Felony Conviction for Killing Cats

[AmateurScientist]

I just read this account of a Richmond man being convicted of two felony counts of animal cruelty for killing his girlfriend's two cats.

Man Convicted of Felony for Killing Cats (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031771800591)

If the account is accurate, clearly the guy is cruel and sick and has little regard for the sanctity of life.

There is a recent trend emerging in the U.S. in several states to broaden the definition of animal cruelty and to increase its severity from a misdemeanor to a felony offense.

Personally, I'm glad to see some official recognition that cruelty to animals is serious. Perhaps this is a portent of our society's learning to treat other animals with more respect. I think our culture tolerates far too much casual mistreatment of other animals, despite our being meat eaters.

What do you think?

AS

[Tmy]

These animal cruelty cases smack of species-ism!!! Its not how you kill the animal its what animal you kill.

I read a story about an old lady in Mass. who killed hundreds of squirrels by trapping and then drowing them. Nothing happend to her,. If she killed cats than watch out!!! Shed be given the chair!

There should be a People for the Ethical Treatment of Cute Animals. Cause they are the ones we protect.

[Tony]

This is stupid, what's next? Felony convictions for little kids who pull the wings off misquitos? Should the girl sue him? Yes. Should he get a criminal case? Yes, but not a felony.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Tmy
These animal cruelty cases smack of species-ism!!! Its not how you kill the animal its what animal you kill.

I read a story about an old lady in Mass. who killed hundreds of squirrels by trapping and then drowing them. Nothing happend to her,. If she killed cats than watch out!!! Shed be given the chair!

There should be a People for the Ethical Treatment of Cute Animals. Cause they are the ones we protect.

You've got a very good point. Nevertheless, I shudder at what some people deliberately do just to be cruel and then laugh about it.

AS

[Cain]

Absolutely the courts should take very seriously cruelty to cats (and all mammals). Tony's analogy to mosquitos is misguided and false (insects do not feel pain).

These animal cruelty cases smack of species-ism!!! Its not how you kill the animal its what animal you kill.

I read a story about an old lady in Mass. who killed hundreds of squirrels by trapping and then drowing them. Nothing happend to her,. If she killed cats than watch out!!! Shed be given the chair!

This only demonstrates that we need to expand the circle of moral concern. At one time society would severely punish a black man who murdered a young white girl (this still happens today), but mete out a lighter sentence if the victim was a young black man.

The laws, a reflection of society's attitudes, are generally arbitrary in this regard.

There should be a People for the Ethical Treatment of Cute Animals. Cause they are the ones we protect.

Meat eaters are the speciesism. We can't consume cats or dogs, but chickens and cows are just fine.

[Dancing David]

The context of killing animals needs to be taken into account, you can get a license to kill animals or kill your cow if you want.

Very frequently, and most likely in this case IT IS AN ACT OF DOMESTC VIOLENCE to further terrorise and control the victims. Killing pets of other people should be a felony.

oh yeah take it to civil court, yeah right, slap them with a felony!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
Absolutely the courts should take very seriously cruelty to cats (and all mammals). Tony's analogy to mosquitos is misguided and false (insects do not feel pain).



So pain is the deciding factor? Then I guess it is ok to torure and kill a cat if you first administer some morphine to the animal?

What constitutional mandate do the courts have to protect animals?

[c0rbin]

Before the end, cats and dogs will be on the menu...

:arrow:

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Cain
Absolutely the courts should take very seriously cruelty to cats (and all mammals). Tony's analogy to mosquitos is misguided and false (insects do not feel pain).
I don't believe that's true. Look here:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/876705774.Zo.r.html

[plindboe]

It's of course a difficult discussion to argue about how much an animal is worth. Anyone that have had a pet knows how attached one can get to it. They almost become like a member of the family, and you love them in almost the same degree. Doesn't that make the animal more worth?

[bignickel]

Dang! I was going to post something here, but unbelievably, everyone here has already posted about this from every angle I can think of.

Surprised and shocked, I am.

[Melissa Johnson]

Soylent Green is People! :eek:

I'm a meat eater. I fail to see how that correlates to torturing cats--or torturing anything, to be plain.

Torturing animals is a good way to study up on serial killing. In my own neighborhood there is some anonymous jerk going around sawing cats in half. Not magically--literally. I wish they'd catch him and...well...my wishes aren't always worth airing in public.

You can be as philosophical as you like and chop logic all you want, but torture is torture; I see anybody mistreating a cow, chicken, cat, or kid and I'm liable to come unhinged. But saying a rat is a cat is a kid (PETA's happy little argument) annoys me.

A felony? Fine by me. What is the penalty for destruction of someone's valuable property? You could look at it that way. Or don't. Just leave my cat alone and let me eat my steak, okay?

[Tmy]

What do yall thinkof banning pitbulls. Isnt that breedism!! WE alwyas rail agianst racism, and while people are more complictaed than dogs it does bug me that its seemingly ok to ban a breed because its supposed tendencies. From what ive seen Pit Bills statistically are not the most agressive ( ie biting people) of breeds.

Is it justa bad rap.

[Melissa Johnson]

Originally posted by Tmy
What do yall thinkof banning pitbulls. Isnt that breedism!! WE alwyas rail agianst racism, and while people are more complictaed than dogs it does bug me that its seemingly ok to ban a breed because its supposed tendencies. From what ive seen Pit Bills statistically are not the most agressive ( ie biting people) of breeds.

Is it justa bad rap.

Bah. Pitbulls were originally bred to be fighting dogs. Nothing else--not companions, not watchdogs, not sheep dogs. They were bred to KILL. You cannot tell me that those inclinations do not still exist in a dog that has at jaw that requires a crowbar to release--once it's locked on something.

