Is it really right to hurt an innocent animal for any reason at all? I personally think that anyone that does this should be arrested and, depending on the severity of the abuse, be put in jail for anywhere between 5-30 years. What do you think the punishment should be (if any)?
i think that they should get the death penalty for abusing animals. its terrible. how can you stand doing that!? i dont care how badly they would hurt an animal they would get the death penalty easy.
How is a puppy compared to a human? We care for own species. No need to extend our range of care to anything else.
Some people aren't born with empathy. Some can stomp on a kitten and not give a shit. So for some people throwing a puppy off a roof would mean nothing. Then again some people have feelings.
Saying mortality does not exist just gives a person an excuse to be a dick. Killing a baby is bad is makes you a bad person. Stomping on a kitten is bad and makes you a bad person. Why? Because only a sociopath does not feel empathy. If you can hurt an animal and either feel nothing or feel good then you are a sociopath. Not having the ability to care about causing pain makes you a sociopath.
Nothing should be made to suffer if it feels pain. The only way to argue against that logic is to say that we should not care about suffering if it's not us. Well fortunately most humans have the ability to care. It's supposed to be in our nature.
The only way to argue against that logic is to say that we should not care about suffering if it's not us. Well fortunately most humans have the ability to care. It's supposed to be in our nature.
I don't know. If someone was a part of an organization that threatened my homeland, I'd have nothing but hate for them. I'd want to watch as they screamed in pain. I would enjoy every minute of their suffering.
In case you can't tell I'm building a case for torture, but I'm going to stop myself before I let my darker thoughts out.
That being said, I don't tend to worry about animal cruelty unless it's in front of me. No, I'm not going to stand by and watch my friend beat the shit out of his dog, but the news is all lies and bias anyways. Don't see any reason to pay attention to it.
I'm not so against the "animal rights", as you call it. When you extend this to that we shouldn't kill animals for food however, its silly.
I myself cannot kill an animal.
Although, I'd still argue that killing a dog for no reason is perfectly fine. For any answer you give me, I will ask you why again. You'll get to a point where you'd have to say "Just because", which of course is false logic.
The only way to argue against that logic is to say that we should not care about suffering if it's not us.
This is exactly what I have done. My argument would go far as to say "Blow up the Earth, it does not matter", but since I am human and have a human brain, I cannot commit myself to the ideology and call for mass murder for the heck of it. Thus I have a limit of where this idea does not apply, which extends no more then the human species.
Nothing should be made to suffer if it feels pain.
There is many ways to argue this. I ask you, "why"?
Pain is a chemical of which triggers certain aspect of the brain causing it to react in a way of which we see as "bad". Say when I burn my hand, it is nothing but a visual appearance of me saying "Ouch" and quickly taking away my hand and running to cold water. It is not sad. A car is nothing but what it is in its physical form. To add in commentaries such as nice, sexy, blue, red, or ugly is all of what the brain sees it as.
Thus, if the whole world blew up, it wouldn't be a bad thing since you would have no brain to interpret so.
Like I said, I have a limit, to allow me to function normally within our society. No need to allow cows and dogs in my moral understandings.
Wow, Drace, I never realized you were a complete bullshit artist. Have you considered a psychology major?
But seriously, I read through that post and it seems to me like you try and look at everything from behind your shelter of science. Take away the plexiglass, friend, and look at the world for what it is. You keep thinking "it's just chemical reactions" and try and eliminate emotions that way, and you'll end up alone. Perhaps rich from selling the books you write, but alone.
Yes, I'm aware of how the brain functions. I've taken basic-level biology. I know that everything is just a reaction of hormones. Does this mean I should simply edit my own morals to justify what I do? No, that could be hypocritical. But to me it doesn't seem like you're really doing that. It seems like you're trying to act like you don't care. In actuality, somewhere inside, you do care. You have just, through repetition, made yourself believe that you don't. This is the same technique used by religious leaders and is the REASON that organized religion is a sham used to control the masses, but on an individual level. I'm not saying you're not intelligent - in fact, it takes a fair bit of intelligence to do this - but the entire point of this post is to say I disagree with your concept of looking at ethics as nothing more than chemical reactions and believe that in order for society to function properly we need to have some compassion for all life, lest we kill it off because it's "unimportant".
Science and ethics are not so related. Our minds think of morals as a result of reactions of course, since everything is run by cause and effect. However, I would say ethics is used to have a basis of how society should act. Of course, there must be a an understand of the which way of acting is "right", this does not exist in the scientific world, but we have come to make morals that of to run society. Killing is bad because if everyone killed each other, there would be no society! Theft is wrong because it just would not work to have everyone steal. Of course humans take it much more dramatically and freak out when they hear a murder, for no reason but that you been thought its bad.
(Sorry not sure where I was going with this)
Now, saying that animals rights are that of humans, is false logic. I'm not trying to make it seem that I don't care, but to answer the question, we must go to the source (the scientific view) and return with the knowledge to show why there is no reason of it.
Does this mean I should simply edit my own morals to justify what I do?
This is what "animal rights" does. The majority do not care about animals meaning, we are all fine with the moral system (which is made man) and for the minority to rise up and think otherwise, they are trying to change this system. The system runs well in running our society. What point is there to accept animals as humans? I would say there is no reason to our society anyways. Remember, mortality is not scientific, thus the stance "Animals should have the same rights as man" must be considered philosophical, but it has nothing to back it up. Like I said, it will eventually go to a point where the only answer will be "just because"
But we all have some basic level of compassion for living things. Most sane people couldn't stab a dog for no reason and not feel bad about it. Why? Because they made that thing feel pain. they have empathy because they don't enjoy pain, so why would the animal? Animal rights activists take it WAY too far, I'll agree (I swear to god, if one more PETA member tries to take my burger, I'll force it down their gullet), but part of what makes us human is that ability to share empathy - not just for other humans, but for anything that we can relate to.
