WOW, PETA people really are crazy!

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure cats do sometimes torture and kill "for fun." so maybe the people are torturing the cats righteously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. One of the cruelest things I ever saw in my life was a pack of hyenas ripping apart a family of baby boars from its mother. I wanted to torture those beasts to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people seriously ascribe animals with a moral and ethical awareness that they don't have to justify their own actions?

[qwnu]

[ QUOTE ]
In summary, what they are basically saying is that a man, a dog, and even an INSECT are the same, should be treated equal, and have the same rights,

[/ QUOTE ]
The page you linked to says precisely the opposite: "However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because..."

[ QUOTE ]
and they compare stepping on an ant to running over a person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't find this (or anything about insects) on that page. Link?

[ QUOTE ]
Read the site and you will see just how crazy they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did, and I found things like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily endorse this organization, but this seems quite reasonable and not crazy at all. I understand that there can be reasonable disagreement about this, but I don't think your criticism is justified, or particularly honest.

[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.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure cats do sometimes torture and kill "for fun." so maybe the people are torturing the cats righteously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when a cat doesn't eat what it kills (and appears to be playing), this activity actually hones it's hunting skills.

And even if you want to make the case that housecats are fed and have no reason to kill, they certainly don't have the cognative ability to realize their hunting instincts are no longer needed.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
And even if you want to make the case that housecats are fed and have no reason to kill, they certainly don't have the cognative ability to realize their hunting instincts are no longer needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. humans have an instinct to be psychotic killers, it's a survival instinct. But civilization requires people to sublimate this instinct, so activity like you describe is detrimental to the plan of conditioning people to live in civilization.

cliff notes: torture/murder of animals may lead to harming humans, so it is frowned upon.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a small precision. It was very clear to me that you did not expected your view to be rationnal and that it was just the way you felt, and there certainly nithing wrong with that.
But since you asked if you were wrong in your views, I tried to break it down logically because it made more sense than to argue about your ethics. Your view coul only be wrong if they were in contradiction with your beliefs, not with mine.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're speaking about the food chain race. The basis of the food chain is necessity. Predators eat to survive. Since we are at the top of the food chain we can eat whatever we want, including animals. But the problem is that we don't need to eat animals to survive; We do it because we can, Your justification seems to imply that are justified in killing animals just because we are at the top, not because we can. If it gives us a right of life and death; there notinh wrong about killing cats at Halloween.
Of course all this reasoning is voided if you need to eat an animal to survive.
That's why there is definitely an ethical problem. Either the life or an animal is worthless to us and we can kill him
so our meal tastes better, or his life matters. I guess you could introduc degrees but in matter a life, it could be tricky.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">cliff notes: torture/murder of animals may lead to harming humans, so it is frowned upon. </font>

I think this may be very true. I used to know this kid who liked to set cats on fire. This girl we both knew said it was only a matter of time before he "graduated" to killing humans. Sure enough, he beat a guy to death by the age of 19.

You either value life, or you do not. I may very well be a hypocrite for eating meat. I try and justify it by making the distinction of getting "use" from the animal that had to die so I could eat it. But I admit that might be weak.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see where you can find the distinction. In one case you have fun because of your of the death of the cat and in the other because of what you can make out of the death of this cat.
I see two main objections with that. First, the distinction is shallow. You can argue that the hunter does not hunt for the pleasure that killing gives him, but for the pleasure that hunting gives him. It's can be seen as a fun outdoorsy activity. Look paintball is fun! Why not hunting? It's the same, except for the fact that you have to find the animal. And you get a trophy to bring home. Why would the death of an animal be acceptable when it brings you the a full day of fun as opposed with just eating a couple a steck or buying a new fur. In both cases the death of the animal has a similar purpose. The case of the tortured cat is a little different as it takes a deranged mind to torture animals as a hobby. But bassically, the result is the same. You get a kick of the death of an animal, just like your wife gets a kick of a new fur.
Second, let's suppose that you can ake this distinction. The fact that you accept the case of usefull pleasure proves that you don't think the life of an animal is worth very much. So it is diffcult to understand the harshness of your reaction when you encounter people who value it slightly less.

And as was poited by others, there is definitely a question of anthropomorphism, you might think taht the cat feels just like you that why ihe should not be tortured.
What do you think of people who torture and kill a beetles?
Should they be tortured and put to death? If not, Why? What is the difference with a cat and how do you determine it?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure cats do sometimes torture and kill "for fun." so maybe the people are torturing the cats righteously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when a cat doesn't eat what it kills (and appears to be playing), this activity actually hones it's hunting skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you said cats don't torture and kill for fun. they clearly do. it doesn't matter if there's a good reason the cat enjoys it.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if you want to make the case that housecats are fed and have no reason to kill, they certainly don't have the cognative ability to realize their hunting instincts are no longer needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't make the slightest difference. they're not killing because they value their hunting skills.

note: i'm just being nitty over details of fact, i don't actually apply morality to cat behavior.

[Lestat]

Right, I'm being rather nitty myself. My point is that "play" has been shown to aide an animal in it's survival. I think I read somewhere that the only animal that does not engage in play is a reptile. They are just born ready for the world. All other animals play in order to hone the skills needed for survival.

So the cat gets"use" from the act of batting a mouse back and forth to death, even if it doesn't eat it. My big thing is "use". If you get use out of killing an animal, I can't begrudge that. Even if I don't agree with it, or I wouldn't do it (such as hunting).