I can NEVER look at the Milo & Otis movie the same again.

[Juan_Bottom]

She looks like a young Janeane Garofalo. alt 3!

[BigBallinStalin]

Alright, well that leaves us in a couple possible situations:

1. Since you're not vegan, you find it morally permissable to mistreat animals.
2. You're not vegan, but you don't find it morally permissible to mistreat animals (same as mtg)
3. Absolutely no position on the mistreatment of animals. I'd ignore it if I saw it and don't go out of my way to do it.

BMO

1. Define "mistreat." Some beat their animals and call it "discipline." Other steps across that gray area.

It reminds me of different styles of parenting. Some parents label any kind of physical harm as always wrong. So, it's gray in #1. Let's move on!


RE: the rest. It's not a moral issue. It's like, "why's that guy kicking his car? Isn't that counter-productive?"

You ever seen dogs being treated by families who earn less than $300 per year? Dogs and cats are luxury goods in wealthy places. In poorer places, they're generally a nuisance--even on farms.


For example, suppose Farmer Joe in the US of A shoots a cat which was going to chase around his chickens and most likely kill one of them. Is this wrong? For me, it's not an issue about ethics or morality because cats aren't humans. Either way, Joe profits from the cost-savings of killing the cat. If movie producer X throws a cat in water and uses some of the scenes in a movie, then he may profit---assuming no one finds out.

If farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

[Juan_Bottom]

Cats and Dogs are always seen as a good thing on a farm. They both keep away pests. Barn cats don't f*ck with chickens. Barn cats are domesticated pets that were dropped off in the country, so they love to kill anything smaller than themselves, but they are terrified by anything as big as a housecat.

Farm dogs that receive 0 attention and food sometimes turn to killing and eating small animals like free-range chickens, but that's not the issue.
And Pyedogs are seen as a pest, because they drag rubbish around, and can attack children.

The difference between a farmer that kills a farm dog that has been killing chickens, or a villager who kills a pyedog and a director breaking a kitten's paw; These farmers and villagers are taking a protective action without alternative. A filmmaker who charges a horse off of a 50 foot cliff and breaks the animal's back is doing that as a form of entertainment. There are entertainment alternatives.

Why is this even a question?
It was also addressed in the sexy OP video.

[2dimes]

Chickens won't harm a cat but a rooster will take one out. Farm cats hunt mice and gophers as long as there are not too many cats most farmers like that.

Dogs will kill chickens but the reason is sometimes tough to figure out. They probably wanted to bring it to their owner as a present. Some farmers will shoot a dog if the dog kills too many chickens.

A more typical nasty thing farmers do is post birth abortion of unwanted kittens and puppies usually via drowning.

[muy_thaiguy]

Alright, well that leaves us in a couple possible situations:

1. Since you're not vegan, you find it morally permissable to mistreat animals.
2. You're not vegan, but you don't find it morally permissible to mistreat animals (same as mtg)
3. Absolutely no position on the mistreatment of animals. I'd ignore it if I saw it and don't go out of my way to do it.

BMO

1. Define "mistreat." Some beat their animals and call it "discipline." Other steps across that gray area.

It reminds me of different styles of parenting. Some parents label any kind of physical harm as always wrong. So, it's gray in #1. Let's move on!


RE: the rest. It's not a moral issue. It's like, "why's that guy kicking his car? Isn't that counter-productive?"

You ever seen dogs being treated by families who earn less than $300 per year? Dogs and cats are luxury goods in wealthy places. In poorer places, they're generally a nuisance--even on farms.


For example, suppose Farmer Joe in the US of A shoots a cat which was going to chase around his chickens and most likely kill one of them. Is this wrong? For me, it's not an issue about ethics or morality because cats aren't humans. Either way, Joe profits from the cost-savings of killing the cat. If movie producer X throws a cat in water and uses some of the scenes in a movie, then he may profit---assuming no one finds out.

If farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

I take it you haven't been on too many farms. Occasionally you'll find a cat or dog that does more harm than good on farms, but most are there and allowed to be there for a reason. They keep pests away that would otherwise destory crops and what not, as Juan already pointed out. In turn, the dogs and cats get shelter and food from the farmers.

A dog would be more likely to bring a chicken in, but as was already said, probably because they thought they were bringing their owner a present (my grandmother's yorkie did something similar with a dead bird she found in the yard). Cats and dogs on farms and ranches serve and have served a valuable role for centuries. Both sides benefit.