Sorry. If people want pitbulls--which I don't even think the AKC has recognized as an actual standardized breed--fine, but they'd better be responsible for them, or yes, they ought to be banned.

[Kodiak]

About ten years ago, a cat ran out in front of my car, and though I was only going about 35MPH, I found the cat badly mangled but alive after I pulled over and got out of my truck. I picked up the agonizing cat, carried it out of the street and snapped its neck.

Was what I did a crime? Should I have taken it to a vet to be put to sleep, or was what I did reasonable? I took no pleasure in it and simply felt the same regret I feel when my first shot at a deer doesn't immediately kill it.

[Tricky]

If pets are considered property, then the act could be considered to be equivalent to robbery, which is in fact a felony.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
If pets are considered property, then the act could be considered to be equivalent to robbery, which is in fact a felony.

The cat was running around loose and had no collar.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Kodiak
About ten years ago, a cat ran out in front of my car, and though I was only going about 35MPH, I found the cat badly mangled but alive after I pulled over and got out of my truck. I picked up the agonizing cat, carried it out of the street and snapped its neck.

Was what I did a crime? Should I have taken it to a vet to be put to sleep, or was what I did reasonable? I took no pleasure in it and simply felt the same regret I feel when my first shot at a deer doesn't immediately kill it.

Well, I doubt anyone is going to call your intent to put the cat out of its misery cruelty. It wasn't a crime.

Nevertheless, here's some food for thought. Substitute "small child" for "cat" in your scenario. Clearly, you would have a legal and moral duty to render and/or summon aid for the child you accidentally hit. Assuming you are not a medical professional, you would have to call or have someone else call the police and an ambulance. It is manifestly not your decision to make the decision that the child wouldn't live anyway.

Why should the decision making process be different in the case of your hitting a cat? I don't mean you should call the police and an ambulance. I mean that presumably you are not a trained veterinarian. It's not your decision to make as to whether the cat could survive. I think the appropriate thing is first to attempt to ascertain who the "owner" of the cat is. If that isn't possible, then if you can safely get the cat into your car, then you should take it to a veterinary hospital. Call a vet's emergency number, if possible, on the way and explain what has happened.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, I recognize that many people would do just as you did. Others might even leave it there, and others still might try to hit it again.

Personally, I would have tried to get it medical attention, even if all the vet could do is euthanize it more humanely. That's just me, however.

Legally, of course, there is nothing wrong with your actions.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Tricky
If pets are considered property, then the act could be considered to be equivalent to robbery, which is in fact a felony.

Robbery is the taking of something of value from a person by force or the threat of force to a person.

The accidental hitting of a cat and then killing it to end its pain would never be robbery under any circumstances.

AS

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Well, I doubt anyone is going to call your intent to put the cat out of its misery cruelty. It wasn't a crime.

Nevertheless, here's some food for thought. Substitute "small child" for "cat" in your scenario. Clearly, you would have a legal and moral duty to render and/or summon aid for the child you accidentally hit. Assuming you are not a medical professional, you would have to call or have someone else call the police and an ambulance. It is manifestly not your decision to make the decision that the child wouldn't live anyway.

Why should the decision making process be different in the case of your hitting a cat? I don't mean you should call the police and an ambulance. I mean that presumably you are not a trained veterinarian. It's not your decision to make as to whether the cat could survive. I think the appropriate thing is first to attempt to ascertain who the "owner" of the cat is. If that isn't possible, then if you can safely get the cat into your car, then you should take it to a veterinarian hospital. Call a vet's emergency number, if possible, on the way and explain what has happened.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, I recognize that many people would do just as you did. Others might even leave it there, and others still might try to hit it again.

Personally, I would have tried to get it medical attention, even if all the vet could do is euthanize it more humanely. That's just me, however.

Legally, of course, there is nothing wrong with your actions.

AS

I never even thought about it at the time, but this thread made me reexamine the situation.

In the future I think I'll handle any similar situations as you have so succinctly related.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Robbery is the taking of something of value from a person by force or the threat of force to a person.

The accidental hitting of a cat and then killing it to end its pain would never be robbery under any circumstances.

True, but this could in no way be considered accidental.
Three veterinarians testified as to the conditions of the two cats, one of which entered the household after the first one died. Both cats had symptoms consistent with blunt-force trauma, the vets said, including hemorrhaging, bruising, dilated pupils, broken ribs and teeth, and blood clots in their eyes.

Oops. I just realized you thought I was responding to Kodiak's story. No, he did the right thing, difficult though it was. (They shoot horses, don't they?)

I was responding to some of those who had argued that the deliberate killing of the woman's two cats should not be considered a felony. Oh. It was Tony. I should have recognized that it was just background noise.

[Michael Redman]

Animals never respect our rights or wishes. I don't think we need to respect theirs. They don't follow the social contract. They are not others of our kind. If you want to be nice to animals, that's fine, but that's a subjective, and individual decision.

However, while I do not think we should protect individual animals for the animal's sake (protecting habitat and biodiversity is a different matter), that doesn't mean that a twisted bastard like this shouldn't be punished. He's terrorizing someone, and should be locked up.

I don't think animal cruelty laws are going to stop the serial killer from proceeding to human victims. It might be a good warning of things to come. Such cases as Melissa mentions should be investigated very seriously.

Cruelty is a concept of human creation. Not just pain is involved, but emotions, the apprehension of pain, the fear of humiliation and death, etc. We certainly don't know what animals experience, but it seems very unlikely that they have a conscious awareness of such matters. If causing pain and death to an animal is cruel, then cruelty is the most certain characteristic of animal life.

