human bigotry and animal cruelty--so illogical!

Post Reply New Topic

About four days ago, I saw a very disturbing video that showed a leopard being burned alive. The problem was that the human village was too close to the wildlife park, and this particular leopard killed some of the villagers. It's unfortunate, but you can't blame the leopard for being a predator and using it's teeth to defend it's territory. Animals don't have a sense of justice like we do, because one needs to be aware of one's own consciousness and have the cognitive abilities to connect a past action to a future consequence. It's a scientifically proven fact that many animals can't do this. All cause and effect actions must be in immediate succession in order for an animal to make a connection.

In the comments section for the youtube video, I read alot of disturbing things. People were literally becoming racist against Indians right in front of my eyes. I don't want to post the video here because it was too graphic, but you can search "leopard being burned alive" on YT to see the comments. People were advocating for revenge against the people that did this, without realizing that very same abstract word was why these villagers committed the atrocious act to begin with. It was very disturbing to see this cycle of revenge in action, and it seems as if these are acts committed solely on emotion, with little logical thought. This is where being an aspie has it's advantages. Revenge is an emotion-driven action, but logical thinking causes one to understand more than just the primitive "eye for an eye" philosophy. Yet people are hating Indians because a bunch of villagers, probably poorly educated and impoverished, acted on emotion and probably superstition as well.

Now after all this racism against Indians, we fail to realize that people in the Western world commit atrocious acts against animals and people all the time. Gangsters, who use dogs to fight, do terrible things to dogs that don't quite live up to their vicious expectations. There are reports of people burning dogs in the states. There is witness-confirmed and necropsy-confirmed evidence that Michael Vick himself urinated on a dog, ran it over in his car, and then electrocuted the dog. He also hung dogs by the neck for fun. Many times, he would have to try several times to kill a dog, so the deaths weren't exactly fast and painless. He spent some time in jail, but juveniles get longer jail sentences for robbing convenience stores. He's making millions right now, and he is popular. Any mental health professional would say that harming animals is a sure sign of psycopathy, and he should really be getting some sort of treatment and he most definitely should not be a role model for kids.

So my question is, why do you think people are using this event to hate Indians, when in fact several acts equally horrible are going on in the Western world and no one cares? Why is Michael Vick so popular after all this, while people are using this one incident to judge all Indians? The only answer I can come up with is that Vick can throw a football, and these Indians can't. As a society, our moral priorities are seriously skewed. In my opinion, the whole idea of revenge needs to be somehow abolished if we ever hope to live cooperatively.

yep yep. I agree totally.

I mean I would kill the leopard too if it has killed humans. It is our God given right to defend ourselves....its also a God give right to eat cows and pork because we have the ability to dominate them....so long as we use to to nourish ourselves. Anything unnecessary like animal cruelty and tortue is not a right, its just sad.

The problem is only pockets of people like PETA recognize this but they take it to INSANE levels and in response the public looks down on them. There are just too many individuals in the world with different ideals so I'm quite certain this kind of behaviors is just a natural part of being human.

Yeah, PETA's philosophy is that it's cruel to own pet dogs. They should be "free!" This makes no sense because dogs basically domesticated themselves as a result of a symbiotic relationship.

Anyway, more on the leopard case. This particular individual was endangered, so the plan was to relocate the animal instead of euthanize it. The mob of villagers got a hold of the animal's cage as it was being relocated. I don't think the leopard should have died, because it has a right to defend it's territory. Humans have a habit of invading wildlife. At the very least, the leopard should have died a quick and painless death.

Peta has warped opinions about a lot of things, but this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read about them. Lets all set our dogs "free" so that they will all be "happy".

most who equate animals to humans love animals over humans.

They don't mind joking about bbq'ing up another human being to make the point of moral equivalents... they prefer a quarter hind leg of venison, why be repulsed by johnny's arm?

It is odd that cruelty to animals usually translates into cruelty to people, but nice-ness to animals does not necessarily mean nice-ness to human beings.

I don't understand how your post relates to the original topic. I also don't see your logic in that first sentence, especially since humans are part of the animal kingdom. You might as well say that people who equate instruments to violins love instruments over violins.

If that sort of thing happened in the USA, we would not burn the animal alive because it be illegal. What we do instead is we put the animal down. We don't burn it or torture it to death like they did.

I thought it was very cruel but I know they were just killing it so it won't kill again but burning it was cruel. We don't do that to humans so why do it to animals?

To answer your question, it's the black and white thinking people are doing. Those Indians burned the animal alive so therefore all Indians are bad. It must be legal in that country too. But from your reply, it sounded like revenge they were doing because the animal was going to be relocated than put to sleep.

That's interesting that you came up with something similar to what I told my therapist a few weeks ago. We were on the subject of how people sometimes conflate rigid thinking with logical thinking. They are very different concepts. Rigid thinking is the reason we have religious conflicts and this whole business of revenge. Logical reasoning has more depth and you can use it for peace. It's not very logical to waste energy and lives in combat.

Seems a bit hypocritical that spectrumites are always the ones said to have rigid thinking, while everyone else is more "flexible." Apparently not...

No problem with that.

Wrong! It's "territory" ended where human territory began.

While burning an animal to death is a heinous act, assuming that the humans were encroaching on the animal's "territory" in their own village is wrong - not heinous, just plain wrong.

After looking it up, those people are in trouble for what they did.

http://www.greenhumour.blogspot.com/


Warning: Image may be graphic.

I hope they're in trouble!

I mean, if an animal must be killed, it hurts no one (except the animal) to make it as quick and painless as possible - a single bullet would have worked.

Who was there first? When you settle on land that was previously wild, you have to expect some resistance from the original inhabitants, that's just natural selection at work. I'm not wrong, it's just that I understand that animals have every right to protect their territory if they feel threatened. You can't blame the animal for doing what it's genetically destined to do.

Again, the territory was not the animal's; the territory belonged to the humans.

Humans have rights; animals have meat, skin, and fur.

So you don't think non-human animals have territory? Evolutionary scientists and animal behaviorists would love to hear why. Many animals, especially mammals, do indeed have territories. That's a fact that you'd have a hard time disproving.

by the laws of Natural selection we humans have the 'right' to exterminate any and all creatures on the planet BECAUSE WE CAN. Doing it is another matter however because doing so would screw ourselves over. We are smart enough to understand that the earth needs a balance of organisms and thus should act accordingly. If we just killed off creatures because we are stronger we would literally be no better than a plauge. Our intelligence is what sets us apart from a scourge.

Yes, alot of animals have the ability to exterminate other species, so they have the right to do so in order to protect their own genetic continuity. Whether or not we like that fact is not relevant, because we are not above the laws of nature. We can't decide these things. The leopard was just doing what natural selection dictated he should do. Humans are overpopulating the Earth and are spreading out into places that threaten the territories of other species. You can't blame other species for acting on their genetic instinct to defend their home.

As humans, we should be smart enough to realize the consequences of settling in new places. We're the ones with the developed prefrontal cortex and we should be able to use our judgement. If a leopard is killing humans, burning the wrong individual alive is not going to solve any problems. That's why the leopard was being relocated, at least before the villagers took the cage.