What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing.

"

pneuma wrote:

If it's free, sure. If there is no cost involved and the choice is "kick a dog" or "leave it alone", the answer is obvious to everyone.

But that's not what I was talking about.

How do you feel about spaying or neutering? You're obviously committing a heinous, unnatural crime on the animal. We could just not do that and then live with the results of an explosive small pet population.

How do you feel about leashes and cages? It's certainly wrong to lock animals up that have never harmed a fly. It surely makes them depressed. We could just not do that and then deal with animals roaming the streets.

How do you feel about pest control? Rats are vectors for disease in addition to eating our food. We could just not kill them at a cost to human life when they spread the next affliction through our cities.

No, in all these cases we assert our superiority over them and put humans first. That's what I'm talking about.

If it's free? What in the flying heck are you saying here?

The first thing on your mind when internally debating on whether to kick a dog or not is "will this save me a few dollars", rather than "will this hurt the animal"? I'm not really sure why you're treating this as some sort of cost-benefit analysis, as if it's a business. I'm not really talking about examples where humans come first for obvious reasons. I don't treat animals like shit because I'm not a psychopath, not because it saves me a few dollars. Your first example sounds like you'd kick a dog if it saved you $30!

Taking a closer look at your examples; those are done to protect humans and animals, so there are legitimate reasons to do them. And all of those examples you provided can be done without unnecessary cruelty (which is where the decent human being part comes in).

For one thing, I've owned caged pets before (mainly rodents) and they were never depressed. I've held my dog on a leash before and he was never depressed. Not sure where you're basing this depression thing from. Perhaps if the owner kept them like that 24/7 with no external stimuli, you'd have a point.

Rats aren't some kind of demonic entity here; they're wild animals, all of which can carry disease. Do you think a pigeon or a stray dog is any better in that department? Rats are really only dirty by virtue of their own environment; stick any animal in a canal full of human waste and they'll be very disease-prone too. Rats on their own are actually very clean animals. Go compare a NYC rat to a field rat in the country, and you'll notice a huge difference. Despite all that (or how many afflictions you want to associate with them), you still shouldn't set one on fire.

Really, the point I'm getting at here is that with our "superiority" over animals, not treating animals like shit should be a part of it. That said, I don't think it's an absolute either. For example, I'd much rather the life of my dog than, say, a mass murderer. You seem to think I am looking at this through an animal rights perspective? I'm not. It's through an animal welfare perspective. There is a lot of shit we do to animals that I think is flat out barbaric and wrong (ie glue traps, boiling alive, de-clawing, etc) yet I am not against the idea of pest control and eating animals.

Do you understand where I am getting at now? This is where I take issue with your "end-game" comment. We should treat all animals humanely as a matter of course, not because there's financial incentive for it. Killing and acting humanely aren't mutually exclusive either (for example, I can swiftly dispatch a pest animal humanely rather than torturing it).

"

k1rage wrote:

I get what your saying but the proper way to cook a lobster is still to boil it

the death is very nearly instant

That's not true.

It's the easiest way to cook lobster.

That's it.

Someone already posted a video of Gordon Ramsay dispatching a lobster. If you want to talk about the proper way, look at how the very best do it.

"

BarryL wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

To be fair. I don't really feel much of anything for animals that I aren't attached to. Sorry my empathy level isn't on the high side. We don't strive for Animal abuse, we usually don't care one way or the other.

Boo hooo. Animal abuse, that is so sad. No. We don't. We are play acting for our fellow human beings. If you want us, we could.

Oh wow, so much edge in that comment.

Apparently there's no such thing as altruism in your world-view.

NO no no. At least I am no sadist who torture my food before I eat it. But I am not deluding myself that I am nice to animals, I am still eating that lobster.

"

BarryL wrote:

We should treat all animals humanely as a matter of course, not because there's financial incentive for it.

I definitely disagree. Everything has a cost; nothing is of infinite value. You would kick a dog if it saved you a million dollars, and you'd be lying to say you wouldn't. There is some price tag that you put on the happiness of animals, and that price is paid with scarce goods that aren't getting allocated to something else good and pure.

Separately, I also disagree that killing can ever be humane. If you're going to kill something, it doesn't really matter how you make it feel right before it dies. Just do whatever you need to do and move on -- you cannot treat it any more inhumanely than you already are.

"

pneuma wrote:

I definitely disagree. Everything has a cost; nothing is of infinite value. You would kick a dog if it saved you a million dollars, and you'd be lying to say you wouldn't. There is some price tag that you put on the happiness of animals, and that price is paid with scarce goods that aren't getting allocated to something else good and pure.

Some people have the principle of "not being unnecessarily cruel to animals", some people have a price for that principle(that can be bought sometimes for little money), other people don't.

Maybe you don't believe that, but there are people out there that would rather die than do some stuff that goes against who they are.

"

pneuma wrote:

Separately, I also disagree that killing can ever be humane. If you're going to kill something, it doesn't really matter how you make it feel right before it dies. Just do whatever you need to do and move on -- you cannot treat it any more inhumanely than you already are.

Definition of humane

1
: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals

I can think of several situation where killing an animal can still be considered humane. A quick death for a pet dying slowly of a painful disease seems humane to me.

By the way, I just want to make something clear: I opened this topic because I thought the article brought attention on how Cops overreact on situations that other people don't and how dangerous is that.

In the article it is said that postal workers deal with dogs everyday and yet they don't need guns to survive their jobs.

