Animal cruelty at its worst

[St.Sinner]

A couple of guys saw fit to hack a puppy to pieces and record the savagery on their mobile phone.


Hardened police officers have been shocked by the horrifying torture, mutilation and brutal slaying of a seven month old fox terrier puppy near Mackay at the weekend.

If found guilty, they could face up to two years in prison. Police have obtained video footage from a mobile phone which shows graphic images of the puppy yelping and howling in terrible pain as it hacked to pieces with garden shears and a pocked knife.

They said the owners were too distressed to talk to anyone about it.

The pups nose was cut off, its front right leg and rear left leg were cut off and it was decapitated. A three-part video series on a mobile phone shows the dog being tortured.


How people can do such a disgusting thing and claim to be human beings, I do not know. It is just nauseating to contemplate.

This (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/maximum-penalty-for-the-men-who-hacked-up-a-puppy) is a petition to see that these men get the maximum sentence for what they did.

[T-O-E]

Why? Why would someone do that? :smallfrown:

[Zeful]

Why? Why would someone do that? :smallfrown:

They want to go to prison? It's the only reason I can think of besides a cry for "assisted suicide".

[mercurymaline]

Signed. That is...sick. Just sick.

[xPANCAKEx]

2 years max for sick ****s like this doesn't seem nearly enough

sad part is they probably won't even get full sentence

[Allysian]

It was a puppy. And they killed it so they could see it's pain. They needed the rush of power from causing something to feel pain. What is the maximum sentence for this? Because these men need more. This is too sad.:smallfrown:
Holy ****! Only two years! They SLAUGHTERED a defenseless animal and only recieve TWO years! What kind of a brutal word is this?! Only TWO years!!!?? O my god!

[Morty]

Ugh. I'd like to say I can't belive there are people like that, but I can't. Still, I'm signing the hell out of this petition. There's no way two years in jail is enough for sadistically killing a living creature.

[SurlySeraph]

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as cruelty to humans does. With that said, they definitely deserve two years in prison.

[CMOTDibbler]

I don't know how anybody could do that. I could barely read about it. :smallfrown::smalleek:

[TigerHunter]

Two freaking years? Screw that, where's the petition to give them the death penalty?

[Deathslayer7]

Ugh. I'd like to say I can't belive there are people like that, but I can't. Still, I'm signing the hell out of this petition. There's no way two years in jail is enough for sadistically killing a living creature.

hehe i saw you signature. no name, Poland. :smalltongue:

But yes, I also signed it. They deserve more than 2 years. :smallfrown:

[Mauve Shirt]

:smalleek: That.... I could hardly bear reading that. Signed.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I despise people like this. I hope they share a prison with some of those really aggressive people who always seem to like dogs for all the violence they do to people.

[Solaris]

It's a freakin' puppy.

Don't feel bad, though. Little boys like these sometimes grow up (and try not to remember the stupid stuff they did as kids), and if they don't... well, comeuppance has a way of finding everyone.

[Mastikator]

That's pretty messed up, I'd wager if left to his own devices he'd continue and it would only escalate. He shouldn't be in jail, he should be in a mental institute.

[Tirian]

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as cruelty to humans does.

It's the same act. Psychopaths start by abusing animals, and move on to humans when the thrill dies down. You can send them to prison for ten years, and they'll only come out more bitter for the experience.

[Darius Midnite]

A living being brought to end just for some sickos amusement and pleasure, or whatever reaon they had. Doesn't matter what their intentions were. Though much more cruel acts happen every day in this world, it is not pleasant to be reminded.

Those bastards deserve to be carved up too.

[Almighty Salmon]

I felt sick after reading that.

Signed.

[Spiryt]

That's pretty messed up, I'd wager if left to his own devices he'd continue and it would only escalate. He shouldn't be in jail, he should be in a mental institute.

Well there's certainly something in it. Does anybody know how old those guys were?

Their punishment should be connected with some psychological treatment, maybe there's still hope for curing their minds.

Otherwise, after jail, they may do something even worse.

[V.Z.]

I have no words to truly describe my feelings for this. Two years is indeed much too short. This is torture and murder for crying out loud! :smallfurious: They're aware enough to be able to claim insanity apparently, so they're definitely aware of the consequences of their sickening actions! Maximum sentence for these [fill in word most suiting to describe them, because all I can think of is too mild], and have them torn apart by the prison dogs afterwards. And this is coming from a person with an incredibly strong pacifist outlook. That's how hard things like this hit me! :smallfurious:


Argh, signing doesn't seem work. Probably because of the computer. Trust me though, I will sign this and send it to as many people as possible.

[Mr. Moon]

What... the hell. How can people do this? I try to pretend humanity isn't screwed, but some times...

*sigh*

Man, I couldn't even read the two-sentence description. I keep imagining that poor little doggy...

[RS14]

Only two years! They SLAUGHTERED a defenseless animal and only recieve TWO years!
Wrong. What's wrong with the slaughter of defenseless animals? That's what the entire meat industry is based on, isn't it?

The problem here is that the tortured it.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Wrong. What's wrong with the slaughter of defenseless animals? That's what the entire meat industry is based on, isn't it?

The problem here is that the tortured it.Exactly, animals killed for food are killed under very strict rules and regulations, this animal died in agony.

[Spiryt]

Wrong. What's wrong with the slaughter of defenseless animals? That's what the entire meat industry is based on, isn't it?

The problem here is that the tortured it.

Problem here is also that they don't intended to eat it, as far as I know.

[Haruki-kun]

Signed, and I pasted the URL as nickname on MSN.

I can't believe people like this exist. They should get the same treatment, if you ask me. :smallfurious:


Wrong. What's wrong with the slaughter of defenseless animals? That's what the entire meat industry is based on, isn't it?

No, those animals die electrocuted, generally considered a fast death. And they're killed for benefit, which is how nature works. Animals being torn apart for FUN (and I hate to use that word in this post) is not natural or acceptable in any way.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I can't believe people like this exist. They should get the same treatment, if you ask me. :smallfurious:

I understand that you are angry but down that path madness and anarchy lies. 2 years may seem too short a time but torture and death for animal cruelty? Really?

[SurlySeraph]

It's the same act. Psychopaths start by abusing animals, and move on to humans when the thrill dies down. You can send them to prison for ten years, and they'll only come out more bitter for the experience.

Not necessarily. I could Godwin's Law this thread as a counter-example. And, since it was a group, twisted peer pressure seems as likely an explanation as "They were all psychotic" - when people encourage each other, they will do things far worse than any of them would do alone. Besides, it bothers me far more to see any organism harm its own species than to see one harm a different species. Plus, I admit I have a very strong pro-human bias.

With that said, it really bothers me that they recorded themselves killing the puppy. Why would you want to remind yourself of doing that? Why would you want there to be evidence? Why would you want to let anyone else know about it? It makes no sense.

[Evil DM Mark3]

No, those animals die electrocuted, generally considered a fast death. And they're killed for benefit, which is how nature works. Animals being torn apart for FUN (and I hate to use that word in this post) is not natural or acceptable in any way.I think that this was infact his point.

[Mr. Moon]

I understand that you are angry but down that path madness and anarchy lies. 2 years may seem too short a time but torture and death for animal cruelty? Really?

I'm with DM on this one. Well, sort of.

Death is to good for them. Lock them up in solitary, and let them slowley go insane. Er.

But guys, let's tone it down a bit. I know you're angry - we're all angry. But I don't want to see this thread get locked.

[RS14]

Problem here is also that they don't intended to eat it, as far as I know.

That part doesn't really bother me so much. Yeah, it's killing an animal without point if they don't intend to eat it, but what of that? Even if they intended to eat it, that's not much of a reason. People mostly eat meat because they want to, it's tasty, not because they need to. So killing and eating animals is already killing for a mere preference. How is that different for killing because you just want to see something die?

Rereading the summary, I suppose the fact that they apparently stole someone's puppy is also a large part of why they're getting punished.


Animals being torn apart for FUN (and I hate to use that word in this post) is not natural or acceptable in any way.
Sorry, but it is natural. Cats are the prime example. I'll agree with you on the immorality of it, but not everything we find disgusting is unnatural.

[mercurymaline]

Not necessarily. I could Godwin's Law this thread as a counter-example. And, since it was a group, twisted peer pressure seems as likely an explanation as "They were all psychotic" - when people encourage each other, they will do things far worse than any of them would do alone.

Doesn't mean they should get off on an insanity plea. Feeding off each other's misguided aggression =/= mass hysteria.


With that said, it really bothers me that they recorded themselves killing the puppy. Why would you want to remind yourself of doing that? Why would you want there to be evidence? Why would you want to let anyone else know about it? It makes no sense.

It's apparently the thing to do these days. But seriously, it just means they were the one's that left evidence. How many people do similar sick crap everyday and don't leave a trace?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Sorry, but it is natural. Cats are the prime example. I'll agree with you on the immorality of it, but not everything we find disgusting is unnatural.I am sorry but the way that living with humans has caused cats to develop conflicting internal signals is not natural. Cats play with their food because they are fed and as such their desire to feed is curtailed whereas their desire to hunt is not.

Either that or the other theory that it means that the prey animal to loose the adrenalin in its system (and the associated highly bitter taste).

[Haruki-kun]

I understand that you are angry but down that path madness and anarchy lies. 2 years may seem too short a time but torture and death for animal cruelty? Really?

*sigh* Maybe not. Then how about 10 years in prison? That oughta teach them a bit.

[Evil DM Mark3]

*sigh* Maybe not. Then how about 10 years in prison? That oughta teach them a bit.I agree. Infact that is about the upper limit for animal cruelty in the UK.

[Mx.Silver]

I can't believe people like this exist. They should get the same treatment, if you ask me. :smallfurious:



Two freaking years? Screw that, where's the petition to give them the death penalty?

Though much more cruel acts happen every day in this world, it is not pleasant to be reminded.

Those bastards deserve to be carved up too.

I hope they share a prison with some of those really aggressive people who always seem to like dogs for all the violence they do to people.

Guys, what the hell? Do you want to consider maybe calming down a bit? I mean, how many of you have killed insects or other invertebrates just because you didn't like the look of them? How many of you have used mousetraps or put-out rat poison? I'm imagining it's a pretty high percentage of you, and yet I don't see you all running to the nearest police office to turn yourselves in to the authorities.

I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

[St.Sinner]

Well there's certainly something in it. Does anybody know how old those guys were?


They were 20 and 24.


This doesn't bother me nearly as much as cruelty to humans does. With that said, they definitely deserve two years in prison.

No doubt. But anyone who did anything remotely like that to a human being would get a life sentence, or in some places, the death penalty. Two years is far too short, in my opinion. Consider also the way in which they mutilated the puppy - with garden shears. I can't imagine the excruciating pain the poor creature was in - and they even videotaped the whole thing.

Actually it's quite a good thing that they recorded it. The incident only came to light after one of them was arrested for drunk driving and the police found the incriminating evidence on the mobile phone. So no video, no arrest.

[Castaras]

I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

I have to agree with this. Sick as it is, 2 years is more than enough.

[Grey Paladin]

I have to agree with this. Sick as it is, 2 years is more than enough.

^ ++;

[Zeful]

Guys, what the hell? Do you want to consider maybe calming down a bit? I mean, how many of you have killed insects or other invertebrates just because you didn't like the look of them? How many of you have used mousetraps or put-out rat poison? I'm imagining it's a pretty high percentage of you, and yet I don't see you all running to the nearest police office to turn yourselves in to the authorities.

I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

People in general don't like to identify in any way with a torturer. However, they know that the people who did this are, in fact, people, and have feelings, hopes and dreams just like you an me. This allows for people to identify with the torturer, which can raise questions about their mental stability that they'd rather ignore, but can't. This creates a "kill it" reaction in most people. After all, you don't identify with dead things. Killing a torturer allows for that person to remain only a torturer. A monster without a history or a future, making it easier to remain sane/compassionate to the victim.

Note: I don't think we should incarcerate rapists, personally. It should have a minimum of Death Sentence penalty. The two/three years of appeals should be enough to prove guilt/innocence.

[Spiryt]

That part doesn't really bother me so much. Yeah, it's killing an animal without point if they don't intend to eat it, but what of that? Even if they intended to eat it, that's not much of a reason. People mostly eat meat because they want to, it's tasty, not because they need to. So killing and eating animals is already killing for a mere preference. How is that different for killing because you just want to see something die?


To make you live beacuse of that. To feed your hunger. To actually make use of animal, not kill it in vain.

Yeah, I know, you're telling me that most people in civilised countries could easily just buy only vegetables, dairy and stuff, and live on that.

Still there is difference for me.

[Haruki-kun]

Guys, what the hell? Do you want to consider maybe calming down a bit?

Fine. Done.


I mean, how many of you have killed insects or other invertebrates just because you didn't like the look of them? How many of you have used mousetraps or put-out rat poison? I'm imagining it's a pretty high percentage of you, and yet I don't see you all running to the nearest police office to turn yourselves in to the authorities.

Not that it matters, but no, I try to avoid killing animals that are not an immediate threat.


More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

I disagree with this on an insane amount of levels, the least of which is that I think there are enough cells to hold them. But I think for the sake of peace I'm going to stop arguing now.

Feel free to not sign. Nobody is forcing you to do so.

[mercurymaline]

Guys, what the hell? Do you want to consider maybe calming down a bit? I mean, how many of you have killed insects or other invertebrates just because you didn't like the look of them? How many of you have used mousetraps or put-out rat poison? I'm imagining it's a pretty high percentage of you, and yet I don't see you all running to the nearest police office to turn yourselves in to the authorities.

I actually scoop them up and take them outside. When I found out a rat had got in through my dryer vent and was living in my laundry room, I put out food for it. But that's just me


I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

Yes, I'm sure no one would be freaking out so much about a snake or something. It's hard not to, but I'm being as rational as I can. It'll be 2 years for cruelty, plus some for theft, plus DUI, and whatever else they find. And it's getting enough attention that when they go to jail, they won't be treated well, I'm sure. I'm OK with that. BTW, they don't just "run out of cells" and let all the rapists go.

[Mc. Lovin']

It's nose? Oh my god ... (why did I read a thread titled animal cruelty ...)

[SurlySeraph]

Doesn't mean they should get off on an insanity plea. Feeding off each other's misguided aggression =/= mass hysteria.

Of course not. They deserve to be punished and reformed.


It's apparently the thing to do these days. But seriously, it just means they were the one's that left evidence. How many people do similar sick crap everyday and don't leave a trace?

Hopefully very few.

[mercurymaline]

It's nose? Oh my god ... (why did I read a thread titled animal cruelty ...)

My thoughts exactly. Welcome to it.

[onasuma]

Now, I may be incredibly biased on this subject, well actually yes i am being vegetarian and all, but seriously how can any of you even try to compare the butchery those men did to that creature to the meat manafacturing process. They took time to make sure this creature died in a painful and sickening way. The meat industry does the exact opposite.

Anyhow, sentence wise, im with all those people who say 2 years is to little but I can even begin to consider this thing being worth life (or the taking of it). These men, as unstable as they are went out of their way to cause great harm to this creature and even do it in a way so that others could see it. That sickens me and also leads me to think they need counciling and rehabilitation rather than straight forward jail sentence but i couldnt bear to see these men go without at least 5 years.

[Rumda]

BTW, they don't just "run out of cells" and let all the rapists go.
oh really? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6302533.stm)

[DrowVampyre]

Personally, I'd love to see them killed the same way. Is it as bad as doing it to a human? No...but the world doesn't need people that do this to -anything-. We'd all be better of a few people shorter on Earth if these few are the ones gone.

[mercurymaline]

oh really? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6302533.stm)

So this is now a discussion of prison reform, then? Stuff 'em 10 in a cell. Or execute the executable ones faster. Letting a pedophile wander is worse than animal cruelty.

The only such thing I've ever heard of is letting people out of county lock-up who were already on work-release, b/c they needed the cells for more serious criminals. The people stayed on probation. This ^ is just ridiculous.

[St.Sinner]

Guys, what the hell? Do you want to consider maybe calming down a bit? I mean, how many of you have killed insects or other invertebrates just because you didn't like the look of them? How many of you have used mousetraps or put-out rat poison? I'm imagining it's a pretty high percentage of you, and yet I don't see you all running to the nearest police office to turn yourselves in to the authorities.

I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

This wasn't an animal attacking, a snake jumping out at them, a rat invading their home, or anything like that (not that I would endorse killing those either, except in self-defence). They stole the puppy and took it somewhere else, presumably for the sole purpose of doing what they did.

It is quite possible that they will not get a two year sentence. Two years is the maximum penalty that can be handed down under the law, but the longest sentence that has ever been passed in Australia is four months.

The petition is for them to be given the maximum two year penalty.

There are places where you could potentially do more time for illegally downloading music.

[Zeful]

Personally, I'd love to see them killed the same way. Is it as bad as doing it to a human? No...but the world doesn't need people that do this to -anything-. We'd all be better of a few people shorter on Earth if these few are the ones gone.

You sure? You would personally enjoy watching two men be tortured to death in way that career police officers can't handle?

Should I bring popcorn?

[RS14]

Now, I may be incredibly biased on this subject, well actually yes i am being vegetarian and all, but seriously how can any of you even try to compare the butchery those men did to that creature to the meat manafacturing process. They took time to make sure this creature died in a painful and sickening way. The meat industry does the exact opposite.