But breaking kitten's paw, throwing a cat off of a cliff, or having a pug fight a bear for entertainment is morally and ethically disgusting and reprehenisble. As is doing something similar to any other animal.

[rdsrds2120]

Alright, well that leaves us in a couple possible situations:

1. Since you're not vegan, you find it morally permissable to mistreat animals.
2. You're not vegan, but you don't find it morally permissible to mistreat animals (same as mtg)
3. Absolutely no position on the mistreatment of animals. I'd ignore it if I saw it and don't go out of my way to do it.

BMO

1. Define "mistreat." Some beat their animals and call it "discipline." Other steps across that gray area.

It reminds me of different styles of parenting. Some parents label any kind of physical harm as always wrong. So, it's gray in #1. Let's move on!


RE: the rest. It's not a moral issue. It's like, "why's that guy kicking his car? Isn't that counter-productive?"

You ever seen dogs being treated by families who earn less than $300 per year? Dogs and cats are luxury goods in wealthy places. In poorer places, they're generally a nuisance--even on farms.


For example, suppose Farmer Joe in the US of A shoots a cat which was going to chase around his chickens and most likely kill one of them. Is this wrong? For me, it's not an issue about ethics or morality because cats aren't humans. Either way, Joe profits from the cost-savings of killing the cat. If movie producer X throws a cat in water and uses some of the scenes in a movie, then he may profit---assuming no one finds out.

If farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

But you presented mtg with a moral dilemma as to whether or not he was a vegan, implying he was hypocritical if he wasn't: positing that his argument was 'amusing'. So let's get back to you:

Since you weren't asking mtg about anything economically relatable, let's not view your position in that light, either. Or, we could, and since you're not a vegan, and still support factory farming, that you don't support long-term payoffs associated with either being vegan or not (better long-term payoffs for everyone if you were to adopt veganism).

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Alright, well that leaves us in a couple possible situations:

1. Since you're not vegan, you find it morally permissable to mistreat animals.
2. You're not vegan, but you don't find it morally permissible to mistreat animals (same as mtg)
3. Absolutely no position on the mistreatment of animals. I'd ignore it if I saw it and don't go out of my way to do it.

BMO

1. Define "mistreat." Some beat their animals and call it "discipline." Other steps across that gray area.

It reminds me of different styles of parenting. Some parents label any kind of physical harm as always wrong. So, it's gray in #1. Let's move on!


RE: the rest. It's not a moral issue. It's like, "why's that guy kicking his car? Isn't that counter-productive?"

You ever seen dogs being treated by families who earn less than $300 per year? Dogs and cats are luxury goods in wealthy places. In poorer places, they're generally a nuisance--even on farms.


For example, suppose Farmer Joe in the US of A shoots a cat which was going to chase around his chickens and most likely kill one of them. Is this wrong? For me, it's not an issue about ethics or morality because cats aren't humans. Either way, Joe profits from the cost-savings of killing the cat. If movie producer X throws a cat in water and uses some of the scenes in a movie, then he may profit---assuming no one finds out.

If farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

I take it you haven't been on too many farms. Occasionally you'll find a cat or dog that does more harm than good on farms, but most are there and allowed to be there for a reason. They keep pests away that would otherwise destory crops and what not, as Juan already pointed out. In turn, the dogs and cats get shelter and food from the farmers.

A dog would be more likely to bring a chicken in, but as was already said, probably because they thought they were bringing their owner a present (my grandmother's yorkie did something similar with a dead bird she found in the yard). Cats and dogs on farms and ranches serve and have served a valuable role for centuries. Both sides benefit.

But breaking kitten's paw, throwing a cat off of a cliff, or having a pug fight a bear for entertainment is morally and ethically disgusting and reprehenisble. As is doing something similar to any other animal.

Oh goodness. Suppose it's a mean cat that's neurotic. Cat gets shot; no one cares about the profit-seeking behavior of the farmer.

People kill animals all the time for profit. Farmers, movie producers, and hosts of animal fights. The main reason why people become appalled at the latter two is due to their 'moral sentiments'. It's not about logic. Even the labor of good cats and dogs are 'exploited' by the profit-seeking righteous farmer who gives them measly food and a dirty hovel outside. "How cruel!" Even the animal fighters feed and house their stock... (again with the mirror-image of your justification of the farmer's activities). Both use their animals to fight: one on a farm against pests; the other in a fighting arena. "How cruel!"

