties are likely to change any time soon...

What concerns me most though is that in Australia at least, there is no formal, organised system for reporting incidents of animal cruelty. (I am only considering deliberate abuse here.) We're told so frequently that people who inflict cruelty on other people often start out by harming animals. As I've said, I've done a lot of animal welfare work and I am soon to qualify as a veterinarian. I have already seen far too many cases of animal abuse and there is almost nothing that can be done about it except in the worst of the worst cases.

My feeling is that there needs to be a way of logging all these cases (even where there is only strong suspicion, even if nothing solid can be proven) and that this may in the long run do the human population some good as well.

[Kakashi_Hatake_SC]

I'm an animal rights person, and I beleive that they all have rights. What I don't like as well is when a dog or other animal attacks a perso, small child ETC they immediatly blame it on the dog. Almost everyone of these cases the animal has come from a bad environment, and has been treated horribly. Is it the owners fault or the animals? I strongly believe in these cases it's the owners fault and they should be punished and not the animal. I'm not saying to let these animals run loose, but to put a dog to sleep because it had a bad upbringing? That's wrong, I've got three cats who I love dearly like my own children and if I caught ANYONE hurting any of them I'd probably beat the living %^$%^$% out of the person. I also agree that people should suffer the same treatment that they gave to the animal, if you beat and kill an animal well...all I have to say is Karma.

[Jacki_SC]

I think that killing animals purely for sport or fun, like that harmless cat for example, is just wrong. Those people are sadistic and just plain evil. I think a hefty fine and some jail time would serve them right.

[Daisie]

IWhat I don't like as well is when a dog or other animal attacks a perso, small child ETC they immediatly blame it on the dog. Almost everyone of these cases the animal has come from a bad environment, and has been treated horribly. Is it the owners fault or the animals? I strongly believe in these cases it's the owners fault and they should be punished and not the animal. I'm not saying to let these animals run loose, but to put a dog to sleep because it had a bad upbringing? That's wrong.Of course it's usually the owner's fault with situations like that (and the owner should be punished), but what else can they do with a dog that's become a danger to people? The idea (hopefully) is not to punish the dog, but to remove a dangerous animal from society. Either way, it's sad.

[Benny Boy_SC]

I just watched part of the video because I couldn't take it anymore and that was THE most horrifying thing I've ever seen on a video in my life!! Why the hell would someone do that to animal?! And to be cool?! HA! They can kiss my @$$.

I agree, just as a lot of people in here have said, that the punishment for animal cruelty is extremely wrong and needs to be changed. After just gazing over the thread posts, I saw that someone said that the punishments should be the same as they did to the cat. HELL YA! I completely agree. Although the gov't. would no way in the world change the punishment to death for the cruel punishment of animals.

'Eh.

[voodookatie]

Of course it's usually the owner's fault with situations like that (and the owner should be punished), but what else can they do with a dog that's become a danger to people? The idea (hopefully) is not to punish the dog, but to remove a dangerous animal from society. Either way, it's sad.

When working at the pet store, I had some guy come and tell me about his pittbull or other large dog (of that sort). The guy keeps his dog in his truck, and was in Massachusetts at the time. Some stranger walked up to the truck (windows were rolled down for the dog) and the guy started poking and slapping the dog around.

Being a good guard dog, the dog bit the guy's finger straight off. The police decided that the dog was not at fault because the stranger started it, and the dog was doing its duty. So, not every case where a person was bitten ends up with a dog being put down. It is the owner's fault most of the times for raising their dog that way and not socializing it. Please people, how many times do I have to say it "Spay and neuter your children?"

[longears15]

The laws relating to "dog attacks" (around here at least) are quite bizzare. If a person stands at your gate and provokes your dog, and the dog bites them, you are still legally responsible. The council has the power to declare the dog dangerous, meaning that it must be kept in a special enclosure, wear a special collar and not go out without a muzzle, or can have it destroyed. The same applies if someone comes onto your property (invited or uninvited) and is bitten- I can only hope that The Powers That Be would be able to exercise common sense if a dog bit someone in defence of its owner or property. However, if a neighbour's dog puts it's nose to the fence and is bitten, you are not responsible. (This came up in discussion the other day because we had to treat a dog who had been dragged under the dividing fence and attacked by the neighbour's dogs and there was a bit of an argument as to who should be paying the vet bills) Go figure...

Of course it's usually the owner's fault with situations like that (and the owner should be punished), but what else can they do with a dog that's become a danger to people? The idea (hopefully) is not to punish the dog, but to remove a dangerous animal from society. Either way, it's sad.

I agree. Just the other day, we had to euthanise a dog surrendered to the pound because she had badly bitten one of the owner's young children. We're all pretty sure that it was probably the owner's fault- not supervising the child around the dog. There was a horrible case here a few years ago where a boy (I think around 12 years old) was killed by the family dog- obviously there was no choice but to euthanase the dog, but a friend of mine used to 'pet-sit' for the family and was always horrified at the way the child tormented the dog when he thought no-one was watching. Very few dogs are 'bad' if they're trained and socialised properly, but animals that bite (even in certain cases of provocation) can be a major issue.

[PandaGuin]

Animal cruelty is everywhere unfortunately, and it seems that successful prosecutions are rarely brought. That's before you even begin to consider how insignificant the penalties tend to be if people are convicted. These definitely need to be more harsh- though I think that also applies to many other crimes as well- someone beating a cat to death is hardly going to be given a long jail sentence when someone else can commit violent assault on another person and be out again within a couple of years :(

In my experience, the large welfare organisations (those with the power to seize animals, bring charges, etc., such as RSPCA) frequently don't even bother to investigate. I have been involved in too many situations (as part of the rescue team for a small welfare organisation) where animals are almost dead- no food, no water, sometimes horrible chronic injuries, sometimes deliberate cruelty- and they've refused to take an interest. With things as they are, I don't think the penalties are likely to change any time soon...

What concerns me most though is that in Australia at least, there is no formal, organised system for reporting incidents of animal cruelty. (I am only considering deliberate abuse here.) We're told so frequently that people who inflict cruelty on other people often start out by harming animals. As I've said, I've done a lot of animal welfare work and I am soon to qualify as a veterinarian. I have already seen far too many cases of animal abuse and there is almost nothing that can be done about it except in the worst of the worst cases.

My feeling is that there needs to be a way of logging all these cases (even where there is only strong suspicion, even if nothing solid can be proven) and that this may in the long run do the human population some good as well.

I'm from the top end of Aust, and a few months ago we had a serial cat slaughterer going around. This person would take people's pet cats and slaughter them in the most horrific ways, then leave them on display. Classic signs of a potential serial killer. The killer was never caught. Even if he/she had been we've go bugger all punishment for animal cruelty. A fine and a ban from owning animals. That's it.

I recently adopted a stray dog who had either run away or been dumped. He'd been seriously abused, and was terrifed of hoses, shoes, sticks, taller men, rope and a lot of other things.

Because of how rural it is up here the animal cruelty is terrible and it's easy enough for someone to hurt their animals without anyone knowing.

There was a case in the news last week where someone had discovered a litter of bleeding puppies in their wheelie bin. Whoever had dumped the puppies had slit their throats first.

This is something that happens almost every week here. It just doesn't always make the news.

[longears15]

We're nowhere near as rural as the top end, but we have similar problems round here. There was someone round here a while back slaughtering kangaroos and leaving the heads on display. Around the same time, a group of horses were poisoned and some donkeys were attacked by someone with a knife.

A few weeks ago, we had a dog brought into the emergency centre after being left on a beach- the best theory I can come up with to explain his injuries is that someone had put a pickaxe through his skull.

Nobody's been caught in any of these cases, and I think the roo incidents were the only ones to make the news. Most of them don't...

[poverty_SC]

Animals in slaughterhouses aren't killed quickly. The workers slit their throats, making them bleed to death.

Yeah, how does this situation differ? I'm probably crazy, but I see a tiny little double standard here. An animal will be tortured in a slaughter house and most people don't care, they'll go and eat it and it's just whatever.

But anyway, regardless, I used to own pets and I think this is horrible and incredibly scary.

[Fayreview]

I kinda agree with this..But I don't eat animals, which probably makes my opinion more extreme...

Animals in slaughterhouses aren't killed quickly. The workers slit their throats, making them bleed to death.

Animal cruelty is also quite bad. Teens that do that sort of thing can end up as murderers of people in the future. Scary, eh?

! I had no idea..... my mum shops from a local farm though... they use an "animal friendly slaughterhouse" which always strikes me a quite ironic.... i assume they are just killed differently..... or atleast i hope they are

[longears15]

Animals in slaughterhouses aren't killed quickly. The workers slit their throats, making them bleed to death.

Welfare of animals in abattoirs is a different issue entirely. In most western countries the animals are stunned before slaughter. The exception to this is small abattoirs that deal with Shechita and very strict Halal slaughter, where stunning is forbidden. The methods differ between species, but animals are rendered unconscious before their throats are cut and do not regain consciousness whilst they bleed out. When everything is done properly, it is a quick process and shouldn't compromise the animal's welfare...transport and handling beforehand is a far bigger issue in most cases.

[kittentits]

Having visited several slaughterhouses while studying agriculture, I can assure you the animals are stunned before any cutting happens. And let me tell you, it's not something they'd not do just because it's easier not to 'cause, well, it's much harder killing a conscious animal than an unconscious one. Aside from the aforementioned halal and other religious/cultural differences, the animals will be well and truly out of it.

As an aside, I'm a vegetarian, not for animal rights reasons but environmental ones.

As for the original topic, as a cat lover, I wish the very worst for the people in the video. And for anyone who does that to another living being.

[honeynutcows_SC]

i think animal torture should have the same concequinces as human torture. It is afwul and evil and a mindless crime, with no reason for it. Our house is like a mini rescue centre, we take in animals that have been through this. (13 cats 2 dogs) One of cats was going to be used in dog fight baiting. 2 were going to be drowned if they didnt get a home. 2 were bruised underfed and locked in a shed and thats just the worst of them. The cheek is one of our dogs, a puppy back then was found on a beach living on scraps. Its owner had threw him out cause he was supposedly chewing everything up (never chewed anything in our house) and he was to ugly for them. We took him in, and when he had grew into a gorgeus well bred dog. They wanted us to give him back!

[Cassadaga]

That's so disgusting.

I think that if you can give someone the death penalty or life in jail for killing another human, it should be the exact same punishment for killing an animal. Yeah, that's harsh and it may seem a little drastic, but who's to say a human life is worth more than an animal's life?

[leenetje]

if i would see someone hurting an animal like that, i would torture them to dead. that would teach them.

[Sheyza]

I agree 100% with Leen. Anyone that would torture an animal is a pitiful excuse for a human and needs to be tortured themselves. This is a very touchy subject for me. I hate seeing animals abused. There is NO EXCUSE for it what-so-ever.

[Lollipop_Girl]

I swear if anyone did that to my Tippy I would beat them to death. I am serious. My cat is like family to me. I think it is sick and cruel to torture and kill an animal for fun. I'm no vegatarian, I do know that animals are killed for food. But they are (usually) not tortured. I think that people who commit such crimes should be put in prison like real criminals *not* just given a stupid fine. And anyway I have heard that some serial killers started off by torturing animals before moving onto humans...just something to think about.
Why is seeing the animal suffer fun? I think it is disgusting.

:) I'm getting another cat too, a rescued cat when I move house...I can't wait to give a cat a new and better home. I think it'll be good, kind of a homage to my recently deceased Merry as we took him in when his owner abandoned him at my childminders when I was five and they couldn't keep him there as it's a high flat. I love cats so much, but I get just upset over other animals too. Even if it were a snake being tortured I'd still be horrified.

[Night Revenant]

Where I know that if someone even dared to harm a cat in my line of sight (it doesn't even have to be mine), I would probably impale them out of rage...I don't think the death penalty would help to completely nullify the problems in their own mind. I do think that they should be imprisoned for a period of time and forced to undergo psychological treatment.

Why? Let's be honest here. Most people who harm others purposefully do it because of the addictive feeling of power, it's about being stronger than the other creature and what's more stronger then ending something's life, then becoming Death in their eyes? ...In my opinion, nothing. It would be like POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! You see it in serial killers all the time, it's why they've become -serial- killers.

[TingTong]

Yep if ANYONE did that to my pipparina...i'd rip their eyes out and pour salt into the hollows! hah!

[Black_Barook!]

There lucky I don't know where they live or I'd F*cking kill them. I'd rip there heart out then shove up there as*.

I'm a cat person.

[Mecall]

:madashel: The problem in Australia is we have tough penalties but no bloody judge will give them. There are jail terms and huge fines but they give the criminal no jail time and pissy fines. Its as if the judges dont give a rats you know what about animals either!

[Annique]

If they lay one finger on my cats, fines will not be nescesary. I don't think I could bear to watch that video. Just imagining it makes me feel miserable. I have three cats and one dog. If they'd be killed or hurt on purpose I would go mad. See that sweet little face in my avatar? How could anyone do something like that to a defenseless, innocent animal? One of our cats (not the one in my avatar) was abandoned and sick, so they probably just wanted to get rid of her because she was going to die anyway. I am actually really happy they abandoned her. God brought her to us and she's now a delightful, beautiful, healthy cat. Luckily her illness was in an early stage, so we could save her. She's still a little sniffly though, it'll always be her weak point.

[Annique]

I'm a cat person.
Same here, my cats are my babies. One of them actually loves being cradled like a baby and then falls asleep!

That just reminds me! I also read that the Prophet Muhammad once cut off the sleeve of his robe, because a cat was sleeping on the sleeve and he didn't want to wake it. Hows that for amazing?

[SenkoTwiik_SC]

Animal abuse is sick! I think there shouldn't be a fine at all though. I think that it should be punishable by JAIL time. Just like if you beat the hell out of a human, you go to friggin jail. These people are sick and need to be punished.
Maybe someone should hurt them, so they know how it feels. No, two wrongs don't make a right, but these assholes deserve a little pain and suffering since they think its so cool to do it to animals that can't defend themselves.

[Black_Barook!]

Same here, my cats are my babies. One of them actually loves being cradled like a baby and then falls asleep!

That just reminds me! I also read that the Prophet Muhammad once cut off the sleeve of his robe, because a cat was sleeping on the sleeve and he didn't want to wake it. Hows that for amazing?

I've never heard that one, but I'm not surprised. Animals have rights in Islam and the Quran tells us that they are not mindless creatures but are tribes and civilizations with feelings who shouldn’t be treated like objects.

[sugarapple22]

About 2 days ago I got chased by a dog and right now I really don't like dogs anymore because of it. I was also mad at my neighbors for not having a leash or a invisible fence. So animals are cruel to.

[Oasis]

I literately started crying just now after watching that, I mean the tears are running down my face. I have a cat and sometimes they can be the sweetest things in the world...

[Doddibot]

who's to say a human life is worth more than an animal's life?
That would be us - the humans. Could be wrong, but we humans place value on certain mental abilities that (most) other animals don't have.

I've brought this up before, but if you were a firefighter and had the choice between saving a child from the fire or the life of ten pet cats, surely you must choose to save the child.

[xHailOfBulletsx_SC]

I didn't actually watch the video because I knew it would upset me. I remember here in Aus a few years ago when three boys tortured a stray KITTEN at a train station - they played the video footage on the news, and watching as a boy rode him bike over it numerous times almost made me lose my dinner.

I have no idea how people can actually go through with that sort of thing. How on earth can they not only hurt but actually torture animals whilst looking into their faces and seeing the pain? I guess the same could go for people who torture other people, but it seriously sickens me.

The penalties for animal torture are nowhere near where they should be, and I would suppose that it would mainly come from old laws that had never been changed with the time (I also have no idea about what laws are in place so it's quite possible that's wrong) but I'm sure that if enough people were against it, and stood up for it, it would be changed.

I don't believe that animals that are slaughtered for food are tortured, as both my grandparents worked in a meatworks as it was called back then, and even in their day that weren't treated inhumanely. But oddly enough I'm very against pets being sold in pets store - while that may sound ridculous, I really do believe that people who impulse purchase pets are more likely to end up abandoned or not looked after properly. I think people who research the breed they want, and seek out breeders are more likely to look after their pets.

[lockshockbarrel]

I've brought this up before, but if you were a firefighter and had the choice between saving a child from the fire or the life of ten pet cats, surely you must choose to save the child.

When and who would that ever happen to?

[longears15]

HailOfBullets - I don't think it's ridiculous at all. In fact, I agree completely. I'm a vet, and although I don't work in general practice I saw so many people during my training who would turn up at a clinic for their 'new puppy check' saying things like "Oh, we saw him in the pet shop when we were out this morning and he was just tooooooo cute!" So what happens when the puppy grows up and isn't so cute anymore? That is what happened to the eldest of my three dogs - he is a ridgie x mastiff, and must have been the world's most gorgeous puppy...lots of wrinkles, deep red coat with black/chocolate points...a very good looking dog. His previous owner bought him from a pet shop on that basis with no thought for what he was going to grow into or what he would need. I ended up with him when he was 7 or 8 months old - 45kg, skinny as hell because the guy could only afford to feed him leftover bread from the bakery, no training, thinking with his balls rather than his brain...you get the picture!

Back to the topic at hand, I would quite happily see people subjected to the same treatment that they have inflicted upon an animal. I saw a lovely old donkey a couple of years ago who nearly lost her life because somebody wrapped fencing wire so tightly around her leg one night that by the next morning the tissues below that point were starting to die off. I related earlier in this thread the story of the dog brought in because somebody had put a pickaxe or 'humane killer' (that was the best theory we could come up with...looked not unlike a gunshot entry wound but there was no exit wound and no bullet) through the dog's skull and left him lying on the beach to die.

As I also said earlier (http://forums.sims2community.com/showpost.php?p=1024414&postcount=17) (goodness...that post is from last year!), one of my big concerns is that there is no formal system for reporting animal cruelty. We're told that some people who seriously harm others (ongoing abuse, serial murder, etc.) are likely to have started out by harming animals, but there is still no real avenue for logging animal abuse cases.