Well, others had expressed anger that they killed the puppy at all. My point is only that there is nothing about killing a puppy that makes it any worse than killing an ox.

[Project_Mayhem]

This is screwed up and sick. That can be agreed. However, I second that people leaping in and saying that they should be killed and or tortured in return are kind of sinking to their level. The death penalty is mostly phased out in the civilised world for a reason.

I agree with the playgrounders who said that what these people need most is psychiatric help.

Edited for bad grammer

[Spiryt]

This wasn't an animal attacking, a snake jumping out at them, a rat invading their home, or anything like that (not that I would endorse killing those either, except in self-defence). They stole the puppy and took it somewhere else, presumably for the sole purpose of doing what they did.

It is quite possible that they will not get a two year sentence. Two years is the maximum penalty that can be handed down under the law, but the longest sentence that has ever been passed in Australia is four months.

The petition is for them to be given the maximum two year penalty.

There are places where you could potentially do more time for illegally downloading music.

You usually can deal with "Rat invading home" without harm to it, (it often isn't really harmfull to you, too) yet people kill it with often brutal ways.

So I think that Mr.Silver has some point here.

[RS14]

The petition is for them to be given the maximum two year penalty.


If you object to this, then please, petition your MPs to raise the possible penalties for animal cruelty. Petitioning only to raise someone's sentence on the basis of a single news report (or even many) is simply a trial by media. It is not conductive to a fair trial.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The death penalty is mostly phased out in the civilised world for a reason.

That, and you can release a wrongfully imprisoned person but cannot return a wrongfully executed person to life.

[Project_Mayhem]

That, and you can release a wrongfully imprisoned person but cannot return a wrongfully executed person to life.

Well that was probably the biggest reason I meant. The potential for mistakes.

[Spiryt]

Personally, I'd love to see them killed the same way.

Would you like it to do it yourself, though? Even if so, I don't think you would be able too.

In other words, torture would make you the same as those guys. Torturing for sake of torturing, as it would have no purpose, other than abstract "revenge".

For me, they should totally pay, for their rehabilitation process, though. Jail AND financiall penalty.

[SurlySeraph]

Well, others had expressed anger that they killed the puppy at all. My point is only that there is nothing about killing a puppy that makes it any worse than killing an ox.

It's less useful. Oxen are made out of delicious beef, and their bones can be used for many purposes. Puppies, like all dogs, are useful not for the products that their deaths make accessible but for the services that they can provide while alive - guarding, companionship, and entertainment. Killing a puppy makes it useless, while killing an ox makes its body available for use.

Effectively, it's the difference between smashing rocks into gravel and smashing a computer.

[Moff Chumley]

I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!

[Mordokai]

Exactly, animals killed for food are killed under very strict rules and regulations, this animal died in agony.

Well, one could argue that the process of transport of the animals meant for slaughter is a torture in it's own right. But I'm pretty sure that's a whole another topic, so I think it's best not to dwell on it.

I signed this. But I really think we're overreacting here. How much of a lynch mob is going at their throats because it was cute little puppy? Would you react in the same way if it was... something not so cute? Probably yes, and that gives me some hope for the humanity. But really, tone it down a little. Calling for their lynch will do little good. And torturing them? Does that really make you any better than them?

Lets leave the fact that those that would torture them wouldn't have the stomach for it aside.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!

Because, of course, the human brain can only process one thought at a time and as such caring about tortured puppies makes it impossible to care about dead children. Oh and all threads should have a disclaimer stating that there are a billion worse things and that the poster's opinion on what the thread should be about is totally irrelevant.

[Mewtarthio]

I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!

More importantly, that stuff is happening all the way over in Waziristan. Still, I find it wrong to claim that torturing a puppy to death is not reprehensible simply because there's worse things in the world.

[RS14]

I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!
Chill out. We're on a D&D forum. If that's not irrelevant compared to genocide, I don't know what is.

[Copacetic]

This is disgusting. I think they should be given at least 15 years, plus a fine that will be donated to the family the stole the puppy from. It's hard to imagine something worse than kidnapping, Torture and Murder.


But Moff, chill. We know.

[wadledo]

To go back on topic, here are a bunch of non-slaughtered puppies (http://www.ustream.tv/videoplayerpopup/channel/317016).

And I signed the petition as well.

[St.Sinner]

You usually can deal with "Rat invading home" without harm to it, (it often isn't really harmfull to you, too) yet people kill it with often brutal ways.


I don't kill animals that come into my home either. Nevertheless, there is a difference to be made between finding an intruder in your house and then overreacting and stabbing him in the chest, and going out and kidnapping somebody to torture and kill them. Neither is right, but one is decidedly more heinous.


If you object to this, then please, petition your MPs to raise the possible penalties for animal cruelty. Petitioning only to raise someone's sentence on the basis of a single news report (or even many) is simply a trial by media. It is not conductive to a fair trial.

Yes, but that is a different fight. The current law as it stands only allows for a two year sentence to be carried down, and I think the circumstances warrant it. Judges tend to view crimes on animals lightly, as though they weren't crimes at all.

[Lycan 01]

Why? :smallfrown:

Signed.

[Astrella]

I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!

Though this is true, you can't take up a mentality of ignoring things or saying they should be ignored because there are worse things.

[Mx.Silver]

This wasn't an animal attacking, a snake jumping out at them, a rat invading their home, or anything like that (not that I would endorse killing those either, except in self-defence). They stole the puppy and took it somewhere else, presumably for the sole purpose of doing what they did.

No, a snake wouldn't get this attention if they'd treated in the exact same manner (i.e. they stole for the express purpose of brutally killing and torturing it). The fact that you automatically assumed that the snake would have attacked them first could well be taken as evidence for my point. As could the fact that everyone who came back with the 'I don't kill animals' response only focussed on the mice and rats and skipped over the whole 'insects' thing.

[RS14]

Yes, but that is a different fight. The current law as it stands only allows for a two year sentence to be carried down, and I think the circumstances warrant it. Judges tend to view crimes on animals lightly, as though they weren't crimes at all.

Once again, take that up with your MPs. I don't know Australian law, but I'm sure there is some way that your legislators or prosecutors can change that. Do you have minimum sentencing laws? Do your prosecutors choose not pursue heavy sentiences in these cases? I don't particularly care either way if you choose to make animal cruelty a hanging offense, but stay out of individual trials. The judge has a hard enough time without having to weigh public opinion against the facts.
On that note, I'll also point out that the judge will also likely has a much better understanding of the facts of the case than we do. I've personally seen some truly terrible reporting in the past. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the reporters never viewed the footage and misunderstood important points. It happens, and if we're going to campaign to give them hell, we shouldn't do so on the basis of something as untrustworthy as a newspaper article. (Edit: Which I presume your text is from)

[Project_Mayhem]

t's hard to imagine something worse than kidnapping, Torture and Murder.


Problem there is, what they've actually done is theft and animal cruelty. You can't murder an animal. Its just not part of the term's meaning.

[Zaphrasz]

This is the sort of thing that should not happen. Some of the responses to this are somethings that also should not happen. You should not cause unneeded harm upon another creature, but much of the proposed "solutions" to this problem do just that.

Again, maybe it is just me, but I can't help but think any felony conviction is effectively the end of a person's life. Two years isn't much in the grand scheme of things, or even in the grand scheme of a person's life in some ways, but two years is a long time to experience something. For two years, that is, 730 days, or 17520 hours, these two people will experience having their rights taken away from them. For 730 days, they will be stripped of what are often considered "unalienable" rights. When it is over, that time will never be returned. They will never get those rights they had at that time back. And it will be other people who did this to them.

That is inconceivable to me. And people want to increase this time? To 10 years? 15? Death sentence? I can't help but think that people just throw out these numbers and punishments without considering them. I guess you can't just do nothing, but does that stop this from being unfair? It makes me wonder, just what is justice? What does punishing these people accomplish? Even so, how can we let such actions happen?

[Tengu_temp]

Three pages and nobody realized that there is no point in signing this petition?

http://superdickery.com/images/stories/misc/morbo.jpg
LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you, Morbo.

I don't know if anyone realized, but we do not live in ancient Athens and public opinion does not influence sentences judges give.

Now, more on topic, killing someone else's pet is wrong, no matter the circumstances. Killing a wild animal is wrong, unless you do it in self-defense, the animal is a pest, or you do it for food. Torturing an animal is always wrong and a sign something is messed up with you. I'll sound radical here, but I think that there is a little psychopath inside every kid torturing insects and they deserve a solid beating and a visit to a psychiatrist at least. Adults stealing and mutilating someone's pet deserve only a slightly shorter sentence as if they did it with someone's baby.

Mr. Silver has one good point here - if you care about a puppy's horrible death, but wouldn't care if it was a snake or another less cute creature, and do not care about people dying from hunger and war, you're a horrible hypocrite. Do not overreact here. But, since I would care equally if it was a snake, and I care more about people dying, my point stands. And I disagree with the rest of his post.

@Zaphrasz - if jail is so horrible, then what do you suggest we should do with criminals? Kill them all, like Draco? Let them do what they want until they get bored, like the moral* of Clockwork Orange?

* - only if you misinterpret it.

[Doran_Liadon]

This makes me want to puke.:smallfrown::smalleek:

Did California pass the Propisition on animal cruelty?

[Zaphrasz]

@Zaphrasz - if jail is so horrible, then what do you suggest we should do with criminals? Kill them all, like Draco? Let them do what they want until they get bored, like the moral* of Clockwork Orange?

* - only if you misinterpret it. I have no idea, and the fact that there may not be a solution scares the crap out of me.

[Quinsar]

Oh my...
That's awful...
I want to hurt these people...

[Pyrian]

Did California pass the Propisition on animal cruelty?Actually, yes. :smallbiggrin:

[Doran_Liadon]

Yay for California!

[Tengu_temp]

I have no idea, and the fact that there may not be a solution scares the crap out of me.

Criminals get sentences not only as a way of rehabilitating them, but also as punishment. If you've willingly broken the law, knowing that there is responsibility, you deserve to get punished.

Tell the family of someone murdered that it's horrible his killer is in jail, because humans don't deserve that. See what they tell you.

[Project_Mayhem]

Yay for California!

Unfortunately, they're about to ban gay marriage, which is less cool.

[Zaphrasz]

I see extremes like that, yes, and realize that it is far easier to justify those actions against another. Then I see things like the three strikes law in some states that can put someone in prison for life for stealing.

[St.Sinner]

No, a snake wouldn't get this attention if they'd treated in the exact same manner (i.e. they stole for the express purpose of brutally killing and torturing it). The fact that you automatically assumed that the snake would have attacked them first could well be taken as evidence for my point. As could the fact that everyone who came back with the 'I don't kill animals' response only focussed on the mice and rats and skipped over the whole 'insects' thing.

I assumed nothing of the sort. My point was based on a snake that was in fact attacking, not asserting that all snakes immediately attack. And indeed, you don't know for sure that a snake wouldn't receive attention. As for insects, the pestilential ones like flies, mosquitos, and cockroaches need to be killed, and the rest left alone. I'd wager that's what most people do.

[Arkaim]

Destroying another person's property and investment? That is one of the worst things someone can do. Undoubtedly they will pay compensation equal to the value of the investment.

[Copacetic]

Problem there is, what they've actually done is theft and animal cruelty. You can't murder an animal. Its just not part of the term's meaning.

Only legally.

[Recaiden]

Yes, we should care about all animals equally, and I try to do so. And just because there are problems larger than a dead puppy, that does not mean that torturing and killing a dog is not a seriously horrible thing. I don't think that signing the petition will gt them a greater sentence, so I'll leave it alone. And the point of sentencing these people is not to punish them, it is to rehabilitate them or at least prevent them from committing further crimes.

[Project_Mayhem]

Only legally.

I did mean in the legal sense, but, I just checked my copy of the OED, and Murder is unarguably only people.

Now I'm not saying that this wasn't horrendous, because it was. But, I'd rather they did this to a puppy than to a small child. I , and I believe most people, would say this is nowhere near as bad as doing the same thing to a human.

[Zeta Kai]

From my petition signing:

The acts described in this story fill me with disgust & hatred for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. If the accused are found guilty, I endorse the maximum possible sentence. It is actions like these that make me wonder why there is a distinction between human & animal torture at all. Pain is pain, regardless of species, & the perpetrators are sick individuals who need to be removed from our society, to protect us from their depravity.

[Pyrian]

Unfortunately, they're about to ban gay marriage, which is less cool.A lot of comedians have been poking fun at the fact that California simultaneously voted to increase rights for animals and decrease rights for homosexuals. :smalltongue:


As for insects, the pestilential ones like flies, mosquitos, and cockroaches need to be killed, and the rest left alone. I'd wager that's what most people do.I'd wager most people commit mass murder of skin mites on a daily basis without having a clue they even exist.

[Recaiden]

A lot of comedians have been poking fun at the fact that California simultaneously voted to increase rights for animals and decrease rights for homosexuals. :smalltongue:

I'd wager most people commit mass murder of skin mites on a daily basis without having a clue they even exist.

I do know they exist, but I think it is harder to argue that unobservable and/or microscopic creatures should be treated equally, because you cannot know when you are harming one.:smallwink:

[Zeta Kai]

A lot of comedians have been poking fun at the fact that California simultaneously voted to increase rights for animals and decrease rights for homosexuals. :smalltongue:

Kinda like David Cross's sketch about Texas, referring to the election in which they outlawed sodomy (even the consentual kind) while simultaneously decriminalizing bestiality (even the non-consentual kind). Funny stuff.


I'd wager most people commit mass murder of skin mites on a daily basis without having a clue they even exist.

Yes, that may be true, but there is a wide gulf between that & hacking up a live puppy. It's roughly the same divide between making love & raping children.

[St.Sinner]

People inadvertently tread on unseen ants and beetles too. But that clearly isn't murder. Not even the Dalai Lama could go through life without killing something :smallwink:

[BizzaroStormy]

See, this is where the legal system just plain doesn't work. The system itself is meant to be very left-minded (as in thinking purely with logic), however since the system is run by human beings, it is constantly flawed.

The general consensus seems to call for the "eye-for-an-eye" principal in which the two young men would have their noses cut off, legs cut off, ect. The problem is in this country, it would be seen as inhumane which would stir up a media ****storm despite the fact that many people would be just fine with the perpetrators being mutilated for everyone to see, and I;m more than certain they could find someone depraved enough to do the dirty deed, such as yours truly.

If there were any true justice, things like this wouldn't happen in the first place but as humans, we are inherently flawed in that the two sides of our brains continue to conflict with one another which leads our feelings to combine with our thoughts resulting in poorly made decisions.

[DrowVampyre]

Would you like it to do it yourself, though? Even if so, I don't think you would be able too.

In other words, torture would make you the same as those guys. Torturing for sake of torturing, as it would have no purpose, other than abstract "revenge".

For me, they should totally pay, for their rehabilitation process, though. Jail AND financiall penalty.

Actually, yes I would. Not because of the act itself, which I would certainly not take pleasure in, but because I could make sure to do something so horrible to them, and have it publicized, that others who consider doing things like this would seriously have to ask themselves "is it worth it for me to go torture someone's dog/snake/goldfish/whatever when that might happen to me?" Its purpose is twofold: A) punish these twisted freaks for what they did unprovoked, and B) deomnstrate to other twisted freaks that they'd best keep their freak impulses in check lest it come back on them.


I wonder how many people were killed in Waziristan today? Who cares! They aren't puppies! Let's go after the puppy murderers, nobody really wants to know about silly 'genocidal killers'. Because they aren't dying puppies. In fact, we should KILL the puppy murders. Because such horrible people don't deserve to live. What was that about African rebels kidnapping kids and forcing them to kill? There aren't any puppies! It doesn't matter!

I don't know, and I do care. Difference is, I haven't heard about it, not because those people aren't cute puppies. If I see a story that says "Waziristani child tortured and killed by African rebels", I'd say the same thing about them - kill them horribly and publically as a warning to others who would try to do what they do. Fact of the matter is, people like this do far more harm to the world than good - this place, this planet would be far better off without them than with.

Why should we even attempt to rehabilitate people that do these things? They aren't worth the effort. They've proven that they are absolutely worthless human beings, that the stuff I clean out of my cat's litter box has more value than they do. The only value they have is as a warning to others that what happens to them when they do horrible things may just happen to said others too if they also do horrible things.

[Tirian]

Now I'm not saying that this wasn't horrendous, because it was. But, I'd rather they did this to a puppy than to a small child. I, and I believe most people, would say this is nowhere near as bad as doing the same thing to a human.

Of course not. But animal cruelty is a strong predictor of psycopathy, sexual predation, and domestic abuse. There are those who would rather not wait until these guys videotape the dismemberment of a still-living small child and then wring their hands and say "ONOZ, we thought they only had sociopathic depraved indifference towards animal life!"

[RS14]

Actually, yes I would. Not because of the act itself, which I would certainly not take pleasure in, but because I could make sure to do something so horrible to them, and have it publicized, that others who consider doing things like this would seriously have to ask themselves "is it worth it for me to go torture someone's dog/snake/goldfish/whatever when that might happen to me?" Its purpose is twofold: A) punish these twisted freaks for what they did unprovoked, and B) deomnstrate to other twisted freaks that they'd best keep their freak impulses in check lest it come back on them.
There aren't many people willing to do such a thing, thus the threat of that happening to anyone else who committed similar acts would be essentially negligible. It's like dying in a car crash. An awful way to die, sure, but even being one of the largest killers in most western countries, it's not sufficient to get everybody to wear seatbelts.

