Category: Let's talk
What do you think about the laws surrounding cruelty to animals? Do you think they are too harsh? Too lenient?
Personally, I believe that crimes related to animals should be treated the same as crimes related to humans. Although animals may not have the technological advanced life as humans do, they are still living, breathing creatures that have feelings. Also, what do you think about animals being "put down"?
what is an animal? insects are animals. do you want to let all the roaches live in apartment buildings?t
I think australia has quite good laws relating to cruelty to animals.
I don't think it should be the same as crimes against other humans, mainly because it would make us hypocrits unless we all became vegitarians, whitch I am certainly not going to do.
However the deaths of animals should always be quick and humaine, not drawn out and painful.
I also think that animals that produce our food should be treated fairly. this is why I always buy free range.
I believe in euthenasia, therefore I believe in putting animals down as an end to a death that would otherwise be painful.
Both of you bring up very good points. I've never been to a slaughter house, so I don't know exactly how they kill the animals, but I also think that killing an animal for the purpose of eating is different than beating and killing an animal just because. Animals kill other animals for the purpose of eating, just because that's where nature put them on the food chain.
Yes, I think any animal, including the bugs we think are annoying, deserve to live. they are animals too. I try to shoo bugs away, not kill them, if I can help it. Sometimes, I'll accidentally step on a bug, or squish one between my fingers while scratching an itch, but they are still alive, as we, and all other animals are.
I also make the difference between endangered species.
There are animals that are a pest, and there are animals that, if we're not careful, we won't see the likes of in a few years.
I am pro:
The farming of, and killing of animals for food in a humaine manner.
The irradication of pests as long as it's not in a highly cruel fashion. I don't use mousetraps that kill where I can avoid it and I try not to use poison. In the case of insects, I use an electronic device that emits a sound they don't like so they stay away from my house.
I am against:
The hunting of endangered animals for simple sport, and I dislike the killing of any animal for sport really. if you're going to kill it, at least eat it. Likewise I disapprove of killing for the furr of an animal. I'd prefer it if the whole of the thing was used.
sports that rely on animals being cruel to one another or humans beating up an animal Cock fighting, Dog fighting, Badger Bating and bull fighting among them.
I completely agree with SwissGriff in post 3. Very well said.
Insects may deserve to live, but if they're bothering me in any way, they're done if I or anyone else can finish them. There are a plethora of insects; killing one or a few wont hurt.
roaches can check in and never check out as far as i'm concerned. ditto bees, which will kill me if i get stung by one. if it's me or the bee, i'm the winneer.
Yes. I, too, like the pest control methods that prevent bugs from coming near you, rather than killing them off.
What I really can't understand is how some people can so thoughtlessly beat a cat, dog, or other animal, sometimes to death, who has done nothing to them, and in cases where the motive is for fun, or because that particular person doesn't like animals.
I think people like that need to be seriously tortured and see how they like it.
My thoughts probably approximate Turricane's.
One very good reason for having laws against beating or hanging or whatever a pet, is these people are often serial killers later.
On the other hand, if a person of another nationality kills a dog for food - provided they use modern slaughter methods - I don't see a problem with it; there are way too many anyway. What I don't understand is how some friends of ours who have a barn went to the humane society to adopt a couple of cats for the purpose of eradicating rodents in their barn, were told they could not adopt animals there because the animals were for pets - indoor pets at that - and not work.
That place will never get my sympathies if they claim they're getting too crouded. That's flat out stupid, to the proportions my mother would have pronounced 'el stupido!'
and all in the name of animal lover ...
so there's a balance.
I would like to agree with you, but there are certain cats that are bred for staying indoors. They don't have the temperment or the ability to really survive on their own. that said, if they were outdoor or indoor-outdoor cats, then the people who refused to let your friends have them were just assholes.
I could understand if it were specific animals; I've even seen someone's dog that to me looked too delicate to go outside, but this was a statement in general: They couldn't get any animal from that animal shelter because they were going to use them for rodent killers.
Kinda weird, and the only people who win in a situation like that, are real cruelty types who use this type of silliness to justify what they do.
What bothers is me is that if a person kills an animal for purposes other than food, they'll get locked up for five years or so. Then, they're released to go kill another one. it doesn't matter that it's not a human they're killing. It's still murder.
I totally agree with you Jessica-- I don't think it is at all fair that animals are treated like that (beaten, murdered, and so on) just for fun or because a certain person doesn't like them.
I also agree that if an animal gets killed, that person shouldn't be put in jail for just five years-- that animal had a life, and the person who took it should be punished reasonably.
And what just really got me mad right now is "Roaches can check in and never check out for all I care-- there's to many of them anyway".
Personally, I'm not a bug-fan, but I don't think any of us would be happy if any of us were killed off because "There's to many of us".
Okay, rant over.
