What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing.

"

BarryL wrote:

Basic kindness to animals doesn't cost me anything.

It costs you very little, which was my point. In all cases where it is not onerous, the decision is clear. There's a difference and you're being willfully ignorant.

"

BarryL wrote:

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.

Yes, I don't give a shit if an animal suffers if someone has already made their mind up to kill it. Just do the most efficient thing you can do and live with the choice.

What's the counterargument to that other than name-calling and pearl-clutching?

--

@deathflower, agreed.

"

pneuma wrote:

It costs you very little, which was my point. In all cases where it is not onerous, the decision is clear. There's a difference and you're being willfully ignorant.

You'd have a point when the cost ventures into territory that would effect your livelihood, but situations where I've referred to - cost is irrelevant. Showing mercy to a trapped animal that's still alive, for example, or deciding not to run over a bird isn't going to break the bank.

Why is the decision clear? After all, according to you, it doesn't matter if an animal suffers if we are to kill them. So why should it matter if you treat one like shit? You've basically relegated animals as things at this point. And please don't lecture me about wilful ignorance when you made the case that death in and of itself is the worst thing you can inflict on an animal.

"

pneuma wrote:

Yes, I don't give a shit if an animal suffers if someone has already made their mind up to kill it. Just do the most efficient thing you can do and live with the choice.

What's the counterargument to that other than name-calling and pearl-clutching?

A counter-argument to what, exactly? To your lack of empathy? My "counter-argument" is that I think your opinion is quite shitty, and is good indicator of your character. You could basically justify torturing an animal to death (or pretty much anything) with that sort of logic.

I wonder if you ever actually had a pet you were emotionally attached to, or you're just a bitter person who hates animals.

Your first sentence pretty much vindicates my sociopath comment, so thank you for that. I knew you'd pull through.

"

deathflower wrote:

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.

I'm not missing any point. In fact, that quote you posted was directed at another poster, not you.

It's you who lives in some sort of alternate universe where killing an animal and doing it humanely are somehow mutually exclusive, despite the fact that you've been given a few real-life examples where this is clearly not the case.

And unless you're a vegetarian, you can't exactly go high-horse on the issue of eating meat. There are alternate options besides intensive factory farming. You seem to think the raising and slaughtering of animals is pretty much uniform, that simply isn't true.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

My apologies, is there anything you'd like me to change there? The title might be too reflexive...

It's okay if you leave it the way it is. The title doesn't bother me, I just thought that it would be weird if I didn't clear things up.

"

BarryL wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Yes, I don't give a shit if an animal suffers if someone has already made their mind up to kill it. Just do the most efficient thing you can do and live with the choice.

What's the counterargument to that other than name-calling and pearl-clutching?

A counter-argument to what, exactly? To your lack of empathy? My "counter-argument" is that I think your opinion is quite shitty, and is good indicator of your character. You could basically justify torturing an animal to death (or pretty much anything) with that sort of logic.

I wonder if you ever actually had a pet you were emotionally attached to, or you're just a bitter person who hates animals.

Your first sentence pretty much vindicates my sociopath comment, so thank you for that. I knew you'd pull through.

Name-calling and pearl-clutching it is, then.

I really do wonder where the animosity is coming from. I have owned several pets and love them dearly; never abused or neglected them. I have also hunted animals for food, and enjoy eating meat knowing full well where it comes from.

I don't think animals have infinite value; I don't think of them as human-like in any way. If someone tortures animals, I think it's a sign that they have deeply worrying mental issues.

People that have dogs and call them "my furry children" freak me out. What about you?

"

BarryL wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

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.

I'm not missing any point. In fact, that quote you posted was directed at another poster, not you.

It's you who lives in some sort of alternate universe where killing an animal and doing it humanely are somehow mutually exclusive, despite the fact that you've been given a few real-life examples where this is clearly not the case.

And unless you're a vegetarian, you can't exactly go high-horse on the issue of eating meat. There are alternate options besides intensive factory farming. You seem to think the raising and slaughtering of animals is pretty much uniform, that simply isn't true.

You are avoiding the argument. There are cost involve in humanely killing an animal which you downplayed as an negligible cost which is time. In animal agriculture industry where thousands of animals is slaughtered, this cost simply isn't zero. The cost is simply pay for by the customers.

"

pneuma wrote:

I don't think animals have infinite value; I don't think of them as human-like in any way. If someone tortures animals, I think it's a sign that they have deeply worrying mental issues.

People that have dogs and call them "my furry children" freak me out. What about you?

No one said they have "infinite value", that's just a strawman argument coming from you.

The animosity comes from you saying it doesn't matter if an animal suffers if someone kills it. You are pretty much regarding them as objects. That's precisely why I'm saying it's sociopathic in nature and why I don't believe you have any kind of attachment to animals.

Animals do not have to be human beings to share similar qualities - like feeling pain, getting depressed, etc. That they don't have the same emotional and intellectual depth as us is irrelevant. That still doesn't mean shouldn't treat them like shit.

"

deathflower wrote:

You are avoiding the argument. There are cost involve in humanely killing an animal which you downplayed as an negligible cost which is time. In animal agriculture industry where thousands of animals is slaughtered, this cost simply isn't zero. The cost is simply pay for by the customers.

No, I'm not. You are tip-toeing around the point I'm making, and diverting the argument to questionable farm factory practices where cost is actually relevant. I'm clearly talking about instances where the cost is completely irrelevant.

Despite the cost you seem to care so much about, it is still required under law and animal welfare standards (at least in NZ and Aus) to treat livestock humanely. I don't live in a third-world shithole where such standards are non-existent. These are multi-million dollar corporations that can easily absorb the costs. I'd happily spend a few more dollars purchasing better quality meat from a reputable place that raises and slaughters their animals humanely, rather than from a place that flouts the law or cuts corners for the sake of $$$.

If your argument is that cost should trump animal welfare to further line the pockets of corporations that are already filthy rich, then I'm wasting my time with you. I mean, it's almost like you care more about profit margins of said businesses than how they treat their animals. If that's the case, then very sad indeed.

"

BarryL wrote:

to further line the pockets of corporations that are already filthy rich

Ahhh, that's where the animosity is coming from.
Another poor soul.

"

pneuma wrote:

Ahhh, that's where the animosity is coming from.
Another poor soul.

No, the animosity is because of you.