Also remember what I said about trial by media. What we know at this point is essentially an article of unknown veracity. I don't approve of punishment without due process.

[Helanna]

I honestly can't imagine that this would get anywhere near the amount of attention if they'd done this to a snake or a sewer rat. In fact if the animal in question hadn't been 'cute and cuddly' I doubt this would have even made it past local news. Yeah, it was an incredibly sick thing to do which is why they're in prison for two years. That's not actually a particularly short amount of time. More importantly, any cell holding them is a cell that can't be used to hold murderers/rapists/other serious threats to society. So no, I probably won't be signing this.

There have been a lot of posts like this, so I'm gonna use this one.

I've noticed that people are simultaneously saying "People are hypocrites because they care about a puppy when they wouldn't care about "lesser" animals" and then they say "People are more important than animals."

So if humans > puppies, why aren't puppies > insects?


I don't know, and I do care. Difference is, I haven't heard about it, not because those people aren't cute puppies. If I see a story that says "Waziristani child tortured and killed by African rebels", I'd say the same thing about them - kill them horribly and publically as a warning to others who would try to do what they do. Fact of the matter is, people like this do far more harm to the world than good - this place, this planet would be far better off without them than with.

Sometimes I think that all the civilized countries should just go into Africa and other places of genocide and take control of the countries, set up a good government, hunt down the masterminds, etc. My history class was talking about how just changing the country boundaries could do a lot of good.

Then I remember that it's bad to just go into another country and declare that they have to live by your government/ethics/morals/rules.

Then I think: is that really more important than all the people being brutally murdered every day? I certainly don't know.

Anyway, there's one thing I don't think anyone else has mentioned, so I'll say something about it.

That puppy was somebody's pet. And they probably had to watch the video. I have a puppy myself, only about 4 months old. And if I had to watch a video of her being tortured and killed like that, you would be hard-pressed to stop me hunting down and murdering the people who did it. I honestly think that watching my precious little puppy in so much agony would really allow me to murder someone, and I do not say that lightly.

Of course, I would have to throw up several dozen times first. I feel like I'm about to throw up just thinking about it.

Well, this thread has pretty much established for me (again) that the world sucks, humans are bastards at heart, and the human race pretty much isn't worth saving. I just don't think we do enough good to balance out the sheer amount of evil. Well, I'm not going to be able to function for the rest of the night. I'll be back, I'm sure.

[BizzaroStormy]

*snip*

[/agree]
I hear ya. As for anger, try headbutting a hole in the wall, or playing Fallout 3. Seeing you blow the head off a zombie in slow motion is just so rewarding.

[DrowVampyre]

There aren't many people willing to do such a thing, thus the threat of that happening to anyone else who committed similar acts would be essentially negligible. It's like dying in a car crash. An awful way to die, sure, but even being one of the largest killers in most western countries, it's not sufficient to get everybody to wear seatbelts.

Also remember what I said about trial by media. What we know at this point is essentially an article of unknown veracity. I don't approve of punishment without due process.

Oh, certainly not without due process and proof, but if they are, in fact, on video doing it, that's pretty solid. I'm saying that if they are guilty of it (and it sure sounds like it's cut and dry that they are), they're perfect candidates for my "be a bastard and see what happens" philosophy of judgment.

[Coidzor]

Death Dragon: Ah, but you see, half of the genocidal conflicts in the world are due to the west getting involved during imperialism and drawing lines in the sand, so to speak, leaving people who were used to thinking of themselves as the "us" of a tribe with the "them" of all other tribes being crammed into nations with other tribes while having those tribes which fell on borders being cut up from one another. Crappy nation-building results from such conditions of having no national identity.

As for animal cruelty, yeah, they're bastards, I don't understand humanity in any real way. Our moments of altruism and our moments of evil, mostly escape me.

Fundamentally though, mankind is not good or evil. But choice. Which means that some are going to choose the most obscurely and nonsensically evil paths imaginable.

Hell, the fact that I desire to do evil upon them in retribution is one of those weird things we can't agree upon why or how...

[Helanna]

Death Dragon: Ah, but you see, half of the genocidal conflicts in the world are due to the west getting involved during imperialism and drawing lines in the sand, so to speak, leaving people who were used to thinking of themselves as the "us" of a tribe with the "them" of all other tribes being crammed into nations with other tribes while having those tribes which fell on borders being cut up from one another. Crappy nation-building results from such conditions of having no national identity.

That is what we were talking about, actually. Years and years ago, the Europeans claimed Africa and split up the countries based on what was convenient for them, totally ignoring the tribal boundaries. (Yes, old Europeans were stupid as well as being complete bastards.) So trying to separate the tribes again might be a good thing (although I'll readily admit that I don't know very much about the tribes or who might be able to split them up again, or . . . yeah, let's just say I don't really know what I'm trying to say.)

I just don't know what might help anymore . . . It's DEFINITELY time for me to go to bed. This time I'll really get off and come back after some sleep.

[SurlySeraph]

Actually, yes I would. Not because of the act itself, which I would certainly not take pleasure in, but because I could make sure to do something so horrible to them, and have it publicized, that others who consider doing things like this would seriously have to ask themselves "is it worth it for me to go torture someone's dog/snake/goldfish/whatever when that might happen to me?" Its purpose is twofold: A) punish these twisted freaks for what they did unprovoked, and B) deomnstrate to other twisted freaks that they'd best keep their freak impulses in check lest it come back on them.

If they'd been thinking particularly hard, they wouldn't have been torturing a puppy, and they certainly wouldn't have taped it. The small-scale atrocities are usually done on impulse. They may well have planned this out, but they clearly didn't think much about consequences. And if prison and vengeance by the owner didn't seem like likely consequences to them, torture by a dog-loving vigilante certainly won't.


Why should we even attempt to rehabilitate people that do these things? They aren't worth the effort. They've proven that they are absolutely worthless human beings, that the stuff I clean out of my cat's litter box has more value than they do. The only value they have is as a warning to others that what happens to them when they do horrible things may just happen to said others too if they also do horrible things.

So what someone does once determines what they are forever? If that was true, all adults would be bed-wetters, education would be impossible, soldiers would randomly gun down people at the mall, convicts would always repeat their crimes the day they were released, and the world would be generally horrible and ridiculous. Redemption happens. Besides, the criminals are only in their early twenties. In the U.S., we have a culture of immaturity and irresponsibility. When the consequences of committing such a crime as an adult are made clear to these people, it won't take long for them to grow up and develop more empathy.

[RS14]

Edit: I'm tired and maybe it's starting to show. I'm scrubbing this and going to sleep. Sorry.:smallsigh:

[Tengu_temp]

I'd rather they did this to a puppy than to a small child.

How small are we talking here? Because I don't really see a difference between animals and children below the age, let's say, one year.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Petition signed with a vengeance! :smallfurious:

[TigerHunter]

You know what I don't get?

We watched a video in driver's ed that featured an interview with a man who killed three people while driving home drunk and got sentenced to ten years.

So;
Complete accident = 10 years
Deliberate act of horrendous cruelty = 2 years, tops


WTF?

[DrowVampyre]

If they'd been thinking particularly hard, they wouldn't have been torturing a puppy, and they certainly wouldn't have taped it. The small-scale atrocities are usually done on impulse. They may well have planned this out, but they clearly didn't think much about consequences. And if prison and vengeance by the owner didn't seem like likely consequences to them, torture by a dog-loving vigilante certainly won't.

Let them see it publicized and know that it's likely to happen to them and I'd bet they're more likely to think about it.


So what someone does once determines what they are forever? If that was true, all adults would be bed-wetters, education would be impossible, soldiers would randomly gun down people at the mall, convicts would always repeat their crimes the day they were released, and the world would be generally horrible and ridiculous. Redemption happens. Besides, the criminals are only in their early twenties. In the U.S., we have a culture of immaturity and irresponsibility. When the consequences of committing such a crime as an adult are made clear to these people, it won't take long for them to grow up and develop more empathy.

When it's something like this? Yes. You do heinous things, you don't deserve a second chance. A murderer is a murderer forever, is he not? A rapist is a rapist forever. They don't deserve redemption, they deserve to be an example to others not to do what they did.


I can live with a world where I might be shot daily for some minor offense, or even no reason at all. It might not even be all that bad. Probably we'd wind up calmer and more restrained. I'm all for that. But I cannot live in a world where I'm at risk of torture for the same causes. Why? Because torture is an awful abuse, a denial of all freedom and joy and hope. Death is light in comparison. The fear that I might reasonably be tortured to death for some minor offense, or by mistake, would cause me to curl up in my home with weapons in hand and never leave. One can accept death; it is natural. But I will never tolerate torture. Do you understand the difference?

Yes, of course I do. That's why I say torture them, don't just kill them - so that everyone that understands that difference knows that if they do things like this, they're not just going to die, it's going to be far, far worse. And no one is talking about torturing them to death for a "minor offense or no reason at all". This isn't a minor offense, whatever law it may fall under (torturing an animal is far beyond "animal cruelty" as far as I'm concerned) and it's certainly a reason.

[Cubey]

I've noticed that people are simultaneously saying "People are hypocrites because they care about a puppy when they wouldn't care about "lesser" animals" and then they say "People are more important than animals."

So if humans > puppies, why aren't puppies > insects?

Humans > puppies, because humans have more developed brains and therefore they are smarter and more self-aware. You could say that they feel more what is happening to them.
In the same vein, it is true that puppies > insects. However, that's not the point. There are animals with ROUGHLY the same level of self-awareness as dogs, but they're not considered "cute" and their deaths wouldn't evoke the same kind of reaction amongst people who are easy to manipulate emotionally. For example, rats, lizards or octopi.


I have a puppy myself, only about 4 months old. And if I had to watch a video of her being tortured and killed like that, you would be hard-pressed to stop me hunting down and murdering the people who did it. I honestly think that watching my precious little puppy in so much agony would really allow me to murder someone, and I do not say that lightly.

It would be the same for me. However, I'd do it deliberately knowing that what I am doing is neither law nor justice. Because it isn't. It's simple, eye-for-an-eye vengeance that doesn't go anywhere and promotes nothing but a violent lifestyle. When I see people write stuff like this:


The general consensus seems to call for the "eye-for-an-eye" principal in which the two young men would have their noses cut off, legs cut off, ect. The problem is in this country, it would be seen as inhumane which would stir up a media ****storm despite the fact that many people would be just fine with the perpetrators being mutilated for everyone to see, and I;m more than certain they could find someone depraved enough to do the dirty deed, such as yours truly.
I roll my eyes.

Allow me to tell you a short story.
There was a rape, and the rapist received a sentence of 10 to 20 years, I forgot exactly. He served it all. A few days after he was released, he strolled on a street that his victim lived. When passing that very house, he yelled "How is (victim's name) going?" to the poor girl's mother, who was sitting on the porch at that time. Then he went to the bar to have a drink. That was tasteless, but the mother's reaction was as follows: she took a can of gasoline, went to the bar, doused him with gasoline and set him on fire. The locals cheered as the man burned to death. It is a true story.

Now, do you believe that what the woman did was just? Would you cheer just as her neighbors did?

If you answer yes, then you have the potential to be just as cruel and inhumane as those who commit the horrible crimes, be it rape, animal cruelty or anything else. Because that means what matters for you is vengeance - not a justified court case where the offender receives a punishment, but simple, animalistic, violent desire to see them suffer. This very desire causes people worldwide being lynched by angry mobs that accuses them of crimes they did NOT commit, or committed but were not deserving a death, or simply because a scapegoat was needed at the time.

Really.

I expected better than to propagate a culture of violence from a forum whose members proud themselves on being open-minded and humanistic.


EDIT: I was ninja'ed. Allow me to post some snippets.


Petition signed with a vengeance! :smallfurious:



Yes, of course I do. That's why I say torture them, don't just kill them - so that everyone that understands that difference knows that if they do things like this, they're not just going to die, it's going to be far, far worse.

Bolded by myself. Thank you for proving my point.

I am also going to rest at the moment, so if you write a reply, do not expect me to respond soon.

[Coidzor]

Complete accident = 10 years
Deliberate act of horrendous cruelty = 2 years, tops

WTF?

Well, you're messing with the whole cultural perception of drunk driving and MADD and its ilk, so... Research it and prepare for people talking about the pre-meditation and evil of getting in the car when you know how deadly it can be. and the philosophy and jurisprudence of human life versus animal life and so on and so forth.

Is a fairly sticky kettle of fish.

[SurlySeraph]

When it's something like this? Yes. You do heinous things, you don't deserve a second chance. A murderer is a murderer forever, is he not? A rapist is a rapist forever. They don't deserve redemption, they deserve to be an example to others not to do what they did.

I disagree.


This isn't a minor offense, whatever law it may fall under (torturing an animal is far beyond "animal cruelty" as far as I'm concerned) and it's certainly a reason.

Torturing an animal sounds like the very definition of animal cruelty, as far as I'm concerned. If you think the sentence for animal cruelty should be harsher, that's another issue.

[TigerHunter]

Well, you're messing with the whole cultural perception of drunk driving and MADD and its ilk, so... Research it and prepare for people talking about the pre-meditation and evil of getting in the car when you know how deadly it can be. and the philosophy and jurisprudence of human life versus animal life and so on and so forth.

Is a fairly sticky kettle of fish.
Momentary lapse of judgement =/= cutting a puppy's nose, two of its legs, and then its head off with a pair of hedge clippers.

And the evil of getting in a car with absolutely no intention of harming anyone or anything doesn't come anywhere near the evil of butchering your neighbor's puppy.

[Jayngfet]

Damn, just ...damn.

[Mr. Moon]

Actually it's quite a good thing that they recorded it. The incident only came to light after one of them was arrested for drunk driving and the police found the incriminating evidence on the mobile phone. So no video, no arrest.

Oh, by the way, Sinner, you wouldn't happen to have a link to a reputable news source's article covering this, would you? Preferably one based in Australia.

[Coidzor]

Momentary lapse of judgement =/= cutting a puppy's nose, two of its legs, and then its head off with a pair of hedge clippers.

And the evil of getting in a car with absolutely no intention of harming anyone or anything doesn't come anywhere near the evil of butchering your neighbor's puppy.

and I'm telling you that you can't get a good explanation of how it all came to be by just attacking it with your logic.

Besides, no one is that innocent anyway, so your comparison is moot. Is all part of the blood crying out from the earth that makes the puppy dismemberment at issue.

[RS14]

Alright, so too slow in editing. :smallsigh:


Yes, of course I do. That's why I say torture them, don't just kill them - so that everyone that understands that difference knows that if they do things like this, they're not just going to die, it's going to be far, far worse. And no one is talking about torturing them to death for a "minor offense or no reason at all". This isn't a minor offense, whatever law it may fall under (torturing an animal is far beyond "animal cruelty" as far as I'm concerned) and it's certainly a reason.
By your own admission, the point is to terrify everyone into not torturing animals. That's... a very frightening sort of law all on its own. It's a law under which I might have all reason to live stolen away from me. No matter how piously I follow laws, I will not accept that anyone should be able to do that to me.

[RPGuru1331]

You know what I don't get?

We watched a video in driver's ed that featured an interview with a man who killed three people while driving home drunk and got sentenced to ten years.

So;
Complete accident = 10 years
Deliberate act of horrendous cruelty = 2 years, tops


WTF?

Killing 3 people only got 5 times the sentence of killing a puppy? What the hell?

[TigerHunter]

Killing 3 people only got 5 times the sentence of killing a puppy? What the hell?
You mean a COMPLETE ACCIDENT got five times the punishment of sadistic torture and murder?


and I'm telling you that you can't get a good explanation of how it all came to be by just attacking it with your logic.

Besides, no one is that innocent anyway, so your comparison is moot. Is all part of the blood crying out from the earth that makes the puppy dismemberment at issue.
...I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

[RPGuru1331]

You mean a COMPLETE ACCIDENT got five times the punishment of sadistic torture and murder?


...I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

REALLY? You can't tell that I mean that people matter a hell of a lot more then dogs? I don't care if it's an accident; You take responsibility for your actions in a car, and if it was your negligence or worse, drunkenness, that caused the accident, you should be put away. Sure, the cruelty factor for the dog is way higher, but we don't jail people for cruelty, or we'd have kids in prison for frying ants with a magnifying lens, and that would be plain stupid.

[TigerHunter]

You can't tell that I mean that people matter a hell of a lot more then dogs?
Tell me exactly why human lives matter more than those of animals. Doesn't every 2nd grader learn that humans are animals too?

[Recaiden]

You mean a COMPLETE ACCIDENT got five times the punishment of sadistic torture and murder?


...I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

Almost everyone considers people to be much more important than other animals and plants. Because there has to be a line, and we set it pretty high. Torturing and killing 3 people would be much worse, but killing a human is a more signifigant crime than killing an animal. The fact that it is an accident is why the sentence was only 10 years. The punishment is intended to make them never be that reckless again, so that no one else gets killed.


Tell me exactly why human lives matter more than those of animals. Doesn't every 2nd grader learn that humans are animals too?

The distinction is the most intelligent animal, the only one who makes rational decisions and choices based on ethics and places value on others. You could argue that that is all due to twisted selfishness, but humans are seen as different from other animals. We have rules and we consider other species. We don't act totally on instinct.