For people like you, not all animals matter equally. Only the warm, fuzzy, cute ones with which we've associated on a more personal, loving level (e.g. cats and dogs) matter more. As far as other animals go, the consistency falls apart--thus, your position is not logical (reduction ad absurdum). I'm just sayin' that there's moral sentiments involved (so, an appeal to emotion also rests on your case).

[BigBallinStalin]

Alright, well that leaves us in a couple possible situations:

1. Since you're not vegan, you find it morally permissable to mistreat animals.
2. You're not vegan, but you don't find it morally permissible to mistreat animals (same as mtg)
3. Absolutely no position on the mistreatment of animals. I'd ignore it if I saw it and don't go out of my way to do it.

BMO

1. Define "mistreat." Some beat their animals and call it "discipline." Other steps across that gray area.

It reminds me of different styles of parenting. Some parents label any kind of physical harm as always wrong. So, it's gray in #1. Let's move on!


RE: the rest. It's not a moral issue. It's like, "why's that guy kicking his car? Isn't that counter-productive?"

You ever seen dogs being treated by families who earn less than $300 per year? Dogs and cats are luxury goods in wealthy places. In poorer places, they're generally a nuisance--even on farms.


For example, suppose Farmer Joe in the US of A shoots a cat which was going to chase around his chickens and most likely kill one of them. Is this wrong? For me, it's not an issue about ethics or morality because cats aren't humans. Either way, Joe profits from the cost-savings of killing the cat. If movie producer X throws a cat in water and uses some of the scenes in a movie, then he may profit---assuming no one finds out.

If farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

But you presented mtg with a moral dilemma as to whether or not he was a vegan, implying he was hypocritical if he wasn't: positing that his argument was 'amusing'. So let's get back to you:

I made that remark to see how he justifies the inconsistency in his view about particular animals. It's obviously inconsistent (reduction ad absurdum), and for (most likely) emotional reasons (appeal to emotion). His position is becoming even more amusing. You should be careful about making your own assumptions and then fitting them into other people's positions. It will lead you astray because I had no idea if he was hypocritical nor did I know how hypocritical he might have been.

Since you weren't asking mtg about anything economically relatable, let's not view your position in that light, either. Or, we could, and since you're not a vegan, and still support factory farming, that you don't support long-term payoffs associated with either being vegan or not (better long-term payoffs for everyone if you were to adopt veganism).

BMO

RE: your 2nd paragraph, I'm just explaining my position on this. I have no idea about the alleged long-term benefits for all humans if veganism was voluntarily accepted. A lot of costs come to mind, but that's another topic which may be relevant because All Threads are Off-Topic. Back to moral philosophy:

(1) I mention the "economic relativity" of the situation by examining various constraints in different circumstances (re: luxury goods v. nuisance). Conclusion: fundamentals of economics reveals that relativism is involved in this moral dilemma.
which is why I ask the underlined question--to encourage people to deal with an inconsistency).

(2) 'Abuse' and 'Discipline' is a gray area which the 'animals = persons' crowd doesn't like addressing.

(3) Inconsistent, permissible killing of non-humans. Very odd.


(4) Vegans should stop killing living beings (plants, bacteria, whatever). That's not nice.

(In other words, when moral philosophy is applied to all living organisms (non-humans, like cows and cats), it becomes more absurd--re: 'the anti-killing cute animals' belief and regarding many vegan beliefs about clothing, animal flesh, etc.).

In light of this,
(A) How would you answer the following: if farmer Joe can shoot a cat to increase his profits,---and if that is the best choice deemed by you, then why can't movie producer X harm or kill a cat to earn his profit?

[muy_thaiguy]

[quote="BigBallinStalin

Oh goodness. Suppose it's a mean cat that's neurotic. Cat gets shot; no one cares about the profit-seeking behavior of the farmer.[/quote]Oh lord, here we go. The ONLY time a cat gets shot on the farm is if it's behavior is not only destructive to the farmer, but to other animals as well. Even then, shooting it is a last resort. They'll usually cage up the cat (not farm cat that lives outside 24/7 is not domestic) and relocate it to a new location. And that point, it's usually a tomcat (a male cat) that is squabbling with another one. This could get to the point where the tomcats are marking houses, doors, cars, and even people. Not to mention that the newcomer will kill the kittens of the one that's been there. At this point, the farmer will get rid of one or both tomcats, usually by relocation. Shooting is a last resort, and by this point, the cat would be attacking people.