[Doddibot]

When and who would that ever happen to?
It happens quite a lot. Often a burning house can trap both the residents and the pets, and the firefighters must choose which to save.

[WannabeSith]

I've been fond of animals my whole life. I can't imagine my life without some kind of pet in the household. But I still don't think it is cruel to eat meat, nor do I think animals have the same essential value to them that a human being does. Sure, we should never exercise deliberate cruelty to them, and yes, we should be careful not to go overboard, but moderation is something best practiced in most walks of life.

That said, real animal cruelty, such as is far too common among neglectful or abusive pet owners scare me. Studies show that kind of wanton violence towards animals is often just a stepping stone towards treating people that way.

[jooxis84]

It's different when the crimes are committed by kids or by adults. Kids are cruel by nature and somewhat insensitive as well. They can't understand pain, when inflicted on someone else. It's the parents who are supposed to make sure they don't do crap.

Animal cruelty should be harshly punished but those people here who say that people should get the death penalty for animal cruelty... well let's say I'm glad you don't make the laws.

[Kusama]

Maybe I'll go a bit out of topic, but - what do you think about corrida? This is just a legal cruelty... A parade, where you can watch poor bloody animal suffering and panicking... And lots of people who watch it and enjoying. The same as in the old Rome. Just without bears, tigers, other exotic animals and gladiators.

I'm not a vegetarian, human is carnivore and you have to eat some meat. But when we're talking about animal cruelty, I'm more angry and upset than about the human cruelty. People really should pay more attention for it. Some animals, like elephants, understand a bit about the death though.

[jooxis84]

I'm not a vegetarian, human is carnivore and you have to eat some meat.

No, we don't. Millions of people would be dead now otherwise.

And the corrida is the same as collosseum fights in ancient Rome. Primitive and cruel, sick amusement for the masses.

[Ranta]

Someone who tortures animals should get the same punishment that they would get had they been torturing humans, in my opinion. What makes us so different from animals anyway? We are animals. We eat and drink and breathe and feel just the same as they do. So why should the punishments for torturing an animal and a human be different? A life is a life, no matter who lives it.

[Kusama]

Oh, lots of people don't care about it. They just need to care of themselves. What's the matter how much forests you'll cut down, and how much animal species will die. The most important thing is to make money. Actually, I just can't imagine that those who set the punishments, rights and laws could care more about animals. And those who torment animals, I don't know, they aren't humans... Sometimes I can't understand humanity.

[kustirider2]

It made my cry when i heard of the person who threw a kitten with a chain round its neck into a river so he died.... I love cats and if i ever found anyone who had tortured or even killed a cat, i would most likley lash out at them or maybe hurt them. People like that do NOT deserve to live, If they tortured a cat to a bug. All animals have rights.

[cavilez]

Kustrider I was driving behind a lady and she freaking ran over a cat and kept going. I had to pull over to throw up. It made me so sick. The cat was sitting there spazing out. I didnt know what to do. Not to sound messed up but I just left it there. I love kitties too.

[kustirider2]

Omg. That is so mean of her to keep driving! Another one of my cats was ran over but we found her and got her to the vets in time for her to survive.

[Doddibot]

That is so mean of her to keep driving!
Indeed. If she noticed it was critically injured, she should have turned around and run over it again. You know, to put it out of its misery.

[kustirider2]

i actually meant that maybe she couldve turned around, and taken him to a vet...

[wulfeh]

I have a few notes about Animal Cruelty, the way they're treated and punishments.

As everyone knows, beating anything from an old lady to a piglet to death is wrong. Thankfully that kind of animal cruelty is much rarer than things like not feeding your pet properly or someone not taking their animal to a vet because they don't have any money, regardless that the law says that a pet owner must have the money or them having a pet is illegal. However, if they simply beat the animal and didn't kill it, I believe they should still be shot. Why? 'Cause a couple of years in jail isn't going to stop them, is it? But, of course, that would be cruel to humans, and then a much larger species will battle against us, most of the authority on their side.

Their view is that humans are better than animals. That's bullshit. We're in no way better. But, seriously, it's true. And, I mean, sometimes the penalty against human cruelty is ridiculous! Did you hear about the two-year-old, who was raped and then killed by her won uncle?. He got, I believe, five years in jail. In my mothers words, he should've had his testes ripped out and then killed.

And, another note; if we can't stop cruelty to animals how the fuck will we stop cruelty to children? I say this to all the people I rival in my life(adults mainly) about animal and human rights, my mother especially. They all avoid that question 'cause, really, if we can't stop a bunch of teenagers beating a cat to death, how're we going to say 'don't beat a defenseless and fragile baby boy to death, at least'. And what about all the dumb teens who're shooting and knifing themselves to death? In London alone, where I live, there was a point earlier in this year when every single damn day there was a new report of a stabbing. And that's just one city on an island by Europe, and Europe is a pretty small continent.

And (I think this may have been said) when animals attack another human, humans instantly go to kill it. These animals are not a threat to society. Unless, of course, it's an old or ingured tiger near an Indian village which was hunting people just 'cause they were easy kills, all right. I get that. But a dog bit a postman or a passer-by 'randomly', 'out of the blue' or 'without reason', that's not right. Especially with dogs and cats, there is usually a perfectly good explanation on why this is happening. Putting them to sleep is like beating that animal to death. Of course, ti wouldn't hurt as much, but it'd be pointless.

I love animals. They're so beautiful, and we humans are what is the problem. :)

[Alissa888]

I have a few notes about Animal Cruelty, the way they're treated and punishments.

As everyone knows, beating anything from an old lady to a piglet to death is wrong. Thankfully that kind of animal cruelty is much rarer than things like not feeding your pet properly or someone not taking their animal to a vet because they don't have any money, regardless that the law says that a pet owner must have the money or them having a pet is illegal. However, if they simply beat the animal and didn't kill it, I believe they should still be shot. Why? 'Cause a couple of years in jail isn't going to stop them, is it? But, of course, that would be cruel to humans, and then a much larger species will battle against us, most of the authority on their side.

Their view is that humans are better than animals. That's bullshit. We're in no way better. But, seriously, it's true. And, I mean, sometimes the penalty against human cruelty is ridiculous! Did you hear about the two-year-old, who was raped and then killed by her won uncle?. He got, I believe, five years in jail. In my mothers words, he should've had his testes ripped out and then killed.

Okay, while I agree with most of what you said in the first paragraph, can I just comment on that last line? Yes, the man committed a depraved crime, but seriously, is the answer to match his depravity with an equal act of violence? Then there's no difference between him and the people who carry out the punishment, just one is doing it under the guise of law. I agree 5 years was nowhere near enough, but really, to sink to his level is worse.


And (I think this may have been said) when animals attack another human, humans instantly go to kill it. These animals are not a threat to society. Unless, of course, it's an old or ingured tiger near an Indian village which was hunting people just 'cause they were easy kills, all right. I get that. But a dog bit a postman or a passer-by 'randomly', 'out of the blue' or 'without reason', that's not right. Especially with dogs and cats, there is usually a perfectly good explanation on why this is happening. Putting them to sleep is like beating that animal to death. Of course, ti wouldn't hurt as much, but it'd be pointless.

Why is it alright to hunt down an injured tiger, which was in its territory, hunting for food, but it's evil to eliminate a threat to society. If an animal is rabid and dangerous to society, wantonly attacking people, outside its territory and not for food, we do owe it to ourselves to safeguard ourselves. Perhaps not killing the animal if it can be treated, but if its really that beyond help, it's more akin to euthanasia than anything else.

I love animals. They're so beautiful, and we humans are what is the problem. :)

Okay, I completely disagree with that. We, as a whole human race, are not the problem. I looked after my pet, and I know a lot of people who look after theirs. There are a few people, who indulge in cruelty, it's their fault, not us as a race.

[wulfeh]

Okay, while I agree with most of what you said in the first paragraph, can I just comment on that last line? Yes, the man committed a depraved crime, but seriously, is the answer to match his depravity with an equal act of violence? Then there's no difference between him and the people who carry out the punishment, just one is doing it under the guise of law. I agree 5 years was nowhere near enough, but really, to sink to his level is worse.

He deserves a proper punishment. However, he raped a girl for no reason, and we're killing him in such a way to teach him a lesson.

Why is it alright to hunt down an injured tiger, which was in its territory, hunting for food, but it's evil to eliminate a threat to society. If an animal is rabid and dangerous to society, wantonly attacking people, outside its territory and not for food, we do owe it to ourselves to safeguard ourselves. Perhaps not killing the animal if it can be treated, but if its really that beyond help, it's more akin to euthanasia than anything else.

Because ingured tigers cannot hunt their normal prey so they hunt humans. Thus, humans become a natural menu choise for that specific tiger, and because humans are easier meals and cannot run as fast as its natural prey, that same tiger can wipe out a whole village, that's why.

Okay, I completely disagree with that. We, as a whole human race, are not the problem. I looked after my pet, and I know a lot of people who look after theirs. There are a few people, who indulge in cruelty, it's their fault, not us as a race.

The majority is, in some way or another, cruel to animals. Things are judged upon not as individuals but as an average of all those individuals, which are part of the larger the community.

[Alissa888]

He deserves a proper punishment. However, he raped a girl for no reason, and we're killing him in such a way to teach him a lesson.

Firstly, I hope no-one ever has a valid reason to rape someone else.

And what about the backlash on us? To commit something so depraved, to match what he did and then, unlike him, justify ourselves using the same laws we used to condemn him? What sets us apart?

Furthermore, he isn't going to learn his lesson at all, he'll just be dead. And what kind of message is that to others? 'Hey, someone comitted a crime against you? Don't let justice be served, get out there and pay back in equal violence'. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind - I don't care much for the Bible, but those words really make sense.



Because ingured tigers cannot hunt their normal prey so they hunt humans. Thus, humans become a natural menu choise for that specific tiger, and because humans are easier meals and cannot run as fast as its natural prey, that same tiger can wipe out a whole village, that's why.

Please give humans more credit than that, they're actually pretty difficult to hunt in an urban environment, under community protection methods and especially in groups - if they got out into the animal's territory, they're fair game as far as it's concerned.

And please give tigers more credit than that, they can scavenge instead of turning to humans. And they're known to hunt smaller prey that don't run as fast. How can one injured tiger hunt down dozens of humans? If the tiger's that injured, I don't see it going out into human territory in the first place (they don't feel safe among us either; their avoidance proves it) unless it's famished. And if it infiltrates human territory, then its fair game.



The majority is, in some way or another, cruel to animals. Things are judged upon not as individuals but as an average of all those individuals, which are part of the larger the community.

Well, then the average, common mode is that people don't torture animals. Otherwise, animal cruelty wouldn't be shocking; it'd be common and no-one would bat an eyelid at it. Yes, it's more prevalent than it should be, but it's not the norm and so we should not be judged as crazed animal torturing maniacs.

[Charley-x]

( my lil rant is about pet animals rather than wild life)

i'm so against animal cruelty. My eldeest dog was'nt hurt but she was dumped on a beach in a black sack left to die, but thank god some one found her, i think its sick to tourture animals, how can you live with yourself?!! also when i was about 5 i went on holiday and this greyhound was running about round the roundabout with ALL OF HIS LEGS TAPED TOGETHER. the poor fing was trying to sprint away but was only hopping as we were in the car we followed it and was going to wait till it sat or fell down to help untie it, but it ran through a feild, that ruined my holiday... i can't can't imagine hurting a animal. its so sick you must have a sick sick sick sick mind to tourture/abandoned/kill a animal, ( i understand if you have to put a animal to sleep becuase of medical issues and such). i also watch this programma called crimewatch and this man had killed a girl and beucase someone had seen him and reconised his dog, when he saw it on the new he killed his dog so he would'nt get caught( this was a reconsrution) i say why have a animal if you going to hurt it in some way... just leave the poor thing along and let it find a loving home.. i'm a true animal lover and have a quite a few pets and would never ever ever ever hurt/abandon them. i mean if you can't look after a pet anymore don't leave it on the roadside your heartless people, just give it to a shelter... shelters are everywhere..:/ so basicly anyone should get punished for animal cruelty no matter how big or small the case is. its just sick.

ok.. rant off. sorry but i just love animals and cant stand seeing a hurt animal.:)

[GiipsySimKittyn]

I have three cats and two dogs. I'm sorry, I couldn't watch that video after I saw the teens gather around the cat after kicking it off the stairs. Bile built up my throat and I found it very hard to breathe. I know this goes on in the world, I've heard of kids setting cats on fire. What bothers me isn't that this goes unpunished because a lot of people see this as a trivial thing - they say "oh its only a cat..it's not like it's a human."

What bothers me is the fact that these kids feel the need to do this, to express whatever it is that they're feeling in the form of animal torture. It's wrong. I hope every one of those teens is met with karma and I hope they deal with it for the rest of their life.

There is no excuse for animal abuse. It's sick, it's disgusting and I can't help but wonder why our generation is getting violent enough to do this.

There was a video of a guy from the army/military I forgot which, but it showed him and his friends laughing and one of them grabbed a puppy and flung it over a cliff. You could hear the yelp of the pup as the guy laughed.

I couldn't sleep for days after seeing that video. Are those the kind of people we have fighting for our so-called freedom? I'd rather they not if that's the case.

[Alissa888]

I didn't watch the video before because the debate had taken a slightly different vein when I'd joined in, but God, I just couldn't watch... it didn't even do anything, it trying to get away and poor thing looked petrified.

It's just compeltely inhumane.

I think it's dire cruelty and it's causing unrequieted pain to something that can comprehend pain. It doesn't matter if the being is human or otherwise - experience of physical pain is a constant there and inflicting it upon anything should be a crime.

[Avara]

I hate things like this, dogs and cats are so loyal to us. They trust us, then a group goes and does something like this. There are no bad pets, in my opinion, only bad owners. Owners shape the way their pet will behave, no dog is born 'evil' as many people seem to think about pit bulls. They are just a breed that gets many bad owners thanks to how people think owning one makes them 'tough'.

What sickens me is that this kind of thing receives a lesser sentence than if it were done to a human; the justice system needs to realize that if someone can do this to an animal, it's only one more step up to doing it to a human being. It's even a fact many convicted criminals have said they started out harming animals first, before they got 'brave' enough to harm people.

[Alissa888]

Okay, that video about the cat cruelty made the news and thank God is openly frowned upon, but I was told about this 'delicacy' (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/652240/very_fresh_fish/) and really, eating meat is one thing, but eating it alive?! And apparently it's considered normal.

And yes, it is a shame that animals are given less importance than humans, but technically, they're not part of our society. However, they should be given less basic rights of living outside the food chain factor - I'm a vegetarian, but I get that humans are omnivores. That said, animal experiementation for clinical drugs is justifiable in my opinion, but outside that, animal cruelty should be treated with the same regard as human cruelty of the same type.

[Theory of Everything_SC]

I didn't watch the video for obvious reasons. I have a soft spot for cats, specifically and now I have a dog of my own, dogs are growing on me too.

I'm just happy I live in a state with toughest animal welfare laws. Smack around a cat, prepare to be butt raped in prison.

[HyjaClinton]

The punishments should be exactly the same as what they did to the animal :)
Amen, sister.

EDIT: Those of you who torture sims... lol
</3 Sorry, had to say that.

[a_provan65]

A few days ago there was case presented on TV in my country (Romania) about a group of three teenagers beating a poor cat to death (http://www.protv.ro/filme/imagini-socante-pisica-omorata-in-scara-blocului-de-cativa-tineri.html?id_file=30427#30427)

!!! I prevent everyone that the images are extremely shocking!!!

I was appaled, it made sick to witness such violence! The worst about the case is that they were eventually apprehended and they only got a fine of 500$ for this!

We really have no animal protection here and it's outrageous that those #@%&%$# should be getting away with a small sum of money that their parents would pay. On top of that, being interviewed afterwards on the matter, they showed absolutely no remorse and said they had done it just to be cool. :handbag:

Though I started the topis from a specific case, I want to discuss animal cruelty in general, your views on the issue, the punishment you consider suitable for such acts of violence, etc.

I think that the punishment should fit the crime, an eye for an eye! if the person kills the animal the person should be sentenced to death!! i dont get how its not okay to kill people and its not okay to beat up on people, but its almost like its perfectly ok to hurt an innocent animal that would have never have done something to anyone in the first place.... This is exactly why i hate human kind..... they murder for fun animals murder for food..... it sickens me to see what people think is fun and to top it off i was on PETA today... and the things i saw on there brought me too my knees i vomited it was that bad they skinned a raccoon whilest it was alive and then left it to bleed to death and live its final moments in agony..... :cry:
Guys if u really want to do something good go to PETA and support the causes....
(if we dont speak up for animals than who will)

[a_provan65]

[QUOTE=Alissa888]Okay, that video about the cat cruelty made the news and thank God is openly frowned upon, but I was told about this 'delicacy' (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/652240/very_fresh_fish/) and really, eating meat is one thing, but eating it alive?! And apparently it's considered normal.

And yes, it is a shame that animals are given less importance than humans, but technically, they're not part of our society. However, they should be given less basic rights of living outside the food chain factor - I'm a vegetarian, but I get that humans are omnivores. That said, animal experiementation for clinical drugs is justifiable in my opinion, but outside that, animal cruelty should be treated with the same regard as human cruelty of the same type.[/

and why not? animals have been here longer than any human and therefore should be respected and protected from all that is harmful... can i ask why u think testing drugs and things on animals is ok? let me ask you something... would u do it... would u let someone pump harmful drugs through out ur system day after day??? would u let someone mutilate your children like they do to kittens and puppies... is that ok is it.... my mistake they must not feel pain sorrow! and that goes for rats and mice too did you know that a rat actually giggles when its have fun... yes a rat laughs, loves, cares, feels pain just like every other god dam animal on this earth!!!! and may i say ur very hypercritical ur a veggo and all but yet u condone experiments on animals and ur fine with animals not having the same rights as us!... pppfffttttt u and the rest of the half arsed pretend to care "ANIMAL RIGHTS" people make me sick..... to u i say WHAT EVER!
grow a back bone and pick witch side ur actually on....