A lot of that is arguable, but that's the general reasoning, and I mostly agree with it.

[de-trick]

I'm disgraced with mankind, if that happened to one of my dogs, lets just say id be the one doin jail time

[SurlySeraph]

Tell me exactly why human lives matter more than those of animals. Doesn't every 2nd grader learn that humans are animals too?

1. We are the only animal that has been proven to be sentient.
2. We are indisputably the most intelligent animal, by a wide margin.
3. We are the animal with the greatest capacity to shape the direction of life on earth.
4. The continued existence of humanity, which the vast majority of humans support, depends on prioritizing the protection of human lives over those of animal lives.

I feel compelled to ask everyone who thinks two years isn't a long enough sentence for them: how much time have you spent in prison? Do you think you have an accurate picture of how terrible life in prison is? If you have been in prison, would you want to subject someone else to the same experience that you went through?

[DrowVampyre]

Allow me to tell you a short story.
There was a rape, and the rapist received a sentence of 10 to 20 years, I forgot exactly. He served it all. A few days after he was released, he strolled on a street that his victim lived. When passing that very house, he yelled "How is (victim's name) going?" to the poor girl's mother, who was sitting on the porch at that time. Then he went to the bar to have a drink. That was tasteless, but the mother's reaction was as follows: she took a can of gasoline, went to the bar, doused him with gasoline and set him on fire. The locals cheered as the man burned to death. It is a true story.

Now, do you believe that what the woman did was just? Would you cheer just as her neighbors did?

If you answer yes, then you have the potential to be just as cruel and inhumane as those who commit the horrible crimes, be it rape, animal cruelty or anything else. Because that means what matters for you is vengeance - not a justified court case where the offender receives a punishment, but simple, animalistic, violent desire to see them suffer. This very desire causes people worldwide being lynched by angry mobs that accuses them of crimes they did NOT commit, or committed but were not deserving a death, or simply because a scapegoat was needed at the time.

Yes, I would have cheered, and I would have helped if at all possible. And no, it's not vengeance that matters...it's justice. 10-20 years prison term for an act that may well have ruined the victim's life? He deserved to die horribly...and the court should have been the one to sentence him to that horrible death. Mobs shouldn't be going around lynching people because the people that deserve it should be sentenced to agonizing death by the courts. Remember, just because laws and/or courts give someone a sentence doesn't mean that the sentence is just.


By your own admission, the point is to terrify everyone into not torturing animals. That's... a very frightening sort of law all on its own. It's a law under which I might have all reason to live stolen away from me. No matter how piously I follow laws, I will not accept that anyone should be able to do that to me.

Not terrify them into not torturing animals, terrify them, into not torturing anything, or murdering anyone, or raping, or kidnapping, or anything of the sort. Terrify those who would do these things into not doing them - the people that are good to begin with and don't go around being horribly evil would have just as much reason to live. Why wouldn't they? They're the ones the laws would protect - the innocent (or at least, innocent of things that deserve harsh punishment).

[RPGuru1331]

Tell me exactly why human lives matter more than those of animals. Doesn't every 2nd grader learn that humans are animals too?

Good sir, most of the answers to that question lie outside the rules of this forum. One of the ones I can give are that we have deeper social ties to other humans, and have higher expectations of each other. Further, we don't ascribe rights to animals, for a variety of reasons, not hte least of which being that part of the natural world is to use other species to your advantage to the benefit of your own.

The part where there's no reason to think they're nowhere near as capable of emotions or thought as we are, too. That doesn't hurt. I probably wouldn't be too eager to eat, say, burgers if I knew the cow could say "Dude what the hell?"

[Tengu_temp]

Yes, I would have cheered, and I would have helped if at all possible. And no, it's not vengeance that matters...it's justice. 10-20 years prison term for an act that may well have ruined the victim's life? He deserved to die horribly...and the court should have been the one to sentence him to that horrible death. Mobs shouldn't be going around lynching people because the people that deserve it should be sentenced to agonizing death by the courts. Remember, just because laws and/or courts give someone a sentence doesn't mean that the sentence is just.


Some people might get trauma that will forever ruin their life and trust in others from getting mugged. Do muggers deserve to die horribly, too?

Rape is a horrible crime, but you're exaggerating here. Especially since you keep insisting that the rapist's death should be horrible. That's bloodthirsty, man/woman (no gender mark = I don't know which one you are).

[Pyrian]

You mean a COMPLETE ACCIDENT...No. Deaths caused by a drunken driver are not a "complete" accident unless the driver was somehow totally unaware that their driving ability is impaired by drinking - which seems very unlikely. He chose to risk innocent lives, and three people are dead because of it.

[TigerHunter]

1. We are the only animal that has been proven to be sentient.

2. We are indisputably the most intelligent animal, by a wide margin.
And why on Earth would intelligence matter? Human infants are unquestionably non-sentient, yet it's wrong to kill them.


3. We are the animal with the greatest capacity to shape the direction of life on earth.
And the vast majority of people do not make any attempts to fulfill that capacity. And again, how does this make our own lives any more important? Who is to say that the shape we will make it take is a good shape (or a bad one)?


4. The continued existence of humanity, which the vast majority of humans support, depends on prioritizing the protection of human lives over those of human lives.
Assuming you meant animal lives at the end there, the assumption that human beings exist outside of nature and therefore must either conquer it or face extinction is not only false, but arrogant and presumptuous.

[SurlySeraph]

Yes, I would have cheered, and I would have helped if at all possible. And no, it's not vengeance that matters...it's justice. 10-20 years prison term for an act that may well have ruined the victim's life? He deserved to die horribly...and the court should have been the one to sentence him to that horrible death. Mobs shouldn't be going around lynching people because the people that deserve it should be sentenced to agonizing death by the courts. Remember, just because laws and/or courts give someone a sentence doesn't mean that the sentence is just.

Ten to twenty years in prison can easily ruin a man's life. Don't believe me? Ask Darryl Hunt. (http://darrylhunt.journalnow.com/about.html)

[Thes Hunter]

The description of this brutality has stuck with me the whole day. It has caused me to be unsettled in my thoughts.


It disturbs me on many levels...

One level is when I pet my cat, I could not imagine anyone inflicting pain on her in that way. I am sure that puppy was darling, and it hurts to think of it being treated like that because I would have loved and petted him and enjoyed how my touch brought him pleasure.

On another level, it bothers me deeply because this cruelty comes too easily to us humans. Without having empathy for this beings pain, it is far too easy for us humans to inflict pain on others. It is this ease that I find stomach wrenching, because selfishness is far easier than worrying about others.

I hope that these boys learn that there is no reason for this sort of cruelty and that the learn to feel for other beings.

[Recaiden]

Yes, I would have cheered, and I would have helped if at all possible. And no, it's not vengeance that matters...it's justice. 10-20 years prison term for an act that may well have ruined the victim's life? He deserved to die horribly...and the court should have been the one to sentence him to that horrible death. Mobs shouldn't be going around lynching people because the people that deserve it should be sentenced to agonizing death by the courts. Remember, just because laws and/or courts give someone a sentence doesn't mean that the sentence is just.


That isn't justice. Life imprisonment, maybe. Obviously, we're meant to assume he was taunting them with his comment, and this only proves that the justice system failed. The problem with punishment for crimes is the risk of hurting the innocent. I mean that someone accidentaly runs someone over because of, say, drunk driving, reforms and would never risk that again. If they are horribly killed for that, you have only gotten revenge.

[Desidus]

Sad part is this is usually the first sign of a psychotic sociopath. Not to disregard what happened to the puppy, but two years is just enough to teach this animals how to kill and torture more efficiently. These are the kinds of people that should be watched on some level, if not for the puppy's sake than for any future people/victims (not sure if this was said, only read first few posts tbh).

[Cubey]

@DrowVampyre: I do not wish to repeat what I said already, so I'll only add that morality like yours gets people killed, lynched to death. Innocent people. When you are out for vengeance, your mind is clouded and you rarely pay attention if whomever you attack really committed the crime, and if it was horrible enough to warrant your vengeance.

Emotions, if allowed to take over, can be a horrible thing. This is why we have courts, judges and jury who (at least in theory) give out an unbiased verdict, unsoiled by emotional prejudice.

I'm out of this conversation, as I said everything I wanted to say and further posts would only make me repeat myself. Just to make sure, I believe what these two did was horrible and I hope they get a harsh sentence, as it is a lawful thing that they deserve. Unfortunately, I doubt a jury would be swayed by an internet petition signed by a bunch of random, semi-annonymous posters.

[TigerHunter]

I probably wouldn't be too eager to eat, say, burgers if I knew the cow could say "Dude what the hell?"
Precisely. You are incapable of understanding these creatures, therefore you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are inferior to you.

And animals don't feel emotion? Laughable. Elephants hold funerals for their dead, birds express grief when their mates die, bears fight to the death to defend their young. Entire books have been written about animal psychology. If you can watch a mother duck desperately try to rescue her baby from a storm drain and say that she doesn't feel love for her ducklings, then you are either a sociopath or a solipsist.

[Flame of Anor]

Warning: Varied and rambling rant(s) ahead.


Punishment: Yes, sickopaths who would do that to a puppy deserve punishment. I would say pretty strong punishment, too. But it would also be a terrible mistake to punish them by stooping to their level. If we punished them with torture, then we would be no better than they. So cool down and stop demanding that they be "carved up."

Equivalency/Nonequivalency: Definitely, there are different levels of crimes, and different levels of torture-and-kill crimes. The worst is to torture and kill people, I think all would admit. Torturing and killing animals, while less evil, is still generally evil. It is true that there are different levels among animals. For example, killing a cat is worse than killing a bug. I don't intentionally kill any animals myself, but I would rather kill a bug than a cat. This difference, however, is by no means based on cuteness. It is as evil to kill a snake as it is to kill a cute puppy of similar intelligence. By the same token, it would be better to kill a fluffy bumblebee than a disgusting sewer rat.

Insanity: This one is hard. Surely, some people who do horrific things are insane. Often, those of us who neither do horrific things nor are insane think that only an insane person could do some of the more horrific things that happen. Again often, we remind ourselves that, surely, so many people could not be insane, and they must be simply evil in a way we cannot understand. But are they all, in fact, insane? Is every committer of atrocities insane? It really depends on your definition of insanity. If you define insanity as "not responsible for actions," then probably they are not all insane; if you define it as "mind acting in warped manner," then, yes, they are all insane if you take a non-evil person as a baseline. The bottom line is that those who aren't insane really can't tell what those who might be are thinking.

Commercial slaughterhouses: Sorry to disappoint, folks, but commercial slaughterhouses do many, many, many times worse than the mutilation of a helpless, cute puppy dog--on a daily basis. In theory, the animals are electrocuted before butchering. Some places, this may actually happen. But even in the places where it does, the animals' lives are still bloated miseries from start to bloody finish. If you have a strong stomach (you think I'm kidding but I'm not), watch a video from PETA on the subject.

EDIT: Animal intelligence: Yes, there are other animals that have some intelligence and are self-aware. Many, in fact. This does surely mean that they should be protected and those who kill them without good reason should be punished. On the other hand, human lives are more important. We have superior intelligence, self-awareness, and sense of higher things, such as art, religion, science, etc. And besides, we have advanced ourselves thus far, and, while we should not attack animals needlessly, we should also look out for ourselves as a race.

[SurlySeraph]

And why on Earth would intelligence matter? Human infants are unquestionably non-sentient, yet it's wrong to kill them.

Human infants will become sentient if they continue to live. Puppies never will.


And the vast majority of people do not make any attempts to fulfill that capacity.

Then I guess I just have a more positive view of humanity than you do.


Assuming you meant animal lives at the end there, the assumption that human beings exist outside of nature and therefore must either conquer it or face extinction is not only false, but arrogant and presumptuous.

No, we don't need to conquer nature to survive. But whenever I have a choice between protecting a non-human and protecting a human (assuming the non-human is not sentient), I'm going to choose the human. This doesn't apply to cases of environmental destruction that imperil humanity in the long term, of course; but using nature to stabley sustain humanity for as long as possible strikes me as the best possible course of action.

[Jayngfet]

I wonder what everyone whould have said f it was say, a large snake or a pig instead of a puppy?

[TigerHunter]

Human infants will become sentient if they continue to live. Puppies never will.
They'll also become dead. Does that mean they have the same value that a corpse does?


Then I guess I just have a more positive view of humanity than you do.
I edited in a more detailed response to this point.


No, we don't need to conquer nature to survive. But whenever I have a choice between protecting a non-human and protecting a human (assuming the non-human is not sentient), I'm going to choose the human. This doesn't apply to cases of environmental destruction that imperil humanity in the long term, of course; but using nature to stabley sustain humanity for as long as possible strikes me as the best possible course of action.
We can agree on that.

[RPGuru1331]

Precisely. You are incapable of understanding these creatures, therefore you immediately jump to the conclusion that they are inferior to you.
Provide evidence that they are not. You are the one challenging more philosophies then I care to count. The burden of proof lies with you. There is no reason to believe animals are as smart as people.



And animals don't feel emotion? Laughable. Elephants hold funerals for their dead, birds express grief when their mates die, bears fight to the death to defend their young. Entire books have been written about animal psychology. If you can watch a mother duck desperately try to rescue her baby from a storm drain and say that she doesn't feel love for her ducklings, then you are either a sociopath or a solipsist.
I could very simply argue that rescuing one's children is simple instinct. And with some force amongst biologists, to say the least, but what do they know? Elephants are indeed smarter then most animals, while we're on the subject.

In point of fact, pretty much nobody who studies animals for a living can agree with hippy-esque notions of animals being remotely on par with us. They'll be sure to say they're similar.. but similarity isn't the same as identicalness.

[Desidus]

I wonder what everyone whould have said f it was say, a large snake or a pig instead of a puppy?

I'd say less than half would care half as much. As much as people like to say all lives are equal, the sad truth is some are more equal than others.

Honestly, nobody would have found out about it if it were a snake. I can say this because I can unequivocally guarantee you that this has been done to other animals, with the perpetrators being caught, and no outcry like this has come of it. If you don't believe me, look up half of the serial killers out there today (namely the psychotic sociopaths) and you'll find they did the same, and nobody cared because the animals were either vermin, or were puppies that didn't have the death taped.

[Flame of Anor]

Let's define "sentient," okay? If it means "self-aware and having some capability for thought," then some animals are definitely sentient. If it means "self-aware and having higher feelings, thoughts, and emotions on the level of humans," then, no, other animals are not sentient.

[Jayngfet]

I dunno, some primeates would still qualify.

[SurlySeraph]

Insanity: This one is hard. Surely, some people who do horrific things are insane. Often, those of us who neither do horrific things nor are insane think that only an insane person could do some of the more horrific things that happen. Again often, we remind ourselves that, surely, so many people could not be insane, and they must be simply evil in a way we cannot understand. But are they all, in fact, insane? Is every committer of atrocities insane? It really depends on your definition of insanity. If you define insanity as "not responsible for actions," then probably they are not all insane; if you define it as "mind acting in warped manner," then, yes, they are all insane if you take a non-evil person as a baseline. The bottom line is that those who aren't insane really can't tell what those who might be are thinking.

Flame of Anor has a point here, and it's a point that is often overlooked. Under the right circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiments), I expect that virtually everyone in this thread would be willing to kill a puppy. Consider the possibility that you yourself might do something evil before being so quick to call for massive retribution. "Use every man after his dessert, and who should 'scape whipping?"


They'll also become dead. Does that mean they have the same value that a corpse does?

False parallel. You know perfectly well that corpses can't suffer.


I wonder what everyone whould have said f it was say, a large snake or a pig instead of a puppy?

It wouldn't be in the news if it was a large snake or pig. No one would care.

[TigerHunter]

I wonder what everyone whould have said f it was say, a large snake or a pig instead of a puppy?
Objectively, I would say that it's equally wrong. Subjectively, I'd be a lot less upset about it.


Flame of Anor has a point here, and it's a point that is often overlooked. Under the right circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiments), I expect that virtually everyone in this thread would be willing to kill a puppy. Consider the possibility that you yourself might do something evil before being so quick to call for massive retribution. "Use every man after his dessert, and who should 'scape whipping?"
That same experiment also showed that people would do the same with humans. And no matter what happens to me in life, I'm reasonably certain that I have enough moral fiber to refrain from mutilating puppies.


False parallel. You know perfectly well that corpses can't suffer.
Exactly, and since, according to you, we should treat things as what they will become, then according to you we should treat babies as if they are incapable of suffering.


Provide evidence that they are not. You are the one challenging more philosophies then I care to count. The burden of proof lies with you.
The burden of proof does not lie with me for that exact reason. I am not espousing any philosophy, I am merely challenging others. They are the ones claiming to be right, they are the ones who need to prove that. I am not claiming to be right, merely claiming that they are wrong, so I need prove nothing.

More to the point, you have failed to provide me with any reason why a creature's intelligence matters when determining the value of its life.


I could very simply argue that rescuing one's children is simple instinct.
Then so is the emotion that you or I or any human feels.


In point of fact, pretty much nobody who studies animals for a living can agree with hippy-esque notions of animals being remotely on par with us. They'll be sure to say they're similar.. but similarity isn't the same as identicalness.
Of course they're not identical. They're an entirely separate species. But why are human emotions more valuable than those of (other) animals?