Rant all you want, but insects multiply at an unbelievably fast rate. If you don't get rid of the one or few you have, you'll get more than you ever imagined. If you prefer the things aren't killed, then what do you suggest be done with them? Let them have free reign when they're not paying rent or contributing to the household? Uh ... no!
Yeah, I know where you are coming from. Sorry if I made it a big point or something.
it shows how far we have come from nature that we can even have this discussion. I am all for saving and helping animals.
sassie, you have obviously never dwelled where i have had the pleasure. At one time, I lived in an apartment that was so over run with roaches that if they could talk, they would have said "come on honey babe, let's dance." I slept on a futon and they would walk across my face. For the record, I inherited the problem. Whoever lived there before me was a horrendous housekeeper. So, gladly every sunday for a year, I'd get out the industrial strength killer I got from an unspecified source, and go after them. Eventually, I won too. They are disgraceful, disgusting, and the devil incarnate. So, you can hold their hands and teach them how to crochet if you want. Not me baby cakes.
It's the Peta types - save the roaches, save the flies - that removes any credibility from their side of the debate.
That is, till sensible people like Turricane come along ...
I know numbnuts who justify cruelty to animals based on reacting to the 'Save the Roaches' or 'Save the flies' people.
Seriously, do you think that fleas, flies, roaches and the like are having this conversation about you? I mean, before they pass some wretched disease into your food supply ...
And before you say 'How do you know they don't?' well, you would see the effects, if they did in fact care. For all the cruelty we have amongst humans, we also have people dedicating their whole lives to rescuing, rehabilitating and restoring animals.
So c'mon where's the evidence of them doing the same for a human? By that very fact, that makes us as a species superior. And animals aren't cruel? Ask someone who can see to describe for you what happens when a cat takes a mouse. How long they just play with it, tormenting it.
No, cruelty exists amongst the animals; a dog will break a cat's back, where my parents live there's a couple young wolves who indiscriminately killed about twenty lambs in a week but didn't eat them. You won't find the *effects* of any conversation they might be having, among the dogs, when a six-year-old girl walking by the neighbor's house gets mauled by a dog. And you certainly won't see an unrelated dog on the street stop in to defend the girl. No, if they stopped in to do anything, it would be join the party.
Nature isn't always better, and humans aren't always the problem, or when they are, it's usually because they're acting a whole lot more like animals. It's us that can even value another's life for life's sake. An animal can value itself or its offspring, or maybe you so long as you feed it, but that's about it. You won't find a fat, well-fed dog trolling the neighborhood delivering food to the scrawny and unkept. Yet amongst the human population you find people who will feed and care for the poor, assist and rescue those they don't even know, take chainsaws and cut away ice so that whales can go free.
Of course you find people - generally political types - who use and misuse and are generally ruthless; these are the ones an old British schoolmistress might slap and call "You Beast!"
But you are killing bugs for your own health, not just because you like to kill animals. that's the difference.
Agreed. As much as I love animals, I'd certainly have no problems killing bugs if they were the sorts to bring disease, infest my house etc. That said, if I could see, and if it were something like a spider, a lady bug etc. or even a bee (thankfully I'm not allergic but I understand with those who are), I'd try to bring it outside or open the window so that it could fly away before I resorted to killing it. But roaches and stuff? Hell no!
I don't understand how someone can be put in prison because they, say, hanged their cat, but then it is ok to bring a lot of beer and very big guns to Africa and gun down a herd of lions, only to pick a skull or two and hang on the wall back home whilst the rest rot away in the forest.
I suppose part of it is hat people who kill aimals that way have a tendency to move on to humans, at least it is one of the early warning signs.
I'll let any roach live in my house if they pay at least a tenth of the rent and do part of the cooking, if not they shall be deported, alive or dead.
I have no particular feelings about killing animals, if I have to do it, I would, be it dog or fish, but I don't like the needless killing and sport of hunting. If you are going to fish, at lest do the fish the basic justice of eating "him/her/it" with some good potatoes and wine and make a memory of it. Putting a hook through the pure creatures throat only to then just let it go again suffering is as cruel as can be. And then people think they are all goody two shoes and did a wonderful deed.
No needless killing certainly, but if the need arises I am not against killing the animals and in no way should they be considered the equivalent of humans.
Why is that? They are alive and feel pain, just like humans do, and in most cases, they have done nothing to hurt you before you kill them. Okay, so they don't have the inteligence that humans do, but some would argue that in some ways, they are more inteligent. In any case, their life doesn't mean as much as a human's life because they are not human? I can't understand that in the least, but that's just my opinion.
I see what B is getting at though, the truth of the matter is is that some animals are viscious and need to be put down. animals shelters need to put animals down if they can't rehouse them because they always have new animals coming in.