[a_provan65]

I didn't watch the video for obvious reasons. I have a soft spot for cats, specifically and now I have a dog of my own, dogs are growing on me too.

I'm just happy I live in a state with toughest animal welfare laws. Smack around a cat, prepare to be butt raped in prison.


HEHEHEHE LOVE IT.... REALLY LOVE IT.... WHERE ABOUTS DO U LIVE IM COMING TO LIVE THERE!!!!

[a_provan65]

It's different when the crimes are committed by kids or by adults. Kids are cruel by nature and somewhat insensitive as well. They can't understand pain, when inflicted on someone else. It's the parents who are supposed to make sure they don't do crap.

Animal cruelty should be harshly punished but those people here who say that people should get the death penalty for animal cruelty... well let's say I'm glad you don't make the laws.

ITS A BIT HARD TO PUNISH UR KIDS NOW THAT SMACKING IS BANNED... SO GAY RIGHT NOW

[Elyasis]

Capslock is not cruise control to cool. Also, you can edit your posts so that you only make one post instead of several. Use copy and paste for great justice.

As far as animal cruelty goes I do think it should have a stricter punishment, say a year in jail for first time offence 5 after that. And of course a ban on owning any animals. Psychiatric help as well. And logged in a system that is not accessible to the public. That should be strict enough to be a deterrent for most people who aren't severely mentally unwell.

[Rawra]

OMG, quadruple post and necro... Jesus, where'd you come from, Troll Planet?

[ElementMK]

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY HOMEWORLD

(obligatory lowercase phrase DAMN YOU DELPHY)

[Elyasis]

Wow, I somehow didn't even realize this was necro'd. Shame on me.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

IMHO animal cruelty should be taken with as much seriousness as child abuse is. from an objective view, animals and children are very similar; both have no voices, very limited physical capability (and often none at all) toward self defense, are dependent on an adult human (or two) for their food/shelter, and a general lack of knowledge of what is proper human etiquette and what is not (and what not to tolerate, VS what to not be alarmed by).

and of course, this is just disregarding the emotional equations, as some people think, believe, and act as if their pets are their blood-related personal offspring. emotional ties can run very deep for both.

that being said, i think human arrogance, ignorance, and general superiority complex get in the way of animal cruelty being taken seriously enough to warren a severe punishment.
maybe people would take it more seriously if they recalled that serial killers typically start with animal torture before they move on to human mutilation. it is a BIG red flag for abnormal behavior and should be properly addressed upon noticing it.

the first post reminds me of a video of a girl throwing young puppies into a river for them to drown. people like that are not right in the head.

[CmarNYC]

I agree - people who kill and torture animals for fun are mentally ill and need both punishment and treatment. If treatment isn't effective they should be locked up to protect both animals and the other people they are likely to go on to abuse. IMO this includes people who hunt. Inflicting pain, fear, and death on an animal for enjoyment is sick, no matter what kind of animal it is. As for it being a 'sport', I'll believe that when as many hunters are killed by deer or ducks as the other way around.

Unfortunately animal cruelty is only barely beginning to be taken seriously. We still have very cruel practices in the farming industry, and the fur industry, with no legal penalties. We still have cases like Michael Vick getting only a short jail term and a fine for the systematic torture and killing of who knows how many dogs in his dog-fighting business over several years, and a lot of people act like now it should all be forgiven and forgotten. Selling glue traps for mice is legal, despite how cruel they are. Boiling lobsters alive is legal.

Hopefully someday all that will change.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Cmar - I assume by (paraphrasing) hunting for enjoyment, you mean only those who do it just as a hobby. There are certainly still people who do it to feed themselves and their families, and IMO, I wouldn't lump those together with folks who go out on the weekends and kill deer just for the hell of it.

[kiwi_tea]

Cmar - I assume by (paraphrasing) hunting for enjoyment, you mean only those who do it just as a hobby. There are certainly still people who do it to feed themselves and their families, and IMO, I wouldn't lump those together with folks who go out on the weekends and kill deer just for the hell of it.

Don't be too hasty, though, or you risk inconsistency. I would say it's safe to lump the groups together excluding only those who have to hunt out of necessity - generally due to poverty or isolation from humane and ethical alternatives. If people are killing for venison when they could with little inconvenience buy ethical alternatives, then their motivations are roughly equal to "hunting for sport", in the sense that it's just a senseless act of hedonistic violence: Because they like the taste of what they're doing, not because they need to be so brutal and depersonising.

Some people hunt out of necessity. Far fewer hunt out of necessity than would care to admit it. In fact, all the hunters I know hunt for food without needing to, doing it far more for the thrill of bloodsport than for the food itself (eg, my brothers, uncles, all their friends, pretty much most men in my village back home).

[Elyasis]

A wise old person once told me that a person who harms an animal as a child will harm another person as an adult.

Those children should learn respect and kindness. :P

I won't be surprised if they become murderers or serial killers.

Exactly how old does this "child" have to be to be suspected of having sadist tendencies? Or future serial killers.

Let's not lock up the 5 year old in suspicion of being a future murderer. Let's not lock up anyone because of that reason. It's a stupid reason. :faceslap:

[Tempscire]

Let's not lock up the 5 year old in suspicion of being a future murderer. Let's not lock up anyone because of that reason.
No one's getting locked up or has been locked on "suspicion of being a future murderer." (Nor was anyone suggesting someone be locked up for a suspicion.) It's just that when criminal psychologists and the like have looked over the histories of serial killers and such unsavory types, they noticed animal cruelty in the juvenile years. Ditto fire-setting and bed-wetting.

[game90]

A wise old person once told me that a person who harms an animal as a child will harm another person as an adult.

Those children should learn respect and kindness. :P

I won't be surprised if they become murderers or serial killers.

Lol, plenty of children run around outside, chase and attack little animals just for fun. Its all part of the growing up process. Are you the generation who grew up in front of the TV?

[kiwi_tea]

Run around outside. - Yep. Sure do.

Chase animals. - Yeah, that can be fun sort of for the kids, but not often the animals. You'd usually tell the kid to stop harrassing the poor thing.

Attack little animals - What. The. Hell?

I grew up on a farm. I saw kids my age (7 or 8? Younger? I don't recall the exact age) beat a turkey to death with sticks for fun. And that is *not* a normal childhood. Nor should it be.

Edit: http://jayisgames.com/games/heros-adventure/ <--- on topic.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Lol, plenty of children run around outside, chase and attack little animals just for fun. Its all part of the growing up process. Are you the generation who grew up in front of the TV?

last i checked, you can grow up perfectly adjusted without stomping a kitten/puppy into the ground, regardless of which "generation" you are.
you do know what sadism is, right? not to be confused with schadenfreude.
and as someone somewhere once said, "just because youve always done it that way, doesnt mean it isnt incredibly stupid". just like how rape and murder are common, but you wouldnt want to be terribly passive about those things either. its not healthy. its not a good place to be at in your head.

[KindGenius]

I think think that animal murders must be punished as human murders because animals are also living creatures.In fact,biologically people are animals too.And a murder is a great sin.

[live2draw]

A few days ago there was case presented on TV in my country (Romania) about a group of three teenagers beating a poor cat to death (http://www.protv.ro/filme/imagini-socante-pisica-omorata-in-scara-blocului-de-cativa-tineri.html?id_file=30427#30427)

!!! I prevent everyone that the images are extremely shocking!!!

I was appaled, it made sick to witness such violence! The worst about the case is that they were eventually apprehended and they only got a fine of 500$ for this!

We really have no animal protection here and it's outrageous that those #@%&%$# should be getting away with a small sum of money that their parents would pay. On top of that, being interviewed afterwards on the matter, they showed absolutely no remorse and said they had done it just to be cool. :handbag:

Though I started the topis from a specific case, I want to discuss animal cruelty in general, your views on the issue, the punishment you consider suitable for such acts of violence, etc.
You know, I live in Trinidad and Tobago and its exactly the same thing here. Animals are not considered important enough to be treated humanely. I love animals and when i see cruel things being done to them it really tears me up inside.... Our animal protection laws are a joke.... noone takes them seriously cuz its not really a punishment. Plus we have a lot of endangered animals here too, like the leatherback turtle and the ocelot, and people still hunt them, even knowing their close to extinction! i wont even go into how awfully these creatures are treated. and our animal conservation societies are so small, they're barely able to deal with the problem....and people just don't care....Its really sad.... :(

[Nixxy245]

recently there were 2 cases of extreme animal cruelty in Croatia.1.: Some old lady pick up the poor injured cat on the street and she THREW IT IN THE GARBAGE CAN. Can you believe it?! Horrible! The second case was a teenage girl(not so teenage actually) standing near the waterfall and throwing just born pups in it! There was a tape of her doing that,it's just horrible. I wish she dies in that jail. Bi**h.

[Rawra]

Lol, plenty of children run around outside, chase and attack little animals just for fun. Its all part of the growing up process. Are you the generation who grew up in front of the TV?

Lol, plenty of children run outside, MAKING FUN OF OLD PEOPLE. What, it's part of the growing up process! To me, it's the freakin' same. Even worse, because the little animals cannot defend themselves. At all. And, as making fun of old people isn't fucking funny at all, neither is attacking animals, harming them in any way.

[Dasila]

i did not watch the video because i know that watching it would make me extremely angry to the point where it wouldnt be fair to yall to see my post. Recently there was a man who killed 100 of his sled dogs inhumanly and while other dogs were watching. And do you know how he tried to justify his actions?! By saying he could no longer afford to take care of them and that he tried to find homes for them. And just the other day i saw a man driving on the freeway with a dog on his car ( the back of the pickup) the dog was shaking and was scared to death. This makes me believe that there should be a law for proper handling of dogs in cars. I hope that in the future the laws for animal protection will be alot stricker. I rescued my dogs and their previous owner fed them bird seed! I encourage you all to adopt from a shelter. If u want a purebred then you can find one of the many purebred rescue organizations. Please consider this.

[Elyasis]

A wise old person once told me that a person who harms an animal as a child will harm another person as an adult.

Those children should learn respect and kindness. :P

I won't be surprised if they become murderers or serial killers.

This is the kind of suspicion I was talking about. Just because someone has one of the supposed three signs of serial killers doesn't mean they will become serial killers. Or even if they had all three. There are far more reliable ways of determining if someone is planning to hurt or murder people than their childhood behaviour. It's only after the fact that you learn that these people had these signs anyway.

[Chammalia]

I agree with you; There is too much animal cruelty and it does not have hard enough punishments. Animals are LIVING beings after all, in fact the human race is also considered an animal, so WHY be cruel to our 'family'?
Why do we treat the earth and all its beings as wrong and bad as we do, when it feed us and when it gave us life? I really think that is wrong.
I could understand if the cat has attacked them, and it was self-defence, but that was just an inexcusable thing to do .. for fun?! Wtf. It must almost be considered murder - really. Those boys MUST be sick, who would want to do that, who could feel pleasure from doing such thing? Well, so they should be treated like sick people and be locked into some mental hospital. Especially since it was an animal UNABLE to defend itself.

Sorry for the caps lock on some words; Just found it important.

[McChoclatey]

I have a confession--when I was younger, I didn't understand the pain that someone big like me (in the animal's eyes) could cause so much fear and pain in an animal as small (my eyes) as my pets. All I wanted was for them to play with me, to like me, but since I didn't understand how to respect my pets' boundaries, and I didn't understand how to take care of them very well, I put them in bad and often dangerous situations that I would cry just thinking about now. If I'd gone back in time, I would've treated my pets better. Now, I wasn't abusive, as in, I'd torture them at any chance I'd get for some sick, sadistic satisfaction. It never felt good when I accidentally hurt my gerbil, or made my hamster angry or run away from me. I'd cry and feel guilty and never want to touch them again for a few days. I felt horrible and didn't want them to get hurt. I guess you could say I cared about them, but I just didn't know how to handle them properly. I was around 7 or 8 when I had them. And just thinking about how stupid I was makes me feel even worse for the animals that are beaten and abused for no reason at all.

I believe that animals aren't mindless; they act on instinct, and with instinct, comes emotion. Animals feel pain, happiness, sadness, anger. Those are all emotions we share in common. We humans are animals ourselves, but in a more advanced form. Just because you have more power over an animal doesn't mean you should abuse that power. The people who abuse animals don't just need jail, they need help. Therapy, even. People like those teen boys who killed animals for fun are the scum of the earth, they deserved whatever punishment they got. They are insane, mentally unstable, sick people who need to be put in an insane asylum. They shouldn't get off easy with 500 dollars. Make them pay the real price and put them in jail!

Now, I don't mind if you're killing animals for food. since humans need to eat, too. Killing for sport, well, I'm not sure on that one...

[Chammalia]

I have a confession--when I was younger, I didn't understand the pain that someone big like me (in the animal's eyes) could cause so much fear and pain in an animal as small (my eyes) as my pets. All I wanted was for them to play with me, to like me, but since I didn't understand how to respect my pets' boundaries, and I didn't understand how to take care of them very well, I put them in bad and often dangerous situations that I would cry just thinking about now. If I'd gone back in time, I would've treated my pets better. Now, I wasn't abusive, as in, I'd torture them at any chance I'd get for some sick, sadistic satisfaction. It never felt good when I accidentally hurt my gerbil, or made my hamster angry or run away from me. I'd cry and feel guilty and never want to touch them again for a few days. I felt horrible and didn't want them to get hurt. I guess you could say I cared about them, but I just didn't know how to handle them properly. I was around 7 or 8 when I had them. And just thinking about how stupid I was makes me feel even worse for the animals that are beaten and abused for no reason at all. I believe that animals aren't mindless; they act on instinct, and with instinct, comes emotion. Animals feel pain, happiness, sadness. Just because you have more power of an animal doesn't mean you should abuse that power. The people who abuse animals don't just need jail, they need help. Therapy, even. People like those teen boys who killed animals for fun are the scum of the earth, they deserved whatever punishment they got. They are insane, mentally unstable, sick people who need to be put in an insane asylum.

Now, I don't mind if you're killing animals for food. since humans need to eat, too. Killing for sport, well, I'm not sure on that one...


The most important thing is knowing you did wrong and that you have changed now (:

[Tempscire]

This is the kind of suspicion I was talking about. Just because someone has one of the supposed three signs of serial killers doesn't mean they will become serial killers. Or even if they had all three. There are far more reliable ways of determining if someone is planning to hurt or murder people than their childhood behaviour. It's only after the fact that you learn that these people had these signs anyway.
Well, duh, correlation != causation and all that. No one ticks off animal cruelty, fire-starting, and/or bed-wetting on some kid's chart and then condemns him to juvie followed by life-on-parole, though. It just doesn't happen that way, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

However, of those three behaviors, one is potentially dangerous (fire starting) and another is definitely harmful (animal abuse), and any kid caught engaging in them definitely needs a little extra attention and care (and possibly disciplinary action). 2/3 of those behaviors are bad in and of themselves and need to be nipped in the bud. Doesn't mean they're getting branded as Serial Killers For Life in doing so (especially when any therapy-related paperwork remains confidential between doctor and patient, and any juvenile records created are sealed upon adulthood).

[Elyasis]

Branded as potential serial killers certainly and it has been suggested recently in this very thread. All I'm suggesting is that people not jump to conclusions as they already have done. Maybe you haven't done so yourself but it would just as disingenuous to suggest no one has... or will.
Yes, animal abuse is a horrible crime. Yes it's needs more than the slap on the wrist it currently gets. But I don't believe it's alright to look at these people and assume that they will hurt humans next. It shouldn't even be the reason you would punish animal cruelty. It should be for the cruelty itself.

[lolapola]

Beat the offenders to death with a spiky stick, and grind the meat down to feed to the animals. >:(

[kiwi_tea]

Beat the offenders to death with a spiky stick, and grind the meat down to feed to the animals. >:(
What are we, no better than animals? :heyhey:

[lolapola]

I understand your words, but not your meaning.
If they treat animals like that,
then they deserve to be treated like they treat others. and the animals get some food as well.

[missy harries]

What are we, no better than animals? :heyhey:

We are animals and we're the worst of them all!

[Robodl95]

I understand your words, but not your meaning.
If they treat animals like that,
then they deserve to be treated like they treat others. and the animals get some food as well.
Umm no... corporal punishments are bad, and if you believe what you just said then you must believe that if a lion eats a child then the lion must be killed, right?

[missy harries]

Umm no... corporal punishments are bad, and if you believe what you just said then you must believe that if a lion eats a child then the lion must be killed, right?

Yeah then we get to eat the lion ;)

EDIT: I do see where your coming from though lolapola since I sometimes feel like that. There was once a kitten and these two fucking horrible pricks set they're dog onto the kitten and recorded the dog tearing the poor little thing on a camera phone just for a laugh!
It's times like that when I want those two to be bloody ripped to shreds by a fucking dog just so they can understand the pain and suffering they inflicted.........

(Pardon my bad language but things like that always get to me).

[kiwi_tea]

There was once a pig, too, and these effing horrible pricks killed it and ate its fleshy tissues!!

[missy harries]

There was once a pig, too, and these effing horrible pricks killed it and ate its fleshy tissues!!

Yeah but at least the killing was probably humane and for a reason (sustenance). Not brutal and senseless.
I know why don't I kill that kid down the road by setting a rottweiler on him, I bet that'll give me a laugh :faceslap:
I understand killing animals for food, not for sport or fun.
(I'm actually a vegetarian so I wouldn't even kill the pig either! I'm happy with quorn thank you very much :p )

[kiwi_tea]

How do you kill something "humanely"? Isn't it sort of inherently inhumane to kill any objecting conscious party?

Is it likewise less horrible to kill human animals if you plan to eat them?

[missy harries]

How do you kill something "humanely"? Isn't it sort of inherently inhumane to kill any objecting conscious party?