I think that we should be concerned with people who are cruel to animals, not for the animals, but for what it means about that person.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Animals never respect our rights or wishes. I don't think we need to respect theirs. They don't follow the social contract. They are not others of our kind. If you want to be nice to animals, that's fine, but that's a subjective, and individual decision.

However, while I do not think we should protect individual animals for the animal's sake (protecting habitat and biodiversity is a different matter), that doesn't mean that a twisted bastard like this shouldn't be punished. He's terrorizing someone, and should be locked up.

I don't think animal cruelty laws are going to stop the serial killer from proceeding to human victims. It might be a good warning of things to come. Such cases as Melissa mentions should be investigated very seriously.

Cruelty is a concept of human creation. Not just pain is involved, but emotions, the apprehension of pain, the fear of humiliation and death, etc. We certainly don't know what animals experience, but it seems very unlikely that they have a conscious awareness of such matters. If causing pain and death to an animal is cruel, then cruelty is the most certain characteristic of animal life.

I think that we should be concerned with people who are cruel to animals, not for the animals, but for what it means about that person.

Very good point, Michael. I agree that the concept of cruelty is a uniquely human creation. Even absent a social compact with other animals, however, cruelty cannot be justified.

Animals do not commit acts of cruelty towards humans. When they attack, they do so for many possible reasons, but not just to be mean.

Actually, I think there is a kind of social compact we make with lots of domesticated animals, but not the sort that you mean.

Anyway, back to the topic, I also find a lot of merit in your contention that we should be gravely concerned about the apparent perverse pleasure that animal abusers get from their acts of cruelty. I disagree that we should disregard the effect of that cruelty to the animals, however. Unnecessary suffering is something we should strive to avoid and which we should never condone.

AS

[Melissa Johnson]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

I think that we should be concerned with people who are cruel to animals, not for the animals, but for what it means about that person.

Very well put, Michael. I was thinking along similar lines, but you put it very clearly. This applies to the people who pull off flies' wings for sport or etc.--the fact that they are deriving pleasure from the actual or percieved administration of pain is the problem.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Melissa Johnson


Very well put, Michael. I was thinking along similar lines, but you put it very clearly. This applies to the people who pull off flies' wings for sport or etc.--the fact that they are deriving pleasure from the actual or percieved administration of pain is the problem.

Yes, and I've always suspected that that's why we ban cockfights and organized dog fighting. It's not the gambling so much as it is the enjoyment of the pain and killing for sport by the spectators.

AS

[Cleopatra]

Great points from all of you plus the fact that from the moment we decide to adopt a domesticated animal we have obligations towards this animal.

I stressed the word domesticated because I feel the slightest sympathy for those that suffer attacks from wild animals while they to turn them into pets.

[Mycroft]

He didn't just kill the cats, he beat them to death. One could certainly make an argument if he had sought some humane way to euthanize the cats, or if their death had served some greater good, but to just beat them to death for no reason? If someone shows that little regard for life, even animal life, then society needs protection from that person.

[Tmy]

Kodiacs stopry reminds me of that Terri lady and her feeding tube. Why is it that we're so OK with putting pets an animals out of their misery (out of love/sympathy) but with people we suck every last bit of life out of them before letting go.

Now if the cat killer owned the cats, would it make a difference.

[Cain]

See, the problem with this messageboard is that I had the fourth reply, and now when I check the thread again, over 20 messages have been posted (in only a couple hours).

So pain is the deciding factor? Then I guess it is ok to torure and kill a cat if you first administer some morphine to the animal?

Pain is not a deciding a factor; it' s a morally revlevant characteristic. Which is more immoral: dismembering a cat and inflicting tremendous pain in the process, or killing it after administering an anesthetic?

I don't believe that's true. Look here:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...05774.Zo.r.html

An interesting site, but hardly conclusive.

Here's what a vegan FAQ online has to say on the subject:

http://www.hedweb.com/arfaq/arsec5q.htm

What constitutional mandate do the courts have to protect animals?

Political-legal codes are deriviative of our *ethical* beliefs. Two hundred years ago we could have asked what in the Constitution would allow equal treatment of blacks.

But saying a rat is a cat is a kid (PETA's happy little argument) annoys me.

This oft-repeated quote has been taken out of context.
_________________________________

Animals never respect our rights or wishes. I don't think we need to respect theirs. They don't follow the social contract. They are not others of our kind. If you want to be nice to animals, that's fine, but that's a subjective, and individual decision.

This is morally arbitrary. (Most) Non-human animals cannot respect our interests because they're incapable of understanding them. But as it happens, so are infants and small children. There are two separate categories according to philosophers: moral patients and moral agents.

I think that we should be concerned with people who are cruel to animals, not for the animals, but for what it means about that person.

This is similar to Kant's objections. I find it unpersuasive, even appalling. The suggestion that a sadistic human should be stopped from torturing a cat not because of the excruciating pain inflicted against the feline, but some paternalistic notion that it's bad for the person. It gets primary and secondary moral considerations backward.

_________________________________

AS writes: "Unnecessary suffering is something we should strive to avoid and which we should never condone."

Relevant to this comment by Mycroft:

He didn't just kill the cats, he beat them to death. One could certainly make an argument if he had sought some humane way to euthanize the cats, or if their death had served some greater good, but to just beat them to death for no reason? If someone shows that little regard for life, even animal life, then society needs protection from that person.

How is eating animals in the face of harmless alternatives not contributing to unnecessary suffering?

