Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
muy_thaiguy wrote:crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
About the same movie, just different scene cut out. And no pug fighting a black bear. Or cat getting smashed against the shoreline of a cliff. Or kitten getting thrown off of said cliff.
Yeah, this movie, I can no longer see it as a "cute childhood film". It's really anything but.
BigBallinStalin wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
About the same movie, just different scene cut out. And no pug fighting a black bear. Or cat getting smashed against the shoreline of a cliff. Or kitten getting thrown off of said cliff.
Yeah, this movie, I can no longer see it as a "cute childhood film". It's really anything but.
I find it amusing that people get upset over animals X, Y, Z being harmed or killed, while fully supporting the mass production and slaughter of animals A, B, and C.
Hey, mtg, are you vegan?
Cow County is closer to Yellowstone. I'm closer "Colorado County" where we get horrible drivers from the state below us that don't know how to drive in the winter. Or summer for that matter.2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.
muy_thaiguy wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
About the same movie, just different scene cut out. And no pug fighting a black bear. Or cat getting smashed against the shoreline of a cliff. Or kitten getting thrown off of said cliff.
Yeah, this movie, I can no longer see it as a "cute childhood film". It's really anything but.
I find it amusing that people get upset over animals X, Y, Z being harmed or killed, while fully supporting the mass production and slaughter of animals A, B, and C.
Hey, mtg, are you vegan?
Vegan, no. Nothing against them, but I prefer some meat to my diet.
And to me, cats and dogs are pets. Often times members of the family. Cows are livestock, and seeing a pug get kicked around by them, didn't do much to help me think of them as little more than uncooked hamburgers.
That said, I don't condone animal abuse. If you're going to kill a cow for example, make it a quick death. But throwing a kitten off of a cliff or throwing a pug to a black bear just for a scene or two for a movie is just not right.
BigBallinStalin wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
About the same movie, just different scene cut out. And no pug fighting a black bear. Or cat getting smashed against the shoreline of a cliff. Or kitten getting thrown off of said cliff.
Yeah, this movie, I can no longer see it as a "cute childhood film". It's really anything but.
I find it amusing that people get upset over animals X, Y, Z being harmed or killed, while fully supporting the mass production and slaughter of animals A, B, and C.
Hey, mtg, are you vegan?
muy_thaiguy wrote:Cow County is closer to Yellowstone. I'm closer "Colorado County" where we get horrible drivers from the state below us that don't know how to drive in the winter. Or summer for that matter.2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.
Crazyirishman wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:Cow County is closer to Yellowstone. I'm closer "Colorado County" where we get horrible drivers from the state below us that don't know how to drive in the winter. Or summer for that matter.2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.
It's a lot easier to drive in Wyoming when there's only 32 people in your state.
rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:muy_thaiguy wrote:crispybits wrote:The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!
About the same movie, just different scene cut out. And no pug fighting a black bear. Or cat getting smashed against the shoreline of a cliff. Or kitten getting thrown off of said cliff.
Yeah, this movie, I can no longer see it as a "cute childhood film". It's really anything but.
I find it amusing that people get upset over animals X, Y, Z being harmed or killed, while fully supporting the mass production and slaughter of animals A, B, and C.
Hey, mtg, are you vegan?
Are you?
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote: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
BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote: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?
BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote: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?
muy_thaiguy wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote: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 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote: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:
rdsrds2120 wrote: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
More or less true.People kill animals all the time for profit.
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.Farmers, movie producers, and hosts of animal fights.
No, people become appalled because an animal is thrown into needless danger or is purposely killed or hurt simply for entertainment value.The main reason why people become appalled at the latter two is due to their 'moral sentiments'.
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.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!"
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.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, 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.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.
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.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).
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666