Is it likewise less horrible to kill human animals if you plan to eat them?

You know what if I was starving enough I probably would eat that kid once I set the dog on him :anime:
(note: I'm being serious, I bet most of us would.)

But if something has to die it can at least be as quickly or painlessly as possible, I may not like it or agree with it but it happens.
Truth is we are horrible as a race, we do horrible things to each other as well as to animals and there are a lot worse things we do than killing for something to eat (like making kittens suffer *shakes fist*).

[Mistermook]

What are we, no better than animals?
Define "better."

[lolapola]

if a lion does eat a child it WILL BE KILLED.
Why shouldnt it go the other way?
Because a lion who has tasted blood will attack?
A human who gets a kick out of killing animals will kill again.
Havent these animal have souls?
of course for some reason I was born with more compassion for animals then humans.. there just so innocent!

[Robodl95]

How do you kill something "humanely"? Isn't it sort of inherently inhumane to kill any objecting conscious party?

Is it likewise less horrible to kill human animals if you plan to eat them?
Killing humanely is killing quick and painlessly as well as not wasting it rather than torturing it (ie throwing rocks at kittens) for no purpose other than amusement. I know I'm going to sound extremely supremacist here but all animals are not equal, we are dominate. Killing a cat isn't the same as killing a human just like killing a fish isn't the same as killing a whale. I don't think it's right to slaughter more complex organisms such as elephants, whales, dolphins, humans, dogs, etc.
if a lion does eat a child it WILL BE KILLED.
Why shouldnt it go the other way?
Because a lion who has tasted blood will attack?
A human who gets a kick out of killing animals will kill again.
Havent these animal have souls?
of course for some reason I was born with more compassion for animals then humans.. there just so innocent!
My point is that a lion should not be killed for eating a child and neither should a human who kills an animal.

[kiwi_tea]

Define "facetious".

Killing humanely is killing quick and painlessly as well as not wasting it rather than torturing it (ie throwing rocks at kittens) for no purpose other than amusement. I know I'm going to sound extremely supremacist here but all animals are not equal, we are dominate.

How does being dominant (which I don't deny) = free ticket to mistreat less dominant parties?

What is the distinction you are drawing between an elephant and a cat or cow, in its most salient terms?

I'm not actually trying to drag this into a free-for-all vegetarian brawl, we have threads for that. I'm more concerned that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of "animal cruelty" here, and I find it hard to see any definition that is not rather hollow without including the cruelty of taking a life against another conscious animal's clearly or implicitly expressed will.

Also: Which fish? Minnows, or mako sharks?

[Mistermook]

How does being dominant (which I don't deny) = free ticket to mistreat less dominant parties?
How does it not? What about being dominant requires anything other than dominance? Being dominant is about dominance, whatever responsibilities and what we make of such things is our choice. It's not some sort of "here's your opposable thumb, now don't abuse it" thing, unless you're going all theist on me.

What is the distinction you are drawing between an elephant and a cat or cow, in its most salient terms?
If elephants were as thick as cats and cows, I guess I'd cheerfully eat them too. And if they didn't make poo the size of my head, elephants would, I suppose, be no worse pets than anything else. I'm not about eating endangered species (or anything really) because I'm compelled not to, but because I choose not to. Because I find more value in sustaining those animals than consuming them - and because a sneaking suspicion of mine has always been that some of the endangered species are endangered in part because they are not also delicious.

It's a fine line between flavor, cuteness, and "makes my three year old happy." As for the rest of the animals I guess they're there to keep the good tasting, cute pets up an about. Sort of like you allow fungi and bacteria to live in the stomach to help you digest things.

I'm more concerned that there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of "animal cruelty" here,
Honestly, I think that's your problem. Humans are animals, but animals aren't human. At some point "animal cruelty" isn't because most people-who-are-not-you are equating animals as humans, it's because cruelty of any flavor compels an empathy in people. Most people are perfectly fine with "cruelty" if it means putting a meal on the plate though, just like people who would otherwise be against cruelty against people will sometimes outline cheerfully torture porn scenarios when faced with people they really dislike.

It's not about the animals. It's about us.

I find it hard to see any definition that is not rather hollow without including the cruelty of taking a life against another conscious animal's clearly or implicitly expressed will.
So sorry. Thankfully there's the rest of us out here to make up for your lack of ability? At some point it's pornography. There's nothing wrong with it except it disturbs people, unless it's also wrong for some other reason - like torturing a sea turtle, which would be mucking around with endangered species we've all chosen to keep around as well as being "I'm not sure that means he's a nice person" behavior we've chosen to criminalize.

[kiwi_tea]

@Mistermook

(1) How does dominance not equal the right to mistreat less dominant parties?

With dominance comes responsibility. A parent is, in many senses, dominant over children. They still bear responsibilities based on the capacities children have to suffer. Parents are what moral philosophers might call moral agents, they are capable of exercising ethical conduct, but they are also capable of suffering and of harbouring desires which makes them also moral patients. Children, the mentally ill, and non-humans are often only moral patients, they benefit psychology and physically from being treated in an ethical manner, but we cannot expect them to always act ethically themselves.

You are dismissing these notions in favour of a strict "might is right (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism)" ideal. It's the sort of argument that can be forwarded in support of Hitler, Mao, murderous Columbian drug lords, or absolutely any abusive moral agent. These parties are dominant, therefore they have a free ticket to mistreat less dominant parties. Basically, you're trying to nullify any intelligent notion of ethics at all. This is, plain and simple, the thought process of psychopathy. That it has even been forwarded as a serious argument is distressing, to say the least. Most irrational arguments on these boards I can laugh at and mock (in a sekritly quite fond way). I cannot mock this one, it is too serious.

(2) Cats and cows are "thick"

What the hell does this even mean? That they can't suffer? That they have no sense of self persisting through time? What criteria are you using to say that cats and cows are thick? They're not as psychologically complex as elephants (which appear to even have a crude syntactical proto-language), but they're much more sophisticated thinkers than very young humans! Cats and cows are psychologically complex animals which almost certainly have a lot in common with elephants in terms of navigating their world. The differences in many salient spheres are probably neglible. Not that you care, right? Because you appear for all the world to be drawing an arbitrary line that you're personally comfortable with, regardless of what specific capacities the parties involved actually have.

(3) The idea I have suggested animals are human equivalents

I have gone out of my way to ensure that my arguments could not be read as saying that. Now as to the fact that animals are not human, I've always been very clear. HOWEVER: It's not even really a relevant question.

Are non-human animals human? No. They are not. Never suggested that they were.

The question is not whether animals are human or not, it is whether they possess the traits and capacities that allow us to empathise with other humans: Can they feel pain? Can they fear harm? Do they wish to continue living? Do they have an inner narrative persisting through time? Are they capable of dissent? Can we anticipate that they would raise an objection to harmful acts against them given the opportunity?

The question is not: Are they human? That's a stupid question, answering it won't tell us anything.

The question is: Are they moral patients?

(4) It's not about the animals, it's about us.

This is that same misleading distinction. We are human animals. We have loads in common with many non-human animals, psychologically. Their minds have, though branched drastically, evolved along the same pathways as us - they share the same basic frameworks, to lesser and greater degrees depending on species. To what degree we can separate ourselves from them in terms of moral decisions is very open to question. We cannot make the absolute categorical (and probably cruel) dismissals you would like us to. It's not only irrational, it's irresponsible.

(5) There's nothing wrong with it except it disturbs people, unless it's also wrong for some other reason

Two things off the bat. Firstly, it's difficult to reliably kill anyone without hurting them. I've been in plenty of abattoirs, grew up doing my own home kills with dad, stunning even with electricity doesn't have a perfect success rate for insensibility. Humane slaughter simply doesn't exist in any consistent form that also preserves meat quality. Secondly, given any opportunity to, conscious animals dissent from being killed. As neuroscientist Christof Koch says: "My empirical studies into the neurobiology of consciousness have convinced me that many species share the sights and sounds of life with us humans. Why? First, except for size, there are no large-scale, dramatic differences between the brains of most mammals (including humans). Second, when people experience pain and distress, they contour their face, moan, cry, squirm, and try to avoid anything that would trigger a reoccurrence of the pain. Many animals do the same. Likewise for the physiological signals that attend pain—like changes in blood pressure, dilated pupils, sweating, and an increased heart rate. Because it is likely that mammals can consciously experience the pains and pleasure of life, we should not be eating their flesh."

It doesn't just disturb human people. It disturbs non-human people, albeit their ability to explain their disturbance is restricted to screaming, kicking, and groaning.

Your whole argument in that last post is just farcical, and you once again fail to engage with anything I've actually argued. Instead, again, beating up a series of clumsily constructed strawmen. Your first argument - "might is right" - is plain startling.

[RoseCity]

If elephants were as thick as cats and cows, I guess I'd cheerfully eat them too.

http://wheineman.com/merri/SadCat.jpg

[Johnny_Bravo]

EDIT: I do see where your coming from though lolapola since I sometimes feel like that. There was once a kitten and these two fucking horrible pricks set they're dog onto the kitten and recorded the dog tearing the poor little thing on a camera phone just for a laugh!
It's times like that when I want those two to be bloody ripped to shreds by a fucking dog just so they can understand the pain and suffering they inflicted.........


There's a video like that, too. There's a kitten, and some dumb women with high-heels and they just step on on the kitten until it's dead! Seriously, I'm a boy, but in a situation like this I want to put high-heels on and kick them in the face or step on them. I know you shouldn't hit woman, and girls, but still, people like that deserve it.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

if a lion does eat a child it WILL BE KILLED.
Why shouldnt it go the other way?
Because a lion who has tasted blood will attack?
A human who gets a kick out of killing animals will kill again.
Havent these animal have souls?
of course for some reason I was born with more compassion for animals then humans.. there just so innocent!

i think you missed the part where children ought not to be playing around lions (and their parents should have the sense to 1) spot the lion, 2) MOVE AWAY FROM THE LION with the child firmly in tow, 3) ... yeah, just. stay away from the damn lion.), lions are carnivores, eat their prey RAW and thus ALWAYS taste blood, and petty revenge is not a good motive for any sort of killing.

the difference between humans and animals is that humans do not need to kill excessively to survive. we get twinkies from the store and play video games. there is no NEED to run out and kill animals for fun.
animals do need to kill their food to survive. they do not have grocery stores, they do not have twinkies, they do not have video games to entertain them. they are built to hunt, capture, and devour--that is what keeps them waking up every morning, not coffee and an alarm clock. it is everything to a lion to be able to chase food down and consume it. what part of this eludes humans so entirely?
it is instinct.
it is survival.

it is us humans who take the animals away from their natural environment and then wonder why little timmy gets mauled for poking it with a stick. we are DIFFERENT, and i am just so sick and tired of humans treating animals as if they were just tiny furry humans. they are not.
animal abuse is a problem because the main points are:
*unnecessary violence. nobody NEEDS to kill a cat/dog/monkey/dolphin to survive the day....unless they live in a 3rd world country where there are no other food sources, and plan to make use of the corpse as sustenance.
*breeding/training an animal to be co-dependent and then abandoning that animal IS ABUSIVE.
*animals and humans are NOT the same. you cannot treat an animal like a human and expect it to fit in perfectly. you cannot treat a human like an animal, for that matter, and expect them to come away unscathed.
*lack of understanding these fundamental differences and biological aspects are not an excuse for deriving glee out of the torture of a feeling, thinking creature. on some level, we understand that much, and to understand that much and continue to do so anyway is a big red flag.

[Mistermook]

animal abuse is a problem because the main points are:
*unnecessary violence. nobody NEEDS to kill a cat/dog/monkey/dolphin to survive the day....unless they live in a 3rd world country where there are no other food sources, and plan to make use of the corpse as sustenance.
Two points on this though (even though by mentioning it I'll surely be leading everyone down the same moral paths as POL POT AND HITLER(!!!)):

A. Humans do a lot of unnecessary shit. Just because something isn't necessary isn't in and of itself a very good reason to proclaim something "bad."

therefore

B. It's not the unnecessary violence against the animals that's the problem. It's the unnecessary violence inside the humans involved. Dead animals because someone is a scary dickhead is wasteful, but ultimately someone being a scary dickhead resulting in dead things of any sort is what I and anyone else should be most concerned with. Humans should have a bit of empathy built into them (not so much that they start talking to their dog like he was a person imo; or dressing their cats), and whenever any human displays a lack of empathy coinciding with violence or aggression I think it's probably correct that that's a red flag for other anti-social behavior.

But being too empathic with animals at the cost of empathy with humans? That's pretty anti-social too sometimes, re: the proverbial cat lady. We don't recognize it as dangerous, because there's no mutilations or corpses of things, but it's the flip side of the same coin. Emotional response is something we rely on to gauge other humans safe enough to socialize with.

[Robodl95]

Going along with what Mistermook said about being too empathetic sometimes it's a necessity to kill. Humans have screwed up the environment really badly. Because of heavy hunting and loss of habitat there aren't as many top predators which means the lower levels, such as deer, will severely overpopulate and destroy their environment. I think that it's more humane to hunt these animals responsibly instead of having them starve to death. We've also introduced species to areas that they shouldn't be in and consequently they are pushing out natives.

[kiwi_tea]

I don't think I've ever denied that sometimes it's a necessity to kill, either, only that for most of us it isn't necessary to kill (humans or non-humans) for food - seems to fall into the category of "cruelty" to do so when we need not. Would be interested seeing a more direct response from Mistermook. I don't quite see where the "being too empathetic with animals at the cost of empathy with humans" came from. Looks like another strawman. Who in this debate suggested such a thing?

[Robodl95]

I don't think I've ever denied that sometimes it's a necessity to kill, either, only that for most of us it isn't necessary to kill (humans or non-humans) for food. I recall various other threads where we had the hunting debate. Hunting for food and hunting to sustain an ecosystem are the same thing to me. The hunting laws are made so that there aren't too many killed in one year and so that we don't kill off a population. Hunting is better than buying because the animal was free and you can guarantee a quick death, unlike slaughter houses. Sure it's not necessary for us to eat meat but it's also not necessary for us to eat vegetables or any other kind of food. I don't see it as wrong to eat the animal that you hunted if you so legally, otherwise it would be waste.

[kiwi_tea]

Where does the idea that hunting guarantees a quick death come from? Hunters aren't all perfect shots, I've been hunting lots, it's WAY less reliably uncruel compared with at least trying to stun an animal in a confined space like you do with a home kill. And hunters often use dogs, and chase their prey, and create an incredibly stressful, terrifying situation. Bullet wounds aren't instant death. The boy who was born in the same hospital room as me died of a bullet wound, he was misidentified by another hunter while out hunting. It took half an hour for him to die. Now, I admit, with non-humans you can slit their throat and speed up the death. But hunting normally implies some period of intense pain and suffering for the victim, it's rare to ever get an instant death shot.

Vegetables aren't capable of feeling or objecting. Vegetables aren't animals. Vegetables have nothing to do with a discussion about animal cruelty. You can't BE cruel to a vegetable in anything except a figurative sense.

[Robodl95]

I'm just going to leave it at this because we're driving this thread off topic into hunting and vegetarianism: I think this is an issue for each individual person to decide for themselves. However much you might think it's wrong/right no one can be the utmost authority on morals.

[kiwi_tea]

So what if the animal decides it doesn't like what you're doing? Why are you leaving a whole group of minds out of the equation you've proposed?

However much you might think it's wrong/right no one can be the utmost authority on morals.

I'm not suggesting I become an authority on morals. Nor do I endorse all morals being down to personal opinion. We reason out our moralities based on a variety of factors. Eg: Can another party suffer? How can they suffer? In what ways? What evidence is there of this? These are some of many good factors to consider when defining what is and is not moral.

Edit: They're even better factors to consider when working out what is and is not cruelty.

[Elyasis]

What it all boils down to is Pragmatism vs Idealism.

Sure it would be great if nothing anywhere suffered or died for any reason. I support that as an ideal to strive for, and yet the practicality of any imperfect system requires each person to make their own decisions about the morality of any given thing. Most people should come up with at least the average morality of the rest of the populace. For those who don't that's what the justice system is for. Currently the intentional killing of an animal is not considered by most to be on the same scale as the murder of a human being. Is that right? I cannot say but if the current laws are anything to go by it is the norm.

Then again there may be some status quo involved.

[kiwi_tea]

So what you're saying is the will of the majority always = the most moral position? Does that mean morality is completely relative, rather than a reasoned out study?

Does that mean that before interracial marriage was legalised in the US (which the courts did during a period where most people opposed it), interracial marriage was immoral? But a decade or so after the court's decision, when a majority finally supported it, it became moral?

I think interracial marriage was never immoral, even when mislabelled such, because that's the side that has reasonable arguments. Hence the change.

Likewise I think meat-eating is in most cases immoral, even though that's a minority position, because (some of) the minority has reasonable arguments and the majority has terrible arguments.

It seems like what you're calling pragmatism isn't pragmatism, just a reactionary ideology. It seems to me that what is most pragmatic is working out what is most the consistent and reasonable stance that can be implemented.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Two points on this though (even though by mentioning it I'll surely be leading everyone down the same moral paths as POL POT AND HITLER(!!!)):

A. Humans do a lot of unnecessary shit. Just because something isn't necessary isn't in and of itself a very good reason to proclaim something "bad."

so, you would call overeating "good"? how about using too much water? or using more cars than you need? how about having more kids than you can provide for? all of these things contribute to major problems in society, environment, and atmosphere. are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that doing stupid things because you can is anything but "bad"?
particularly when it benefits nobody (including oneself) to do them.

therefore

B. It's not the unnecessary violence against the animals that's the problem. It's the unnecessary violence inside the humans involved. Dead animals because someone is a scary dickhead is wasteful, but ultimately someone being a scary dickhead resulting in dead things of any sort is what I and anyone else should be most concerned with. Humans should have a bit of empathy built into them (not so much that they start talking to their dog like he was a person imo; or dressing their cats), and whenever any human displays a lack of empathy coinciding with violence or aggression I think it's probably correct that that's a red flag for other anti-social behavior.