[ghost_warlock]

*is just getting to this thread*

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin.

[Jayngfet]

Because it's the humans making the rules and the humans making the tools(besides hooks, some analogue to fishing lines, and the sponge, even birds can make some of those).

[TigerHunter]

Because it's the humans making the rules
Exactly. We instinctively value human lives the most, despite not being able to logically justify this conviction.


and the humans making the tools(besides hooks, some analogue to fishing lines, and the sponge, even birds can make some of those).
That's what scientists used to say before we observed said birds as well as chimpanzees making use of tools.

And just because our tools are better, we're more valuable?

[RPGuru1331]

The burden of proof does not lie with me for that exact reason. I am not espousing any philosophy, I am merely challenging others. They are the ones claiming to be right, they are the ones who need to prove that. I am not claiming to be right, merely claiming that they are wrong, so I need prove nothing.
Very well.

Biologists have studied animals extensively. They've done it for centuries, all searching out pretty much everything about species they've encountered. With extensive study, we have found relatively few species who use more then cursory communication; Oh sure, most species can say "Get offa my lawn" or "Get away from my woman", but very rarely do we even have "Food is found here!" Few animals can conceive a proper society beyond their own family. Even those that do rarely have concepts beyond "Food here", "Food not here,", "Sex now", "Enemies coming", etc. If they lack the capacity to communicate, even with their own kind, should I really believe they could communicate with us?


Then so is the emotion that you or I or any human feels.
People fall in love with people who are bad matches, under a strictly darwinian point of view. People do a lot of things htat are hideously bad ideas in a darwinian sense, because they enjoy them, or for more money, etc.



Of course they're not identical. They're an entirely separate species. But why are human emotions more valuable than those of (other) animals?
If you take nothing else away, take this away;

Humans won't kill you because they feel morally obligated not to.
Animals won't kill you because they're either not hungry/threatened/capable, or they've learned that they can't kill humans.


Because it's the humans making the rules and the humans making the tools(besides hooks, some analogue to fishing lines, and the sponge, even birds can make some of those).
Cry about it to a Tiger. See whether they can fix it. Oh wait.

[SurlySeraph]

That same experiment also showed that people would do the same with humans. And no matter what happens to me in life, I'm reasonably certain that I have enough moral fiber to refrain from mutilating puppies.

So you're saying killing people is better than mutilating puppies? You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.


Exactly, and since, according to you, we should treat things as what they will become, then according to you we should treat babies as if they are incapable of suffering.

That is pure sophistry. At its high point of sentience, a human will be a sentient human. At its high point of sentience, a puppy will be a dog. Living creatures should be treated according to what would be kind at their highest point of sentience, as we cannot be sure that are creature capable of being highly sentient is entirely non-sentient at any point in its lifetime. Corpses are not creatures; they are objects. Objects that should be treated with respect, but objects nontheless.


The burden of proof does not lie with me for that exact reason. I am not espousing any philosophy, I am merely challenging others. They are the ones claiming to be right, they are the ones who need to prove that. I am not claiming to be right, merely claiming that they are wrong, so I need prove nothing.

Whenever you make a statement, you should be able to prove it. "X is wrong" needs to be proved, just as much as "X is right" does.

Exactly. We instinctively value human lives the most, despite not being able to logically justify this conviction.

Humans want to survive, and sane humans want other humans to survive. Valuing human life above the animal life makes it easier for humans to survive. Therefore, we value human lives the most. That's perfectly logical. What we can't do is justify this conviction objectively, from a non-human position. And I'm OK with that, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life as a human.

[TigerHunter]

Very well.

Biologists have studied animals extensively. They've done it for centuries, all searching out pretty much everything about species they've encountered. With extensive study, we have found relatively few species who use more then cursory communication; Oh sure, most species can say "Get offa my lawn" or "Get away from my woman", but very rarely do we even have "Food is found here!" Few animals can conceive a proper society beyond their own family. Even those that do rarely have concepts beyond "Food here", "Food not here,", "Sex now", "Enemies coming", etc. If they lack the capacity to communicate, even with their own kind, should I really believe they could communicate with us?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or how it relates to the discussion.


People fall in love with people who are bad matches, under a strictly darwinian point of view. People do a lot of things htat are hideously bad ideas in a darwinian sense, because they enjoy them, or for more money, etc.
So do animals. That's how Darwinism occurs--animals do stupid things, so the genes that make them do these stupid things die out.


If you take nothing else away, take this away;

Humans won't kill you because they feel morally obligated not to.
Animals won't kill you because they're either not hungry/threatened/capable, or they've learned that they can't kill humans.
I'll admit that I've not considered that point. However, my knee jerk response is to point out that there are a large number of humans who don't feel morally obligated not to, and that even when starving, a pack of wolves will not turn on its own for food.

If you argue that humans lives are more valuable because we are the only species that possesses morality (which may or may not be true), then I would like to point out that morality is a neutral quantity containing equal parts good and evil.

[St.Sinner]

Oh, by the way, Sinner, you wouldn't happen to have a link to a reputable news source's article covering this, would you? Preferably one based in Australia.

Here (http://www.dailymercury.com.au/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3788430) is the story covered in the local paper.

Here (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=650414) it is in a nationwide channel, with fewer details.

[Flame of Anor]

But why are human emotions more valuable than those of (other) animals?

Because we have more and higher emotions.


We instinctively value human lives the most, despite not being able to logically justify this conviction.

Yes we can justify this conclusion, it's what SurlySeraph and I have just been doing! :smallmad:


So you're saying killing people is better than mutilating puppies? You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

<tigerhunter quote>

That is pure sophistry. At its high point of sentience, a human will be a sentient human. At its high point of sentience, a puppy will be a dog. Living creatures should be treated according to what would be kind at their highest point of sentience, as we cannot be sure that are creature capable of being highly sentient is entirely non-sentient at any point in its lifetime. Corpses are not creatures; they are objects. Objects that should be treated with respect, but objects nontheless.

Thank you! I love animals and want to preserve the environment as much as the next man (unless maybe he's TigerHunter), but I do not value animals' lives above my own, which may be a nice attitude but is one which doesn't make sense.

And yes, sophistry. TigerHunter, you're missing the point. Everything returns to dust, so you can't prefer one dust-to-be over another.


Humans want to survive, and sane humans want other humans to survive. Valuing human life above the animal life makes it easier for humans to survive. Therefore, we value human lives the most. That's perfectly logical. What we can't do is justify this conviction objectively, from a non-human position. And I'm OK with that, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life as a human.

Yes, that is perfectly logical. Survival is an evolutionary imperative. Again, I'm not saying that I think we should degrade animals, but what have animals ever, of their own free will, done for us? Yes, dogs help their masters, and that shows that dogs can have charitable feelings for humans, but those were dogs that humans trained. There are a few exceptions to this, like that of the dolphins and Arion and similar cases, but not that many. Allow me to repeat that I do care a lot about animals and the environment. But it is foolish not to think of ourselves at all, when animals are, for the vast majority, thinking only of themselves, if thinking at all.

I readily admit that some humans are awful, and are much worse than some animals. But this is not the majority, by any means. And think of this: What have animals accomplished? Hmm, let's see. Termites build cool mounds. Instinct! Wolves cull the caribou herds. Instinct! Insects pollinate flowers. Instinct! All instinct! And what have humans accomplished? Cities! Technology! Art! Science! Mathematics! Literature! Philosophy! None of them accomplished by animals, none of them instinctual, but all of them wonderful! We have a great responsibility to animals, but this is because we are better than they are.

[RPGuru1331]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, or how it relates to the discussion.
You asked me to provide a proof why animals' reasoning is inferior of our level of reasoning. I submitted their inability to communicate. Simple, really.


So do animals. That's how Darwinism occurs--animals do stupid things, so the genes that make them do these stupid things die out.
Darwinism doesn't map perfectly onto Darwinian Thought, where we do the things that make it so that we succeed in a darwinian sense. People's emotions can (and will) override their own self interest.

You're doing it now, by arguing animals' rights and/or equality to ourselves.


I'll admit that I've not considered that point. However, my knee jerk response is to point out that there are a large number of humans who don't feel morally obligated not to, and that even when starving, a pack of wolves will not turn on its own for food.
THere are. But they're not the default. As to animals, well; A relatively small number of species have a social unit slightly larger then their immediate siblings and children/mate. I should look into whether animals have ever killed their young/parents after the children leave the nest, I'm legitimately curious about that.


If you argue that humans lives are more valuable because we are the only species that possesses morality (which may or may not be true), then I would like to point out that morality is a neutral quantity containing equal parts good and evil.
But we possess the ability to actually make decisions on where things morally lay, and then disagree with each other over what comprises morality.


Yes we can justify this conclusion, it's what SurlySeraph and I have just been doing!
And Zoidberg!

[ghost_warlock]

This thread is making me ponder.

Which is more immoral:
1) the intentional, brutal slaughter of a single animal,
or
2) willfully doing nothing as millions of similar animals suffer and die each year from starvation, poisoning, being hit by cars on roadways, etc.?

Which is the greater evil: deliberate harm to an individual, or apathy in the face of the suffering of millions?

We want to enforce a maximum penalty, even enforce a harsher penalty than law allows, for this specific crime; yet, we wash our hands of responsibility for the thrown-away lives of millions of similar animals.

The people who butchered the dog are horrible, yes, but they are being singled-out and scapegoated.

These two men took time out of their lives to do something horrible, yes. But, is what they did perhaps more respectful of life than that the rest of us expess as we continually do not take time out of our lives to do even a small part to reduce the suffering of so many other lives? :smallconfused:

I'm not arguing that what these men did was a good thing, that they are truly of better moral stuff than the rest of us. What I am thinking, though, is that our cries for their punishment are perhaps a bit hollow in that, if we'd previously seen this dog on the side of the road, many of us wouldn't have taken time out of our busy lives to even give it a scritch behind the ear or a tasty tidbit.

Maybe we don't care so much about the suffering and loss of life as we do about administering vengeance.

Um, just food for thought...?

*goes to give his kitty a cuddle* =3

[TigerHunter]

So you're saying killing people is better than mutilating puppies? You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
I never said that. The example I used was an accidental killing.


That is pure sophistry.
Sophistry forces us to examine beliefs that we may not otherwise be inclined to examine.


Living creatures should be treated according to what would be kind at their highest point of sentience, as we cannot be sure that are creature capable of being highly sentient is entirely non-sentient at any point in its lifetime.
Why? What does sentience or intelligence matter?


Whenever you make a statement, you should be able to prove it. "X is wrong" needs to be proved, just as much as "X is right" does.
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If you make a claim you cannot adequately defend, then that claim should not be presumed to be true.


Because we have more and higher emotions.
Higher? Laughable. The word you want is "different". Further, why is more emotionality better?


Everything returns to dust, so you can't prefer one dust-to-be over another.
Isn't that what I've been saying this entire conversation?


I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, and I thank you both for your arguments. You've all raised very good points that I'll have to think on over the next few days. Unfortunately, I need to be awake and functioning in seven hours, so I need to shower and get to bed.

Sleep well, everyone.

[RPGuru1331]

Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If you make a claim you cannot adequately defend, then that claim should not be presumed to be true.

Eheh, taking that metaphor by its diction... irrelevant. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution because in our society, we state "Innocent until proven guilty". If "Guilty until proven innocent", the burden of proof lies with the defendant.

Since neither is the guiding principle in debates, you generally have to support your own position, period. Anyway, sleep well.

[Ravyn]

Very well.

Biologists have studied animals extensively. They've done it for centuries, all searching out pretty much everything about species they've encountered. With extensive study, we have found relatively few species who use more then cursory communication; Oh sure, most species can say "Get offa my lawn" or "Get away from my woman", but very rarely do we even have "Food is found here!" Few animals can conceive a proper society beyond their own family. Even those that do rarely have concepts beyond "Food here", "Food not here,", "Sex now", "Enemies coming", etc. If they lack the capacity to communicate, even with their own kind, should I really believe they could communicate with us?

Magpies can count. African gray parrots understand the concept of zero. Ravens learn how to hide food from their fellows from their own attempts at stealing. New Caledonian crows bend wire and carve tools out of pandanus leaf, and even display evidence of 'handedness'. (Can you tell I spent a while in my evolution class studying avian intelligence?) There's also an entire project devoted to understanding the language--yes, you read me--of the American crow. Yes, they're a few species, and most of them are from the same family, but I'm not going to deny intelligence.

Moreover, it took years for people to learn even that, and biology is--dare I say it--an evolving science. Besides, people's biases have put back discoveries before; did you know that despite all evidence, it took biologists a hundred years to realize that female choice was a sexual selection mechanic? So I'm not going to assume that the fact that humans haven't found something in an animal species means that it isn't there.

Back on topic, definitely signed the petition. Even leaving aside the puppy's feelings on the matter (and I don't), the effect on the puppy's family is being rather devalued by the the end result as far as I can see it.

[RPGuru1331]

<Snip>, but I'm not going to deny intelligence.
I'm not going to deny intelligence. But look at what you've got. Compare it to what we've got. I don't just want rudimentary signs; If the argument is to be made that htey're accorded the same sort of respect as we accord each other, I want roughly equivalent intelligence.


Moreover, it took years for people to learn even that, and biology is--dare I say it--an evolving science. Besides, people's biases have put back discoveries before; did you know that despite all evidence, it took biologists a hundred years to realize that female choice was a sexual selection mechanic? So I'm not going to assume that the fact that humans haven't found something in an animal species means that it isn't there.
Given how many romantic naturalists we've had just begging for this particular conclusion, I'm inclined to discount Bias.

Not htat it doesn't exist, just that it's counteracted by bias in the opposite direction.


Back on topic, definitely signed the petition. Even leaving aside the puppy's feelings on the matter (and I don't), the effect on the puppy's family is being rather devalued by the the end result as far as I can see it.

What about on the perp's family? I feel relatively sure the puppy's family is going to get over it much quicker.

[[sWc]Konman]

It was a puppy. And they killed it so they could see it's pain. They needed the rush of power from causing something to feel pain. What is the maximum sentence for this? Because these men need more. This is too sad.:smallfrown:
Holy ****! Only two years! They SLAUGHTERED a defenseless animal and only recieve TWO years! What kind of a brutal word is this?! Only TWO years!!!?? O my god!

hey, i dont like it any more than you do, but its not HOMOCIDE. yes its bad, yes its brutal, but what do you want, a life sentence? 2 years will be more than enough to teach the pricks a lesson.

[Ravyn]

RPGuru: You make a good point; there's no evidence for or against family influence in how the perpetrator turned out. It does leave the question of how much the family of perpetrators of--much of any crime, really--should have to deal with their wayward relatives' offenses.

But the point is that a lot of people are arguing this down because the one directly affected wasn't human. True--but there are several people who are rather strongly affected who aren't human, and the individual through whom they have a connection to the case did not choose to be involved. From what I've seen, the justice system tends to follow that pattern.

Rationalization? Yes. Less valid? That's a tougher one to answer. The point is worth considering either way.

[Zeful]

1. We are the only animal that has been proven to be sentient. All living beings are sentient. Humans are the only sapient intelligence on Earth.

2. We are indisputably the most intelligent animal, by a wide margin. Depends how you look at it. We kill and force submission on our own species simply because they look different from us. There are few animal species that exhibit similar.

3. We are the animal with the greatest capacity to shape the direction of life on earth.With great power comes great responsibility. Us humans have yet to learn that lesson.

4. The continued existence of humanity, which the vast majority of humans support, depends on prioritizing the protection of human lives over those of animal lives. Except for Earth is currently overpopulated by us Sapient Apes. If half the population of the Earth vanished tomorrow, the world would be able to clean itself, as well as provide an adequate amount of food naturally, without poisoning ourselves.
What exactly makes a human life so valuable? One look at the world tells me this: Nothing about humanity makes it's existence any more valid than any other creature that we share this world with. Based on both past and present actions I actually find the value of a human life quickly dropping in the face of other animals.
We as a species are greedy, hateful, cruel and aggressive. Combined with our power over nature, I wouldn't bat an eye if I woke up tomorrow as the last human on the planet. We reap what we sow after all.

