Sent to prison for dog cruelty extreme?

Post Reply New Topic

The bigger picture imo is that if a person has such little empathy or concern for another living being's suffering that they intentionally cause it anguish, pain, abuse, neglect, starvation, and/or death, that person is a sorry excuse for a human and they should be punished or kept from society, accordingly. An animal's pain and suffering is no different than our own. A person would have to lack some brain cells to think there's any difference, or that it's tolerable to hurt one and not the other.

I don’t mean to be arrogant, but I would like to know if the horrific massacre of ants caused by using a magnifying glass and water during my childhood is included in your statement? Today's discussion was terrible but I still want to continue it. I'm still reading your links and combing through the words.

Again, this overlooks that there's plenty of contexts where killing other animals is perfectly acceptable and not an indicator of deeper issues.

Someone setting mouse traps isn't a monster, even though they're intentionally killing animals with an intelligence similar to common pets.
Someone smacking a bug isn't a monster, even though they're intentionally killing an animal.
A young kid who kills a bunch of bugs probably won't grow up to be a monster.

This is what I mean by us needing to have a reasonable definition vs. an overly strict one. We as a society make exceptions for what sorts of animal cruelty are socially acceptable and that's not entirely unreasonable. As a society we define some animals as vermin or pests; people who intentionally kill pests typically aren't monsters, they're farmers and exterminators and what have you.

Depending on how a law is written you could end up causing more harm than good so being aware of nuance is required when drafting laws of this sort.

!	Cornflake wrote:
	Several posts have been removed. This topic is a sensitive one and any form of animal cruelty is deeply upsetting, so some sensitivity in addressing it would be a welcome move. Unlocked.

I trust the law's ability to define and identify animal cruelty with a consistent legal standard, using case law.
Forensic psychiatrists and veterinarians would both be involved, as well as defence lawyers for the accused.
If a person is found guilty of cruelty, then I trust those countries to sentence accordingly.

Have you ever watched TV shows about animal rescue?

There's one from USA called Animal Cops.
It would show you the types of abuse we're discussing.

I'd put a YouTube link to some episodes, but discussion or depiction of animal cruelty isn't allowed here.

I'd love for every word to be respectful enough to show that I'm not emotionally opposed to you, but apparently politeness in English isn't as simple as in Mandarin, which only requires changing the name pronoun.
I know it's unpleasant to discuss with a cold-blooded person like me, but I still want you to read my reply word for word and rebut sentence by sentence because I gave a bunch of questions.

That's what I want to discuss. What criteria should Forensic psychiatrists and veterinarians use to determine whether an animal should be protected? I believe you can also give this standard, even if using this standard requires some technical means.
So is it the "Cute Animal Protection Act"?“potential pet protection laws”？I know that's not what you meant, but I'd like to know how you would argue with me.I want to hear as many adjectives as possible about the protected.

That's the least controversial type of animal that has the greatest likelihood of becoming a pet.I basically agree with you on this part.
Since "pet advocates" love them so much, why not adopt them all so we don't have a disagreement about stray pets.
What about chickens, pigs, cows, and sheep? Are they someone you protect? Or not, just because they are not suitable as pets, their meat should be cut off and fed to dogs and cats. I know that's not what you meant, but I'd like to know how you would argue with me.


So what about the 60% of people who stop there? treat them 100% as sadists? I know that's not what you meant, but I'd like to know how you would argue with me.
I think a better solution would be to observe them, with the fees 100% paid by them.Just like compulsory car insurance

I think ③~⑤ are within the range that can be discussed
Suppose a person is destructive and is told that it is wrong then
①He stopped abusing
②He abuses animals that actually don’t feel pain, such as insects
③He abuses animals that he thinks have no pain, such as lobsters
④He wanted to torture mammals so he went hunting in the wild
⑤ He wanted to torture mammals but had no money to hunt, so he tortured stray cats in the corner
⑥He wanted to abuse mammals and thought the law was wrong, so he abused stray cats in public
⑦He wants to abuse people but doesn’t want to be punished, so he abuses pets secretly
⑧He wants to abuse people and abuses pets in front of others in order to intimidate them.
⑨He wants to abuse people and abuses pets in order to plan the process
⑩He wanted to commit a terrorist attack so he tortured stray cats in public.

"The Human Emotion Protection Act" safeguards animals that can evoke empathy from humans. This is a phrase I appreciate as it is centered around humans and, though broadly similar to the laws you might envision, the logic is different, emphasizing the human perspective. The distinction from the "Animal Protection Act" lies in the fact that one will never be punished for killing a mosquito.

Hope to get approval or fierce refutation

I don't want to discuss this topic anymore.
I'm dealing with too much right now.

I've said my bit.

Take it up with the courts if you disagree.

ok

"cruelty" has to be more specific

A couple of years ago I was at a building called "animal rights" something (looking for something to buy for lunch, it sold food) and an off leash dog had the nerve to bite me. I involuntarily screamed out of fear

A self righteous "Karen" had the nerve to tell me to leave the building because "we don't treat animals that way". ("Logic could be used to justify anything"). He did not care that the dog bit me.

He could have said I was "cruel" to the dog

Anyone could say anything

You can't measure "cruelty" and the dictionary doesn't have an exhaustive list of examples

Some precious lil "people" just have way too much self esteem

"Pick your battles" is good advice but some precious lil "people" pick all the battles

Like most things, there is a specific definition and set of tests that courts use to decide if something is cruel. They can and do vary a bit depending upon where you are, but if you're curious, you can look it up. In common use, the term can be rather vague and mean all sorts of things, but in a legal sense, it's usually more precise.