But being too empathic with animals at the cost of empathy with humans? That's pretty anti-social too sometimes, re: the proverbial cat lady. We don't recognize it as dangerous, because there's no mutilations or corpses of things, but it's the flip side of the same coin. Emotional response is something we rely on to gauge other humans safe enough to socialize with.

i do however agree strongly with the bold part(s).

that last part im not so sure of. i know quite a few people who would prefer to spend time with animals than humans being, well, humans, but they do not run out and kill humans because they like them less. they tend to have more emotional scarring due to humans, and if its not logical to therefore distrust/dislike humans based on that/those strong personal experience(s), then i dont know what is.
its important to note the difference between seeking to do harm to one, and choosing one over another.
it brings to mind the "who would you save? pet or stranger?" thread. i would never seek to go out and stab someone in the face, but if i had to choose between them and my pet, i would choose my pet. and that is an emotional response based in empathy; just not aimed at a fellow human being. likewise, maybe a person doesnt particularly favor animals over humans, maybe theyve had bad experiences with animals and would choose a human over one to save the life of, without feeling the urge to actively search for and maim animals. and need i mention, to you even, that not all people are social animals, and not inherently dangerous, though do not mourn a lack of socializing? :P i would be much more wary of a person who was not empathetic to either one, than someone who preferred one over the other.

[kiwi_tea]

I think what we really need here is a less ambiguous definition of "animal cruelty".

What are "animals", for the purposes of this debate? For example, is it "animal cruelty" to pull the legs off a starfish? Starfish are part of the animal kingdom, but one can't be cruel to them, can one? Starfish neither think nor feel.

So are we talking about cruelty to "animals"? Or are we really talking about cruelty to other conscious animals like sheep or ourselves?

Why is some treatment deemed "cruel"?

[Elyasis]

So what you're saying is the will of the majority always = the most moral position? Does that mean morality is completely relative, rather than a reasoned out study?

Does that mean that before interracial marriage was legalised in the US (which the courts did during a period where most people opposed it), interracial marriage was immoral? But a decade or so after the court's decision, when a majority finally supported it, it became moral?

I think interracial marriage was never immoral, even when mislabelled such, because that's the side that has reasonable arguments. Hence the change.

Likewise I think meat-eating is in most cases immoral, even though that's a minority position, because (some of) the minority has reasonable arguments and the majority has terrible arguments.

It seems like what you're calling pragmatism isn't pragmatism, just a reactionary ideology. It seems to me that what is most pragmatic is working out what is most the consistent and reasonable stance that can be implemented.

No, just no. It's normative but that doesn't mean it's the most ethical. I never said that. However, the laws must be followed. If you don't agree with the current law you have to go through the proper channels. If you are denied that change you have to keep making an appeal. A stronger one.

But, raging against the machine aside. I think what is ethical can either be judged by ones own moral compass, or it's a product of culture. Or some mish mash of both. If those two clash than you have to make some sort of concerted effort to either change yourself or change the culture. Or suffer in silence. I don't recommend that last option, it sucks. :giggler:

[kiwi_tea]

But we've never really been talking about what's *legal* in this debate. Nobody ever proposed *outlawing* slaughter, although some cruelty to animals is illegal. True, that's the distant outcome of a vegetarian culture, but it hasn't been proposed as part of this debate. To suddenly talk about the normative qualities of the law seems like a major deflection, not a salient point.

People seem to be placing a lot of focus on "one's own moral compass" here to divert from actually debating topic, too. Just because it's a personal choice, doesn't mean all choices are equally ethical and uncruel. I repeat my call for a definition of animal cruelty that might suit those who believe slaughter isn't animal cruelty - at least make an attempt!

[RoseCity]

People seem to be placing a lot of focus on "one's own moral compass" here to divert from actually debating topic, too. Just because it's a personal choice, doesn't mean all choices are equally ethical and uncruel. I repeat my call for a definition of animal cruelty that might suit those who believe slaughter isn't animal cruelty - at least make an attempt!

There was a book I can't remember the name of about the contract between man and domesticated animals- I think it was something like the animal would live an easy life in safety in contrast to the lives wild animals live, but the trade off is that at some point, the animal is eaten.
I took this from wikipedia Factory Farming -
In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens.In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000,[18] with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.
I won't go into the whole factory farm thing because it can be googled, but, anyway, that's where I think the most cruelty comes in, much more than the animal's ultimate death. If we were to empathize, we would imagine a life lived in extreme discomfort, packed into a pen where you can't even lie down or your beak cut off or whatever.
Animals have brains, but because their brains are less than ours, we justify what we do to them.
But then again, life itself seems to be nothing special, and terrible things are happening to people and animals all the time, all over the world.

[kiwi_tea]

Yes, but that's just the abusive father gambit: "I brought you into this world so I can take you out of it." Animals, like children or the mentally ill, can't really be held to such contracts as their ability to consent or dissent is very limited, and to call such a system of exploitation a social "contract" only lends a veneer of "civilisation" to barbarism, it doesn't justify it. There is no "contract" between humans and non-humans. There are only responsibilities adult humans bear, as moral agents, towards moral patients - unless these adult humans are psychopaths, in which case they don't have the underlying brain functions to value or carry our their responsibilities.

And while terrible things do happen, it that does not mean anyone should allow terrible things to happen if given the option of preventing them.

[Tempscire]

I repeat my call for a definition of animal cruelty that might suit those who believe slaughter isn't animal cruelty - at least make an attempt!
I'll take a shot. In my opinion, animal cruelty is action or inaction that causes harm (especially physical harm, but mental harm as well) for no larger purpose, and/or when there is a wider purpose for the harm, if the harmful actions are prolonged more than necessary.

E.g. setting a cat on fire just for the hell of it = cruelty. Leaving a cow standing in shit in a tiny pen = cruelty. Eating an animal alive (whether human or beast is doing the eating) = cruelty. Docking a dog's ears and tail (historically done to avoid them being torn to shreds in underbrush later) = harmful to some degree, but not cruel. Spaying or neutering an animal = harmful to some degree, but arguably not cruel (I suppose depriving an organism of the ability to have or want sex could be considered cruel; it certainly would be when performed on a non-consenting human). Letting an animal starve to death before carving it up for meat = cruelty. Putting a bullet through its brain before carving it up for meat = not cruelty. Putting a bullet through its brain then leaving it to rot = arguable cruelty; definitely something bad (assuming healthy animal). Tearing the wings off a fly = cruelty. Squishing it flat within half a second = not cruelty.

[haricots]

Squishing it flat within half a second = not cruelty.

??? :blink:

[RoseCity]

Yes, but that's just the abusive father gambit: "I brought you into this world so I can take you out of it." Animals, like children or the mentally ill, can't really be held to such contracts as their ability to consent or dissent is very limited, and to call such a system of exploitation a social "contract" only lends a veneer of "civilisation" to barbarism, it doesn't justify it. There is no "contract" between humans and non-humans. There are only responsibilities adult humans bear, as moral agents, towards moral patients - unless these adult humans are psychopaths, in which case they don't have the underlying brain functions to value or carry our their responsibilities.

And while terrible things do happen, it that does not mean anyone should allow terrible things to happen if given the option of preventing them.


I think the whole idea of raising sensate beings on a massive scale like vegetables is primitive. It was a good idea in 10,000BCE as a way to get and store food, an advancement on the vagaries of hunting.
Factory farming is cruelty to animals. I don't know if I consider the killing part cruelty. You said earlier that the animal that is killed experiences fear and pain. That's usually part of dying. Is any dying ever painless and free of fear? No one who's done it has ever weighed in on that question. Part of a human's fear comes from knowing that we will cease to exist. The animal's fear is probably coming from the fear of being restrained by human beings which has probably never been a good thing in its experience. Domestic animals were bred by humans for captivity - their only purpose is to produce food. They have no place in an ecosystem except in relation to us. If you said that we shouldn't raise them anymore, I would probably agree to that.
If we say that killing animals for food is cruel and immoral then what about when someone is starving and living day to day on whatever they can scavenge and catch. Is
it then okay to shoot a squirrel for the cooking pot? Nothing is different from the squirrel's point of view, if it could be given a choice it would prefer to live, and its last moments may be painful.

[Tempscire]

??? :blink:
It's dead before it even knows what's happening. I do not consider death to be in and of itself "cruel." Methods of death can be cruel, and death can be unfair, but the original question was about slaughter vis-a-vis animal cruelty, not how fair it is or not. An instant (or near enough to instant as to make no difference) death is, imo, the opposite of a cruel death.

[kiwi_tea]

It's dead before it even knows what's happening.
Just like a human animal taken out by a sniper.

[Tempscire]

Just like a human animal taken out by a sniper.
Yes, and? So? I don't consider that "cruel." It may (or may not, depending on the person being assassinated) be unfair, and it could perhaps be considered cruel to the human's surviving loved ones to suffer that loss, but not cruel. A deer being shot by a hunter in deer blind with a rifle was part of an unfair hunt, but if the shot actually landed right, I don't consider that cruel, either.

(If the shot didn't land right, the cruel thing would be the hunter letting the deer stagger away to bleed to death elsewhere instead of putting it out of its misery as quickly as possible. Simply missing the shot I would say is not cruel, as I think there needs to be some deliberation to count as cruelty-- i.e. deliberately shooting non-immediately-fatal parts.)

[kiwi_tea]

Could you clarify the distinction you're making between "cruel" and "unfair" here? It strikes me this is a situation where both terms apply to a degree. Unfair in the sense that it goes against the moral patient's wishes, and cruel in the sense that (while it does not cause pain) it deprives the moral patient of any sensations at all, and WOULD pain the victim if they had any time to consider their fate and dissent. It's an extremely severe attack on another's rights to kill them when they want to live, so much so I think "cruel" is an apt term, although maybe I'm stretching things.

And you wouldn't argue that killing a pig isn't cruel to its loved ones as well, would you? Because I've seen sows become extremely depressed (lethargic, won't eat, develop worse stereotypies) over the slaughter (well, the sudden absense) of other sows they tend to spend a lot of time with.

Also, doesn't your using the term "unfair"... ...kinda imply that the wholesale destruction the moral patient is "unfair"? Doesn't that (vague) term suggest it may be unethical?

Is "unfair", here, just an attempt to use a softer word than "cruel" to make an injustice sound trivial?

[Robodl95]

Sure, some animals will have very prominent grief but other animals don't have any connection between one another (some species, such as pigs, may eat their own children, lions will eat their own dead, certain insects will eat the male after sex) It's fine for pigs to eat pigs but not for humans to eat pigs?

[kiwi_tea]

Pigs and lions are moral patients, not moral agents. They don't have the volitional control over their actions that moral agents do. Likewise, one doesn't hold sane adult humans (moral agents) to the same standards of conduct as adult humans with severe dementia (moral patients).

And it's drawing a long bow to say that because some animals eat their young, etc, those animals feel no connection with one another. Human mothers kill their young sometimes too, especially when depressed. That doesn't make them, or humans more generally, into emotionless drones.

[Tempscire]

Could you clarify the distinction you're making between "cruel" and "unfair" here? ... It's an extremely severe attack on another's rights to kill them when they want to live, so much so I think "cruel" is an apt term, although maybe I'm stretching things. ... Also, doesn't your using the term "unfair"... ...kinda imply that the wholesale destruction the moral patient is "unfair"? Doesn't that (vague) term suggest it may be unethical?
My concept of cruelty follows along the definition of "animal cruelty" I gave post before last. Harm solely for harm's sake, or harm for a cause that exceeds the minimal amount of harm required to achieve that purpose. (I concede I may be taking the opposite tack as you and assigning too high a threshold for what counts as "cruel.") I'm distinguishing it from unfair because while, arguably, all cruel acts may be unfair, not all unfair acts are cruel. I'm thinking of the terms as otherwise two distinct concepts, without intent of minimizing cruel concepts to mere unfairness (nor do I think of "unfair" as applying only to trivial concerns, for that matter, though I guess for greater/worse acts, "unjust" might start to become the better word. It has better gravitas for sure, at least).

Similarly, I do not think "unfair" and "unethical" are necessarily two sides of the same coin nor gradations of each other, though, like cruel/unfair, they can certainly overlap. I would also suggest that arguing the ethics of slaughtering animals is slightly different (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm) from arguing about the morality of it. It's possible for animal slaughter to be ethical but not moral (as I understand the concepts).

I do think the "wholesale destruction the moral patient" is unfair, but I also do not expect fairness. If the world were fair, there would be no carnivores or omnivores; we'd all considerately synthesize our own energy from light and water and air. Worms wouldn't get chopped in half when trying to plow the soil, cuckoos would push other baby birds out of the nest, all baby sea turtles would make it through the first year of life instead of being eaten, and no one would even accidentally step on a bug. Two elephants are at a drinking hole and one gets snagged by lionesses: is that fair? was that one elephant more deserving of being eaten than the other? Had it ever done anything to deserve dying by inches under the claws of a lion and feeling mouthfuls of meat being torn from its side?

I suppose one could argue that humans are more empathetic and thoughtful and capable than a lion and thus should rise above preying on other animals, but I tend to think in terms of "humans are as (whatever) as animals" rather than "animals are as (whatever) as humans." That is to say, humans are nasty predators and I'm okay with that. On the levels with which you can make a direct comparison to animals (so, you know, not comparing our respective abilities at creating civilizations, say), we are not hugely more worthy or noble. (Which is not to denigrate humans and human accomplishments nor insinuate people are a worthless parasite to be eradicated or any such thing, just to clarify.)

Where I see fairness enter into human predation is not letting the advantage we have over our prey be so ridiculous. I wouldn't suggest humans resort to spear and knife hunting, perhaps, but I also think deliberately putting out food throughout the year to lure deer to a certain spot and then shooting them from yards away is unfair and unduly takes advantage of the deer's inabilities. I also think it's unfair for cows, etc. to be raised specifically for slaughter in small pens, pumped full of hormones, and fed foods they did not evolve to eat (requiring further hormones to aid digestion thereof). However, I see the alternative (and the more effective form of protest) as supporting non-factory farms that do not resort to such treatment, that let the cow, etc. graze and wander the fields and otherwise have a more natural life. That is where the cruel/fair/ethical line is effectively drawn for me. It's unfair, but no more unfair than it has to be, in my opinion.

And you wouldn't argue that killing a pig isn't cruel to its loved ones as well, would you?
Honestly, I don't know what I'd argue about that. Many animals are quite intelligent, and I know they each have distinct personalities as humans do, and I know they have/form memories to some extent and interpersonal bonds. On the other hand, there are plenty of animals who, left to their own devices, would reproduce with or cannibalize each other, and a lot of reproduction that goes on could probably be classified as rape were humans involved. So I really don't care to venture a guess how cruel missing a friend is to a pig or other animal. I suppose that would be a fine place to suppose "better safe than sorry," but despite all that, I just cannot bring myself to put their misery on par with another human's (although, at the risk of sounding heartless, there's a lot of human misery I just don't empathize with, either).

[kiwi_tea]

That is to say, humans are nasty predators and I'm okay with that.

It seems like every argument for meat eating (if it is a form of animal cruelty) in this debate swiftly turns into an argument against the very idea that humans should behave ethically. :/

Edit:

"We may grant that so long as no scruple has arisen concerning the morality of flesh-eating, or any other barbarous usage, such practices may be carried on in innocence and good faith, and therefore without personal demoralisation to those who indulge in them. But from the moment when discussion begins, and an unconscious act becomes a conscious or semi-conscious one, the case is wholly different, and it is then impossible to plead that "it does not matter" about one's food. On the contrary, it is a matter of vital import if injustice be deliberately practised. To use flesh-food unwittingly, by savage instinct, as the carnivora do, or, like barbarous mankind, in the ignorance of age-long habit, is one thing; but it is quite another thing for a rational person to make a sophistical defence of such habits when their iniquity has been displayed, and then to claim that he is absolved from guilt by the spirit in which he acted. The spirit that absolves is one of unquestioning faith, not of far-fetched sophistry. The wolf devours the lamb, and is no worse a wolf for it; but if he seek, as in the fable, to give quibbling excuses for his wolfishness, he becomes a byword for hypocrisy."

- Henry Stephens Salt, ethical philosopher and literary critic, 1899.

[Tempscire]

It seems like every argument for meat eating (if it is a form of animal cruelty) in this debate swiftly turns into an argument against the very idea that humans should behave ethically. :/
Isn't that kind of begging the question? Saying people inevitably argue against ethical behavior assumes that meat-eating is unethical, which is what is perpetually under debate in this thread. It's like saying any debate on abortion swiftly turns into an argument supporting cold-blooded murder... it's not a valid summation of the issue.

(Also, depending on which definitions you look to, ethics applies to whole societies and what is considered acceptable behavior in them. Meat-eating could be considered ethical in many/most places in that regard.)

To use flesh-food unwittingly, by savage instinct, as the carnivora do, or, like barbarous mankind, in the ignorance of age-long habit, is one thing; but it is quite another thing for a rational person to make a sophistical defence of such habits when their iniquity has been displayed, and then to claim that he is absolved from guilt by the spirit in which he acted.
So...animals are just ruled by "savage instinct"? Or is it just the prey animals we're supposed to treat as intelligent and sensible? Humans are not ruled by any "savage instinct" at all? This fellow's stance doesn't seem to align with yours, at least in this regard.