Needless killing is wrong though. that includes hunting and the nastiness that humans sometimes do to other animals because they can't take care of them or they can't pay the vet fees or something.
but hunting should be just as illegal.
there are other reasons why animals need to be killed. farmers need to kill animals that will get in and eat or destroy their crops. the crops are to feed us, so unfortunately the animals get the bad deal there.
there is also a problem here in australia with foxes destroying the habitat of our own native animals, so we're forced to shoot and poison them. If it comes down to a choice, I'm for our native and endangered animals rather than the introduced foxes.
right on be and robo. you have the right idea.
I am all for hunting for food. where my son lives, if it weren't for deer season and other hunting events, there are people who are so poor that they wouldn't have meat to eat. In many areas, bambi and his mom are actually getting to be a nuissance as their natural predators have been destroyed so they give birth indiscriminantly.
It is said that the reason many cultures through the ages have a hunting ceremony as a part of a coming of age rite is that it shows that the young man or woman has the power of life and death in his or her hands. Many native peoples thank the spirit of the animal or fish for giving itself up for the good. I kind of like that.
When I made the comment about the killing of animals being treated the same as humans, I was referring to the needless killing of animals, not for food, or for any reason where someone's health is an issue.
What about the beating of animals? I was talking to this guy who has chickens. Well, I asked him about the rooster because...well they can get teritorial. He told me that when it acts up he hits the rooster over the head with a shovel. I thought he was joking...but no!
This guy should be locked up.
I don't know, I was told to stop a hen bruding to put her head under water quickly...
it was the work of a moment, and her bruding was getting difficult to deal with, especially since she'd attack me when I tried to take the eggs. so I tried it and it worked...
animals are wonderful, but sometimes we have to do things that other people might perceive as cruel, even if they are old practiced farming methods.
I saw a woman once get ragged on by a PETA type because she was disciplining her guide dog. Now she's no freak; she's a professional educated person. But you know like they do with the chain thing ... they don't smack them or anything, certainly nothing like what I used to see growing up.
Well anyway I told the whack job to back off ...
I've read that guide dogs get better care than most pets, and as I said what she did wasn't *anything* like what I used to see growing up, it didn't whimper or anything.
Just saying, these nut jobs go way too far ...
I agree, but thwacking a rooster on the head with a shovel is just wrong. I'm not a farmer but still...
Margorp!!!
oh come on!!!! what do you want the farmer to do with the rooster if it is acting up? These are big, mean animals with sharp beeks strong wings and nasty claws. Some how, I don't think the king of the barnyard will listen if farmer fred comes up and sais "roy rooster, sweet boy, I know you are feeling cooped up and frustrated. Let's have a time out so you can examine those nasty emotions."
Lol! Okay you got me on that point...I didn't say it wasn't what had to be done, just saying it's a shame. I don't want to be attacked by a rooster anymore than it wants to be attacked by me.
Animals are no better to reason with than small children who don't know how to communicate yet. Does this mean that these children should be smacked with a shovel?
Good point. There's gotta be a balance between safety and doing what needs to be done and abuse. As for guide dogs, I've got a good friend who talks alot about positive reenforcement, clicker training etc. she trained her own dogs because she doesn't like the way in which the schools do it. I won't speak for her more than that but I will say that it seems as if she's found that balance that I was mentioning.
Yes I agree that you need a balance.
Yes. I really appreciate Positive Re-enforcement. That's what we've done with our family dog all the time, and it works way better than negative re-enforcement ever has. She knows that if she begs, or jumps for the treat, she won't get it. She knows that if she can't control her barking when she sees a stranger, she won't get any food scraps thrown into her dish after dinner. She knows that if she rips the garbage apart while we're gone, she won't get any attention from the family for a little while, and so far, she has been pretty good at using this knowledge for the better.
Say what you want, but that method works just fine.
Do you mean positive, or negative re-enforcement?
I will admit that negative re-enforcement works, to some degree. I just like positive better.
positive...negative reinforcement works for a short while until the bad behavior starts up again.
To the ones who say insects have the same right, to life, as human beings:
Well, if animals are the same as us, then they are equally responsible for whatever they may cause. So if they carry diseases and spread them to other us or other animals, they are liable, just as men who have spread AIDS around are doing time today.
Just saying, you can't just give them rights and no responsibilities. If they are equal with us, then they are equally responsible. And any human annihilating roaches or whatever, is quite literally executing justice.
*smile* I like that. Never thought of it that way.
And it is rubbish. Bugs are not equal to us...it's odd but I don't even think of them as animals. Of course they are but...well you know.
I think animals should be protected especially those that are endangered.
I hate people who hurt or kill animals just for fun.
I do eat meet and think hunting is ok if people are really in need of food. Fishing is ok as long as people do eat the fish they catch.
I think animals do have feelings.