A sadist tortures animals because he (presumably) values the pleasure derived from inflicting pain over the victim's interests (against awful suffering; in it's one and only life). Well, when we eat animals we value the way they taste over any pain they might experience or interest they may have in their lives. I wish I could express it better, but... the differences between the torturer and meat-eaters differs in degree rather than kind. You're disregarding the interests of non-humans but in different ways.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Mycroft
If someone shows that little regard for life, even animal life, then society needs protection from that person. Only if you assign some artificial value to the lives of certain individual animals. Would you say society needs protection from a comercial fisherman or a poultry farmer? Is it really showing no regard for animal life that bothers you, or is it something more complicated than that?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Cain
This is similar to Kant's objections. I find it unpersuasive, even appalling. The suggestion that a sadistic human should be stopped from torturing a cat not because of the excruciating pain inflicted against the feline, but some paternalistic notion that it's bad for the person. It gets primary and secondary moral considerations backward.How so? From where do you derive your objective moral standard from which to look down on mine? Morally arbirtary? Of course it is. At least I can admit that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
Pain is not a deciding a factor; it' s a morally revlevant characteristic. Which is more immoral: dismembering a cat and inflicting tremendous pain in the process, or killing it after administering an anesthetic?


So if pain isnt a deciding factor my anology isnt wrong and misguided. Thanks for clarfying that, so, are we going to start charging little kids with felonies when they pull the wings off misquitos?

Political-legal codes are deriviative of our *ethical* beliefs.

Maybe in theory, but not in reality.

Two hundred years ago we could have asked what in the Constitution would allow equal treatment of blacks.

You're comparing blacks and slavery to animals?

[Tmy]

The guy shouldve vented his frustrations in a different way. If he just kicked his girlfiend instead, hed be in less trouble.

There are alot of inhumane rat traps that are perfectly legal. I dont believe cruelty to animla laws are species specific.

[Cain]

So if pain isnt a deciding factor my anology isnt wrong and misguided.

A "deciding" factor is over-riding and conclusive. THere are other factors worth consideration, which the rest of my post sort of makes clear. If pain was a "deciding factor" then it would be okay for somebody to murder a sleeping victim.

Maybe in theory, but not in reality.

????? We're having a discussion. Yes, I suppose tyrannical regime X doesn't really care about ethical considerations, and only might makes right. Whatever.

You're comparing blacks and slavery to animals?

I'm comparing two things: 1) that the Constitution isn't always right, and it's best left out of discussions on ethics, although this thread does deal with the law. 2) skin color is a morally arbitrary characteristic no different than species. We can easily imagine an alien race from planet Clowton that possesses far greater awareness, intelligence, and so on than humans. Does that mean we shouldn't respect their rights because they're non-human? Because the Constitutions lacks provisions? Silliness.

[Cain]

How so? From where do you derive your objective moral standard from which to look down on mine? Morally arbirtary? Of course it is. At least I can admit that.

Don't you think morally arbitrary standards are... bad? You'd want to get away from them? I'm trying to base my ethics on interests. Interest in continuing to live, avoiding pain, and so on. I'm not sure why you'd think that's arbitrary...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


A "deciding" factor is over-riding and conclusive. THere are other factors worth consideration, which the rest of my post sort of makes clear.


Then why did you bring it up pain when I made the anology about the misquito?

If pain was a "deciding factor" then it would be okay for somebody to murder a sleeping victim.

We're talking about animals, not people.

2) skin color is a morally arbitrary characteristic no different than species.

Wrong. Differences between species aren't "morally arbitrary", they are scientific fact.

[Hexxenhammer]

The neighborhood I grew up in was outside of city limits. As such, there were no leash laws and no one had fences. We all let our dogs run. One day when I'm a teenager I walk outside and see this big trail of blood going across our sidewalk, up on our porch, and through our dog door into the garage. I go into the garage and there is our neighbor's dog laying on my dog's bed with an arrow shot all the way through it, shivering and shaking and bleeding. Long story short, my dad wanted to shoot it and put it out of it's misery, I wanted to take it to the vet (but how do I get the dog in my Jeep? The thing wouldn't let you touch it), and my mom wanted the neighbors to decide. But they weren't home. Eventually we got ahold of the neighbors, they got the dog in their pickup and took it to the vet. It lived.

But who was the sick b@stard that shot the dog? All the neighbor kids knew it was this one particular kid who had been out shooting his bow in his backyard that day and who was a known frog torturer. He had apparently upped the ante on his cruelty and sickness. Our neighbors sued the kids parents but the kid's dad said he shot the dog because it was on their property (of course it was @$$hole, it was running home and crossed your yard) and the case was dropped.

People who hurt animals on purpose for the sole reason to cause pain should be criminally liable. Maybe there needs to be a distinction. Misdemeanor animal cruelty and felony animal cruelty. There are petty and felony assault aren't there?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony
We're talking about animals, not people.

First, people are animals. Second, the whole purpose of the discussion, or so I thought, was to share opinions on animals (cats specifically) in regard to the law.

Wrong. Differences between species aren't "morally arbitrary", they are scientific fact.

This is a non sequitur.

Scientific facts distinguish males from females, but that distinction is arbitrary with regard to right to life. It's not arbitrary on the issue of, oh say, abortion. Women have a right to abortion and men do not. Why? Well, men are sort of incapable of having abortions (this harkens back to the larger point dealing with interests).

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Cain

How is eating animals in the face of harmless alternatives not contributing to unnecessary suffering?



Because humans are mostly omnivores and most of us include meat in our diets. This is no cultural accident. Our ancestors ate meat as well, as do many of our primate relatives.

It isn't unnecessary suffering when you kill your prey to eat it.