The wolf devours the lamb, and is no worse a wolf for it; but if he seek, as in the fable, to give quibbling excuses for his wolfishness, he becomes a byword for hypocrisy.
What I get out of this is that if we're going to eat meat, we should just shrug and start savaging animals, never mind trying to give them easy deaths or pleasant lives beforehand; not that we shouldn't eat meat in the first place. And most people don't bother to come up with "quibbling excuses." They eat their steak and go to bed happy... pretty wolfish in that regard. ...oh. I found his book (http://books.google.com/books?id=OnoPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Henry+Stephens+Salt+The+wolf+devours+the+lamb,+and+is+no+worse+a+wolf+for+it;&source=bl&ots=8bS4hO9ce2&sig=U3OYYPslcHmpd00cjdDGaJW_gKI&hl=en&ei=4N6HTumtHezEsQL41bWTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false). Good god I hate arguments presented as conversations between the wise author and their misguided fool opponent. I don't want to seem dismissive this by attacking the source, but on the next page the guy says cities have more crime than rural areas because of the effects of "a stimulating or excessive diet" on "sobriety and self-control." C'mon.

And is it still hypocrisy when the metaphorical wolf--human carnivores-- excuses his diet by shrugging and saying he is a wolf? We're nice wolves in some ways, but still wolves. Which again suggests that aside from your support of vegetarianism, you don't really have much in common with Mr. H. S. Salt, philosophically speaking. So...

That was an awfully long, smug quote just to indirectly call meat-eaters hypocrites.
ETA: Or is that your response to the rest of my post following the quoted line? Insinuating I proceeded to offer only, what was it-- "quibbling excuses" for my hypocrisy?

[kiwi_tea]

Except the burden of proof lies heavily on the side of the meat-eaters, thanks to Darwin and evolutionary biology it has become extremely difficult to draw the line between human and non-human animals that they'd wish to. Until you demonstrate how a human and non human animal's suffering and right to welfare is saliently different, I think it's safe to say you haven't a case.

No-one has ever really attempted that in these debates, and in fact I recall in an old thread a broader foundation I made for this point that went ignored twice, so I'll repost it here again in case anyone cares to actually make a case that meat-eating is somehow ethical (ie, that non-human rights to welfare (and specifically a right to life) are largely void).

The first thing to be said is that I am not a scientist, and therefore can only skim off of others' expertise. That is a problem for me, and it may be a problem for you, or you may be more scientifically literate than me. Given you invited me to provide science, I can assume you are science-literate, but there is a tendency to demand science even among those of us who have only a limited capacity to understand it (like myself). There are so many things to be said on this issue that I cannot introduce it all in one post, nor can I quite decide the correct order to go in. I'll start with what you requested:

The interrelatedness of species and the issues it raises:

The differences in biology are differences in degree, not kind. Even a bird's wing contains a hand, albeit with fused digits. The same organs tend to fill new roles, and some change less than others. The foundational bones might shift in size and weight, but new bones do not suddenly appear without an earlier reference in the fossils. There is some constraint, in evolution, by dint of earlier forms. The neurologies of the animal kingdom are no different - we have no good reason to suspect that they are different. And the minds of other animals are related to ours, they do some of the same things. The interrelatedness of species has been one of the most compelling post-Darwinian themes in biology. Susan Savage-Rumbaugh, an ethnologist who studies chimps, observed in Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind:

"We do not realize how deeply our starting assumptions affect the way we go about looking for and interpreting the data we collect. We should recognize that nonhuman organisms need not meet every new definition of human language, tool use, mind, or consciousness in order to have versions of their own that are worthy of serious study. We have set ourselves too much apart, grasping for definitions that will distinguish man from all other life on the planet. We must rejoin the great stream of life from whence we arose and strive to see within it the seeds of all we are and all we may become."

You can see this is a matter of how we look at data around us. How we look at the data is a fraught subject, it drags us into philosophy. The traditional assumption in the sciences has been an unfounded wariness of looking at nonhumans as related to humans, a historical hangover from our religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is, all life is related, some more closely than others. Scientists pre-Goodall were encouraged not to interact with their subjects. But this is a threatening action in itself, seen from the observee's perspective. Pretending not to be observing a group of animals, refusing to give social cues - it's all built around the assumption that someone isn't looking back, or that that someone does not realise you are another someone. This was how behavioural scientists tried to study non-humans, and for some species it no doubt works very well. It would work well with mussels, maybe with reptiles, but not with social animals: Chimps, cows, humans, etc. Imagine if a man was staring through your window all day long, trying to look like he wasn't there. Baboon specialist Barbara Smuts expresses feeling a lot like that in the book, When Species Meet, and eventually she found that:

"By acknowledging a baboon's presence, I expressed respect, and by responding in ways I picked up from them, I let the baboons know that my intentions were benign and that I assumed they likewise meant me no harm. Once this was clearly established in both directions, we could relax in each other's company".

She ended up realising she would get her job done much better by interacting. Ignoring social cues was a threatening act, and the only person she was fooling was herself. The baboons knew she was a 'someone', and when she started interacting with them it opened up a very large field of study to her: Interspecies communication. A field I believe she now works in.

There is a two-way communication between (some) nonhuman organisms and humans. Why do we not consider a cow kicking us as dissent, and yet we do if it is a woman? It's an important question, don't you think, Mistermook? Neuroscientist Christof Koch made note of the striking similarities between how humans and nonhumans act in distress:

"My empirical studies into the neurobiology of consciousness have convinced me that many species share the sights and sounds of life with us humans. Why? First, except for size, there are no large-scale, dramatic differences between the brains of most mammals (including humans). Second, when people experience pain and distress, they contour their face, moan, cry, squirm, and try to avoid anything that would trigger a reoccurrence of the pain. Many animals do the same. Likewise for the physiological signals that attend pain--like changes in blood pressure, dilated pupils, sweating, and an increased heart rate. Because it is likely that mammals can consciously experience the pains and pleasure of life, we should not be eating their flesh."

This is not hard science, no. I am not providing a wealth of peer-reviewed studies on neuroanatomy because (a) the principles that arise from evolutionary biology are simple and place the burden of proof firmly on the meateater anyway - ie, show us how a sheep is saliently different to an infant or other non-linguistic human in terms of its status as a moral patient (b) I do not have neurological expertise, even though I have family who are and I have a rough grip on some really basic neurological anatomy in humans and animals. It would be intellectually dishonest to claim I can make the neurological case, and more than likely the same can be said of your claiming to understand it. I certainly cannot, but perhaps you can. If so, go get the studies in neuroanatomy, they're readily available, including studies on PLoS-ONE no doubt. The problem of other minds means how animals (species by species) think can only ever be a well evidenced hypothesis. We cannot, as individuals, experience life exactly as it is through a nonhumans' eyes. And because of their limited facilities with language, they cannot express it to us except in the simplest terms.

[...]

EDIT: Of course, it's important to acknowledge that somewhere, at some point in the animal kingdom, we are meeting relatives so distant that they do not share any capacity to think and feel in a sentient way. Lobsters, for example, are so different to us that we can't say what's going on in their heads except by observing behaviour, which, by the by, suggests they're not overly complex. Octopuses, likewise, are drastically different to us, and yet they've been evolving just as long as us and have clearly evolved a lot of convergent traits. Octopuses are capable of very complex behaviours that rank up there with the behavioural capabilities of cats and dogs. But do they feel? We don't know enough about their neuroanatomy to say whether that's also part of the convergence or not. These are the cases where it becomes borderline. Should we eat an octopus? Probably not. Should we eat a lobster? It's very hard to say. ...but should we eat a member of the animal kingdom like a mussell, that has no brain, no psychology, and no means by which to suffer? There is no reason why not. (Unless their farming isn't sustainable, but that's a separate issue again). The question of where to draw the line: Now that really is fascinating. But the line falls somewhere below vertebrates if we want to avoid causing suffering among sentient animals. Even then, some invertebrates, like octopuses, have clearly evolved sentience. A true touchy subject!

* It's controversial which ones actually fused together.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EDIT: Another issue that always confounds this debate is the way science has to be conducted - the way studies look at the brain in a modular fashion, and way that forces everyone, scientists and non-scientists to take an imaginative role in understanding non-human minds. Keith Kendrick's work with sheep memory, for example, is very famous, but only one piece of the puzzle that is a sheep's mind. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...s/414165a0.html) We know sheep are complex social animals like chimps or cows, but with different scope to either of those species as well. When we only have lots of 'bits' of animal minds in thousands of different studies, it's a very difficult matter to approach. Even scientists work from imagined gist, a gist of what is happening in a nonhuman mind, supported by a wide range of observations, including behaviour and comparing nonhuman neurological systems to our own. The problem of other minds means that humans do the same thing, actually, when they study psychology - especially in unfamiliar (for most of us) neurological territory, as with autism or developmental neurology.

Are scientists hiding the moral implications of Darwin's theory from us? No, or there wouldn't be a debate in scientific circles, and there is. Are scientists aware of the implications of their work? Not all of them. Are scientists willing to adapt to the implications if they are aware of them? I don't think so. I have a very dear friend in theoretical genetics who freely confesses that she can see clearly case for vegetarianism as a consequence of her work in zoology, but that she does not have the willpower to make the leap. Richard Dawkins, well known scientist that he is and hardly PETA-funded, made that precise confession to onstage at an event for the Foundation for Skeptical Inquiry when he was challenged by Peter Singer. The fact that humanity's affairs are not the centre of the universe has always been tough to accept, but there are many other factors that make this debate a deeply emotional one. I would humbly (politely as well) suggest that your starting assumptions about the animal kingdom start from a largely indefensible position of human exceptionalism.

I think it's flatly demonstrable that meat-eating is unethical.

(a) Most people believe it is unethical to harm or kill human animals, even low-functioning ones, because even moral patients have a right to welfare.
(b) Animals are also moral patients, many functioning on a higher level to the lowest functioning humans.
(c) There are no salient differences between human and non-human moral patients.
Therefore: If we are to be consistent, it is unethical to harm or kill non-human moral patients as well.

If you successfully refute (a), (b), or (c), then I'll be back in a position where I'm begging the question. But you haven't done that.

[Tempscire]

*eyeballs post* Oh lawd. I'm just going to address 2 quick things and scrutinize that later.

Except the burden of proof lies heavily on the side of the meat-eaters, thanks to Darwin and evolutionary biology it has become extremely difficult to draw the line between human and non-human animals that they'd wish to.
I'm not sure I follow the significance of evolutionary biology...? We share common ancestors with animals? We humans are in Kingdom Animalia with all the rest, and are hugely similar to other apes?

If I'm following you correctly, I think it's funny how you and I seem to take the same little datum point--"human animals" as you phrase it-- and then run in completely opposite directions with it. :)

Also, the difference is that we're human and they're not. That's ultimately what it comes down to, the semi-arbitrary line. We may share ~96% of our DNA with chimps, but what a difference that 4% makes, and I may love my dogs, but I'd rescue my human family members from a fire first. And no matter how many ties and parallels and similarities we find with whatever other animals, there is still a very distinct line between "human" and "nonhuman." Speciesism or hardwired species-survival instinct? Or prioritizing beings with whom we have the best chance of connecting to an intimate level? Humans do have very strong instincts for putting the similar ahead of the different.

I think it's flatly demonstrable that meat-eating is unethical.
I think that, per the usage of "ethical" that I described in my post, you have demonstrated a logical inconsistency (and perhaps a moral lapse, but morals are so subjective) in ethics rather than unethical behavior.

[kiwi_tea]

You seem to be drastically misreading Salt, perhaps because of the slightly archaic language? His point is only that if one is capable of understanding that one is acting like a "nasty predator", and if one does understand that, then such a claim ceases to be an excuse for being a "nasty predator". We're not so stupid a species that such facile sophistry can pass for an argument in favour of doing harm. I'm sorry, but as an argument "humans are nasty predators and I'm okay with that" falls flat on its face. Ignorance is an excuse for doing harm, "human nature" is not unless it is immutable. The existence of vegetarianism demonstrates that the harm we do to nonhuman moral patients is entirely mutable. You have stated that you are not ignorant of the harm you're doing. You've practically made half my argument for me in terms of calling your own stance "unfair" and "nasty".

Your issues with Salt writing some very silly things that were common beliefs in the 1890s I can set aside. He's a product of his time, as we all are. He believed some silly things, let's not forget this was the age of confusion that gave us rubbish like homeopathy and chiropractic. A lot of silly pre and proto-scientific ideas were floating around in the Victorian era, even among intellectuals.

Whoever said that a commitment to animal welfare was the same as arguing that we should place the exact same moral priority upon humans and nonhumans? It's not an either/or situation we're talking about, we simply have the opportunity to do less harm with no particularly consequential losses - and in terms of the environmental impact we'd make gains from less meat consumption. I've pointed out that I'm not saying humans and animals are total equivalents more times than I care to count, but this strawman keeps cropping up. Why do you imagine I'm suggesting this when I've explicitly dismissed it in so many posts now?

It feels like Kiwi_tea makes an argument, then Temp or Mistermook or someone argues back against boilerplate PETA-stance, and then Kiwi_tea has to point out he didn't ever align himself with boilerplate PETA-stance. This is a cycle of you guys putting words in my mouth based on some stereotypical list of vegetarian arguments you've imagined I've made. The strawmen are looking pretty bruised, guys.

I mean, look at this:

"So...animals are just ruled by "savage instinct"?

Your addition of the word "just" into this statement misrepresents what Salt said. For Salt to say that an animal is ruled by "savage instinct" does not necessarily mean the animal is totally without intellect, only that such intellect as it has is not enough to make it a moral agent. Moreover, Salt, living and writing prior to the advent of modern psychology, let alone neurology, had a limited vocabulary with which to describe the differences between human and nonhuman behaviour. Do I think animals are just ruled by "savage instinct"? Well, I think it's a large part of some animal's behaviour, but it's too simple a term, and altruism forms just as important a part of animal behaviour too.

"Or is it just the prey animals we're supposed to treat as intelligent and sensible?"

I never suggested we treat animals as "sensible", and I only suggested that they are "intelligent" to a certain degree - a degree that, combined with their abilities to suffer - make them moral patients. Moral patients aren't "sensible", that's kind of the point. A child isn't sensible. A child or a nonhuman have welfare rights but not autonomy rights - moral patients, not moral agents.

"Humans are not ruled by any "savage instinct" at all?"

That's neither here nor there. If a human's instinct is to rape, they can still (barring some neurological conditions) abstain from raping people.

Strawman after strawman. I never made any of these arguments. Nor did Salt.

Please Expand Your Argument With Specifics:

How is "being genetically human" a salient difference in terms of the ability to suffer and have interests and just generally to be a moral patient? It looks like you're entirely NOT taking that datum point about the relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, rather you appear to be ignoring it, paying it a sort of lip service while actually arguing the opposite of what it implies: You argue that there is a hard and distinct line that makes a human desire to live the only kind that really matters in ethical terms.

Okay then. Argue that. BUT what are the psychological and neurological traits - specifically - that allow you to make such a distinct ethical line between human and nonhuman suffering? Why do humans have a right to life, but not cats? Specifically, please. Use some specifics.

[Tempscire]

His point is only that if one is capable of understanding that one is acting like a "nasty predator", and if one does understand that, then such a claim ceases to be an excuse for being a "nasty predator".
No, I got that much out of it. Perhaps I was/am nitpicking his particular choices of phrasing too much, but I thought particular little phrases seemed...disagreeable.
I'm sorry, but as an argument "humans are nasty predators and I'm okay with that" falls flat on its face.
It's not so much an argument as a statement of reality. Humans prey on other animals for food (and other purposes). We're very good at making sure lots of animals die, ergo 'nasty.' Saying I'm fine with that is also not an argument: it's a statement of apathy.

You've practically made half my argument for me in terms of calling your own stance "unfair" and "nasty".
Because slaughtering animals is nasty. It's all blood and guts and trying not to rupture intestines and spleens... I'm simply trying not to make it seem nice and fluffy. Animals die for us to eat.

Whoever said that a commitment to animal welfare was the same as arguing that we should place the exact same moral priority upon humans and nonhumans?
I didn't mean to insinuate you were. I was merely pointing out why people generally don't worry overmuch about animals' welfare vis-a-vis eating them. What's life to a cow? Who knows. What's life to a human? Ah. That people relate to and care about.

It feels like Kiwi_tea makes an argument, then Temp or Mistermook or someone argues back against boilerplate PETA-stance, and then Kiwi_tea has to point out he didn't ever align himself with boilerplate PETA-stance. This is a cycle of you guys putting words in my mouth based on some stereotypical list of vegetarian arguments you've imagined I've made. The strawmen are looking pretty bruised, guys.
If I wanted to throw up PETA strawmen, I'd start berating you about how dumb it would be to give animals the right to vote, oh-em-gee. Or ask what ancient humans should eaten prior to an understanding nutrition and amino acids and protein groups because if it's wrong now, and humans were just as capable of being moral agents then as now (having recognized and made laws against theft and murder, for example), then hasn't killing animals for meat always and forever been wrong even when not doing so would have meant widespread malnutrition and death? /rhetorical

I never suggested we treat animals as "sensible",
Old-school sensible: capable of feeling via the senses. For some reason I thought that was a better word choice at the time than sensate. I'm not sure why now.

Strawman after strawman. I never made any of these arguments. Nor did Salt.
I didn't intend to imply you had. I commented on those pieces because it seemed to me the implication was there that [this that and the other lines]. I also just flat disagree that urging kind treatment of animals before slaughtering them is not a "quibbling excuse" per Salt's rhetoric, but then it's he said/she said.

How is "being genetically human" a salient difference in terms of the ability to suffer and have interests and just generally to be a moral patient?
My favorite explanation of "salience" is "difference that makes a difference." Genetically human or genetically not-human IS the difference that people by-and-large pay attention to when deciding how much to care about this kind of thing, what makes it 'slaughter' or 'hunting' rather than 'murder.' This answer goes for your final question, too.

It looks like you're entirely NOT taking that datum point about the relationship between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, rather you appear to be ignoring it, paying it a sort of lip service while actually arguing the opposite of what it implies: You argue that there is a hard and distinct line that makes a human desire to live the only kind that really matters in ethical terms.
I argue no such thing. I say we go opposite routes because you look at the "human animal" and see how animals are worthy of being treated with a regard to their welfare as we would other humans. I see the human animal and look at how humans are not so far removed from nature and the food chain and instincts and urges we like to pretend we never, ever have.