[Serpentine]

Hokay, so.
Yes, it's truly terrible all the awful things people are doing to other people in other places. However, 1. they generally stray into political discussion which is not allowed here, and 2. this thread is about this event, and thus the discussion here is also on that.
I would, indeed, be as shocked if someone did something like this to a snake or a rat. The idea of doing it to a snake is particularly horrifying, because how far could you go up its body before it actually dies? :smalleek: :smallyuk: I do kill flies, mosquitoes and cockroaches, but I always either feed them to a spider or try to do it as quickly as possible, as opposed to chopping them up bit by bit.
This does not have anything the least bit in common with slaughter for food. For starters, it's for food, not, as others have pointed out, for fun. I dislike sport and trophy hunters for the same reason. The slaughter of food animals is highly monitored to ensure as little pain and stress as possible, and is always under pressure for improvement. Anyone who tortures a calf to death and then eats it is just as heinous as these two men.
Yes, it would be worse if this was done to a human child. I was at least as sickened by news reports on a New Zealand 3- (or was it 4-?)year-old that was swung around a washing line, stuffed in a clothes dryer and had wrestling moves practiced on her until she finally died from her injuries. That doesn't make the fact that it was done to a puppy any less awful and disgusting. Something being worse does not make a bad thing better.
There is a constantly growing pool of research into the psychology of animals. It has been unarguably proven that many animals are self-aware, most have genuine emotions, many have complex problem-solving skills, many have complex communication systems - and we've only studied a tiny fraction of the world's fauna, and a mere skerrick of intelligence! To argue that animals don't think or can't feel is to be going back to pre-Darwinian biology. No, they don't think or feel the same as us, because they don't need to. Doesn't change the fact that they do. To argue that they deserve less respect because they can't think as well as us is to suggest that it'd be okay if it happened to, say, a mentally disabled person. It has been estimated that a chimpanzee has is approximately intellectually equal to a 3-4 year old. Leaving aside species-loyalty biases - which, while natural, are just that, biases - how would it be more okay for a chimpanzee to be tortured to death than a human toddler? I would argue that every other animal in the world is more important to the world than humans. If we disappeared, what other species would suffer? Probably some cats, dogs, sheep, etc. that we've bred to uselessness. That'd be about it. Remove a species of native Australian bee, and the plants it pollenises suffer, and all the other animals that rely on it, and all the animals that rely on them, and all the plants... etc. etc. Obviously a puppy isn't gonna be as ecologically important, but it is ridiculous to suggest that its pain and death doesn't matter because it's not as important as humans.
I didn't sign the petition, because I agree with the legal arguments that a trial - any trial - should not be influenced by public opinion. I would sign a petition to have the penalties for animal cruelty massively increased. I do not think that corporal punishment is the answer. I don't think it works for anything. The point of the justice system is to deter and/or rehabilitate. Corporal punishment, particularly the death sentence, does neither. It is merely revenge, which has no place in justice. I am proud that Australia wiped this method of punishment long ago, and any suggestion that it should be brought back makes me cringe. I am worried about how often this seems to be happening here. Not that long ago there was a story about a couple of guys who tortured a kitten to death on a railway platform... It's disgusting, and it needs to be taken seriously, more seriously than it has been.
edit: I want to add that I am really glad that these sorts of events receive so much attention, and are the object of so much public ire and disgust. Even if the punishment is fairly paltry, I hope (and believe) that the force of public opinion helps to discourage this behaviour.

[UnChosenOne]

Pretty ugly. But who have ever sayed that we human's are anything other than monsters.

And i'm those who think that there should be higger punishmend from thise animal-cruelty. And by this higger punishmend i mean being flayed when alive. This to all between these man's and eko-terrorist group's.

[ghost_warlock]

*snipped for brevity*

*points to own previous post*

Here, here, Serpes. I completely agree.

*didn't sign the petition, either*

[thubby]

welcome to earth
serial killer population: +2
seriously, they all started on animals.

[Oregano]

I've only had chance to skim the thread but about the original post, that's murder, whichever way you want to see it. They should be getting 25 to life.:smallmad:

[thubby]

I've only had chance to skim the thread but about the original post, that's murder, whichever way you want to see it. They should be getting 25 to life.:smallmad:

that the puppy is dead is irrelevant, we kill animals constantly.

[Flame of Anor]

This thread is making me ponder.

Which is the greater evil: deliberate harm to an individual, or apathy in the face of the suffering of millions?

I would say #1, with conditions. I'm not sure how doing nothing could be willful--unless in a situation such as, say, people in a room with a gas leak, and a lever right next to you. In that case, I would say not pulling the lever is deliberate harm.

Think of this: what if you had never existed? In that case, you would have had "apathy in the face of the suffering of millions" due to not existing, but you would not do "deliberate harm to an individual" due to not existing. Thus we see that the objective good or evil of the actions make #1 the more evil.

Of course, we should also consider subjective good or evil: intent. There is, I believe, some degree of involvement and relief of others' suffering that is a minimum to do to be doing good; it is a function of capability. For example, consider when Bill Gates gives millions to charity, and someone else, very poor, gives a few dollars to charity. Clearly, Bill Gates's contribution is the greater objective good, but the poor person's contribution may be the greater subjective. (You know, I just realized I'm restating that one parable with the Pharisee and the widow. Go read it.)


*goes to give his kitty a cuddle* =3

Good call!


Sophistry forces us to examine beliefs that we may not otherwise be inclined to examine.

Maybe so, but how is doing that through word-trickery better than doing it through presenting the arguments clearly and plainly? If the arguments don't hold up when presented clearly and plainly, and need sophistry to make them look good, then they don't deserve consideration.


Why? What does sentience or intelligence matter?

Wha--how can you say that? In determining a life form's rights, they are the only things that matter! What else would you suggest? If you take away those criteria, then a bacterium or a self-replicating robot would have as much right to live as a person, dog, or ape!


Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If you make a claim you cannot adequately defend, then that claim should not be presumed to be true.

Well, I certainly was not presuming anything. I have my opinion, and I am defending it--adequately, as I judge. I am also listening to others opinions.


Higher? Laughable. The word you want is "different". Further, why is more emotionality better?

No, the word I want is "higher." Don't tell me what I mean. Our thoughts and emotions are higher because we have more of them and make more of them. We are the only beings (other than conjecturable extra-terrestrials, which I hope are irrelevant) who can discuss complex theoretical ideas such as philosophy, language, and the meaning of art. There is no idea that an animal can consider that a human cannot. You may say that it is possible that some animals discuss higher ideas, and we merely do not understand them, but, if you say so, I say that that is pure, unverified, and unlikely speculation. Why would they not have made use of their capacities for higher thought?

(And if you want this to be a reasoned debate, as I do, then don't call your opponent's argument laughable! :smallmad: That's a logically meaningless ad hominem attack, and serves only to anger. Anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering. The dark side are they!)


I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, and I thank you both for your arguments. You've all raised very good points that I'll have to think on over the next few days. Unfortunately, I need to be awake and functioning in seven hours, so I need to shower and get to bed.

Sleep well, everyone.

Thank you for such a civil response. Let us make sure that we all take it as an example. I should go to bed soon also, but I would like to express my gratitude for such a stimulating intellectual discussion. I rarely have such a chance to test my wits, and, with the slight unfortunate exception above, you have been very polite. Again, I thank you.




All living beings are sentient. Humans are the only sapient intelligence on Earth.

The dictionary gives two definitions for "sentient," recreated here:

1: Having sense perception; conscious.
2: Experiencing sensation or feeling.

If you mean the first one, then you are not correct, as there are plenty of living beings, e.g. trees, that are in no way self-aware. If the second, I'm not sure what your statement adds to the discussion. It's like saying "all living beings use energy." Unless perhaps you were trying to clarify the meaning of the word? If that was your intent, then your post makes sense, though definition #1, "conscious," is used at least as often as the one you seem to advocate. Sapient is, perhaps, a better word for "conscious and having human-level thoughts" than "sentient." That may be confusing, though, as SurlySeraph has been using "sentient" to mean that.



2. We are indisputably the most intelligent animal, by a wide margin.
Depends how you look at it. We kill and force submission on our own species simply because they look different from us. There are few animal species that exhibit similar.
With great power comes great responsibility. Us humans have yet to learn that lesson.

You may have a point about humans' wisdom, but that has nothing to to with our intelligence. A psychotic murderer or an evil genocidal dictator could be very intelligent.


Except for Earth is currently overpopulated by us Sapient Apes. If half the population of the Earth vanished tomorrow, the world would be able to clean itself, as well as provide an adequate amount of food naturally, without poisoning ourselves.
What exactly makes a human life so valuable? One look at the world tells me this: Nothing about humanity makes it's existence any more valid than any other creature that we share this world with. Based on both past and present actions I actually find the value of a human life quickly dropping in the face of other animals.
We as a species are greedy, hateful, cruel and aggressive. Combined with our power over nature, I wouldn't bat an eye if I woke up tomorrow as the last human on the planet. We reap what we sow after all.

Wow, you're cynical. Overpopulated I'll grant, but that's hardly a fault. When you improve medical care and food distribution, the population is going to grow, period. Only weird artificial systems have been, so far, able to reduce populations. (For example, China's one-child policy is working so well that there are almost no girls in China, so in a decade or two the balance of genders will be horribly skewed.) So what do you expect people to do? Stop fulfilling their hormonally driven biological imperatives?

Nothing makes our existence any more valid? (NB: "valid" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. I think you mean "nothing gives us any more right to exist," because "valid" means "true" or "logically sound," and of course we actually exist. This analysis of your meaning is the assumption I'll be going on.) So maybe we don't have any more right to be here than whales or bugs or snakes or nematodes. So what? I don't think anyone said that we should remove them from the planet. And I don't think anyone would agree to remove ourselves from the planet. So I'm not really sure what you are arguing against.

Greedy, hateful, cruel[,] and aggressive? Sure, some humans are. Many humans, in fact. Many more are not. As a species? I don't think that's even a valid way to look at ourselves. Some of us hurt animals, some of us help animals. We have not had contact with extraterrestrial races on a par with us that would test our interactions.

Perhaps you are referring, however, not to our relations, as a species, with other species, but to the general character of our relations within our species with others of our kind. If so, I admit that too large a fraction of our species is "greedy, hateful, cruel[,] and aggressive."

But how are we to change that but by moving forward? Surely much or most of the damage that we have done to each other and the world is due to archaic practices which we have moved forward from. Famine, for example, which is very devastating, happens exclusively in less-developed countries with non-democratic governments. (Note: this is actually true about the governments. Less-developed countries with democratic governments sometimes have food shortage, but not famine per se.) And when was the last time there was a genocide in a well-developed, Western country? The last time I can think of was in WWII, and, while that may seem recent, the situation traces its roots back to the attitudes of 19th-century colonial Europe. And surely you must admit that the trend of human rights has been forward. In the United States government, for example, we have come from 1) colonial tyranny to 2) democracy with mostly-white males represented to 3) democracy with all males represented to 4) democracy with all adults represented. Similar trends happen in most places.


Well, I hope to have been persuasive and of help. Good night to worthy allies (*nods to SurlySeraph*) and opponents (*nods to TigerHunter*).

Zzzzz...

[Oregano]

that the puppy is dead is irrelevant, we kill animals constantly.

Yer and humans are killed every day, there's still murder though. And it was torture, mutilation and murder.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Haven't read the whole topic, just the first page and a few random posts on the last page (will read the rest later).

My thoughts - get them to plead insanity. Then, lock them up in a mental institution. And do therapy with them. Why? Chances are they have antisocial personality disorder (what used to be known as "psychopathy") and so don't really give a f*** about other people's feelings or even other people at all, just themselves (they lack any empathy, remorse and don't have very much fear of punishment).

Having them go to jail won't do very much. They'll just meet lots of like-minded people and might end up running protection rackets on leaving jail, in the best case scenario (and will become serial killers with tips on how to avoid cops in the worst). However, forcing them to talk for several hours a day about feelings they don't have WILL be pretty good punishment. Coupled with what pretty much will be solitary confinement.

On animal emotions and the like: some animals have almost human-level cognition. Namely, dolphins and ravens, and there's a debate whether African Grey Parrots do too. Parrots and higher apes also have the capability to use generative language with meaning (i.e. make up new sentences they never heard before, while following grammar rules and the like). Which implies they are potentially sentient, self-aware (apes are - they react to their own image in the mirror like humans, instead of like, for example cats, who see another cat instead of themselves) and conscious.

[Serpentine]

I The dictionary gives two definitions for "sentient," recreated here:

1: Having sense perception; conscious.
2: Experiencing sensation or feeling.

If you mean the first one, then you are not correct, as there are plenty of living beings, e.g. trees, that are in no way self-aware. If the second, I'm not sure what your statement adds to the discussion. It's like saying "all living beings use energy." Unless perhaps you were trying to clarify the meaning of the word? If that was your intent, then your post makes sense, though definition #1, "conscious," is used at least as often as the one you seem to advocate. Sapient is, perhaps, a better word for "conscious and having human-level thoughts" than "sentient." That may be confusing, though, as SurlySeraph has been using "sentient" to mean that.While I don't think the word "sentient" is likely to be applied to plants, they do have sense perception. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to bend toward the light, or close in on a fly..

Humans are more important to other humans. On a world-wide scale, the life of one human is worth no more - in many cases, substantially less - than the life of one (other) animal. There is no objective category by which humans could be designated "more important" than any other species, except in terms of their negative impacts (or, arguably, religion).

[Pyrian]

There is no objective category by which humans could be designated "more important" than any other species...Objectivity is all about looking at things without the usual value judgments - "objectively speaking, X isn't important" is not profound, it's redundant.


When you improve medical care and food distribution, the population is going to grow, period. Only weird artificial systems have been, so far, able to reduce populations.Affluence. Rich populations, for whatever reason, almost invariably shrink (not counting immigration from less affluent populations).

[Hoplite]

Because it seems relevant, here is a part of a school essay I wrote a view days ago, about animal rights, the title was "Animal Emancipation". It gives a good overview of how people have looked at animals throughout history and what arguments were used in favor of human superiority. Most importantly I find the ideas of Jermy Bentham in this discussion, so I will make them bold.


It was in the year 1792, when women were getting more and more rights, that the British philosopher Thomas Taylor wrote an essay on why this was a very bad idea. He believed that giving women rights was a big mistake as it would logistically mean that we should also give rights to animals and this was, as he saw it, unwanted. The British House of Commons also had its doubts on female emancipation as they weren’t sure what the next step could be. Where would it end, would animals have to have rights too?
This essay it about what I view as the next step in emancipation, namely the emancipation of animals. I will first describe the three main traditions that shaped the way how we in today’s Western world look at animals. After that I will try to explain the ideas behind animal emancipation by explaining a few of the opinions certain “thinkers” had and have on animals. Afterwards I will discuss some common used arguments used against the idea of giving animals rights.

The first tradition that shaped our view on animals is that of classical Greece. When talking about animals, Greece was divided in two great factions. The first one was that of Pythagoras, who was vegetarian and believe in reincarnation. The believe in reincarnation can still be found in many eastern cultures today and often these cultures look differently at animals than we do. Pythagoras taught his students to respect animals. The opposing faction was that of Aristotle, who taught his students that animals were inferior and ours to use and exploit. However he did believe that mankind was in essence animal, yet a rational animal. The faction of Aristotle became dominant in Greece. Next was the Jewish-Christian tradition which taught that God had created men in his own image as lord over all animals. This justified most uses of animals. The last tradition that has a large impact on how we view animals is humanism, from the renaissance. It saw men as the centre of the universe and the measure of all things. Animals were left out of this and seen as inferior to the greatness of humans.

Some men however did not agree with this. Amongst them was Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher who lived from 1748 to 1832. Bentham first identified many of the differences between humans and animals that were often used to justify human superiority and questioned whether or not these differences were relevant. Examples of these differences include the inability to speak, lesser intelligence and the apparent absence within animals of a morale, an idea of good and evil. Bentham examined these differences and when for example looking at intelligence more deeply came to the following conclusions. Even though people were using the lower intelligence of animals as a reason for giving them lower rights than humans these people were not assuming that humans with higher intelligence, such as for example people like Newton, Einstein or Richard Dawkins, should have more rights than lesser gifted people. Bentham also found that horses and dogs were often more intelligent than human infants or mentally disabled and were not considered to have animal like, or even less than animal, rights. Bentham therefore came to the conclusion that when we want to know if we should give animals rights or not we should not ask ourselves whether or not they can think or reason, but whether or not they can suffer.

As all vertebrate animals have a nervous system that looks remarkably like ours in almost every way, we can only conclude that they can suffer just like us.

The second great thinker was Charles Darwin, who lived from 1809 to 1882, and he discovered evolution and by that proved that humans were animals. This makes justifying human superiority/animal inferiority much more difficult.

The last thinker is Peter Singer, American philosopher and author of the book Animal Liberation, he was inspired by Darwin and Bentham and developed his ideas about animal equality. He believed that as animals and humans have many of the same interests that these interests should be considered equally. This means that because a dog doesn’t have any interest in voting, he shouldn’t be treated the same a human adult when dealing with electoral voting. However, as both the dog and the human have an equal interest in not suffering (and both are capable of equal suffering), their interests should be treated as equal. Singer concluded that if we would not consider these interests equal that would be as objectionable as racism or sexism. In racism you consider the interests of one group more important than that of an other group based on their race. In sexism you consider the interests of one group more important than that of an other group based on their gender and in speciesisme, a word introduced by Singer from the word species, you consider the interests of one group more important than that of an other group based on their species.

Animal emancipation is not only giving animals rights, but making sure they receive the rights they deserve as a non-inferior species, making sure their interests are considered equal. These ideas of animal equality change large aspects of our society. It isn’t justifiable anymore to harm and kill animals for our own gains. Human interests are not anymore automatically more important than the interests of animals.

One of the most common used arguments for treating animals as if they were inferior and against giving them rights comes from an the strange idea that natural phenomena are a basis for ethics. The argument is that we are allowed to treat animals as inferior because we are able to do so and it is only natural for us, as it would be part of the food chain or Darwin’s theory on the struggle for life. This is of course nonsense. Natural phenomena can’t (or at least shouldn’t) be used as ethical guidance, because nature doesn’t define things as good or evil. If we would see all things natural as ethical we could conclude that there was nothing wrong with people dying by Tsunamis, mainly because Tsunamis are just part of the natural meteorology. Nature does not work like that. There are many things that are considered unnatural and are not evil or unethical and there are also many things that are natural, but considered unethical. Therefore whether something is natural or not has no relevance when discussing ethics. Even if we would use the struggle for life to justify speciesisme it would make sense if racism would also be justified as the struggle for life is more about how individuals of the same species, the same niche, struggle to survive. Only after that we can conclude that the struggle is also between animals of almost the same niche.

