[Lestat]

This is interesting, because I never expected my views could logically right. It's just the way I instinctively felt. But you make the first attempt to systematically break it down logically. So, let's see where I'm messed up...

<font color="blue">You've stated that you don't think that as there is anything wrong with eating meat.(let's assume that you're eating meat yourself)
If you think about it, that means that you have nothing agaisnt killing an animal for your own enjoyment, since you could be a vegetarian. </font>

Hmm. I have stated (or meant to state), that I believe humans are the highest order of animal in the evolutionary food chain. Therefore, I see nothing inherently wrong with humans eating whatever animal they choose (that's not human). I suppose the dumber the animal, the better. But humans have won the food chain race. So I don't think I can logically say we can't eat another animal.

<font color="blue">o basically you want to kill and torture people who have killed and torture a cat just for they own pleasure. </font>

I suppose this is more or less correct enough that I can't argue it. I would like to be allowed the distinction between useful pleasure and senseless pleasure, however. Can I be allowed this? Should I be? Deriving use from an animal makes all the difference in the world to me. I stated that I abhor hunting, but allow for those who make some use the animal they kill. I still don't like it, since there are other ways to obtain food and clothing, but I wouldn't go out of my way to dislike someone like this who hunted. Only those who hunt without any use of the animal in mind. In other words not for practical pleasure. Therefore, I'd derive fun from torturing and killing those who tortured and killed animals for fun. Fun.... Not pleasure or use. If they got any practical use out of the animals they were torturing, it's immediately different, because I can find no "use" out of killing those people.


<font color="blue">According to your ethics though, there is nothing wrong with killing a cat for fun, so the only reprehensible thing they've done is torture a being that you would have not problem killing. </font>

Since I've outlined my position more thoroughly, I don't think this (or the rest of your response), follows. Do you still think it does? If so, let me know. I'm sure there are holes to be found. I never said this was a logical conclusion I came to. It's just the way I feel, which may be very different than being logically correct about something.