This isn't an issue I actually care that much about, and as such I freely admit and concede I am poorly equipped to debate with you on your level about this. I only commented at all because a concise statement on animal cruelty came to mind when I read your post demanding one. Discussion of cruelty and fairness suddenly turned into "y'all say we should act unethically" (when I've already pointed out that that doesn't mesh with what ethics cover) and here's a quote from a guy calling meat-eaters hypocrites.

[simsample]

:here: Please remember that this forum is to debate a topic, not to criticise each other's debating methods.

If you have a problem with or see a flaw in someone's argument, please try to counter it with an argument or point of your own, instead of making personal attacks.

I've noticed that several debates on this forum seem to descend into personal criticism, which is not what this section of the site is for.

It's fine to point out factual inconsistencies, but any problems with the way someone is debating are best dealt with by either demonstrating how it could be done (by way of your on-topic reply) or else by ignoring the post.

[kiwi_tea]

My favorite explanation of "salience" is "difference that makes a difference." Genetically human or genetically not-human IS the difference that people by-and-large pay attention to when deciding how much to care about this kind of thing, what makes it 'slaughter' or 'hunting' rather than 'murder.' This answer goes for your final question, too.

This only explains that it is a difference upon which people discriminate, it doesn't explain why "genetically human" is a difference that makes a difference in terms of status as a moral patient. Skin color is a difference upon which people discriminate, but it's not a difference that makes a difference in terms of morality. You've just given us a circular argument, not salience: "We may discriminate against nonhuman moral patients because we already discriminate against nonhuman moral patients."

Give specifics as to WHY we may discriminate against nonhuman moral patients. What psychological traits do they lack that we have that allows us a right to life, but them none? Why do these traits have that effect? How broadly across the nonhuman world can this apply?

I know. Let's start with humans. What are the psychological traits that allow us to be cruel or kind to humans? What makes morality matter in the human sphere, to your mind?

I say we go opposite routes because you look at the "human animal" and see how animals are worthy of being treated with a regard to their welfare as we would other humans. I see the human animal and look at how humans are not so far removed from nature and the food chain and instincts and urges we like to pretend we never, ever have.

This looks like an Appeal to Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) fallacy. Are you saying that humans are too irrational - too "animal" - to be kind? Are you saying we're incapable of moral behaviour towards other animals? Are you assuming we all have the urge to eat meat? I did personally for a couple of months after quitting, but lots of vegetarians I know have never had meat at all (raised Buddhist or Hindu, primarily), and they certainly haven't ever had those urges. What about the fact that lots of social birds and mammals demonstrate proto-morality? How do you factor that into your implication that human nature is red in tooth and claw?

The questions above are questions because your point here is vague. They are questions, not accusations. I need clarification as to what you are implying about humanity and moral behaviour, specifically?

Which exact urges?
Which exact instincts?
Why must we obey these instincts?
Must we surrender to all our "natural" instincts?

The food chain is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains what animals habitually eat, not what they SHOULD eat. And animals (including humans) who are vegetarian are still part of the food chain, which again, is only descriptive.

Discussion of cruelty and fairness suddenly turned into "y'all say we should act unethically" (when I've already pointed out that that doesn't mesh with what ethics cover) and here's a quote from a guy calling meat-eaters hypocrites.

I did not realise your earlier aside about ethics was supposed to be a commentary limiting ethics to a tiny portion of its scope (to Descriptive Ethics and nothing else). Ethics is the formal study of moral philosophy - it is the branch of philosophy that deals with defining concepts like good and bad, person and nonperson - it is not just a word that describes the moral structure of societies, it is rather involved in the definition and redefinition of moral ideals. Even if lots of societies consider meat-eating ethical, that does not mean it necessarily is, just as lots of societies might consider rape ethical due to low cut dresses. To say that something is ethical or unethical, one must formulate an argument about the properties of the moral patients, agents, and the scenarios involved.

Edit:

What's life to a cow? Who knows. What's life to a human? Ah. That people relate to and care about.

Also, if you read my previous three or four posts, or if you read any animal psychology, or much neuroscience or neurophilosophy, you'll quickly see that WE know a lot about what life is to a cow - because it's not entirely dissimilar to what life is to a human. Nor would we expect it to be dissimilar, given we have such similar brains and ways of interfacing with our environments. To say "who knows" is to feign ignorance where we know LOTS.

[BlakeS5678]

I guess by saying this I'm a little biased but, heres my story. About 5 years ago my mother was walking down a street doing absolutely nothing to provoke anyone (or anything) and two pit-bulls get off their leash and jump over a fence and attack her. They clawed at her throught and face until she nearly bled a miserable death on the spot, it wasn't until 15 minutes later she was taken to the hospital and put in intensive care. To this very day she still has to wear very expensive and heavy make up to cover her scars and is horrified of dogs. The owner of the dogs recieved a fine but, never really realized what happened, and to this very day those pitbulls are still alive and just as dangerous. I know the debate about what should happen to the owners of animals who are dangers was a little while back but what do you guys think? I personally agree with the what the morajority of people saying that animal abuse should have the same punishment as human abuse. Some people make me sick.

[Drakesecaravdis]

I'm not a cat person but I agree that that is horrible and they should be severely punished.

However I do not agree with the replies that say they should be tortured to see how it feels to them. I understand completely, it is tempting if it was one of your animals being abused (I might have felt the same way if I had witnessed something like that) but doesn't that make us no better than the person who abused the animal? certainly they should get their karma and I should really hope they do but don't fight fire with fire that way.
this is why I'm half and half on the death penalty.

anyway this is a bit off the tangent but neglect is abuse so it is, to me, just as bad as torturing (well at least a random person anyway). they are not physically hurt but they are emotionally hurt and to some individuals emotional is the worst kind of pain. When I went to the shelter, there was a lady who had 96 dogs. her house was of course messy all over and some dogs had to be euthanized they were so unhealthy/unfit. the ones they were able to keep had severe social issues. well I literally cried when I heard them tell me that and it also made me sad to look at the dogs left because you could somehow tell just by looking at them that they were mistreated

also the dog I have now..it looked to us like he was abused because he would hide under the bed during any sudden movements and would be most scared of guys. he also backed away if you tried to show him something by putting it in front of his face
he is a lot better now which is awesome (no more getting under the bed in a long while esp) but I felt bad for him at the time and I am thankful that he came into my life.


on the topic of meat eating? well I'd rather not delve into that again but I'm just going to say that everyone is wired different so vegetarianism doesn't work for everyone.

[LeannexChii]

In the UK animals are largely seen as possesions by authorities not as living things that have feelings. The RSPCA which is the angency that deals with animal abuse will not remove an animal from a home if it has fresh food and water, shelter readily available and a clean environment. They do not take into account mental abuse of animals or over breading or even puppy farming. Dog fighting with pit bulls, staffordshire bull terriers and english bull terriers is something that is rife here and often cats and small dogs are stolen and used as bait or to give the dogs a taste for blood. This is illegal but isn't seen as a priority, but fox hunting, hare coursing and cock fighting are almost completely outlawed and gone.

Recently a woman was arrested for putting a cat in a large bin. She had no reason to do it and was caught on CCTV one minute giving the cat a fuss and smoothing its back to suddenly picking it up and putting it into the bin. (wth?) The cat came away with no lasting damage. She was subject to public outrage and had a court date and fine, not sure how much it was. But only a week later a teenage girl was videod throwing a bucket of newborn puppies into a fast flowing river and laughing. She uploaded the vid onto youtube, none of the puppies servived. She got in the paper but no sentance or fine. Disgusting in my eyes...

I eat meat but eat resposibly sourced and slaughtered meat and fish and only eat free range farm eggs. You can eat meat without it being murder.

[kiwi_tea]

I eat meat but eat resposibly sourced and slaughtered meat and fish and only eat free range farm eggs. You can eat meat without it being murder.

If you're going to just make a blanket claim like that, could you at least respond to the broader questions about what it means to source and slaughter meat in an ethical way? What do you mean by "you can eat meat without it being murder"? Do you mean you can eat meat without killing someone (non-human) against their will? Don't just respond to the question in this post: Read the last couple of pages.

[Elyasis]

I have something extra to add to that, kiwi_tea.

Why mention murder at all when the legal definition of murder already bars animals both ways? Animals cannot murder humans much like humans cannot murder animals (non-human obviously). However humans can and do inhumanely slaughter animals on a regular basis. Not just for food but also for sport. The ethics are in question as to if killing an animal can ever be humane except for in the cases that you would also kill any other moral patient. I still believe it's a personal choice matter up to a certain point.

[kiwi_tea]

Yes, I was going to raise that. "Slaughter" applies to both animals and humans. "Murder" is more a legal term. We could raise questions about whether the limitations around the term make sense, given the characteristics of humans and some non-humans (eg. should it also be "murder" to kill a chimp?) , but we don't really need to do that to continue the debate.

The question becomes: Is slaughter cruel? Does slaughter contravene a non-human person's rights? Is it in an animal's welfare to be slaughtered? Etc.

[BlakeS5678]

It completely depends on what you think an animal's purpose is, and why god put them on this earth. But, that goes into a whole different religious topic, which I wouldn't mind debating actually.

[Oaktree]

I wish there was more effort being put into research on growing meat in a lab. There is some research being done, but it doesn't seem to be very high priority. If the majority of our meat were lab-grown, not only would it be an fairly clear-cut ethical source of meat, but it would also reduce environmental concerns, such as greenhouse gasses released in cow burps and the risk of contamination of water sources with fecal matter.

[kiwi_tea]

Very much agree, but it is coming along in leaps and bounds. As I understand it, Oaktree, the biggest hurdle is actually getting acceptable texture. We can grow vat meat of a sort already, but it's just not very pleasant to eat, so the focus is really on getting something with an acceptable grain and taste.

[Riptide651]

Something as brutal as that sounds downright messed-up, and I think that animal cruelty should be suppressed as much as possible, and if it is done, there should be a harsher punishment. I mean, animals are living things too! It very close to, if not, exactly like torturing a person, its downright horrendous. It should be enforced. People get sent to death row for murdering people (not saying that i'm for execution, I'm actually against it in every way shape or form), but there should be a harsher punishment for those cruel to animals.

[kiwi_tea]

Super relevant article on NPR about animals and grief. This reinforces a point I made earlier about the potential suffering of a non-human animal's loved ones: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/20/141452847/do-animals-grieve?sc=fb&cc=fp

[hello2u08]

Animal Cruelty is just wrong in all cases.
although there is a difference between cruelty, and killing for food.
But this definitely falls into the cruelty category, as this is just plain wrong.
The sad part is, if they did this to a human, Lifetime in jail. They do it to a cat, $500 fine.
It reminds of a news story I once heard where some teenagers found a bird's nest, and then grabbed, ripped it apart, and then squished the DEFENSELESS baby birds, which had hatched already
There is NO WAY this can be justified in all cases, it was just a sick and wrong thing to do
EDIT: Don't even try to come back at this with "It was just a dumb cat, far less important than a human!", because even though it was just a cat, It probably was at a higher level than these idiotic, Violent brutes who did this

[Tempscire]

We can grow vat meat of a sort already, but it's just not very pleasant to eat, so the focus is really on getting something with an acceptable grain and taste.
Creeping back into this thread to highly recommend Quorn to any who can find it in their grocery stores (Wikipedia says it's available in US and Europe). It's mycoprotein, and the fibers of it end up the same size as the fibers of actual meat, so the texture is pleasant and meat-like. You could serve it to someone and I'm certain most wouldn't guess it wasn't actual meat, especially if it's part of a dish. (At least for the beef and chicken varieties; I haven't tried--haven't even seen available-- the fish or ham varieties they apparently have.) Wikipedia also says the patent for producing mycoprotein expired in the EU last year, so presumably other companies there can be getting in on it now. Seriously, though, it's excellent, and easily the best meat-substitute I've ever tried.

/not affiliated with Quorn in any way, just a happy and impressed customer

[Riptide651]

Yes, animals grieve, of course they do, anything alive grieves (well idk, plants probably grieve too, just not very much) and in fact Barbara J. King is an amazing columnist of NPR, I love listening to their shows every day, it sort of just brings me up to date with everything.

[kiwi_tea]

Plants don't grieve. At all.

[Riptide651]

Ya, thats exactly what the internet told me.... :/

[Weisskreuz]

Of course beating and animal to death is disgusting and cruel. I don't appreciate people likening beating and animal to beating a human.

[shoo_flee]

Creeping back into this thread to highly recommend Quorn to any who can find it in their grocery stores (Wikipedia says it's available in US and Europe). It's mycoprotein, and the fibers of it end up the same size as the fibers of actual meat, so the texture is pleasant and meat-like. You could serve it to someone and I'm certain most wouldn't guess it wasn't actual meat, especially if it's part of a dish. (At least for the beef and chicken varieties; I haven't tried--haven't even seen available-- the fish or ham varieties they apparently have.) Wikipedia also says the patent for producing mycoprotein expired in the EU last year, so presumably other companies there can be getting in on it now. Seriously, though, it's excellent, and easily the best meat-substitute I've ever tried.

/not affiliated with Quorn in any way, just a happy and impressed customer

I second this!

I'm in the UK and i eat so much quorn as a vegetarian its unreal lol. It is lovely and you honestly can't tell the difference. My carnivore boyfriend was so opposed to it when i first met him but now even he doesn't mind things like the chicken nuggets, sausages and burgers :)

It's also very healthy with hardly any fat! They bringing out a lot of new stuff lately, lots of fish products and ready meals, found a Quorn chicken tikka masala today :)

[Toadlet]

I know where you're coming from ...

I've been involved in 2 animal cruelty 'incidents'

The first was -- a guy kicked our 14 year old Chihuahua so hard he killed her. We loved that dog... There was just no motive what-so-ever for what he did... It was very bizarre. This was when I was 16.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/nearly-blind-pet-kicked-to-death/story-e6frea83-1225782523371 Newspaper article they did on it at the time.

The second was -- Only about a year after our first dog died... I was seeing this guy who had a dog who kind of 'adopted' me... He loved me. Followed me around, slept at my house, he was my dog, he 'chose me' :P His name was Leo. One morning I woke up to the sound of my stepmother telling my dad that there was something wrong with Leo... 20 minutes later he was dead. Someone had deliberately dropped parcels of meat around town laced with Strychnine (Basically they used to use it as a rat killer but it's VERY dangerous and now heavily regulated) where I live there are often old stocks of this stuff out on cattle stations.

Let me put it this way: the amount the same size as a match-head can kill a cat. According to Wikipedia it's also extremely painful. Again, no motive. Just some horrible person who felt like killing people's dogs. Around 15 dogs died over 2 days in our town. Some were on leashes in people's yards. Very sad.

[minimogut]

I am not against eating meat, seeing as they use a painless method to kill them. But beating them to death, or using extremely painful chemicals is animal cruelty and should not be tolerable. If it wasn't for the fact that it would be impossible to do so, I would say that monitoring who buys what animal, and then banning them from buying animals in the event of animal cruelty would be a better course than fining. I would just like to point out that if you see videos on youtube or news sites that depict people who manufacture meat or products with meat in them killing a hatched baby chickens or calves or whatever animal in an in-humane way, then that is a scam.

[5M0K3]

The punishment: However they hurt the animal. (in my opinion, all lives are equal.ETA: Reading this I started thinking about bugs, and if I smoosh a mosquito I don't deserved to be smoosed, uh, by the way.)

Just a head snappy response for those who feel like yelling at me about my beliefs. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqveAuEznEI&feature=related)

[Ninja5701]

I know Right, i cant stand watching an Animal cruelty commercial without tearing up :'(

[AncientSimLover]

It really makes me sad when i think of animals being slaughtered, skinned, and treated
in a way which they shouldn't be treated! I am against animals being butchered
to death, because every life is valuable.

[RoseCity]

It really makes me sad when i think of animals being slaughtered, skinned, and treated
in a way which they shouldn't be treated! I am against animals being butchered
to death, because every life is valuable.

The consensus in this thread seems to be that an individual killing animal(s) for sadistic pleasure is cruelty. But raising 'food' animals in hellish conditions (factory farming) and then killing them is no problem. People don't seem to know where their food comes from nor care. I'm a vegetarian, but I'm not opposed to raising food animals in humane, sanitary, non-polluting conditions. http://agriculturesociety.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/whole-and-healthy-meatit-really-does-exist/

[kiwi_tea]

The question always arises, though, is slaughtering another individual with a mind, preferences and feelings when one can avoid doing so ever humane?

[Elyasis]

Quick answer, for some yes but for others no.

[RoseCity]

The question always arises, though, is slaughtering another individual with a mind, preferences and feelings when one can avoid doing so ever humane?

I'm trying to look at it practically rather than philosophically and choose to focus on the life of the animal rather than the death of the animal for several reasons. One, improving the living conditions of the animal can be most easily addressed - prohibiting people from eating meat, not so much. Two, we're all going to die and I don't think it's ever pleasurable for anyone or anything, no matter how it happens. But once something is dead it doesn't suffer anymore. Suffering is a condition linked to being alive not dead. Three, I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan and the production of dairy products also involves cruelty. But I'm still eating cheese. From a philosophical or moral viewpoint I can say that killing an animal for food is cruelty, but from a real world perspective I'm not practicing my belief.

[kiwi_tea]

Two, we're all going to die and I don't think it's ever pleasurable for anyone or anything, no matter how it happens.

Yes, but we're talking about it happening years early, violently, at the hands of another person who could usually happily opt not to do it.

Grew up on a dairy farm. The processes in dairying could easily avoid culling and cruelty, there would just be much lower yields of milk for human consumption. It's an industry that can be reformed.

You can't reform the slaughter out of meat-processing, except perhaps by vat meat.

[5M0K3]

I'm not a vegetarian - I used to be, but I realized how much I love meat - and I'm pretty sure it's not at all "painless" or "non-violent" when animals get sent to a slaughterhouse. For christ's sake, you're killing it, and at a slaughterhouse, I'm puuuurdy sure you put them on some sort of conveyor belt and let the machine do the rest. I think. Most "big time" meat companies don't have time to kill every animal by hand, come up from behind and instantly chop their head off. So chances are those cows/chickens/turkeys/pigs are feeling pain.

There's no painless way to die. But not knowing it's coming can make things easier.

[kiwi_tea]

Every slaugherhouse I've ever been to kills by hand, on a sort of "disassembly line", and I've been to a lot of large scale slaughterhouses with my family ( <3 ). Trust me, it's still a LOT cheaper to hire a heap of workers on the minimum wage to (attempt to) stun and then chop up animals than it is to develop amazing robots that can do it all for you.

[RoseCity]

I guess my point is that the death of the animal is just the final cruelty in a chain of cruelties that starts the day it's born.
I think the human race is still working out the cruelty issue, not only with the treatment of animals, but also with fellow humans. There's definitely a cognitive disconnect between people's perception of pets and their perception of other domestic animals. They will cry if a kitten gets run over, but not care at all about the daily mass extermination of pigs, cows, chickens, etc.

[5M0K3]

I've seen people not give a rat's ass about running something cute over. When I was a junior in high school, my bus driver ran over a dog, and kept driving along as it was nothing. I've also seen people cry at the very thought of a slaughterhouse. So it really depends on the person.

I've never been to a slaughterhouse, nor have I ever seen one (they showed a video in grade school, but I was afraid to watch it, so I hid in the bathroom the whole time) but I can imagine they are humane enough to let the animals die with at least some dignity.

kiwi_tea, have you seen exactly how they kill them? (e.g., gun, snap their neck, behead them, etc)

[kiwi_tea]

I was once asked to write about my experiences of the NZ pork industry's procedures, given what I saw working on farms. The NZ pork industry is a LOT more humane than the US industry, and the methods I describe are basically the same as those used for cows and sheep. Here's what I wrote about two typical slaughter methods:

Abattoir

Generally, this is the first time pigs see much sunlight (white breeds admittedly sunburn very easily), during a short walk out of their mass penning area, down some hallways, and into a raised outside holding pen with a dock for a stock truck. They are kicked and frighted into the new environment, and then onto the truck's trailer. They are packed very tightly onto the stock truck in several stories. By necessity, the animals shit and piss onto the lower stories. Presumably they are hosed down at the abbatoir. I am less familiar with their arrival at the abattoir than I am with the rest of the process. Different kinds of animals are kept separately. Generally the housing in the abattoirs I've seen has been larger and cleaner than on farms. To be fair, workers do try to cause the animals minimal distress, but distress is inevitable when an animal is jolted into a strange new environment after a long ride on a truck, all the while suffering brighter light than it has ever seen before. The main concern is not to cause so much stress that it affects meat quality. Workers have electric 'goads' to herd livestock, sort of like lower voltage tasers. Animals are almost always killed within 24 hours of arriving on the abattoir site. If an animal is injured during transport, it is slaughtered quickly. Animals are cautious and confused, only visibly as frightened as they ever are when being herded, up until their last more terrified moments. As they are man-handled before they die, the animals do panic. Workers use special restraints to ensure that animals can't wriggle away from high-voltage stun guns. Workers stun the animals with electric shocks that usually render them unconscious for a short period of time, in theory long enough for the slaughter to take place. They hang upside down, and while they are (usually) unconscious the workers 'stick' the animals, which means that they plunge a knife into a neck artery, and allow the animal to bleed to death. If not unconscious after the shock, they bleed into insensibility. Lots of work goes into making the slaughter process less inhumane than it might be. A famous example is the work of Temple Grandin, an autistic farming systems developer in the US who designs less scary slaughter houses for cattle because she feels her austistic visual cognition is almost the same as how cattle think (http://tinyurl.com/thinkinginpictures).

Home Kill

I have the most experience with this sort of slaughter. It is the killing done on smaller operations, and on our large-scale operation for the meat we ate at home or sold as small orders. Pigs are herded into a cage on the back of a ute, and then they are put into a large shed with a concrete floor that slopes from either side down into a grated drain. Pigs wait in pens, there is no stunning, and workers simply shoot the terrified pig in the head. Naturally, this leads to a variety of outcomes: the pig can die instantly, die slowly, or not die at all and require a second shot. (As a child I loved watching dying pigs convulse. I won't take the time to detail how totally insensitive most farm children become to genuine animal welfare, but readers should consider it.) This is the end of the important descriptions. The pig's mind is obliterated, and henceforth, for the sake of completing the journey, I will describe the fate of its body. The corpse is hooked by its back legs onto a set of hang scales, and hoisted so that the belly faces the worker. The worker slits the belly and then begins the smelly and sticky business of cutting up the pig's inside and pulling his or her viscera out. Once empty, the carcus is scalded in a big vat of near-boiling water, and the worker shaves all the hair off of it. Finally, the pig's carcus goes into the chiller where it stays cool, waiting to be dismembered and packed into plastic bags. Then we freeze it.

I don't know if that's what you're looking for, 5M0K3. I just happened to have it to hand on this machine.

[5M0K3]

I'm assuming here in the US we use the Abattoir method more. And yes, thank you for that, honestly that wasn't what I was expecting. Frankly I don't know what I was expecting. I think that's better than what I might have been expecting. Honestly, I was expecting them to go down into some thing and be mashed up. (I don't know the slightest thing about meat/slaughterhouses) Even if the Abattoir method is a little... violent, I don't think either could apply as "animal cruelty", since they are killing the animals for meat. (not implying that you said that)

[kiwi_tea]

I think, before you say it's not cruel, you have to think about experiencing that animal's what-we-might-euphemistically-call "journey" yourself. Or think about putting a human more similar to a pig through it - think about putting a robust three-year-old human through all that.

[5M0K3]

True, very true, but since people have been eating animals since god knows how long, it kinda seems normal to many - not all - people.

I'm not saying it's not cruel, because it most definitely is, but I don't think it would ever apply to animal cruelty. If I called ADL (I *think* they deal with animal cruelty) on a slaughterhouse, they would probably laugh at my face and call me a stupid hippie. If I called them to come to a slaughterhouse where the beat the pigs - and I'm sure some here in America do - they would do something.

However I'm sure PETA would be happy to go to a slaughterhouse, or even a farm where a farmer treats his animals real well, then takes 'em out back and shoots 'em. (not saying there's anything wrong with PETA, I think they just go a little overboard sometimes)

[Dasila]

Take a look at this
:alarm: There are pictures of dead animals fyi
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/19/exotic-animals-on-loose-in-ohio-after-park-owner-found-dead/
Now im not sure if this is off topic but i personaly see some of this as animal cruelty from the officers side. I dont think that some of these animals were dangerous (there are some that are a no brainer to being dangerous).

Do we have to make this so complicated? Animal cruelty isnt rockett science imo.
(i also totally forgot what yall were talking about)

[5M0K3]

Do we have to make this so complicated? Animal cruelty is a very serious matter, Dasila.

[Dasila]

Yes i know. What i was saying is why do we have to complicate it. Like i feel like its just downright wrong and why are all these different debates going on when its just simply wrong. Do you know what im saying?

[RoseCity]

Yes i know. What i was saying is why do we have to complicate it. Like i feel like its just downright wrong and why are all these different debates going on when its just simply wrong. Do you know what im saying?

Well, this is The Debate Room.

[5M0K3]

Not to mention this debate also goes for the punishment, what is considered animal cruelty and what isn't, not whether animal cruelty is right or not. Obviously some people think it's all fine and dandy to beat an animal, but I seriously doubt they are going to show up on a debate about it, because they know it's wrong and there's nothing they can say to stand up for themselves.

[Dasila]

Yea i know its in the debate room in regards to its punishment. But sometimes i just dont see how someone can not see certain things as animal cruelty. Like how people treat retired race hounds or race horses. Personaly i feel like its pretty obvious if something is cruel or not. Like feeding dogs bird seed (the past owner of my litltle mutts). And also an off topic question here but do you all own any pets?

[5M0K3]

Yes I own a cat and a dog, my roommate owns 2 cats, and her boyfriend (who lives with us) owns a dog.

But there are also things that aren't obviously animal cruelty, such as killing animals for meat, and how they die.

[Dasila]

i forgot what the different ways were but i think there was an organization that released something on how you kill an animal humanely. i do know that one was a gunshot to the head but i assume that wouldnt be done if you are going to sell the meat.

[5M0K3]

Kiwi_tea said there are two methods - "Abattoir" and "Home Kill". A few posts above he wrote about them.

And I can imagine there are more ways than just that, but like he said, mass meat-producing industries don't have the time to shoot every animal one by one when some sort of machine can do it.

[CatsNDogs]

Animal cruelty is just disgusting. And the punishments given are not nearly severe enough. What's going to cause something more pain? The pain of having to fork over a fine, or the pain of being slapped around and not knowing when they're just going to end it all?

Meat farming can easily be improved for the animals. Something as simple as making their cages bigger, or not feeding them hormones. The abbatoir process is a touchy subject as I have come to understand for the above statement. I would love everyone to think the way I do, but forcing 7 billion people to become vegetarians by law isn't going to happen.

What we humans must remember on this subject, is that if the evolution process had gone a different way, we could have been the meat. We could have been the lowly animals being slaughtered. Our evolution course was a lucky one, so we need to stop thinking that just because we have evolved brains and voiceboxes and technology, we aren't better or worse than the animals. And they are our bretheren, because we all evolved from the same species millions/billions (I need to check my Earth development timeline) of years ago.

[Dordracio]

The punishments should be exactly the same as what they did to the animal :)

Noway no no no. These are HUMANS. Like you. Cats (idependent and stupid creatures) dont live as long as us. we humans have a longer lifespam and are more important than a cat. A bigger fine is good. Here in canada, we have high animal protection. Even though i hate cats, if i saw people totureing a cat id be preety pissed too

[Dordracio]

I'm trying to look at it practically rather than philosophically and choose to focus on the life of the animal rather than the death of the animal for several reasons. One, improving the living conditions of the animal can be most easily addressed - prohibiting people from eating meat, not so much. Two, we're all going to die and I don't think it's ever pleasurable for anyone or anything, no matter how it happens. But once something is dead it doesn't suffer anymore. Suffering is a condition linked to being alive not dead. Three, I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan and the production of dairy products also involves cruelty. But I'm still eating cheese. From a philosophical or moral viewpoint I can say that killing an animal for food is cruelty, but from a real world perspective I'm not practicing my belief.

I agree and dissagree with you on that we kill animals to eat and is NO form of cruelty. Im well a carnivore. I dont eat much vegies but i love meat. Although it will be cruelty if it a long and painful death. Usaly its instant. God made animals to eat and be eaten. Thats how the food chain works. We humans are on top of the food cahin. Even though ourself can get eaten. But yes killing a animal just for fun and no other reason is cruel and torturing it to death is worse. Although if a person with a brain had a realy old dog and he dicideis its time for it to go, he grabs his rifle and shoots it. Thats not cruelty. You took him out of his misery. Your doing him a favor. Idk if its still leagle to shoot your dog to put it out of its misery, its quite faster (and doesnt cost as much) to shoot it, then to inject it with that dog stuff

[Dordracio]

@catsandsogs

I dissagree at the last part. As a christain, i dont believe evolution and god made us humans to take care of the earth. He said its alright to kill animals for meat so its not cruel

[Dordracio]

It makes me sick when vegetarians but mostly vegans call us meat-lovers "muderurs". Like we are eating meat to survive. For all you vegetarians/vegans were stuck on a desert island for 2 months, and all you can eat was meat and drink water to survive, would you kill the animals on that island innorder to survive?

[opiumgirl]

Ok, this is a long thread!
This is what I think:
Cruelty is wrong be it to animals or humans.
Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable and someone who is deliberately cruel to another living being is seriously mentally unstable.
Mentally unstable people should be removed from society for the good of society.
I also think that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children not to be cruel e.g. do not hit your friend/ do not pull the cat's tail.

Having said all that I wish the world would really allow the death penalty for cases like this.
For one thing it would stop assholes like those teenagers breeding, which can only be a good thing. I do know that this will never happen.

In my country you would go to jail for something like that and our jails are not fun, so I guess there is at least that.

As for the whole vegetarian vs meat eater thing, this is what I teach my daughter.
If an animal has sharp teeth, it eats meat. If it has blunt teeth it eats plants.
Humans have both kinds and eat plants and meat.
Simplistic, I know, but she is 4.

So no, I am not a vegetarian. I do buy free range meat, dairy, eggs.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Ok, this is a long thread!
This is what I think:
Cruelty is wrong be it to animals or humans.
Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable and someone who is deliberately cruel to another living being is seriously mentally unstable.
Mentally unstable people should be removed from society for the good of society.
I also think that it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children not to be cruel e.g. do not hit your friend/ do not pull the cat's tail.

Having said all that I wish the world would really allow the death penalty for cases like this.
For one thing it would stop assholes like those teenagers breeding, which can only be a good thing. I do know that this will never happen.

In my country you would go to jail for something like that and our jails are not fun, so I guess there is at least that.

As for the whole vegetarian vs meat eater thing, this is what I teach my daughter.
If an animal has sharp teeth, it eats meat. If it has blunt teeth it eats plants.
Humans have both kinds and eat plants and meat.
Simplistic, I know, but she is 4.

So no, I am not a vegetarian. I do buy free range meat, dairy, eggs.

yeah but as for the death penalty, is killing someone really an appropiate punishment? would I rather them have the possibility of escaping and doing it again? of course not but murder is supposed to be wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

I like your simple explanation on vegetarian vs. meat eater. short sweet and to the point

[opiumgirl]

yeah but as for the death penalty, is killing someone really an appropiate punishment? would I rather them have the possibility of escaping and doing it again? of course not but murder is supposed to be wrong and two wrongs don't make a right.

I like your simple explanation on vegetarian vs. meat eater. short sweet and to the point

Thanks!

Two wrongs don't make a right I agree but what those people did is wrong on so many levels I just feel that they really shouldn't be allowed to breed. Or walk around for that matter. :faceslap:

A fine is just not appropriate.

I think a better solution would be one I read in a sci-fi book called Snow Crash the other day: tattoo the person's crime on their forehead in big bold letters e.g poor impulse control or rapist or murderer or what ever.

I think in this case a big flashing red light strapped around the anckle would be appropriate too.
What I love about this is that people will know what they are dealing with and the offender can't reasonably do it again.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Thanks!

Two wrongs don't make a right I agree but what those people did is wrong on so many levels I just feel that they really shouldn't be allowed to breed. Or walk around for that matter. :faceslap:

A fine is just not appropriate.

I think a better solution would be one I read in a sci-fi book called Snow Crash the other day: tattoo the person's crime on their forehead in big bold letters e.g poor impulse control or rapist or murderer or what ever.

I think in this case a big flashing red light strapped around the anckle would be appropriate too.
What I love about this is that people will know what they are dealing with and the offender can't reasonably do it again.

yeah true it's a catch-22 like I said but hmmm the tattooing idea is worth considering
they actually have something for rapists already (isn't it called a chastity belt) but the tattooing may be easier because it would probly be inconvenient for the one trying to protect themselves having to wear it all the time

[RoseCity]

I don't understand how tattooing your crime on your forehead solves anything. If you did your time in prison, isn't that enough? And, if it's supposed to be a warning to others, the problem with that is - if you're close enough to read it, you're probably too close to them.

[haricots]

It makes me sick when vegetarians but mostly vegans call us meat-lovers "muderurs". Like we are eating meat to survive. For all you vegetarians/vegans were stuck on a desert island for 2 months, and all you can eat was meat and drink water to survive, would you kill the animals on that island innorder to survive?
That situation is considered as "eat or be eaten". So, if I am the vegan, I will kill the animals in order to live. But if I'm not in that situation, just in normal situation, then I will try not to eat meat. And yes, now I'm a vegetarian.

[opiumgirl]

I don't understand how tattooing your crime on your forehead solves anything. If you did your time in prison, isn't that enough? And, if it's supposed to be a warning to others, the problem with that is - if you're close enough to read it, you're probably too close to them.

I am not suggesting that it would solve anything.
It will make people in society aware of what they are dealing with. This is in addition to a prison sentence, not instead of it.
There is a huge difference in having tax-evader/weed-smoker vs cruelty to animals/child molester tattooed on your forehead. In reality people who get sent to prison, don't stay there.

It is a warning to others. I did say Big Bold letters.

I'd rather just see a tattoo from afar, even if I can't read it than have people like this walking the streets anonymously.

The ostracizing that would result from this, might act as a deterrent, you can only hope

[Tempscire]

Perhaps instead of full-blown tattoos, we could devise a single-letter code for all the major crimes. (I say major because otherwise almost every single college student--in my experience-- ought to be branded as Jaywalkers.) And instead of tattoos, we could just require them to wear their letter(s) over their clothing. We'd still want them to be visible, of course, so a nice bright color would be needed. Scarlet might be a good choice. :)

[This could actually be an interesting debate topic on its own...]

[opiumgirl]

Perhaps instead of full-blown tattoos, we could devise a single-letter code for all the major crimes. (I say major because otherwise almost every single college student--in my experience-- ought to be branded as Jaywalkers.) And instead of tattoos, we could just require them to wear their letter(s) over their clothing. We'd still want them to be visible, of course, so a nice bright color would be needed. Scarlet might be a good choice. :)

[This could actually be an interesting debate topic on its own...]

I also think that this might be an interesting topic.

My draw back for your suggestion of single letter codes would be:
We would have to memorize the codes. They would not be so specific.
Imagine they run out of letters and start using numbers? You would have a guy/girl with 442 tattooed on his/ her head and you would have no idea what-so-ever it means.

On the Plus side:
You can see a single letter from much further away.

As for the clothes thing, it is not a bad idea, it is just really easy to change your clothes. ;)

[RoseCity]

I saw this interview with Timothy Pachirat who wrote Every 12 Seconds about his experience working in a slaughterhouse.
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/08/working-undercover-in-a-slaugh.html