I think animals should be put down if they are very ill or injered and will not get better.
I hate dog fighting!
I hate bugs. I don't care if they all go away.
Sadly, we need bugs...without certain bugs, decomposition would never happen...just make them not bite me and I'll be fine.
Exactly. As long as they are not causing us or any other animals any harm, let them live. They are part of the food chain.
Yup, just stay out of the house.
No animal or insect is equal to humans. I have always believed this, and post forty helps prove this fact.
Whether insects cause us and animals harm, which they can and do, they will continue to live. And there's not much we can do about it.
So you feel that you are more deserving? Take bees for instance. Without them, we'd have no polination...thus we would have no oxygen.
When your neighbour is annoying you, you usually say: Please go away! Or something to that degree. When a bug annoys you, you kill it. I know the bug is less than a tenth of the size you are, but it's still an animal. I didn't originally mean to be arguing about the significance of bugs, but if they are animals, they are part of the food chain, part of the ecosystem, and therefore, significant.
In regards to Robozork's post (Post 40), that is exactly what we are trying to argue when we say that it is okay to take action against the animals, bugs or otherwise, that are doing humans or other animals physical harm, just as we would do for humans.
But the argument is incredibly one-sided: They have this right, but of course no responsibility.
If they had an equal right, as you say, then they would have an equal responsibility. That's what renders arguments like what some of you all, and PETA, put forth as totally meaningless. That's like claiming two and two make four, but you take away two from four and you don't get two.
Rights are one side of the equation, responsibilities the other side to the same equation. You want a dog to have rights? Fine. He kills a six-year-old girl, he is then liable for capital murder.
I think we all agree to one degree or another animal wellfare is a decent and civilized - albeit highly unnatural - thing for us to do. However, they have no rights. The fact they need your protection = they are inferior. Since they are inferior, they can't possibly be the same.
There are many ways we treat animals as inferiors: You have a cat, but you virtually have no expectations of it. It eats, sleeps, purrs perhaps more than occasionally, but you have no expectation it will do any work to earn its keep. Because it's simply not competent to do so. Perhaps at one time it would have worked for you as pest control, but that is largely irrelevant now.
But if you claim they are the same as us, or that they have the same rights, well then, the other side of the equation: they have the same responsibilities. Responsibilities to the community at large, including the protection of endangered species. We are the only creatures on the planet who have actively taken it into our heads to protect anything, while we are not the only creatures to have decimated populations of species.
exactly right...
but we're the only race that has the ability to think and to take responsibility for what we do, and that means we should think of the other creatures we effect.
we have the capacity, well at least most of us do, to care about the consiquences of our actions.
I want there to be tigers on the earth when I'm dead and gone for other people to admire.
If a dog kills a six-year-old girl, the dog will most likely be put down. End of story.
If a cat or dog was capable of earning their keep around the house, certainly I would insure this was the case.
Unfortunately, animals have certain attributes in their nature, just as humans do. Every animal's nature has flaws, and that includes us. We are far from perfect ourselves, and until we cause no damage to ourselves and the rest of the world, whatsoever, how can we say that animals are not equal?
Oh, my grapes! I know we both speak the same language, so why are you not understanding?
We can say that animals are not equal to us because they do not have the same intellectual and emotional capabilities, so they are below us. And like Robozork said, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. When one dog rips and shreds the hell out of another dog, the owner is held responsible.
It doesn't matter who's perfect, no one said anyone was, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
The point is that we have a level of control over animals, and they've none over us. You ever seen a fish catch a human?
Okay, I've worked in the humane system and foster care system for years and have seen some pretty cruel things people do to animals. I live in the U.S. and each state has its own laws regarding animal cruelty interms of a misdemeanor or felony. I think that all cruelty cases should be prosecuted as felonies, the harshest conviction for those that don't live in the U.S. No one has the right to abuse, fight, inbreed, keep in filthy conditions, hit, burn, try docking ears or tails, and other cruelties including starvation. Such cases should be handled just as if the animal in question were a human and given the same according punishment. Since animals can't talk back, complain, or other means of true vocal communication; some people think they are only property or status symbols to do with as they please and this isn't true for animals feel fear, pain, lonliness, hunger just the same as any human does.
No one that harms an animal should be allowed to own any other type of animal. If a person is abusive to an animal, then they might have a good possibility of being neglectful and abusive toward a child and should not be allowed to have one.
The U.S. needs to make a federal law that covers all states and make it a felony crime to harm an animal.
Well, you can cry and complain that it should be a felony to abuse animals like it is to abuse children, but look at it this way: you have to purchase an animal which is almost incapable of living on its own, whereas children are not purchased and become more and more independent with age. Just as one gets less punishment for lesser crimes, the abuse, mistreatment, and neglect of children and animals should not be treated the same. See, humans have all sorts of rights in the Constitution, animals don't, sweetheart.
exactly.
animals are living property, if they are domesticated, like it or not.
you have to buy it, feed it and maintain it and you have the right to put that animal down or give it away to an animals shelter. it's not like that with human beings.