People kill animals all the time for profit.

More or less true.

Farmers, movie producers, and hosts of animal fights.

The 2nd one is illegal in many cases, which is why you now see the "No animals were harmed in the making of this film" message at the end of movie credits. That was not the case with "Milo & Otis". And animal fights, like dog fights and cock fights, are illegal for a reason.

The main reason why people become appalled at the latter two is due to their 'moral sentiments'.

No, people become appalled because an animal is thrown into needless danger or is purposely killed or hurt simply for entertainment value.

It's not about logic. Even the labor of good cats and dogs are 'exploited' by the profit-seeking righteous farmer who gives them measly food and a dirty hovel outside. "How cruel!"

The cats (barn cats) can generally fend for themselves, but the farmers will occasioanlly ship in with food, especially during winter. Dogs on farms are usually domesticated and are still fed dog food but usually have certain roles to fill. Like sheep and cattle dogs. They help herd the animals, and in return, get food, water, and shelter. It's not a city life, but one where each helps the other.

Even the animal fighters feed and house their stock... (again with the mirror-image of your justification of the farmer's activities). Both use their animals to fight: one on a farm against pests; the other in a fighting arena. "How cruel!"

Uh, animal fighters do NOT feed their animals, especially dogs. They starve the dogs, beat the dogs, all so that the dog will be that much meaner and desperate when it comes to the fight. But comparing farm animals to abused ones is prententious and shows ignorance. A cat's natural instinct is to chase mice and other rodents that are considered pests. And high concentrations of rodents typically live on farms due to the abundance of food. And dogs even show a natural tendancy to go after rodents and eat them. So what a farmer does is put the animal's natural instinct to use in getting rid of pests, while the animal itself get's a free snack and a reward out of it.

For people like you, not all animals matter equally. Only the warm, fuzzy, cute ones with which we've associated on a more personal, loving level (e.g. cats and dogs) matter more.

Uh, no. Not what I was getting at at all. Though, I doubt you'll listen and just keep calling me a hypocrite, so no reason to bother. You shown this in other threads.

As far as other animals go, the consistency falls apart--thus, your position is not logical (reduction ad absurdum). I'm just sayin' that there's moral sentiments involved (so, an appeal to emotion also rests on your case).

Even though we were talking about a movie made in Japan, edited for American audiences because the edited scenes show clear signs of animal abuse? In the wild, a wolf hunts deer and eats it. Because it needs to survive. That's nature. Throwing a cat off of a cliff just for a scene in a movie, that's abuse of animals.

But according to you, I am a hypocrite because I'm not a vegan, but am against animal abuse. Are there farmers who abuse their animals? Definitly, and I'm not just talking about dogs and cats. I'm talking about cows, sheep, horses, chickens, and any other animal. And those people disgust me. However, there are many farmers (as well as other people) that do NOT abuse their animals, but have the animals do their jobs, like catching vermin like mice that would otherwise ruin crops, spread disease, or both. Those animals keep food at least somewhat safe. And they're rewarded for it. But to you, the world is black and white, so therefore, those animals are abused, period. And I have to be a vegan in order to be mad about actual animal abuse, which in and of itself is stupid.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, you didn't really address my main points, so your position is still absurd when applied consistently, and it rests upon an appeal to emotion.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yeah, you didn't really address my main points, so your position is still absurd when applied consistently, and it rests upon an appeal to emotion.

And are you vegan (no eggs, milk, dairy, or anything animal produced)? Or do you just not give a crap about animals and therefore don't care what happens to them?

But, your "points" (hard to call them that, in your make believe world) only ring true if the world was black and white (it's not) and I fit into your narrow view on things (which I don't).

Your whole "point" about me HAVING to be vegan in order to care what happens to animals is a foolish extreme that only PETA considers to be true. Hell, if PETA had their way, they probably would have predatorial animals turned to vegans if they could.

Your point about me caring only about "cute fuzzy" animals also rings false. I'm against hurting and torturing any kind of animals. And if you're killing an animal, like a cow or a dog or something for whatever reason, my POV is that you do it quick and as painlessly as possible. This includes for food. I do NOT condone animal fights for profit, harming animals for entertainment, or torturing animals simply for the sake of it. Those make me sick. Which is why I created this thread in the first place, because needlessly putting these animals in harms way was cruel and sadistic.