I disagree that soy or other plant products are equivalent alternatives. There is no nutritionally acceptable plant based substitute for meat.

Of course, you don't have to eat it if you don't want to, but those of us who do aren't necessarily cruel. In both the short and long term, we are probably better off nutritionally than vegans or vegetarians.

AS

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


First, people are animals.


Maybe technically, but for our purposes here. People are people and animals are animals.

Second, the whole purpose of the discussion, or so I thought, was to share opinions on animals (cats specifically) in regard to the law.

Then why did you bring up people? When you said:

If pain was a "deciding factor" then it would be okay for somebody to murder a sleeping victim.

Where you talking about animals?

This is a non sequitur.

No its not, you said skin color was a "morally arbitrary " no different than species. I showed how you were wrong.

Scientific facts distinguish males from females, but that distinction is arbitrary with regard to right to life. It's not arbitrary on the issue of, oh say, abortion. Women have a right to abortion and men do not. Why? Well, men are sort of incapable of having abortions (this harkens back to the larger point dealing with interests).

This is irrelevant.

[Melissa Johnson]

To be absolutely clear, I don't care whether it's the fact that the animal is being tortured or that the jerk doing the torturing is getting his/her jollies off of it. I think it's wrong, and so do people in positions to write the laws.

I think people who torture animals for fun (i.e. putting the animal through ridiculous pain and anguish for absolutely no reason) should be punished by the law.

If that's a misquote from PETA, I apologize. I was under the impression they regarded all life as equally valuable, thus the rat =cat=child routine, of which I'm certainly not the first to cite.

I've spent most of my life (if not all my life) in the company of animals. I have utterly no regard for people who mistreat them.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
The neighborhood I grew up in was outside of city limits. As such, there were no leash laws and no one had fences. We all let our dogs run. One day when I'm a teenager I walk outside and see this big trail of blood going across our sidewalk, up on our porch, and through our dog door into the garage. I go into the garage and there is our neighbor's dog laying on my dog's bed with an arrow shot all the way through it, shivering and shaking and bleeding. Long story short, my dad wanted to shoot it and put it out of it's misery, I wanted to take it to the vet (but how do I get the dog in my Jeep? The thing wouldn't let you touch it), and my mom wanted the neighbors to decide. But they weren't home. Eventually we got ahold of the neighbors, they got the dog in their pickup and took it to the vet. It lived.

But who was the sick b@stard that shot the dog? All the neighbor kids knew it was this one particular kid who had been out shooting his bow in his backyard that day and who was a known frog torturer. He had apparently upped the ante on his cruelty and sickness. Our neighbors sued the kids parents but the kid's dad said he shot the dog because it was on their property (of course it was @$$hole, it was running home and crossed your yard) and the case was dropped.


That's a horrible story. You're right; the kid is a sick bast*rd.

I'm glad the dog survived.

When I was a kid my dog disappeared for about 10 days. She returned emaciated, with two toes traumatically amputated as if in a trap, and with a .38 cal slug in her head.

Apparently, she had wandered across the street to a cop's yard and he shot her at close range in the head. A**hole.

She lived, but always had a sore foot from the loss of her toes.

AS

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Only if you assign some artificial value to the lives of certain individual animals. Would you say society needs protection from a comercial fisherman or a poultry farmer? Is it really showing no regard for animal life that bothers you, or is it something more complicated than that?

The poultry rancher and the fisherman both produce food. If someone were to raise cats for food, I would still be repulsed (cultural bias) but I would have a hard time making a moral argument that condemned him and not another type of rancher.

I would agree that someone who killed fish or chickens for fun or just because they hated them would also be deserving of contempt, and possible legal reprisals. I believe that having a pet creates a responsibility to that pet to provide for its needs and comfort, and not to kill it for fun.

Overall, God (or nature, if you prefer) has set up a system where most living things die to become food for other living things. I don’t feel guilty about being a participant in that system, and I appreciate my status within the chain where I’m unlikely to become food for something else.

[Cain]

Because humans are mostly omnivores and most of us include meat in our diets. This is no cultural accident. Our ancestors ate meat as well, as do many of our primate relatives.

But this is the naturalistic fallacy.

Many vegeterians and vegans live perfectly healthy lives. Even assuming we absolutely needed to consume animals or their by-products in some form, if we are interested in minimizing unnecessary suffering, then this consumption would be fraction of what people in first world countries eat today.
___________________________
Tony:
Maybe technically, but for our purposes here. People are people and animals are animals.

That's fine.

Then why did you bring up people? When you said

Because it's analogy used to demonstrate the point that pain is the only consideration.

No its not, you said skin color was a "morally arbitrary " no different than species. I showed how you were wrong.

You "showed" me nothing important. I do not know how to explain the point in greater detail. You simply do not understand.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tmy
The guy shouldve vented his frustrations in a different way. If he just kicked his girlfiend instead, hed be in less trouble.

-snip.

Yeah, aint that a bite ! The rub is that people just don't care torture is wrong, wether done to humans or animals.

In the domestic violence field threats and torture of pets is another way of controling the victim, especial since until the felony animal creulty laws there was NOTHING you could do if your abusive partener kiiled or tortured your pets.

The DV Battery Law in Illinois is a joke, first it can be hard to get an officer to take a report, then that state's attorney will alomost always plead down to simple battery.

In Illinois the first charge of Domestic battery is not a felony , only the second. Gievn the low rates of charging and the probable plea bargin, you have to abuse your partner repeatedly to get cahrged with the felony/ In illinois battery is a misdemeanor.