We have a moral responsibility to those around us...that means to animals as well. This means that we must care for animals equally.
So, for all intents and purposes, animals must be respected. Most of the people who disagree seem to be the overly religious folks that feel that only humans matter.
All the other pets and creatures are important as well, I just don't think they're equal to people.
People get pets for entertainment and/or assistance, they do not have children for those particular reasons.
I don't think anyone on here has a problem with anti-cruelty laws. But the definition of cruelty, aka vivisection, starvation, the other things mentioned here is one thing. To claim that a cat kept in a barn as rodent control is cruel, now that is not acceptable I think. To imprison someone for fighting their animals is one thing. To imprison someone for overfeeding a dog, aka it's overweight, is something else entirely.
Respect, in a guardianship sort of way, yes I think so. But as I said, in order for them to be equal, they would have to share equal responsibilities in all ways. And that they cannot.
There are lots of ways things are not equal. No matter what diving gear I have, I am not equal in skill or ability to a fish in water. I would never be able to do as they do, because I lack the necessary hardware.
Well as pertains to rights, which is software, animals don't possess it. It doesn't mean they don't feel; quite the contrary. They feel things related to themselves. But to have rights, you must be capable of a certain amount of altruism - that ability to care for your fellow creatures.
The fact we are the only creatures on the planet having this conversation in a meaningful way aka doing something about it, means we are superior.
The dinosaurs wiped out species during their reign, and did nothing to restrain their efforts / maintain existing species. You can see this in any predator/prey relationship today where predators outnumber the prey. The only control is biological; they lack the ability to stop themselves in time and work together to save another species. When they do that, they will be equal. That's not an emotional statement, it simply is, religion, no religion or whatever.
Fine, but animals have organized, even for the sake of their own survival. That shows some sort of responsibility.
To chinchillac. you're so right. If people tried to do these things to other humans they'd be fined, imprisoned or even sentenced to death. Yet the states and places that consider animal cruelty to be only misdemeanors only serve to promote it and the people aren't punished justly, nor to the animals themselves receive justice. If they could talk, I'm sure they'd defend themselves. Would it be fair to physically abuse, in the manner described, a baby, someone with a mental illness, someone in a coma or an elderly person simply because they can't talk back and can't reason as most of us can? What makes them different? they are, as are these animals, incapable of sharing responsibility, and with the exception of the coma patient and the baby, most probably won't gain this ability. so therefore, should their rights be taken away and crimes against them considered mere misdemeanors? It would make sense given some of the arguments here. Also, as has been said earlier, people who do such things to animals are likely to start doing them to other people. I love your idea on these people not having children. Brilliant. as for animals not being dangerous, what about the big cats and other exotic animals in forests etc? You can't simply walk up to a lion or a tiger and say "get out of my way. I'm a human!" Likewise, you can't tell a whale to move so your boat can pass. as for the United States constitution, Essence of Eccentricity, if we were to follow your logic, then there would still be certain groups of humans, including women, who'd still not have rights. I do believe in human euthanasia in certain instances and there is certainly the right to put your child up for adoption. so these either should or do already exist. as for having children for assistance, remember that in the early part of the 20th century, and still today in some countries, people do have children to help with the work load. this is especially true on farms. Of course, this is usually not their main reason for doing so, but it definitely plays a role in why the poor tend to have more children than the rich. Some animals, such as the bonobos, have actually been shown to have social groups etc. that differ in some ways across the world. I don't have any info on them at hand, but from all I've heard, these creatures are extremely advanced and have done several remarkable things as far as learning things on their own and communicating with humans.
Exactly. So, because humans have decided that animals are property, they are not equal?
Because animals cannot be given humanlike justices, it is somehow less harmful to hurt them than it is a human?
Keep in mind that the animals have had no say in the matter. The buying and keeping of animals as pets or otherwise is all because of our selfish way of life. Because we have the inteligence, we rule the world, and all other animals are inferior? I don't think so.
I remember a very similar case. It was called the times of slavery. Blacks were bought and sold as slaves, and they had no say in the matter. It was okay to hurt them because they weren't white. If they showed the slightest hint of rebellion, they were beaten, killed, you name it. If they hurt their masters, and were caught, their lives were over unless they could somehow escape. And why was this? because white people said so.
Now, doesn't that sound similar?
I'm not against having pets, but I treat my pets as if they were part of the family, the chores notwithstanding, but that is no fault of the animals. If the animals were capable of the same responsibilities, and chose to ignore them, this would be a different case.
Yes, quite so. I was thinking of the American slavery system as well. I say that because there is a difference between it and the one seen in ancient Greece and Rome. Those slaves were treated with respect. if the owner of a slave in athens was caught abusing said slave, he would be punished. this even includes things like hitting and pushing in public. They were also considered, to some extent, part of the family and necessary. But in the American system, there was the same kind of mistreatment as we're discussing with these animals.
Exactly, and returning to my point earlier, until we are perfect and flawless, who are we to judge others? That includes animals. this same point is being argued quite successfully in the Death Penalty topic.
Here's the difference between blacks and these animals you think should own houses:
black people have the same capabilities as white people do, other animals don't. Capturing and training animals is not wrong, and thousands of pets are not being treated like black people are or used to be. Most people buy pets these days for entertainment, company, or comfort, not to put them to work and treat them like scum to make themselves feel better. Please, don't compare animal cruelty and racist issues because issues amongst humans are not like the ones that a human has with an animal. We are a totally different species, and we need to help stand up and defend our own kind before we even start bablling about the rights of lower species.
No one is judging any animal by the way, this is all fact, not opinion. And if you think we shouldn't judge until we're perfect, put it this way:
until we've got our own problems straightened out, we shouldn't try to make huge legislative leaps for otheranimals.
I've never said that animals shouldn't be respected, mind you. I've only said that they are not equal to us for the reasons I and others have given.
You contradict yourself by saying that it is not fair to sell, purchase, and own animals like property because they have no say in it, but you condone pet ownership? Think that one over because you're arguments becoming convoluted.
I do know this:
We have a cat...I do not think of her as property. Now, she cannot pay the bills, reason with us, etc but she is a valued member of the family.
I do agree that there's a difference between pet ownership and abuse. As you said, most people don't treat their animals in this way. But I, at least, have a problem with the ones who do, no matter what their justification is for it.
it is a shame how people treat animals.
They sometimes feel they can just treat them like an old washrag...well that is wrong.
Pet ownership and property are not the same things, as others, and I, have stated in earlier posts.
No, racist issues and animal rights are not the same thing, but they are similar. One group decided they were superior to another group, and made sure this was the case for many years. How is this not similar?
Also, a baby can't fulfill the duties that come with living in a household, but that doesn't make it any less criminal to hurt or kill them. Of course, they grow up, but as babies, it is no more acceptable to hurt them than it is an adult, even though they don't have the responsibilities of an adult.
So the dinosaurs were cruel to other species at their time as well, as they wiped them out.
Also, the puma is cruel because while it could just tear out the prey animal's throat, it usually runs it down for hours, taking bites off the living prey till it falls exhausted.
Dogs are cruel because they will evicerate living pray and consume, or just roll in, the guts.
Nature sucks ... Oh yes, and then there's the female wasp who will paralyze *and not kill* a spider, while injecting its eggs into the spider's body, so the larvae will consume it *alive*.
Seems like the political types gots themselves some campaigning to do.
My former statement still stands: Those who are crule to animals, appear to themselves acting like animals. The irony is, if you or I think they should stop, and get punished for it, that's because they are equal to the task of stopping. The animals are not equal to such a task, hence inferior.
They are not similar because the issue of animal cruelty is not as widespread and popular as slavery used to be. And I want you to listen to what you're saying, because you should note how you said one groupe of people MADE another inferior by mistreating them. No one is making pets inferior by mistreating them. I will bet the percentage of pets being mistreated doesn't even match the number of non-whites that are and were being mistreated.
These animals that are being abused, how many of them do you think are being forced into hard labor and beaten?
The only real similarity animal cruelty has with slavery is the abuse. So that really doesn't make the situations similar, they just share a factor. So then, I could compare having sex to sitting in a sonna because you sweat either way. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
I understand that animals are not on the same level as us but we should have respect for them all the same.
I'm not saying pet owners are thinking of their pets as inferior. I'm just saying it shouldn't be okay to hurt them if they haven't hurt us.
Okay. I will give you this: Sure, pets can't go to school, go to social events with humans, and participate in sports, so in that respect, they are not equal, but that doesn't mean their well being should be respected any less.
There are many cruel human beings in the world. That doesn't give us the right to go out and hurt or kill them because we think humans are cruel.
And those people who own pets or work with animals see them as equal and have all this trust for them, then those idiots who get attacked, or whose children get attacked, wonder why.
And of course, there are cruel people! But just because it's not right doesn't mean it will ever stop. People hurt and torment their equals, so what would stop them from hurting other animals?
Few of us have respect for ourselves, so how much respect do the self-disrespecting have for other animals?
I think it makes alot more sense to go out and hurt these humans, I mean the ones who are truly cruel and dangerous. Better them than us and they, unlike the animals, know what they're doing. Besides, as has been pointed out, they're our equals. as for animals, I don't think that we can trust them on the exact same level as people, especially ones that aren't domesticated. In both cases, there's always the possibility that they could turn on us. so it's important to be careful. That said, there's a difference between not trusting and abusing. If you know that a dog can never be trained to live in a house or even in a sanctuary or to work with other animals or humans, the best thing to do is to put him/her down, not to beat and torture him/her.
I meant that it isn't okay to hurt any human just because some are known to be cruel. Yes, if an animal is causing harm to others, by all means, that animal must be dealt with, and if that means putting them down, so be it. I just don't think it's fair to hurt or kill an animal just for the fun of it.
Pit bulls are known to be dangerous, but that doesn't mean we go out and destroy every living pit bull.
Tiff, you don't make sense. Hurting is hurting and there is no sane reason for it.
It's been over a week since I've followed this thread. I have a bunch of coments. Here goes.
positive reinforcement is the sought for ideal. however, if a rooseter is heading for me, with evil intent i'm not going to say, here have a tasty handfull of corn. i'm going to hit that sucker on the head and or run like hell.as for the bugs not being animals. I have aMy friend Gail, who's one of my informally adopted sisters, puts it this way. Things like insects are creatures. Things like dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, birds, are animals. So if your brain is the size of a pinhead you are a creature. If you have some intelligence, you are an animal. Fish are somewhere inbetween.
bees are not the only means of polination. many plants are fertilized by the wind. if bees died, we would have a lot fewer speecies of food and beauty on the earth.
swiss griff said that we are the only animal that thinks. ntotally nonsensensical is that assertion. ask anyone who teams with aguide dog if their companion thinks.
pets do nothing according to some posters. true many times what they do is intangible but they have a puporse. folks with pets live longer, have lower blood pressure, and are healthier. so boo ya.
Essence of Eccentricity says oh "have you ever seen a fish catch a human?" Watch jaws or shark week.
chinchilac says that ears and tails should not be docked. The reason boxers have this inhumane treatment done to their tales is that if they were to gremain attached, they would break. the tail is not constructed correctly. when the dog waggs it too hard it will break. so is it more inhumane to cut it off or have bowser walk around with a busted appendage hanging off his rear end?
additionally, she says that it the federal government should make a law that it is inhumane to harm an animal. ok. in your infinite wisdom, please define for me what harm is. obviously beating burning or torturing are bad. how about the sheep herder who has his dog out in the rain with him performing its job? that poor pup is getting all wet. does that mean his boss will have to attach an umbrella to his head? What about the barn cats who kill rats? many of these animals live in unheated structures. Do we prosecute frank farmer for not putting teeney weeney heaters in their cat homes?
Woo hoo! some sense postulated on this board again!
Turricane, what I mean by positive re-enforcement is rewarding good behavior, not rewarding bad behavior. Of course I'm not going to give an animal a treat for hurting me.
If an animal is about to hurt you, self defence is always key. You would do the same if a human was coming at you like they meant harm, wouldn't you?
Like every other rule, there are exceptions. The only thing that really bothers me is the fact that the harming of an animal for no apparent reason is treated less harsh than the harming of a human, just because they are an animal.
If the bugs are infesting your house, annoying you, spreading disease, or anything of the sort, you are entitled to take any means necessary to get rid of the problem. This doesn't mean you have to go on a bug-killing rampage because...sometimes bugs are annoying.
Right, that is part of our survival.
Survival is one thing. Heartless beating is quite another.
Do some animals go overboard to protect their survival? Quite possibly, yes, but we humans, being just another species of animals ourselves, shouldn't justify our harm of animals, just for fun, by this reasoning. Do you really think animals honestly sit around making conversation with each other about whether or not humans go overboard to insure our survival? Well, I guess we'll never know for sure, but my guess is, probably not. And, yes. Like it or not, we are scientifically classified as animals, even if we are on the more advanced end of the spectrum.
I wholeheartedly agree that humans are animals. But we are superior to all others. I don't think crimes against animals should go unpunished, I just don't think they should be treated the same as crimes against humans are in all cases.
There are people who are imprisoned for animal cruelty though, so don't sit there and boohoo like these crimes go unpunished. Not all crimes against animals are punished, just like all crimes against humans aren't punished.
There's a difference between letting a dog stay in the rain or a cat in the cold and between starving, beating etc. animals. Rain and cold are two naturally occurring conditions and both a sheep dog and a barn cat are suited to them. On the other hand, a toy breed or a purely indoor cat shouldn't be left in these conditions, since their breeding and upbringing would mean that they're not as well suited to them or to other dangers that they might encounter outside. If a dog's tail is cut off for medical reasons that's a different story from someone deciding that it's cool to cut off tails cause the dog looks better or whatever's in these sick people's brains. I don't see how I'm contradicting myself. As far as people, I believe in not harming the innocent and in punishing the guilty. As for animals, I'd unfortunately have to hurt one if I was being attacked but that too is natural. I mean, I'd do the same with a human as was already said on here.
tif, i totally agree with you about toy animals staying inside. of course, toy animals like teacup poodles are an invension for the pleasure of man, and in my opinion that's wrong.
tif, you were all up in arms about the docking of tails uhntil I told you about the boxer. Well, only the person who does the deed knows his heart. so unless you have some ability to read their mind, which I doubt, you shouldn't judge until you find out.
declawing cats is definitely cruel and wrong. one of the things in my life about which I still feel guilt is that I gave one of my cats to a friend. he was an indoor cat and it was hard having him in the house with two that went in and out. anyway, he promised me that he wouldn't declaw sam. he lied. sam got out was in a fight with another feline and eventually died of his injuries. he could neither defend himself nor climb a tree to get away.
Turricane, I totally agree with you about declawing cats. Destroying their best ability to fight is basically rendering them defenseless. Sure, they can use their teeth, but they have grown up with a natural ability to fight with their claws. Unless you plan on teaching them how to defend themselves in other ways, leave their claws alone. If you're worried about your furniture, I find a large scratching post infused with catnip will often do the trick. If you're so worried about cats ruining your furniture that you feel that declawing them is the only option, I suggest you don't get a cat.
Removing a cat's claws is not wrong because they will climb your fucking curtains and rip holes in the coutch.
Oh my gods! that's absolutely horrible about Sam. My sincerest condolences. As for people, it's probably easier to tell the ones who do it out of cruelty, since they'd most likely boast about it or take great pleasure from the act. I'm sure someone who has to do something like this for a real reason would hardly take pleasure from it, only from the fact that the animal wouldn't be in pain/get harmed etc. margorp, I can't believe you still said that after Turricane's story. This poor cat had no way to defend himself and was ultimately killed because he got into a fight. Which is more important, curtains and a couch or the life of your pet? Even if you're the most careful person, something could always happen where the cat could get out and get hurt. I suppose, as was said, that if you teach him/her to fight in other ways, it might work. But I don't know enough about cats to say for sure. Still, I'm certain most people wouldn't take the time to do that.
generally you can't teach a cat anything. they can instruct us on plenty of stuff. that's what makes them great animals.
I agree that what happened was horrible...I guess it depends. if you plan to keep your cat as a "house cat" you should remove it's front claws but I see your point.
Like I said, if you're really worried about your curtains, I would either get one of those scratching posts with cat nip, or don't get a cat at all, unless you plan to confine the cat to the inside of the house only, in which case there is really no need for front claws. There are many different types of scratching posts. It's just a matter of finding the right one.
some cats don't like scratching posts. put a collar with a bell on it and buy a super soaker.
Look it's a no-brainer:
Would your cat tear up the house if it could? Yes. Would you yell at it if it did? Yes. Would you prefer it didn't rip things up? Yes. Then the front claws must go.
Funny how people won't remove a cat's claws but they won'd think twice about taking it to the vet and getting it fixed.
margorp,
cats get fixed because we don't want a bunch of unwanted critters around. no one will buy them and they will be abandoned. did you know that one cat and its offspring can reproduce some huge number of kittens annually?
as for declawing, there are animal people and people who have no business having them. Personally the love that our cat gives us far exceeds the damage to a couch. what is a chair or a curtain? it is an inimate object. It serves a purpose but is not that important. a dog or a cat is far more important. at least that is how i prioritize my life. if you feel differently, that's fine. just do the cat population a favor and get a goldfish.
Okay. If you plan to never let your cat out of the house, ever, then go ahead and declaw them. Otherwise, don't get too upset if another animal tries to attack your cat, and the cat can't defend themselves.
I totally agree with the super soaker idea. They hate water, of course, but water doesn't hurt them.
Yes, as Turricane said, we get animals fixed so we won't end up with a bunch of abandoned babies. I think the laws around fixing should be a little more flexible, and that it should be up to the person who has the animal if and when to fix them, but in any other respect, as far as the animal is concerned, it's just another surgery. It takes a few days to recover, and then they're fine. It's not like humans don't do this sort of thing too.
another thing, did you know when a pet is spayed/nutered, it is just one small incision. when cats are declawed basically the entire structure of the toe is removed? the author was acting likethe alteration operation is equally cruel. which would you rather experience?`
The whole concept is cruel.
I know, I know, the love we have is bigger than some torn coutch. And I know getting them fixed is something that must be done. I was making a point. I happen to be a cat person and I understand why people wouldn't declaw. However, there are worse things and plenty of people have it done.
Nobody's going anywhere near my cat's claws with any kind of tool that could remove them, but that's just me.
Well, they put them under first.
I know that. That's not what's cruel about it to me.
I do see your point.