[rdsrds2120]

Yeah, you didn't really address my main points, so your position is still absurd when applied consistently, and it rests upon an appeal to emotion.

Yeah, unlike your view which is that it's ok as long as it can be justified economically. Pretty silly that you're holding others to a different standard than yourself.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, you didn't really address my main points, so your position is still absurd when applied consistently, and it rests upon an appeal to emotion.

And are you vegan (no eggs, milk, dairy, or anything animal produced)? Or do you just not give a crap about animals and therefore don't care what happens to them?

But, your "points" (hard to call them that, in your make believe world) only ring true if the world was black and white (it's not) and I fit into your narrow view on things (which I don't).

Your whole "point" about me HAVING to be vegan in order to care what happens to animals is a foolish extreme that only PETA considers to be true. Hell, if PETA had their way, they probably would have predatorial animals turned to vegans if they could.

Your point about me caring only about "cute fuzzy" animals also rings false. I'm against hurting and torturing any kind of animals. And if you're killing an animal, like a cow or a dog or something for whatever reason, my POV is that you do it quick and as painlessly as possible. This includes for food. I do NOT condone animal fights for profit, harming animals for entertainment, or torturing animals simply for the sake of it. Those make me sick. Which is why I created this thread in the first place, because needlessly putting these animals in harms way was cruel and sadistic.

You're mixing things up, so I'll restate my my position:
1. your position is inconsistent
2. it's rooted on moral sentiments--i.e. it's not strictly logical.

RE: underlined, the same could be said of anyone--even vegans, who--sure--do care about animals but not so much about other living organisms. The same definitely rings true with you. Do you not care about animals being killed in Madagascar? (1) How far does your care extend? (2) And within the US, why does it differ with particular animals? After applying your previous posts to #1 and #2, we can note the inconsistency. I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just pointing it out.

No where did I state you have to be vegan. You're making that up.

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

Also, you do condone the killing of animals in other production processes--e.g. the agricultural sector. "How cruel."--oh, but it isn't cruel if particular animals are killed as "quick and as painlessly as possible." But if the domesticated animals are treated in a similar fashion, then what? [insert rage]?. Still seems likely to be inconsistent--unless you support the mass 'painless' killing of cats and dogs (e.g. 'dog/cat extermination sites', a.k.a. "The Pound"). If so, then "do you just not give a crap about these animals?" Do you really care about them so much that you're okay with them being 'painlessly' exterminated?


"Need" is a vague term. It's not 'black-and-white', as you insist it isn't--yet you conveniently use a black-and-white framework in order to support your position. The wholesale slaughter of particular animals is fine and dandy because you deem it as necessary. What else is 'necessary'? Fur? Leather? Beef? Chicken? What about the range of products which vegans boycott? Are all those products 'necessary'? It's not black-and-white when you throw around the word 'need', and it really becomes arbitrary.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, you didn't really address my main points, so your position is still absurd when applied consistently, and it rests upon an appeal to emotion.

Yeah, unlike your view which is that it's ok as long as it can be justified economically. Pretty silly that you're holding others to a different standard than yourself.

BMO

Can you quote me on it?

I'll save you time. It isn't my position. I've been asking people to explain the inconsistency in people's moral positions about various animals. I examine the profit-seeking of farmers who kill/harm animals, and then I compare it with the profit-seeking of other services.

So far, the opposition is based on:

1. an emotional reaction which leads them to an inconsistent position on the treatment of animals and living creatures.
2. 'necessity' (which leads to them supporting veganism, but I doubt they'll do that).


To repeat:
(1) I mention the "economic relativity" of the situation by examining various constraints in different circumstances (re: luxury goods v. nuisance). Conclusion: fundamentals of economics reveals that relativism is involved in this moral dilemma.
which is why I ask the underlined question--to encourage people to deal with an inconsistency).

When moral philosophy is applied to all living organisms (non-humans, like cows and cats), it becomes more absurd--re: 'the anti-killing cute animals' belief and regarding many vegan beliefs about clothing, animal flesh, etc

Hopefully, that clears up your confusion.

[crispybits]

Out of interest, the line between the animal world and the plant world is pretty blurred in places. It's not necessarily a fine defined distinction. There are many organisms that display the properties of both, and it is an area of biology which is currently classified as "unsolved", in that no current definition can be applied universally, and the difference seems to be a matter of degree rather than one of kind.

With this considered, even the vegan position becomes inconsistent, in that they are willing to kill (or at least maim) living entities in order to survive themselves.

I think the "no suffering" position is valid and consistent personally, but I admit that there are huge difficulties for the modern consumer to properly align their buying habits with the information available to ensure compliance. However, once we get outside of the grey area caused by inadequate flow of data, and into "should we break a kitten's paw to make a film", there is no grey area at all.

[2dimes]

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

I'm not fully convinced of this. I think there is a pretty fair difference between quick wholesale slaughter and the slow lingering torture of causing an injury such as a broken paw.

I don't know if I believe they broke the paw to make the cat limp. It's possible but seems like a stretch.

I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures.

The bear cub playing/wrestling with the pug, it would certainly be an un fair match but it was not as violent as the hot.. Erm, nostalgia chick makes it out to be. No I'm not suggesting the pug looked super tail wagging excited to be tossed about but it did not seem distraught and was not being torn apart. I'm pretty sure the seagull scenario in the Nippon production was much more violent.

Let's have another look at her.

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

Out of interest, the line between the animal world and the plant world is pretty blurred in places. It's not necessarily a fine defined distinction. There are many organisms that display the properties of both, and it is an area of biology which is currently classified as "unsolved", in that no current definition can be applied universally, and the difference seems to be a matter of degree rather than one of kind.

With this considered, even the vegan position becomes inconsistent, in that they are willing to kill (or at least maim) living entities in order to survive themselves.

I think the "no suffering" position is valid and consistent personally, but I admit that there are huge difficulties for the modern consumer to properly align their buying habits with the information available to ensure compliance. However, once we get outside of the grey area caused by inadequate flow of data, and into "should we break a kitten's paw to make a film", there is no grey area at all.

Yeah, it's an emotional area.

Plenty of people use mousetraps and poison, which increases their cost-savings by killing those pests---OH but when Mr. Movie Maker breaks a kittens paw, OH NO!! utter rage!

Or what about circus animals? Total entertainment there, and sometimes work-related injuries can occur. Is this part of the "no gray area"? How so?

It's moral sentiments--an appeal to emotion. Don't you agree?

[BigBallinStalin]

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

I'm not fully convinced of this. I think there is a pretty fair difference between quick wholesale slaughter and the slow lingering torture of causing an injury such as a broken paw.

I don't know if I believe they broke the paw to make the cat limp. It's possible but seems like a stretch.

I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures.

The bear cub playing/wrestling with the pug, it would certainly be an un fair match but it was not as violent as the hot.. Erm, nostalgia chick makes it out to be. No I'm not suggesting the pug looked super tail wagging excited to be tossed about but it did not seem distraught and was not being torn apart. I'm pretty sure the seagull scenario in the Nippon production was much more violent.

Let's have another look at her.

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

How about killing pests to preserve your food? Was that necessary? Couldn't you simply buy more food instead?


"I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures."

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.


"Dominating other creatures?" Essentially, our pets are our slaves, and we are their masters. When we film them doing entertaining things and upload it on YouTube, is this wrong? Why not? Entertainment is clearly involved--and the animals sometimes become slightly injured and sometimes humiliated.


Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

[2dimes]

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

Isn't that the death penalty? I don't have an issue with that.

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.

They're too delicious.

I don't mind if pets are humiliated.

Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

Probably but it was voluntary. I have failed to laugh at videos like that also. I used to wonder why people laughed at the three stooges, looked painful to me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

Isn't that the death penalty? I don't have an issue with that.

Interesting! How about the "Final Solution"? If it was painless, would that make it acceptable? (Of course not, but why?)

If it's state executions, it's fine for you--because the perpetrators most likely broke some rules, to which they may have not given their full consent. But anyway, what rules have animals broken which justifies the mass slaughter?

Slaughtering animals for food isn't a painless process for them. Wouldn't you agree? Have you seen some videos about it? Very interesting stuff that renders MTG's "if it's painless killing, then it's okay" argument moot.

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.

They're too delicious.

I don't mind if pets are humiliated.

Ah, "delicious"! I agree, yet that's being arbitrary. Simply because it tastes good to eat the flesh of animals, it doesn't really justify slaughtering them--from a logical perspective, devoid of emotional appeals. And since there are substitutes, then this whole "it's necessary cuz food" argument falls apart.

Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

Probably but it was voluntary. I have failed to laugh at videos like that also. I used to wonder why people laughed at the three stooges, looked painful to me.

Unanswered Qs:

So, have you laughed at any video where a cat jumps and falls off a bed or bonks its face into a wall? Surely, it's not a serious injury, but many people do find this entertaining--thus, the injury becomes justifiable. Wouldn't you agree?


So, you kill pests to preserve your food? You have no problem with painfully killing some animals and living creatures, right?

[2dimes]

Filming and capturing a cat wiping out doesn't seem like the same thing as breaking it's paw for effect.

I have not knowingly killed non insect pests.

I have seen videos of cows being slaughtered. I have also watched my dad and my mom's step dad skin, gut and halve cows we later ate. I have also stood on top of the cat walk over the knock box when I worked here. http://www.xllakeside.com/about.php

When a lady and I were being toured through the facility as new hires they take you there after a little talk about it. The guy with the stun gun hits the cow with the first spike, then moves it over and hits it a second time. Because it uses compressed air, brains and blood shoot out of the first hole spraying the new hires. While not as much as the guy who did it, I laughed at that.

The point of the stun gun is to stun them so there is supposed to be no pain when they slit the cow's throat. I don't know if it's true. It didn't look comfortable when the chain around their ankle hangs them upside down for the guy with the knife.

One thing that was odd. I don't remember the exact time, I think it was like 20 minutes between the knock box and the cow being two sides of beef. At which point it is still twitching. Obviously not brain waves because the brain is in another part of the building.

[2dimes]

Oh, I have never seen pigs slaughtered but. A man who had, told me, "Pigs are much smarter than cows. They know what's going on and are very upset about the slaughter house. Cows just wander up the spiral ramp. Pigs scream and squeal, some try to get back in the truck. Some try to jump the fence. Some get away. Cows are much more oblivious."

No contextual point. Just thought I'd share that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, that's great to hear! After experiencing that tour, I'm still glad you enjoy your animal flesh--I most certainly do as well.

So currently:

1. the injury of animals for entertainment is okay in some cases (e.g. some youtube videos of cats bonking their faces into walls)
2. the painless slaughter of particular animals doesn't seem too painless, but it's acceptable
3. profiting from the death and/or injury of some animals (livestock) is okay, yet profiting from the death and/or serious injury of other animals (cats, dogs) is not okay.

3a. Because injury/death for entertainment is wrong--except when it isn't (e.g. YouTube videos involving minor injuries)
3b. Because allegedly painless death for food is necessary--except it really isn't necessary considering the abundance of substitutes, and it really isn't painless, so oops.

4. Injuring and/or killing 'pests' for profit (cost-savings) is acceptable because it's necessary--(or rather, no one wants to continue repurchasing food which the rats ate), thus it's 'necessary'.

5. Insects, albeit living creatures, don't really matter. Neither do other living organisms like bacteria and what not. (Probably because the emotional association with their species is lacking--unlike cats and dogs).



So far so good? 2dimes? mtg? rds?

[2dimes]

I'm at war with mosquitoes, they are killed personally with extreme prejudice and malice by me. It is pretty emotional I'd say.

I suppose I was ok with making wages (profit) at XL off the death and possible injury of a few thousand cows per day.

I can't say I'm upset or even going to talk my kids out of watching Milo & Otis.

Did you want to go to England or somewhere to film a similar motion picture? I could operate the cameras and help out. I'm not in favour of breaking any paws to produce a limp but I suppose if the cheques keep coming and the beef is imported I'll likely continue to work on the set.

Here in Alberta there used to be a patrol at the Saskatchewan border that killed rats to control disease, they claimed Alberta is rat free.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm at war with mosquitoes, they are killed personally with extreme prejudice and malice by me. It is pretty emotional I'd say.

I suppose I was ok with making wages (profit) at XL off the death and possible injury of a few thousand cows per day.

I can't say I'm upset or even going to talk my kids out of watching Milo & Otis.

Did you want to go to England or somewhere to film a similar motion picture? I could operate the cameras and help out. I'm not in favour of breaking any paws to produce a limp but I suppose if the cheques keep coming and the beef is imported I'll likely continue to work on the set.

Here in Alberta there used to be a patrol at the Saskatchewan border that killed rats to control disease, they claimed Alberta is rat free.

If mosquitos looked like kittens, would you continue waging your Emotional Crusade against the mosquittens?