I thought that was interesting because we often hear people saying: "If you were in that cop's shoes in that situation, you would have done the same"

Well, when it comes to dogs there are other workers that face the same exact situations, and look how many dogs they kill per year, so I took this as a big evidence that there's a problem(another one to the list).

Although I'm sympathetic to the doggos that have died, I didn't open this topic to bring awareness to the killing of dogs. I'm in no way outraged by the number of dogs killed, and I'm not here to say that the lives of dogs are precious(even if they are to some point at least).

I'm saying this because another topic related to cop killings has been opened and that one gives the wrong impression about this one.

I think that everyone can agree that people's lives ar more valuable than dog's lives, and that the killing of people are more concerning than the killing of dogs. So far nobody said otherwise, much less me.




With that cleared up you guys can carry on on talking about lobsters and shit...

"

soneka101 wrote:

By the way, I just want to make something clear: I opened this topic because I thought the article brought attention on how Cops overreact on situations that other people don't and how dangerous is that.

In the article it is said that postal workers deal with dogs everyday and yet they don't need guns to survive their jobs.

I thought that was interesting because we often hear people saying: "If you were in that cop's shoes in that situation, you would have done the same"

Well, when it comes to dogs there are other workers that face the same exact situations, and look how many dogs they kill per year, so I took this as a big evidence that there's a problem(another one to the list).

Although I'm sympathetic to the doggos that have died, I didn't open this topic to bring awareness to the killing of dogs. I'm in no way outraged by the number of dogs killed, and I'm not here to say that the lives of dogs are precious(even if they are to some point at least).

I'm saying this because another topic related to cop killings has been opened and that one gives the wrong impression about this one.

I think that everyone can agree that people's lives are more valuable than dog's lives, and that the killing of people are more concerning than the killing of dogs. So far nobody said otherwise, much less me.




With that cleared up you guys can carry on on talking about lobsters and shit...

Hey lobsters are animals too. Why the prejudices against lobsters?

What I believe is critical about a cop willingness to open fire at a suspect and killing innocent is the perceived value of the subject in question. The more perceived value of the subject, the more caution and scrutiny upon the subject.

I wouldn't think twice about eating a lobster, a vegan wouldn't think twice about not eating a lobster. If a cop believe in his mind that suspect is guilty or dangerous, the more likely he is to open fire. If the cop believe the suspect is innocent or not dangerous, he is even not likely to open fire even if the suspect is holding a weapon.

"

pneuma wrote:

I definitely disagree. Everything has a cost; nothing is of infinite value. You would kick a dog if it saved you a million dollars, and you'd be lying to say you wouldn't. There is some price tag that you put on the happiness of animals, and that price is paid with scarce goods that aren't getting allocated to something else good and pure.

Separately, I also disagree that killing can ever be humane. If you're going to kill something, it doesn't really matter how you make it feel right before it dies. Just do whatever you need to do and move on -- you cannot treat it any more inhumanely than you already are.

In practical and realistic terms, I am not going to save a million dollars for kicking a dog.

Basic kindness to animals doesn't cost me anything. Just last week a bird was crossing my driveway as I was going out. I could have run it over, just to save time. But I didn't. The only thing it "cost" me is ten seconds.

And why doesn't it matter? Is it because you think killing in and of itself is the most inhumane thing you can do to an animal? What a load of bollocks. By this logic, if my dog had a terminal illness and was suffering, putting him down via fire is the same as putting him down via lethal injection. But hey, I save about $200-300 if I go the fire route - I guess that makes it okay then? It's like the suffering of the animal and the effect this has on the person, doesn't seem to calculate with you.

Only a sociopath thinks in such terms. Or someone who struggles to understand the meaning of the word humane. Or someone who struggles to have any sort of emotional connection to animals. You can save both of us some time by saying "I don't give a shit if an animal suffers if it's going to killed anyway", because that's what your argument basically amounts to.

"

BarryL wrote:
Basic kindness to animals doesn't cost me anything. Just last week a bird was crossing my driveway as I was going out. I could have run it over, just to save time. But I didn't. The only thing it "cost" me is ten seconds.

I agree. Some people are sick though.

"

BarryL wrote:

In practical and realistic terms, I am not going to save a million dollars for kicking a dog.

Basic kindness to animals doesn't cost me anything. Just last week a bird was crossing my driveway as I was going out. I could have run it over, just to save time. But I didn't. The only thing it "cost" me is ten seconds.

And why doesn't it matter? Is it because you think killing in and of itself is the most inhumane thing you can do to an animal? What a load of bollocks. By this logic, if my dog had a terminal illness and was suffering, putting him down via fire is the same as putting him down via lethal injection. But hey, I save about $200-300 if I go the fire route - I guess that makes it okay then? It's like the suffering of the animal and the effect this has on the person, doesn't seem to calculate with you.

Only a sociopath thinks in such terms. Or someone who struggles to understand the meaning of the word humane. Or someone who struggles to have any sort of emotional connection to animals. You can save both of us some time by saying "I don't give a shit if an animal suffers if it's going to killed anyway", because that's what your argument basically amounts to.

I think you are missing my point. Killing Animals for their meat is Animal cruelty. It is a delusion to think by purchasing “humane” products people are absolved from the animal cruelty inherent in the animal agriculture industry. We raise animals and kill them for food, animals products is something we allow ourselves to do. Their existence so that we may slaughter them for their meat and for our own benefits, that is the fate of millions of domestic animals like cattles and chickens. Their population and existence tied to our need for them.