People also try to appeal to tradition, saying that we always treated animals this way, yet appealing to tradition is a fallacy. Many things have changed in the past as well, it would be foolish to say that all change is bad.
The last argument I will discuss here is that animals don’t have morals and therefore should be “punished” or at least don’t deserve rights. Of course it is doubtful whether or not this is true, because human criminals also have certain rights, more than animals, and don’t loose their human rights if they have committed a crime. A very important difference here is also that a criminal needs to commit a crime first before getting punished. Animals are not “immoral” as in “unethical” just like the stereotypical villain, but they are incapable of making decisions on whether something would be good or bad. They are incapable of making ethical decisions, just like human infants or very mentally disabled. Just like punishing them for crimes they committed becomes questionable as they can’t grasp the concept of a crime, good and evil, the same is true for animals. Even if they don’t have ethics, we do. Do we certainly loose our ethical constrictions when dealing with immoral people? No, whether you have rights or not, does not depend on your willingness to respect the rights of others.

Therefore I believe that the emancipation of animals is coming. It might take a while, just like with the emancipation of women or negroes, mainly because creating awareness is a slow process. It might even take centuries, but it will come. When it comes it will not only mean the liberation from cages and imprisonment, but also the legal liberation from being without rights.

[Serpentine]

:smallconfused:
Uh...
One of the many goals of scientific research is to determine, objectively, the most important factor in something. I... don't really get what you're saying :smallconfused: I get the impression that, if anything, you're picking at my wording, not addressing the intent.
I wish I knew where my lecturer in animal behaviour got the figure demonstrating the change in the line drawing "the difference between animals and humans" over the years... The first one was "animals do not feel pain", then "animals do not feel emotions", then "animals do not use tools", etc. Every single one has been comprehensively disproven, and the current one (I think it was "abstract thought" or somesuch) is well on the way.

[Elm11]

I'm going to email the petition to the whole school community. That is so sickening :smallfurious:

[ghost_warlock]

I would say #1, with conditions. I'm not sure how doing nothing could be willful--unless in a situation such as, say, people in a room with a gas leak, and a lever right next to you. In that case, I would say not pulling the lever is deliberate harm.

Think of this: what if you had never existed? In that case, you would have had "apathy in the face of the suffering of millions" due to not existing, but you would not do "deliberate harm to an individual" due to not existing. Thus we see that the objective good or evil of the actions make #1 the more evil.

Of course, we should also consider subjective good or evil: intent. There is, I believe, some degree of involvement and relief of others' suffering that is a minimum to do to be doing good; it is a function of capability. For example, consider when Bill Gates gives millions to charity, and someone else, very poor, gives a few dollars to charity. Clearly, Bill Gates's contribution is the greater objective good, but the poor person's contribution may be the greater subjective. (You know, I just realized I'm restating that one parable with the Pharisee and the widow. Go read it.)
My point was that nobody, aside from perhaps its owners, gave two ****s about the puppy until it was killed. And then everyone gets bloodthirsty, raving about how horrible it all was. Well, duh, yeah the loss of a life is sad, and it was a terrible way to die.

But I don't think people really care so much about the puppy's suffering as they do about punishing the people who committed the crime. Maximum sentencing, death penalty, etc. Vengeance, bloodthirsty thinking, doesn't make us much better than the people who killed the puppy, and it certainly won't bring the puppy back or do anything to comfort the people who were personally affected by what happened.

Let justice be served as the law is intended, drop the petition idea to influence the legal system, and go do something to make the lives of living puppies better. :smallsigh:

[Raiser Blade]

Wow that is sad. They don't deserve to be killed though, prison time + therapy is enough in my opinion.

Obviously they have deep seated issues. If they have to spend years in a mental institution they will have definitely payed for their atrocity.

[thubby]

Yer and humans are killed every day, there's still murder though. And it was torture, mutilation and murder.

i was talking about the meat industry. the mutilation and torture are bad, of course. but if you eat meat, or use any product of similar origin, with any regularity you have little grounds to object to the killing of animals.

if you are a vegan/vegetarian, then we have a whole different debate on our hands.

about the whole human/animal debate: even if we lack any differences on the fundamental level, we are animals, and like every other animal, we value our kind over others.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Read most of the thread. Guys, read up on ingroup-outgroup dynamics. We value members of our own group (aka ingroup, usually defined by a certain noticeable but surface characteristic like nationality or religion or where you're from) much more than non-members of our group, aka the outgroup. In this case ingroup is humans. Outgroup is animals. In other cases it could be your country vs. other countries. Or your religion vs. other religions... Or your stone-age village vs. neighbouring stone age village.

The way our psyche is wired is that sometimes we don't even consider outgroup members "human" if it's "convenient" for us (e.g. it's okay to kill enemy soldiers who are only defending their homeland if we're a barbarian tribe that wants to settle where they've been living for centuries). There's many modern examples too but I don't want to go into them as per forum rules.

Chances are people who consider animals as inferiour have never had a kitten that they've cared for since it's birth, haven't seen or haven't really cared about animals experiencing real joy or sadness or trying to help their owners. So they consider animals an outgroup. And so don't really care about them. And if they get together and talk on this subject, group polarization will occur - they will become more anti-animal if they were only slightly anti-animal.

[banjo1985]

Disgusting stuff full stop. It's amazing the depths some people go to in regards to hurting animals. I used to regularly walk past a park where kids would consistently spike hedgehogs onto the pointed railings...it's sometimes hard to believe which are the animals and which are the people.

As for the meat industry...well, at least it's for food I guess, mutilating and decapitating animals for fun is just sick.

[Pyrian]

One of the many goals of scientific research is to determine, objectively, the most important factor in something.Well, no, or at least, when they do, they mean something much more specific than "most important" (usually highest levels of correlation and causality) and totally unrelated to a value judgment such as "humans are more important than animals".


I get the impression that, if anything, you're picking at my wording, not addressing the intent.Well, that was not my intention.


I wish I knew where my lecturer in animal behaviour got the figure demonstrating the change in the line drawing "the difference between animals and humans" over the years... The first one was "animals do not feel pain", then "animals do not feel emotions", then "animals do not use tools", etc. Every single one has been comprehensively disproven, and the current one (I think it was "abstract thought" or somesuch) is well on the way.Heh, I always thought those categorical distinctions were absurd from the start. We are animals, and I am dubious that our intelligence is much different in nature, rather than simply scale.

Anyway, I think it is critical to rank life in terms of intelligence. If you fail to do so, you will find that even plants have rudimentary awareness, pain response, and even communication. If you limit it to neuronal intelligences, you've got the problem of mites - insects too small to see. If each of their lives are as important as human lives, do you dare even move? Until we can somehow take ourselves out of the biosphere entirely, we will participate in it, in all its beauty and ugliness, there's just no other option.

So yes, humans > apes > dogs > chickens > insects > plants.

Still... Those are generalizations, and there are other factors. People are going to rank family (including pets) higher, innocent higher, and sadistic killers lower. Zero those out, and I think you get a much better comparison: would you save your dog or your mom? Would you save someone else's innocent animal, or that just-as-innocent person?

I rank humans above dogs as a generality. Would I sacrifice an innocent puppy to save a sadistic mass murderer? Of course not. ...I might even sacrifice an innocent puppy to kill such a person.


Guys, read up on ingroup-outgroup dynamics.
...
Chances are people who consider animals as inferiour have never had a kitten that they've cared for since it's birth, haven't seen or haven't really cared about animals experiencing real joy or sadness or trying to help their owners. So they consider animals an outgroup. And so don't really care about them.First off, that is of course a total absurdity; most people have beloved pets, and most people nonetheless believe that humans are more important than animals. In my experience, farmers and zookeepers are even MORE likely to believe this. Second off, I think it's more than a little ironic that you would so blatantly demonstrate the very ingroup-outgroup dynamic you're talking about: "Oh, those people must've never loved a kitten..."

[Samurai Jill]

Humans want to survive, and sane humans want other humans to survive. Valuing human life above the animal life makes it easier for humans to survive. Therefore, we value human lives the most. That's perfectly logical. What we can't do is justify this conviction objectively, from a non-human position. And I'm OK with that, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life as a human.
You can't come up with an objective justification for any abstract moral imperative- there is no direct way to turn statements about what is into statements about what ought, with no prior moral assumptions. (However, you can try to come up with as minimal a set of objective-fact/moral-imperative pairings that will give as unambiguous and consistent a guide to action in as wide a variety of situations as possible.)

I mean, saying that 'I'm human, therefore I value other humans" has nothing to do with objectivity at all. Your human-ness is purely subjective. It's also essentially narcissism in a different guise- you resemble me, therefore I like you. Why is self-reflection a condition for moral worth? It's a statement of how you do think, but says nothing about why you ought to think it.
If, however, if you were state some definite, objective criteria for identifying human-ness, you then have to ask the question of why those criteria matter. Bipedal gait? Opposable thumbs? Tool use? What is it about 'you' that's important, anyway?

The differences in self-awareness between various forms of animals are far, far larger than the differences between humans and other species. Heck, if you compare us with bonobo chimpanzees, it basically comes down to a few points of IQ- Bonobos can apparently be taught the rudiments of grammar and metaphor, for cripessake. As far as I'm concerned, that basically makes them people- stupid people- but people nonetheless. There's obviously a continual spectrum of evolutionary development leading all the way from single-celled protists to our so-called-civilisation. We need to acknowledge that.

I'm also skeptical of claims that inability to communicate automatically disqualifies animals from possessing rights. I mean, what about the severely autistic?- They don't communicate much. -Do they not have rights?

[Serpentine]

I think I can sum up my side of the apparent argument more succinctly: Yes, humans (including myself, honestly - I would sacrifice my beloved cat to save, say, my nephew, but my God I hope I never get put in that position) do consider other humans to be more "important" than other species. Yes, it would be more shocking and awful if this happened to a human child. Yes, there probably wouldn't be as much of an outcry if it were done to a less cute species - for that human specism is to blame, not some innate relative "quality" of the animal. No, that doesn't make this act any less despicable, heinous, disgusting and other extremely negative adjectives.
Humans are, indeed, "superior" to animals in terms of intellect. But that's just one path of development, that we happen to have taken. Put a man in a ring with a bear for a wrestling match and see who's "superior" then. Or have a woman out-swim a seal, or outlast an albatross. There is no "perfect organism", and if there was, humans wouldn't be it.

[GoC]

What they did would only warrent a few months, however the reasons (lack thereof?) for what they did warrent life imprisonment due to psycopathy.

EDIT: I'd say anything capable of understanding the Turing Thesis qualifies as a person and is entitled to full rights.
It's likely that a lot of the more severely disabled people don't qualify but does that mean we should remove their personhood? No. Because we can't put a definite line on what qualifies as understanding and what doesn't and with lives at stake it's far better to err on the side of caution.
Animal on the other hand simply lack the required intelligence.

[Serpentine]

I suspect I wouldn't understand the Turing Thesis...
What is it?:smallconfused:
Anyway, it's not as though we're saying they should get to vote or whatever. "Freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering" isn't all that revolutionary an offer. Intellect is no qualifier for this. Only the ability to experience pain, fear, and/or distress. And no, eating meat isn't contradictory to this. It is recommended that you put crabs and lobsters in the freezer to have them "go to sleep" rather than chuck them straight in the boiling water for this reason.

edit: Oh, and on the subject of "all humans want to protect their species and for it to prosper and it's fine for people to take over the world and that's just the way it is", check out voluntary extinction (http://www.vhemt.org/) (this particular site is a bit more extreme than the one I read a while ago... Maybe they've changed their tone, but I think I've got the wrong one. You get the idea, anyway).

[GoC]

So yes, humans > apes > dogs > chickens > insects > plants.
Hmm...
What are the multipliers involved?
10 apes per human? 100 puppies per human? 1000 chickens per humans? 10,000 ants per human? Plants would probably be measured in biomass...
So what are the multipliers there?


I suspect I wouldn't understand the Turing Thesis...
Inferior dog!:smalltongue:
Nah, you could. It might take you a while (several hundred hours on the outside) but you certainly could.


What is it?:smallconfused:
It's a rather interesting theorum with deep philosophical implications.
Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_thesis)


Anyway, it's not as though we're saying they should get to vote or whatever. "Freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering" isn't all that revolutionary an offer. Intellect is no qualifier for this. Only the ability to experience pain, fear, and/or distress. And no, eating meat isn't contradictory to this. It is recommended that you put crabs and lobsters in the freezer to have them "go to sleep" rather than chuck them straight in the boiling water for this reason.
Hmm...
I think that anyone who administers unnecessary pain and suffering on animals like puppies is likely to be dangerous and should be incarcerated, however I don't believe animals have a right to this.
I mean we conduct abortions don't we? And the fetus can probably experience pain after a few months.

[GoC]

Yes, I would have cheered, and I would have helped if at all possible. And no, it's not vengeance that matters...it's justice. 10-20 years prison term for an act that may well have ruined the victim's life? He deserved to die horribly...and the court should have been the one to sentence him to that horrible death. Mobs shouldn't be going around lynching people because the people that deserve it should be sentenced to agonizing death by the courts. Remember, just because laws and/or courts give someone a sentence doesn't mean that the sentence is just.
You are a sick sadistic person.
It might have juined their life indeed. But is rape really always something that a few years of counseling can't allow someone to walk the streets and live a normal life again? I think not. Some people are more fragile than others but most don't spontaneously burst into a fit of tears at the mention of the name of rapist many years later.

[ghost_warlock]

I suspect I wouldn't understand the Turing Thesis...
What is it?:smallconfused:
Anyway, it's not as though we're saying they should get to vote or whatever. "Freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering" isn't all that revolutionary an offer. Intellect is no qualifier for this. Only the ability to experience pain, fear, and/or distress. And no, eating meat isn't contradictory to this. It is recommended that you put crabs and lobsters in the freezer to have them "go to sleep" rather than chuck them straight in the boiling water for this reason.

edit: Oh, and on the subject of "all humans want to protect their species and for it to prosper and it's fine for people to take over the world and that's just the way it is", check out voluntary extinction (http://www.vhemt.org/) (this particular site is a bit more extreme than the one I read a while ago... Maybe they've changed their tone, but I think I've got the wrong one. You get the idea, anyway).

If a perfect organism existed, it would likely be a type of fungi.

[WNxHasoroth]

I think I can sum up my side of the apparent argument more succinctly: Yes, humans (including myself, honestly - I would sacrifice my beloved cat to save, say, my nephew, but my God I hope I never get put in that position) do consider other humans to be more "important" than other species. Yes, it would be more shocking and awful if this happened to a human child. Yes, there probably wouldn't be as much of an outcry if it were done to a less cute species - for that human specism is to blame, not some innate relative "quality" of the animal. No, that doesn't make this act any less despicable, heinous, disgusting and other extremely negative adjectives.
Humans are, indeed, "superior" to animals in terms of intellect. But that's just one path of development, that we happen to have taken. Put a man in a ring with a bear for a wrestling match and see who's "superior" then. Or have a woman out-swim a seal, or outlast an albatross. There is no "perfect organism", and if there was, humans wouldn't be it.

Just like to go on an off topic ride for a second. In a way, although humans aren't perfect, we're on the way. A human can't out wrestle a bear, out swim a seal, or outlast an albatross. A human can build a tank, a ship, or a plane. We make up for our deficiencies. In a way, we're like the stem cells in a body, we're not really specialized until we need to be.

Back on the topic of despicable animal cruelty (I was really horrified by this I may as well add. Its, well, bad. I hope the torturers get more than two years)

[Project_Mayhem]

What are the multipliers involved?
10 apes per human? 100 puppies per human? 1000 chickens per humans? 10,000 ants per human? Plants would probably be measured in biomass...
So what are the multipliers there?

As far as I'm concerned, it's something like 'as many of 'n' as can die without causing other people to die' per human when we're talking about people I care about.


edit: Oh, and on the subject of "all humans want to protect their species and for it to prosper and it's fine for people to take over the world and that's just the way it is", check out voluntary extinction (this particular site is a bit more extreme than the one I read a while ago... Maybe they've changed their tone, but I think I've got the wrong one. You get the idea, anyway).

This is amusing. At least they won't be spreading their genes.

Edit: been reading more. I like the idea that wanting kids is racist.

[Serpentine]

Hmm...
I think that anyone who administers unnecessary pain and suffering on animals like puppies is likely to be dangerous and should be incarcerated, however I don't believe animals have a right to this.
I mean we conduct abortions don't we? And the fetus can probably experience pain after a few months.I'm not going to touch the last line, which is a discussion all of its own, but I cannot stress enough how utterly and absolutely I disagree with your opinion that animals should not have a right to freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering. I disagree on such a profound and fundamental level which renders me incapable of perceiving how you could even be of that belief, that I cannot think how to construct an argument that might have a chance of convincing you otherwise. Suffice to say, I absolutely do believe all animals have that right, and I would fight for it if given the opportunity to do so.

[Coidzor]

This is amusing. At least they won't be spreading their genes.