[Dancing David]

Hexenhammer:
Do you live in Central Illinois or grow up here, this same incident happened in St. Joseph about 15 minutes from where I live. I am sorry that the oppotunity for depravity is so often repeated.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


That's a horrible story. You're right; the kid is a sick bast*rd.

I'm glad the dog survived.

When I was a kid my dog disappeared for about 10 days. She returned emaciated, with two toes traumatically amputated as if in a trap, and with a .38 cal slug in her head.

Apparently, she had wandered across the street to a cop's yard and he shot her at close range in the head. A**hole.

She lived, but always had a sore foot from the loss of her toes.

AS Before theis the neighbor's dog was always over at our place because of our dogs and the fact that we seemed to play with it more than they did. After this, it never left it's own yard. What a terrible sight seeing that dog walk around with that arrow all the way through its side. I couldn't believe it lived with how much blood it lost (most of it onto our garage concrete, there are still dark stains in a couple of spots.)

What about the grading of cruelty though, is this a viable option? Animal torturers get harsher sentances than some person who leaves the dog out in the rain all the time.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hexenhammer:
Do you live in Central Illinois or grow up here, this same incident happened in St. Joseph about 15 minutes from where I live. I am sorry that the oppotunity for depravity is so often repeated. No, this was in North Dakota. Our neighborhood was by the lake and heavily wooded and everyone had big yards.

Yes, I lived in the only part of North Dakota that has a lake and trees. The rest of it is barren wasteland.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cain


But this is the naturalistic fallacy.

Many vegeterians and vegans live perfectly healthy lives.

Oh, yeah. I know plenty of vegans who develop wrinkles all over their faces by the time they are 30, and sunken glassy eyeballs, and who can't seem to function without joint problems unless they visit their chiropractor every month.

But just ask them, and they'll all tell you that they're perfectly healthy.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

You "showed" me nothing important. I do not know how to explain the point in greater detail. You simply do not understand.

I understand just fine, you just can’t accept the fact that you are wrong. Differences between species are not as "morally arbitrary" as color. Do you seriously think there is no difference between a human and a bullfrog except for the "morally arbitrary" characteristics?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
What about the grading of cruelty though, is this a viable option? Animal torturers get harsher sentances than some person who leaves the dog out in the rain all the time.

Good point. In discussions on morality and ethics it's not easy to move on to degrees right and wrong when you have a hard time agreeing on how to distinguish right from wrong.

[Cain]

I understand just fine, you just can’t accept the fact that you are wrong. Differences between species are not as "morally arbitrary" as color. Do you seriously think there is no difference between a human and a bullfrog except for the "morally arbitrary" characteristics?

Yes, Tony, you single-handedly managed to refute the animal rights movement with just a handful of words.

Species itself is arbitrary and not morally relevant. If you want to discuss the differences between a bullfrog and a human in the realm of ethics, then you're going to focus on signficiant characteristics. Merely pointing out they different species is not enough. Did you learn nothing from my alien example? Holy Christ, anencephalics are undeniably human, as are fetuses, but that's not enough to establish rights. Your classifications in the context of morality are utterly meaningless and without reason.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain

Species itself is arbitrary and not morally relevant.

Says you, species is very morally relevant. If I poison a colony of ants living in my yard, it is not the same as dropping a chemical weapon on a populated city. Do you have the same outlook on animals that kill other animals for food or otherwise?

Did you learn nothing from my alien example?

It doesn’t apply, the Aliens you described where intelligent beings that with humans could share ideas, form political, military, and cultural alliances.

Your classifications in the context of morality are utterly meaningless and without reason.

So? By and large morality is subjective and man made BS, not too different than religion.

[Cain]

Says you, species is very morally relevant. If I poison a colony of ants living in my yard, it is not the same as dropping a chemical weapon on a populated city. Do you have the same outlook on animals that kill other animals for food or otherwise?

:rolleyes: Look, you're missing the point because these analogies are loaded.

Suppose we have two different species, X and Y. Let me emphasize once again that they're different. We do not grant rights on the basis that one is species X and the other is species Y. That's absurd. Instead we look at specific, morally relevant characteristics.

It doesn’t apply, the Aliens you described where intelligent beings that with humans could share ideas, form political, military, and cultural alliances.

But they're different species!! See, here you're focusing on characteristics; arbitrary characteristics in my opinion, but an improvement nonetheless. Forget that ants are a different species and say, "hey, they dont' have rights because they're 1) not intelligent (whatever that means) 2) cannot form military alliances (however that's relevant)" and so on.

So? By and large morality is subjective and man made BS, not too different than religion.

Oooooooooookay :rolleyes: Few professional philosophers believe that. I think read in _Skeptic_ that there are fewer ethical subjectivists in philosophy departmetns (as a percentage) than biologists who disbelieve in evolution.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Cain
Species itself is arbitrary and not morally relevant. :wink8:
:wink8: :wink8: :wink8: :hit:
:wink8: :hit:
:wink8: :hit: :hit:

That's about as intelligent a response as I can muster.

[Cain]

And that's pathetic. Look, maybe the creation of a snappy dialog will help.

Animal Rights (AR) versus Morally Obtuse Skeptic (MOS)

AR: What distinguishing, morally significant differences can you point to between humans and non-human animals (specifically mammals for the sake of argument).

MOS: Well, how about that they're different SPECIES.

AR: You're only redescribing the question. That's not, in itself, a morally significant difference; it's a biological one.

MOS: Are you crazy? There's a difference between an ant and a human being.

AR: Yes, there are many differences. Many, many, many differences. And even I'd agree that some of these biological differences are morally significant. But the idea of species is irrelevant to such discussions.

