Animal cruelty

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I will go out of my way to ensure that any animal or person around me is not suffering but it is going to happen, it is up to us as a society to decide how suffering is managed. This would mean that population control is paramount in minimizing the risks in wild and domestic animals. I fully support this philosophy, but after that I begin to question people intentions. Tell me why a dog can draw more sympathy than a fully functional human or worse, a partially functional human. PETA and SPCA spend untold amount of resources taking care of a pet while people out on the streets could benifit from the same care. If you gave all the dog food in north america to africa you could probably end hunger there for god's sake! You could argue sentience or this or that but animals and pets are tools like a hammer made for people to use. Dressing up your animal or pampering it only serves to dignify your own excess, sentient or not the dog does certainly not benefit from human oppulance. If the roles were switched, the dogs would not offer us compassion, theirs is a world ruled by violence. In fact, my belief is that the only reason why animal suffering is such a big deal is because it doesn't really matter at all and therefore its existance is sufficient at describing our true nature as a species.

So you're essentially asserting that those who fight one type of abuse should be ashamed of themselves for not choosing instead to focus on abuses that exist elsewhere.

Arguing that non-human creatures were "made for people to use" is the identical argument once used to justify enslavement of blacks and women's oppression.

Your fallacy is showing. Best cover up.

So you have spent 18,000 hours working in an animal shelter.

You must have seen thousands of animals "put down".
What would you prefer? To turn them loose on the street to starve?

been around a lot of humans and a lot of non-human animals. i choose non-humans as the preferred lifeforms. no human has ever loved me. i'm pretty sure my dogs and cats do, even if it's in their own way. humans will stab you in the back, screw over you, and mistreat you in any way possible. non-humans will never mistreat you, just offer their devotion. i feel sorry for you ' mr insincere ' , autism is no excuse for thinking michael vick is 'just swell'. empty souls......makes me sad

I could care less about people. I was awlays one of those weird people who valued animals over people. If I had to save a person or an animal, I'd save the animal. Peta and ALF are special intrests. I just can't feel anything for people except fear and rage. I love my lizard more than anyone. People are so cruel and selfish, they don't need to be saved. Whenever people call me names like Petatard, or tell me people are more important, it just makes me hate people even more and definatly NOT want to save them. I have NO sympathy for the human race.

mr wombat.......first thing- the message you refer to was deleted soon after being posted....but, not fast enough. it was a little too harsh and broke the first rule of fight club: don't trash other members. so, i was wrong to violate the rules. hope you scanned the replacement comment, much more subtle. but then again, we're all crazy or we wouldn't be here.
the 18,000 hours are all volunteer hours, and since volunteer can mean many things, in this context it means without payment. i won't tell you how much money i've contributed to animal causes, you wouldn't believe it.
the number of dogs, cats, birds etc. put down in animal shelters each year in the usa has stabilized at about 5 million a year. yeah, 5,000,000. thats about 60% of all animals left at shelters. turn them loose in a society of humans that exists.....no. absolutely not. there is a feral (wild) cat program where cats are trapped, neutered, doctored as necessary and left loose where they were picked up. that works ok. other animals no one wants---there's no way to save them. they die....most humanely but many are killed in terrible ways by uncaring local government employees. no politician cares about animals so little can be done about abuse in shelters.
insincere (perfect name, i believe) said animals are made for people to use wow, what a statement! that's what michael vick said. do you think making dogs fight till one tears the face off the other is ok? how about skinning animals while they are still alive and leaving them to suffer while they die? great fun, huh? is that what you think? pouring acid on kittens or setting them on fire------hey, just harmless amusement, right? make fun of me and others for trying to stop these barbaric acts if you want. i know what you are

I think he might have been against the idea of radicalism or the sort, as it seemed mostly criticizing organizations such as PETA, I mean I think it is ok to protect animals, but there is a point in which the issue becomes absurd.


Which fallacy is exactly, given that you claim he was fallacious, then at least state which is the exact fallacy commited, and how he can "cover that up"? I mean, just saying "your fallacy" doesn't actually cut it, and is common for these things to be misused and misinterpreted and also it tends to be common that those are being used as tactical attacks towards a view that people just disagree to favor their own.

What he is saying makes some sense though, the issue that animals don't have a concept of rights and fairness seems true, and I agree that we should protect other species and the environment, the problem is that there has to be some limits on what should be acceptable or not, at which point the idea crosses the line.

And your defense that is "feeling ashamed for not choosing another kind of abuse", doesn't seem to hold that much, as I don't think that is actually the case, and I tend to find annoying when people make a defense like that, in such a simplistic way, like denieing that a problem beyond that doesn't exist. One problem is, as I stated above, crossing the line towards a way that the idea becomes questionable. There is a problem of making an animal right or problem a priority over a human right or problem, and usually that is when I find an issue against these idealists. I mean I have a big issue towards some people that rant against an animal being shot when it became a danger towards humans as well as endengering a particular human's life in an emergency situation. I mean, I have heard such rants and I just thought these people were idiots.


No, it isn't, we can say it is similar but we cannot say to be identical as animals cannot have identical rights as humans, so we can't really make such comparison as identical. For example, tell me if giving a dog the right to vote makes sense.

Last edited by greenblue on 31 Jul 2010, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The suffering of pets is easier to stop. The livelihood of a lot of people depends on other people suffering and it has always been that way. Plus a lot of the problems in Africa are caused by incompetence and evil rather than lack of food. Personally I love cats and dogs and I can't stand most people.

Certainly: it's an Argument from Divine Justification- taking one's own morals (or lack thereof) and ascribing them to some vague "natural order". If that "natural order" was supposedly commanded by an unknowable sky being, all the better.


This is what's called a Strawman- making up things someone did not in fact say or even imply, and then arguing against them.




Strawmanning, AGAIN. The fact that humans have rights to partake in human society that non-human animals do not was not in question. I was not comparing the rights of humans vs. non-human animals, but merely the arguments used to deny them ANY rights, as identical to those used to deny women and racial minorities rights by an Appeal to Divine Justification.

Not really, I did not imply that you or someone else in this thread said that or implied that.


well, arguments are identical but I cannot say they have the same justification, jews, blacks and asians are not considered sub-humans as it was some time ago, so the justification is not the same.

Speaking of the appeal of fallacies and accusing the opponent of fallacies as part of an argument, I don't see any appeal to the Divine Justification in this thread.

Last edited by greenblue on 15 Aug 2010, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

People in poorer countries tend to critizice animal activism from developed countries, such as "putting a priority towards rich people's pets over people suffering from hunger in the undeveloped world", that is often their perspective from their stand, and I believe their stand is well understandable, as well as some of them are inclined towards socialism and blame capitalism for poverty.

Some state that that is not and should not be a priority in their own society, and I tend to agree with that.

Mostly, when, vegetiarianism has been considered a more expensive way to live that some believe that poor people can't afford, if they want to remain healthy.

But given that the issue is mostly related to developed socieites, idealisms like that are a thing they are able to afford.


They are annoying, dogs make too much noise, and they taste bad. I prefer inanimate objects keeping me company rather than animals and humans, as much as I despise people I recognize that we all depend on each other to live and survive.

Ah, my mistake. I mistook your point as relevant, then.

...that was the POINT, dear. That morality EVOLVES to become more inclusive of those outside our own circle.




As, so you missed the "made for people to use" bit in the OP?

Yeah, it is relevant though because radicalism and extremism does exist, thus the problem exists, I'm not saying that everybody are, but hence the distrust, such as distrust for organizations as PETA.


Ok then, but there is a point that being too much inclusive can be a problem.


I missed the mention of God or Christianity as a justification for human superiority over animals, and an explicit mention that animals are created for a particular human purpose, he said "pets are tools" and then said that a hammer is made for people to use.

hey friend bethie........might as well bang your head against a tree. this argument is just like pro-choice and anti-abortion. no room for middle ground. as george 43 said:, " you're either against us or with us".

as difficult as i find it to believe, huge numbers of humans see nothing wrong with animal abuse/the "we're smarter so we can do what we want with them" rush limbo' crowd. do you really think you can argue semantics with these humans? not possible. it's really quite simple (occam), you either believe it's ok to abuse animals, or you don't. you're finding that many humans on wp say 'fine by me'. how sad is that?

Last edited by danandlouie on 16 Aug 2010, 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^^Greetings insincere and thank you very much for creating this little topic. However, I am very sorry as I believe that I am rather confused. Above, you seem to suggest that you believe humans and non-humans should be treated equally (this is also my view - although the question of a line always arises), but then:



with this passage, you seem to suggest that a suffering human must be relieved of their suffering before a suffering non-human. I believe that you are indeed correct in saying that you could feed all of the humans with doggy food, however take away all of the doggy food, and all of the doggies would starve. Also concerning homeless humans, although I believe this is certainly awful, one must consider the fact that a death penalty exists for non-humans who cannot find a home in a certain amount of time. Also, this care is only provided by certain institutions (for instance Dog's Trust within the United Kingdom). Also, the majority of mammals and birds "live on the streets", that is, they are not protected by human society.



I am not quite certain which point you are addressing with this point. This happens in only certain cases. I love my two kitties very much. They are free to do as they please. (However, during the night, I lock their kitty flap to keep them safe and prevent them from killing mice). I am a vegetarian and I am certainly against non-humans being used as tools. However, I am confused as you appear to be saying "It is cruel to use them as tools, so kill them and give their food to humans".

Furthermore, I am often scared of this idea that the human species is a collective, almost like the borg. I am an individual. I certainly wish to help individuals, however I shall not only help humans just because I share more similar DNA with them than other individuals.



I believe that a human baby would not offer you compassion either. However, I believe that this is not a reason to be violent towards the baby. I feel that showing compassion to others, only to expect them the show compassion to you, is ultimately selfish. I believe that my kitties are very lovely and would never wish to hurt me unless I hurt them. Yet also, I believe that do not have the ability to feel selflessness. This is not their fault. But they can feel suffering.

^^Oh dear, I am very sorry if I have been horrible.

I think humans have a responsibility to the animal kingdom. They are not here for us to 'use'. They share the planet with us.

As for dogs - Did you know that dogs are the only animal on the planet that can recognise human expressions. It seems they do a lot better than aspies at that. Dogs have co-evolved with humans for some time and they are more tuned into us than some people think.