I always figured such movements and people were outliers and aberrations rather than indicative of a norm. As even homosexuals whose sexual expression of choice would never lead to reproduction have a portion of the group that desire to reproduce and perpetuate their genes.

[Oregano]

i was talking about the meat industry. the mutilation and torture are bad, of course. but if you eat meat, or use any product of similar origin, with any regularity you have little grounds to object to the killing of animals.

if you are a vegan/vegetarian, then we have a whole different debate on our hands.

about the whole human/animal debate: even if we lack any differences on the fundamental level, we are animals, and like every other animal, we value our kind over others.

I'm not a vegan/vegetarian but I think there's a difference between humanely(from what I've seen it's quite humane) killing livestock to use for food and massacring a small puppy for fun. But I can understand your point.

[hamishspence]

Out-and-out sadism triggers different reactions to meat production, where suffering of animals is a byproduct, rather than an intention. How bad the suffering is may depend out what section of the industry it as, and how much the priioritise efficiency.

Sadism to humans compared to sadism to animals seems to incur differnt reactions as well.

Belief that inadequate sentences gives people the right to carry out, or encourage others to carry out, vigilante "justice" makes me nervous. Better poor law, that actively trying to break down the system of law.

and while all suffering IMO Ought to lead to reaction of compassion and outrage, people compartmentalise- cutting off natural reaction of compassion for people they believe "deserve" to suffer. Or, conversely, taking enjoyment in suffering of animals while being shocked at suffering of humans.

I suspect same would apply all through history- enjoying suffering of animals and some humans, while being upset at suffering of those close to you, likely goes back to the Romans and before.

The claim that those who enjoy suffering of animals enjoy suffering of all humans might not be well founded.

[Saithis Bladewing]

If a perfect organism existed, it would likely be a type of fungi.

I always knew it was the orks...

</derail>

Honestly, I don't see the point of a petition. While this is something that never should have happened, and the people most certainly deserve a harsh punishment for it...how is 2 years imprisonment not harsh? Have you ever spent two weeks in a prison, let alone two months or years? They are not pretty places.

The sad thing is, unlike what many people have claimed, I'm not convinced that these people necessarily have 'deep-seated psychological problems' beyond a sadistic streak. Humanity is not a nice species, no matter how much we try to play ourselves off as one, and we are all capable of great cruelty, every one of us, be it physical or psychological. One can certainly hope they have legitimate psychological issues for doing this, but to be frank, I would not be surprised in the slightest if it was just a case of drunken boorish youths looking for something 'different' to do for the night, especially seeing as how many humans do not view animals as equal or empathise with them on any kind of instinctual level.

That said, the evils of vigilante justice aside, I'd have beaten the living hell out of them if I had stumbled in on them doing this. No creature deserves to suffer, no matter how high or low their status in the real or perceived chain of importance is.

[Flame of Anor]

Affluence. Rich populations, for whatever reason, almost invariably shrink (not counting immigration from less affluent populations).

Yes, that is kind of strange. My guess is that it is because rich people have more things to amuse themselves with than poor people, who therefore have a lot of *ahem* *hrrmph* (nudge nudge wink wink).


I wish I knew where my lecturer in animal behaviour got the figure demonstrating the change in the line drawing "the difference between animals and humans" over the years... The first one was "animals do not feel pain", then "animals do not feel emotions", then "animals do not use tools", etc. Every single one has been comprehensively disproven, and the current one (I think it was "abstract thought" or somesuch) is well on the way.

I'm not sure what idiot thought that animals don't feel pain, but I'll grant the disproven theories of animal non-tool use and lack of emotion (though let me emphasize that it is only the higher animals that do this). But abstract thought? Well on the way to being disproved? That's quite an assertion, and you haven't backed it up at all. I don't think we can take that seriously without some kind of reference.


Disgusting stuff full stop. It's amazing the depths some people go to in regards to hurting animals. I used to regularly walk past a park where kids would consistently spike hedgehogs onto the pointed railings...it's sometimes hard to believe which are the animals and which are the people.

Wha--*throws up* Gah! That's sickening!


Heh, I always thought those categorical distinctions were absurd from the start. We are animals, and I am dubious that our intelligence is much different in nature, rather than simply scale.

Sure, our intelligence is on the same scale as animals (and by that I mean a measurement scale, not that it is the same size) but that does not mean that a de facto categorical distinction does not exist. If an animal were to evolve to be more intelligent, surely it would think about higher things as humans do. But it does not now, so they are different and lower than we. It's like comparing a 3rd-level wizard to a 10th-level wizard. Yes, the 3rd-level wizard could gain levels and catch up to the 10th-level wizard. But in the meantime, the 10th-level wizard categorically has spells that the 3rd-level wizard does not.



Chances are people who consider animals as inferiour have never had a kitten that they've cared for since it's birth, haven't seen or haven't really cared about animals experiencing real joy or sadness or trying to help their owners. So they consider animals an outgroup. And so don't really care about them.

First off, that is of course a total absurdity; most people have beloved pets, and most people nonetheless believe that humans are more important than animals. In my experience, farmers and zookeepers are even MORE likely to believe this. Second off, I think it's more than a little ironic that you would so blatantly demonstrate the very ingroup-outgroup dynamic you're talking about: "Oh, those people must've never loved a kitten..."

Heh, yes. That was kind of funny. I, in fact, have several cats, and have had a rabbit in the past. I care/have cared deeply for them, but at the same time I easily recognize their inferiority.


I mean, saying that 'I'm human, therefore I value other humans" has nothing to do with objectivity at all. Your human-ness is purely subjective. It's also essentially narcissism in a different guise- you resemble me, therefore I like you.

Who said it was objective? Alright, listen, everybody, this one's important. There are two arguments going on here which seem to be conflated by some. #1: Humans are superior, better-developed life-forms, and therefore should be valued; 2: Humans are us, and we should look out for ourselves. The first is objective, the second subjective.


The differences in self-awareness between various forms of animals are far, far larger than the differences between humans and other species.

I, at least, have been saying that all along. We are much closer to an ape than an ape to a bug.


Heck, if you compare us with bonobo chimpanzees, it basically comes down to a few points of IQ- Bonobos can apparently be taught the rudiments of grammar and metaphor, for cripessake. As far as I'm concerned, that basically makes them people- stupid people- but people nonetheless. There's obviously a continual spectrum of evolutionary development leading all the way from single-celled protists to our so-called-civilisation. We need to acknowledge that.

I wouldn't say "a few" points of IQ, but I see what you mean. The essential difference--well, one of them--is that between active rights and passive rights. And I agree that bonobos should have rights; I think they should have more rights than most animals. But they should be mainly passive rights, such as being protected, and bonobos should not be allowed active rights--say, to vote. They may qualify as "stupid people," but, if so, then they are very stupid people. I don't think stupid people should have as many active rights as smart people, and very stupid people should have very few.

And I have acknowledged this continuum. What I'm saying is that there are gaps between different animals, and one of the gaps--that between people and the next-highest animal, whatever it might be--has an important divide in it. It's like an undersea mountain, with people and animals standing on it at various levels. (They're wearing diving suits, keep your hair on.) There's a whole long line of these, down from bacteria at the ocean floor to bugs to rats to pigs to apes to people. And the person is the only one standing above the waterline. He (or she) isn't at the top, there's still a long way to go, and some animals, like bonobos and parrots, are half-in, half-out, but the human is still the only one out of the water.


Humans are, indeed, "superior" to animals in terms of intellect. But that's just one path of development, that we happen to have taken. Put a man in a ring with a bear for a wrestling match and see who's "superior" then. Or have a woman out-swim a seal, or outlast an albatross. There is no "perfect organism", and if there was, humans wouldn't be it.

Yes, it's one path of development, but it's the best path of development. Intelligence can compensate for any of these physical weaknesses, and can construct more worlds of the imagination than all the blueberries ever eaten by bears about to hibernate. I believe WNxHasoroth has said something to this effect, and s/he is absolutely right.


You [DrowVampyre] are a sick sadistic person.

Quoted for truth.


If a perfect organism existed, it would likely be a type of fungi.

Um...what?


I like the idea that wanting kids is racist.

That is pretty funny. "We're not racist--it's those poor foreign people, they're the racists!"


I disagree with your opinion that animals should not have a right to freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering. I disagree on such a profound and fundamental level which renders me incapable of perceiving how you could even be of that belief, that I cannot think how to construct an argument that might have a chance of convincing you otherwise. Suffice to say, I absolutely do believe all animals have that right, and I would fight for it if given the opportunity to do so.

I completely understand your position, but I'm not sure anything has such a right by nature. Please bear with me while I explain myself. In the wild, does a mouse have a right not to be killed by a cat? I don't think anyone would assert that. So why would a puppy have a right not to be killed by a sadist? Don't tell me it's because it's not necessary, because cats kill for fun all the time. The real point here is that these basic rights, which you are applying to animals, are a human construction. I am BY NO MEANS saying that they have any the less worth for that! It is a very good thing to give people and animals rights. But it is people who do it. You won't see any cats forming Mouse Rights Groups to protect mice from their fellow cats. You won't see any anacondas with their Save The Pigs From Unnecessary Swallowing campaigns. It's only humans who do this, and that proves, by itself, that we are superior to animals. Your own argument has defeated you.

[late for dinner]

I saw Bolt this weekend and it made me realize how much I love puppies...and small dogs in general...this made me sick to my stomach and my heart really hurts for the puppy and the owners. Signed...say hi to Michael Vick for me boys

[hamishspence]

I suspect that sadism and compassion alike come out of empathy, and most people have it, and the potential for both.

In medieval times, people were encouraged to participate in punishment of offenders- the pillory. And torture of animals has run through human history from gladiatorial games to the bullfights of the 21st century.

Same applies to people, from very young- kids do things to other kids that would be at least minor torture if carried out by soldiers or cops. And it still goes on to this day- its just rarer.

Calling it utterly aberrant is perhaps overestimating what's "normal" for people.

[Moff Chumley]

I don't know, and I do care. Difference is, I haven't heard about it, not because those people aren't cute puppies. If I see a story that says "Waziristani child tortured and killed by African rebels", I'd say the same thing about them - kill them horribly and publically as a warning to others who would try to do what they do. Fact of the matter is, people like this do far more harm to the world than good - this place, this planet would be far better off without them than with.

So this is an example of 'out of sight, out of mind'. You, before you rant on about how criminals have no rights, and should be brutally maimed and killed as horribly as possible, should read some news. And I'm not talking about big networks, I'm talking about good, honest blogs. Find out what's going on.

The philosophy you seem to be espousing is: "If we don't like it, kill it. If it doesn't benefit us, kill it." You, my friend, are no better than the people you are condemning. If it weren't for people like you, the world would be far, far safer.


In point of fact, pretty much nobody who studies animals for a living can agree with hippy-esque notions of animals being remotely on par with us. They'll be sure to say they're similar.. but similarity isn't the same as identicalness.

Ya know, not all hippies are idiots. :smallmad:


*"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin.

Thank you, sir.


Pretty ugly. But who have ever sayed that we human's are anything other than monsters.

And i'm those who think that there should be higger punishmend from thise animal-cruelty. And by this higger punishmend i mean being flayed when alive. This to all between these man's and eko-terrorist group's.

This is why we can't have nice people.


Wow that is sad. They don't deserve to be killed though, prison time + therapy is enough in my opinion.

Obviously they have deep seated issues. If they have to spend years in a mental institution they will have definitely payed for their atrocity.

Dude, logic and rational thought all the way. Go, team logic! *High fives*


You are a sick sadistic person.
It might have juined their life indeed. But is rape really always something that a few years of counseling can't allow someone to walk the streets and live a normal life again? I think not. Some people are more fragile than others but most don't spontaneously burst into a fit of tears at the mention of the name of rapist many years later.

Mate, I agree. Also, who says prison can't be traumatizing? For example, Frank Zappa: One night in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and the rest of his life was a solid block of contempt for the government, cynicism, and paranoia. It broke him. I'm not saying that lots of people don't deserve it, but before you make irrational, radical statements, get ahold of some facts.

@Surly & Anor: You have achieved my utmost respect. I'm glad to see that there are plenty of people who know what they're talking about and have a rational head.

@Drow Vampyre: I highly recommend you take a long, hard look at yourself and reconsider some of your statements. I am appalled.

[hamishspence]

Good points.

I was arguing that people are a little too quick to say something is aberrant and freakish when for thousands of years it was par for the course.That doesn't mean its right, but it does mean people should be more aware of what human beings are like- that we usually have great potential for kindness and cruelty alike.

when you watch a villain on a TV show die painfully, and you visualize it, and are pleased, because he "deserved it" thats the same tendency.

the bullying kid who becomes the nasty boss is not abnormal, he shows a natural tendency in people. When it gets out of hand, we are shocked- should we be? Or should we recognize it as the extreme of a form of behaviour many humans show at some point in their lives?

And its not unique to humanity- dolphins can be pretty brutal to infants of their own species. Whether it's like the lion killing offspring of predecessor, or it shows genuine sadism, might depend on views of the observer. They do it to porpoises, either "by mistake" or "as practice" since porpoises are not competitors.

[zeratul]

Humans are, indeed, "superior" to animals in terms of intellect. But that's just one path of development, that we happen to have taken. Put a man in a ring with a bear for a wrestling match and see who's "superior" then. Or have a woman out-swim a seal, or outlast an albatross. There is no "perfect organism", and if there was, humans wouldn't be it.

What makes us the most close to a perfect organism though (and this is coming from an animal fan), is that we can basically always build a machine that can do whatever they can do, but better. Put a man in a ring with a bear and give the man a shotgun, the bear has no chance, put a woman in a speedboat up against an albatross or seal and see who wins.

[Oregano]

Put a man in a ring with a bear and give the man a shotgun, the bear has no chance

I'm willing to wager it ends up a draw.:smallamused:

I reckon a bear may be able to take a shotgun shot or two.

[hamishspence]

the Discworld Deity of Evolution put Durability as measure of superiority in The Last Continent- Pinnacle of Being, was the roach.

[zeratul]

I'm willing to wager it ends up a draw.:smallamused:

I reckon a bear may be able to take a shotgun shot or two.

Well depends what type of shotgun he's using and how quick a shot he is 'eh?:smallwink: A wild boar in an area nearby (yeah having wild boars in central New York seemed weird to me too) and it took i believe 3 shots from a shotgun to take it down? Something like that.

[Moff Chumley]

I think this topic is looking pretty exhausted...

[hamishspence]

we could carry on debating issue of:

"Is cruelty to animals worse than comparable cruelty to humans?"

"Is there a correlation between doing one and doing the other?"

"Is it seen as aberrant primarily because are philosophies have changed very fast, and we keep forgetting it wasn't aberrant not long ago?"

"Is cruelty as natural to humans as kindness?"

"Is "They Deserve It" a justification for approving of cruelty to people?"

and many more, but I'm not going to be back for about 15 hours odd.

I think thse were main questions.

[Yoritomo Himeko]

This is just sickening. They should be put away for more than that.

People like this have serious mental problems. It's only a matter of time before they do stuff to people.

I feel so bad for the owners of that poor puppy. :smallfrown: I hope they're at least compensated for the cost of Peanut.

[hamishspence]

I see it as the extreme end of a continuum- that most people have the capacity for kindness and cruelty. People have died as a direct result of school bullying- are all bullies people who should be put away for life?

yes, it should be punished, but the idea that cruelty to animals (or people) is abnormal and evil is a very new one in human history.

[Yoritomo Himeko]

I see it as the extreme end of a continuum- that most people have the capacity for kindness and cruelty. People have died as a direct result of school bullying- are all bullies people who should be put away for life?

No, but because people have died because of bullying, all bullies should be stopped.

And I mean that they should either be put in some kind of program, or maybe taken out of school if they that much of a problem.

[Vagnarok]

This just makes me want to cry. My god.

If I didn't have a full life to live I would track down those sick b******s and let them feel the pain of that puppy for themselves. They'd probably like it anyway. ******s.

[AslanCross]

This doesn't bother me nearly as much as cruelty to humans does. With that said, they definitely deserve two years in prison.

Agreed. It's a pretty sick thing to do, but people routinely wreck the lives of other humans and get away with a slap on the wrist. Two years in jail for these guys is pretty good, I think.

I'm pretty sure the other inmates will make them feel sorry for that.

[GoC]

I'm not going to touch the last line, which is a discussion all of its own, but I cannot stress enough how utterly and absolutely I disagree with your opinion that animals should not have a right to freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering. I disagree on such a profound and fundamental level which renders me incapable of perceiving how you could even be of that belief, that I cannot think how to construct an argument that might have a chance of convincing you otherwise. Suffice to say, I absolutely do believe all animals have that right, and I would fight for it if given the opportunity to do so.
You may be misinterpretting the lack of rights for condoning the actions of the subjects of this thread. They do not have a right to freedom from pain and suffering however we don't have a right to cause them pain and suffering either.
If they start dieing out in the wild with excessive pain and suffering it is not our job to intervene and protect their non-existant rights.
Tell me this: Which animals have a right to no pain and suffering? All of them down to the smallest bacterium?
I also believe the fetus comparison is fundamental in showing you the hypocrisy in which we live.

[GoC]

This just makes me want to cry. My god.

If I didn't have a full life to live I would track down those sick b******s and let them feel the pain of that puppy for themselves. They'd probably like it anyway. ******s.

Oh look, another DrowVampyre.:smallyuk: