Support NeoGAF

[JayDubya]

BUT THEY HAVE RIGHTS

*Chomps double quarter pounder*

I sure am glad I ate that, I was about to starve to death.

Well, presumably that issue of equivocation was already dealt with to everyone's satisfaction in some previous thread and I missed the memo.

Personally, I still don't see a difference in killing an animal for sport or for food. I could play devil's advocate for that issue stance, but I don't understand it.

 

[The Grand Lucifarius]

Well, presumably that issue of equivocation was already dealt with to everyone's satisfaction in some previous thread and I missed the memo.

Personally, I still don't see a difference in killing an animal for sport or for food. I could play devil's advocate for that issue stance, but I don't understand it.

Obviously, this is because you're a sociopath.

 

[Phoenix]

You simply do not get it.

Supply me with sound, objective reasons as to why a cow has a less of a right to life than a kitty cats. Not your opinion, but facts. If you establish that animals have rights as a fact you then have to show why that applies only to the ones its easy for you apply that too and doesn't to the ones that's difficult.

I'll take a stab at it. A cow is bred to be eaten and a cat is not. A cat has a a purpose being that it kills other animals which we consider vermin (rats), a cow has no other productive purpose other than to be consumed. A cat does not.


So those would be my reasons to separate these two animals much the same that I would split out chickens and dogs/horses.

 

[Gaborn]

Personally, I still don't see a difference in killing an animal for sport or for food. I could play devil's advocate for that issue stance, but I don't understand it.

I think it goes to basic primal instincts vs. secondary ("civilized" if you will) instincts. In a state of nature there would be no killing for sport, you'd kill for self defense or you'd kill for food. If you're in a position where you don't have arable land (say you were dropped in a wooded area in the late fall) and you don't have enough knowledge to gather edible plants you revert, to a greater or lesser degree, to a state of nature where you need to satisfy a primal urge. Our primal urges break down to food (and water) sleep, sex. Shelter is also up there but it isn't quite as primal, even a tree could be considered shelter under the right conditions without modifying anything, though shelter is probably one of the first things to develop.

Killing for "sport" is a relatively recent and entirely human construct. In a state of nature your only concerns are relating to your method of survival and potentially in leaving a state of nature. Killing for sport implies enough security that you don't need to worry about reprisals, you don't need to worry about wasting meat you might need later (also known potentially as domesticating the animal) and you have no conscious "reason." You're killing for the sake of killing.

So, I guess what I'm suggesting is that at a basic, primal level humans are animals. When our instincts are directed towards survival (or, I might say, "purposeful" killing, or, killing with reason) that's different than killing for the fun of it. Just as there's a different reaction if you learned that someone shot a man because they could, and someone shot a man who was trying to attack you with a knife.

 

[JayDubya]

I'll take a stab at it. A cow is bred to be eaten and a cat is not. A cat has a a purpose being that it kills other animals which we consider vermin (rats), a cow has no other productive purpose other than to be consumed. A cat does not.


So those would be my reasons to separate these two animals much the same that I would split out chickens and dogs/horses.

But in that example, animals have their worth solely defined in utilitarian terms, as useful property, as tools.

An empty bag of potato chips is trash, a sturdy cooking pot is a useful tool. I do not consider my cooking pot to have rights simply because I personally value it.

 

[Phoenix]

BUT THEY HAVE RIGHTS

*Chomps double quarter pounder*

I sure am glad I ate that, I was about to starve to death.

But why stop with that suffering? Since we're talking about suffering what about the humans that suffered and labored (mostly in Southeast Asia) to get your food to you. Should we look at their suffering now and say that anything that came from a product of suffering is thusly inappropriate?

 

[Phoenix]

But in that example, animals have their worth solely defined in utilitarian terms, as useful property, as tools.

An empty bag of potato chips is trash, a sturdy cooking pot is a useful tool. I do not consider my cooking pot to have rights simply because I personally value it.

Well certainly the easier answer then for your particular use case (because that is not what the OP required in his answer) is that we domesticated cats and dogs therefore we as a society personally value our personal creation and as such they are more important than their brethren much like how we kill wild dogs with no regard yet have restraint when it comes to regular dogs. Much like in New Orleans we don't just indiscriminately kill cats and dogs due to overpopulation, but instead spay/neuter/release them.

 

[Cold-Steel]

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Man, the meat on those puppies would be so delicious after letting them tenderize each other during 6 fights.

 

[The Grand Lucifarius]

But why stop with that suffering? Since we're talking about suffering what about the humans that suffered and labored (mostly in Southeast Asia) to get your food to you. Should we look at their suffering now and say that anything that came from a product of suffering is thusly inappropriate?

Well, I'm assuming you're speaking of sweatshops and labor farms where typically adults and children need to work for very little wage due to very constricting economic conditions. It's humorous that this is another example of societies indulgence in otherwise socially immoral practices. In public such places are always spoken out against and demonized. However the same people line up in droves to continually purchase such goods from such evil sectors of the clothes and goods industry which indulges the foreign company endorses their practices. So the answer to your question would be "Yes! how dare they exploit children in such a way!" but then no when "OMGZ that looks soooo cute, where's my credit card??"

However personally by virtue of being born human means they have a higher place in the world than any animal. Any person in such a condition has the ability, no matter how difficult or how much time it takes to immigrate to another more desirable location. Weather they succumb to the pressures of their habitat or take initiative to change it isn't up to me so I fail to see why I should deny myself an item that appeals to me. So personally, the answer is no. I want something, I will buy it, regardless of it's origin.

 

[Phoenix]

Stuff.

But are you saying that something that comes as a product of suffering is therefore inappropriate? You never really did answer that question.

 

[Timedog]

No, hunting for meat is not needed. It's an excuse. Either way the deer, or fox, or bunny would have been alive and would have had if not already had a little critter family of his/her own had the hunter arbitrarily not decided that instead of eating a can of food or going to the super market decided that it would be more fun to stalk, kill and eat said animal.

What I am saying is that if people did concern themselves with the welfare of animals they would not trivialize them at every juncture. Be it individual liberties or the very right to live. If people really cared about animal rights we would not allow businesses to exploit the very lives of animals in such an irresponsible way and there would be a solid and strict ban on casual meat eating. But this society would never go through such pains to ensure the life of a being they know to be insignificant and therefore treat it accordingly. People will speak all sorts of moving and emotional rhetoric until you tell them to prove it by getting rid of McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, Applebees, Hardies and so on. They WANT those things. If life was such a precious commodity et al it would be treated like a precious commodity and meat would not be taken for granted.

My point is society talks out of both sides of its mouth. Animals cannot be even in the same universe as humans whilst we knowingly, willingly and eagerly kill them, make them suffer for admittedly petty reasons. (IE "WOW I want a burger, lets go kill a cow so I can take a part of it body because it's just so yummy!)

Like I said, the bridge between morality and legality can only be made out of perspective and consistency. And so far society is completely and totally lacking in both and as such is completely unprepared to pass any kind of judgment on the issue. Having laws with ideals that are completely counter intuitive to it's citizens way of thinking and more importantly actions are worthless and implicate a great deal more people than those of Vick's ilk.

If society is ok with animals being treated like property = they should be fine with labeling them as property.

property = private ownership = can use however the owner sees fit. Again, no one can come to your home and tell you how to treat you Wii or Xbox. And likewise you cannot tell a cattle farmer to not put a rod through that cows head because it's mean. He owns it. But the whole consistency thing is completely drowned out with incessant political and ethical double speak.

Again, almost nothing is necessary. Very few laws are based off of necessity. Human evolution is not based off of necessity. If laws were based off of necessity alone, the world would be a very, very different place, and there would be very few laws. What you are saying is counter to the development of humankind. You are pretending that there is no distinction between killing for food, and just blatantly torturing or killing an animal. They are not the same thing. Also, you cannot use private property as you see fit.

When has, or why should necessity be the single crux of law?

 

[The Grand Lucifarius]

But are you saying that something that comes as a product of suffering is therefore inappropriate? You never really did answer that question.

I thought I did?

So personally, the answer is no. I want something, I will buy it, regardless of it's origin.

But society at large doesn't share the sentiment, or at least aren't honest about it when contrasted with their purchasing habits.

I'm not trying to say that my personal opinion is the defacto way of rationalization that should be a model for all to follow. My point has merely been that the practices of a society does not match its moral and legal doctrine. The advocation of certain laws that by extension they themselves don't follow morally disintegrates the value of said law. The alternative would be morals that follow actions, not the other way around. Which is thus: Animals are treated as property so there for they are.

Not that my words or actions are right, that just my opinion - not something someone should face prosecution for.

I would think badly of someone who mutilates cats. Because I'm a cat person. But regardless of my personal feelings on that issue I could not find any reasonable platform to advocate him being punished without implementing myself considering my eating habits and the fact that I "own" pets myself. I think people who throw dishes and glass while mad are irresponsible and I think people who "pimp" out their car are silly. But I have no jurisdiction over them or their property. My opinion and their freedom can co-exist. Either way it does not impede on my life what so ever. It just seems to me that is the more rational way to approach it.

 

[Phoenix]

The alternative would be morals that follow actions, not the other way around. Which is thus: Animals are treated as property so there for they are.

But that would be incorrect SOME animals are treated as property. If Vick was fighting cows and electrocuted the losers and then grilled them, nobody would give two shits.

Not that my words or actions are right, that just my opinion - not something someone should face prosecution for.


I would think badly of someone who mutilates cats. Because I'm a cat person. But regardless of my personal feelings on that issue I could not find any reasonable platform to advocate him being punished without implementing myself considering my eating habits and the fact that I "own" pets myself.

That's purely based on your presupposition that all animals are equals in the eyes of man and therefore deserve equal treatment and consideration where there are socio-rationales for why we treat animals differently. The very fact that we call them "domesticated" animals and label them as such should be the first sign that society does not share you view that animals are "equal". The fact that we allow these animals into our homes, in fact welcome them into our homes only serves to support that these animals are chosen by us to be above other animals because we have deemed that after our efforts, these animals belong with us.

 

[Nicodimas]

wow Jay. I Completely disagree with you.

Why raise to living creatures bent on a path to destroy each other. This is a basic form of this argument, not the larger social engineering one. These are pets and animals and you raise them to fight,to kill, for fun. To see which one is the winner (watch a ball game). I do not buy into this. The the being you create fails you kill it begin again. (with the prospect of torturing it). If person is doing this they are capable of much harder crimes.

Also this a public figure who is doing something against the law. Laws are meant to be enforced, or else whats the point. This is one of the reasons I detest when the rich and powerful get away with crimes.

He is preety much serving 23 months in a hard area from what I hear with expired food being served and potentially violent criminals. No picnic.

 

[adamsappel]

Once we get to the point where we agree that domesticated animals are property and wild animals are commodities / natural resources, then we're simply arguing about a need for regulation and restriction on how one uses the property.

See, you do get it.

 

[JayDubya]

See, you do get it.

Yes, but where do I always stand on "a need for regulation and restriction on how one uses [their] property," provided no one else is hurt?

 

[Darko]

they were delicious.

 

[WickedAngel]

But that would be incorrect SOME animals are treated as property. If Vick was fighting cows and electrocuted the losers and then grilled them, nobody would give two shits.

I would actually care about that as well, to be honest. If killing an animal is necessary, I (And a lot of people who care about animals) would prefer that they be killed as quickly as possible. Electrocuting an animal to death can take quite some time. As barbaric as it is, I'd say that shooting them in the head would be a more humane death.

The method that a lot of slaughterhouses would seem inappropriate if the animals weren't unconscious. Their main artery is cut and they are allowed to bleed out. There are religious exemptions but I doubt that many of the big farms in the US follow religious codes in opposition of the Humane Slaughter Act.

 

[Jake.]

not long enough but better than nothing. he'll probably be out soon enough for 'good behaviour' or some bullshit soon though.