MOS: No, they're not because only humans have rights. Other known animals don't and can't. I don't know about these "aliens" but let's try to stay in the real world.

AR: Okay. Let's consider the example of an undeniably human fetus 10 or so weeks old. Does it have rights?

MOS: No, and let me tell you why. Although human-ness is a necessary condition, it's not necessary and sufficient. That fetus is not a fully developed human being. It lacks awareness, intelligence and so on.

AR: Okay, but it's human. It's the same species, right?

MOS: Yes, however, as I just said...

AR: I know, I know. You're moving in the right direction because you're considering the fetus's characteristics. You mentioned intelligence and awarness. You're on firm ground there, I think. However, consider for a moment an infant. We agree that infants possess rights, correct?

MOS: Yes. It's immoral for a mother to kill her infant under normal circumstances.

AR: Fine, fine. Okay, so on the one hand we have an infant. Now take the idea of a fully developed chimp on the other. Many people in the life sciences -- Jane Goodall and Richard Dawkins leap to mind -- argue for primates' rights. They point out that chimps, for instance, are more intelligent and aware of their outer surroundings than infants. And you already said infants have rights. So why can't primates have rights?

MOS: I already told you: because they're not human.

AR: Ah, yes, they're not of the same species. I forget how the whole taxonomy system works. What's the next branch above species? Is it genus or family? No bother. Primates are in the same genus, so why can't they have rights?

MOS: *sigh* because they're not human. Only humans can have rights.

AR: That's an unsupported assertion, though. Earlier we acknowledged that we'd have to grant aliens rights if ---

MOS: Not your fake aliens again!

AR: Let me finish. Earlier you allowed aliens rights because of characteristics other than species. Here we have a case of primates....

MOS: Okay, let me revise. Anything to make you leave me alone. The difference is that the infant will in all likelihood develop into an adult (or young adult), where it will far surpass the cognitive abilities of her ancestor. There, are you happy?

AR: Not quite. Not at all, actually. First, I think that argument rests on a philosophical mistake dealing with potentiality -- conflating a potential X with a real X. But what troubles me is the internal incoherence in your view.

MOS: What "internal incoherence"? You're a snob.

AR: Yes, thank you. I'm referring to the fact that you've prohibited granting rights to a ten week old fetus. A ten week old fetus, mind you, that would also in a probability (though less probably) develop into a fully functional adult.

MOS: Shut up! You believe in animal rights and that automatically discredits you! Communist. [insert moronic icons here]

[Tony]

You're not making your case Cain, just because a certain animal has common characteristics with a human, doesnt mean they deserve rights. THEY ARENT HUMAN!! The only rights they have are the ones our benevolence allows them to have.

You compared a chimp and an infant. Lets imagine Bobo the chimp and Jesse the infant. Lets also imaging Mike and Juan.

Let's say Mike murders Jesse and gets convicted of capital murder and faces life in prison or the death penalty... . .

and...

Juan murders Bobo. Are you suggesting that they both should recieve the same punishment?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony


So? By and large morality is subjective and man made BS, not too different than religion.

Hear hear, quite true, but they are useful to some extent, just like some other man made bs.

But in absolute terms you are very right.

[Flame]

I'm involved in animal rescue here in Ireland. The laws are a bit more lax but I wish they weren't.

Two points I can make on animal cruelty/neglect from experience:

1. An abused animal is a danger to itself, but more importantly to people (especially children) and other animals due to stress.

2. I tell you in all honesty that every single time I go out on a call to bring a reported animal into foster the people responsible for the neglect/cruelty are always scumbags. They are the sort of people who do not stop at just mistreating animals.

The sort of person who would beat an animal to death shows a lack of what should be inherent compassion and the sense of responsibility we all should feel for our world and it's inhabitants.

The lack of guilt and shame that I see only brings it home that these people are not the sort of people who are productive members of society.

I've seen things that I won't relate - mostly because they upset me too much to discuss them -

Animal cruelty is usually only one part of a deviant personality and these people should be recognised as such for the good of all of us.

JMO

Toni

[Flame]

Originally posted by Tony
You're not making your case Cain, just because a certain animal has common characteristics with a human, doesnt mean they deserve rights. THEY ARENT HUMAN!! The only rights they have are the ones our benevolence allows them to have.

You compared a chimp and an infant. Lets imagine Bobo the chimp and Jesse the infant. Lets also imaging Mike and Juan.

Let's say Mike murders Jesse and gets convicted of capital murder and faces life in prison or the death penalty... . .

and...

Juan murders Bobo. Are you suggesting that they both should recieve the same punishment?


Do you think that the man who murdered BoBo is more likely to commit crimes against humans as well?
I do.
I think criminals should be recognised as such and also, we're not talking life sentence here.
I think the punishment is not to harsh in this case.

Toni

[Tony]

Originally posted by Flame



Do you think that the man who murdered BoBo is more likely to commit crimes against humans as well?


Does it matter? "More likely to commit" , and to actually murder a person are two very different things. Do you advocate putting people in jail who are "more likely to commit murder" even if they havent killed anyone?

I think the punishment is not to harsh in this case.

Felony for killing a cat is not to harsh? Gimme a break, we already have over-crowded prisons and one of the highest prison populations in the world, I guess we should let the murders and rapists go and make room for all the cat killers.

And I guess I should turn myself in for killing all those snakes when I was 11, I have obviously done a great harm to society and should be punished accordingly. :rolleyes:

[Flame]

Originally posted by Tony


Does it matter? "More likely to commit" , and to actually murder a person are two very different things. Do you advocate putting people in jail who are "more likely to commit murder" even if they havent killed anyone?

Do you not understand? The man did commit a crime. A felony. He should go to jail. I merely balked at your introduction of life sentences.
The sentence in this case was not too harsh (as I say below).
I'd like to know what experience your opinion comes from on this matter.
Are you a criminal? A lawyer? Involved in animal cruelty cases or crimes of any other nature?
I just feel your opinions are coming from theory rather than any experience.
I could be wrong. I often am.
I think the punishment is not too harsh in this case.

Felony for killing a cat is not to harsh? Gimme a break, we already have over-crowded prisons and one of the highest prison populations in the world, I guess we should let the murders and rapists go and make room for all the cat killers.

That's the stupidest arguement I could have expected to hear. If you don't have a real point to make, don't bother.

And I guess I should turn myself in for killing all those snakes when I was 11, I have obviously done a great harm to society and should be punished accordingly. :rolleyes:

You are missing my point. The killing of the animal is not necessarily the harm to society. I will not speak s-l-o-w-l-y so that you can understand, go back and reread.

Toni

[Flame]

Anyone who shows a lack of respect for Life should be shown (via punishment) that this will not be tolerated in this world.
Full stop.

[Tony]

Do you not understand? The man did commit a crime. A felony. He should go to jail.

He killed some cats in, I admit, a very sick and mean way. But why does he deserve a felony conviction? No human life was injured; at most the guy deserves a misdemeanor and/or a civil lawsuit. Do you think people who hit squirrels should be charged with a felony? What about a dude who feeds mice to his pet snake?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Flame
Anyone who shows a lack of respect for Life should be shown (via punishment) that this will not be tolerated in this world.
Full stop.


I guess I showed a lack of respect for life when I ate that beef and chicken fajita for lunch, do I deserve to go to jail?

[Flame]

Originally posted by Tony


He killed some cats in, I admit, a very sick and mean way. But why does he deserve a felony conviction? No human life was injured; at most the guy deserves a misdemeanor and/or a civil lawsuit. Do you think people who hit squirrels should be charged with a felony? What about a dude who feeds mice to his pet snake?

If you feel strongly about that thenI suppose you need to get yourself in a position to make the laws then. At this point the people who do make the laws said he commited a felony - I happen to agree with them.

Hit squirrels? Or torture and kill them? If you put two squirrels in the same position as the cats were (or any other animal) then yes.
I used to own a burmese python and I used to feed her live rats and mice. That is a completely different situation.
It seems you are missing some of the points here I think.

Toni

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tony
You compared a chimp and an infant. Lets imagine Bobo the chimp and Jesse the infant. Lets also imaging Mike and Juan.

Let's say Mike murders Jesse and gets convicted of capital murder and faces life in prison or the death penalty... . .

and...

Juan murders Bobo. Are you suggesting that they both should recieve the same punishment? [/B]

This is a bad example for several reasons. Most apparent is that our philosophy of punishment and incarceration are probably at odds. I do not believe in a punitive or retributive prison system. What threat is posed to humans and non-humans by a person who murders chimps?

The essential idea is that the chimp, and other non-human animals, have value in themselves as we do. Their lives are not only important in so far as they serve narrow human interests.

Suppose instead a person tortures his own cat. Further suppose that this person restricts his sadism to only felines and his horrible mistreatment will not "escalate" to either humans or other mammals. Finally suppose that our sadist derives great pleasure from this activity. Are his actions morally wicked? He's not harming other humans. Is it any different than a person trashing his own property? Say he destroys his PC just to watch components fly across the room. Maybe both actions are symptomatic of some pathology, but only the former, torturing cats, is immoral.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Tony


He killed some cats in, I admit, a very sick and mean way. But why does he deserve a felony conviction? No human life was injured; at most the guy deserves a misdemeanor and/or a civil lawsuit. Do you think people who hit squirrels should be charged with a felony? What about a dude who feeds mice to his pet snake?

Why should a deliberate act of terror be a misdemeanor? Just because the victim isn't human, what if he did this as an object lesson for his girlfriend?

What if it was a 'obey me or I will kill the cats' situation.

If someone beats thier chicken to death before eating it, that would most likely be a felony as well.

What grounds are there for a civil lawsuit?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony

He killed some cats in, I admit, a very sick and mean way. But why does he deserve a felony conviction? No human life was injured; at most the guy deserves a misdemeanor and/or a civil lawsuit. Do you think people who hit squirrels should be charged with a felony? What about a dude who feeds mice to his pet snake?

It's different because there's a direct connection between cruelty to animals and violence against people. Toleration of the former creates people who commit the later (serial killers being an extreme, but far from the only, example). Your other examples don't generally include the crucial element of cruelty. What he did was illegal, yet he did it anyways, purely out of cruelty. Such a person is a risk to other people as well, not only animals.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony
You're not making your case Cain, just because a certain animal has common characteristics with a human, doesnt mean they deserve rights. THEY ARENT HUMAN!! The only rights they have are the ones our benevolence allows them to have.

So your point is that, as morality and ethics are a human product, only humans should benefit from them? Is this correct?

In the Environmentalism or Individualism? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28662&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post1870141373), you made the following ethical judgement:
The world is here to do as we want, because, in the end, who is going to stop us?
This suggests that in this context you consider (use of) force to be the deciding factor. If so, let's take Cain's alien example, and Hollywood it up a little; the aliens are big, bad and ugly, and have come to earth to enslave humanity and rule out world, which they do quite effectively. If you like, to paraphrase your point, we carnt do what we want because someone stopped us. So what would you do? Would you surrender and give up your freedom as your ethical judgement would suggest? If not, why?