U.S. Supreme Court overturns animal cruelty law - Page 5

On April 21 2010 05:54 SheepKiller wrote:


It isn't ignorant to think so. Also, if people want to make valid arguments, then don't argue by saying things like "everyone,all", when it is clearly not true. It is the reason there is usually a response arguing otherwise. You can't say, for example, "no one sane thinks my sister is hot.. that is outrageous! Only a sick person would think so". Psychological evidence is NOT like math where 2+2 will and always equal 4. Saying "well only an idiot would think like this", or "I can't believe the monsters that would do this", are mere opinions and makes your argument weak. No one on the other side of the topic will believe you if emotional opinions are being thrown out like that. (goes for everyone doing it)

The question of if an animal feels pain like a human is still up to debate. Especially because of the cases on "Animal Testing". It is a very controversial subject, and one can not just say on this thread, "Yes animals do feel pain like a human being as a fact".

Now you should consider what type of pain we may be talking about as well. Yes, most people can agree that an animal does feel 'physical' pain like a human, but is the 'emotional' pain the same? A tree can react to the 'physical pain' of being chopped by an axe, and react to it naturally. One can say confidently though, that a tree doesn't feel emotional pain. Emotional pain is a deep factor in if a human being can cause pain to another. Saying 'animals' experience this the same as a human is wrong. Saying Kid A thinks the same as Kid B is wrong as well.

Lets think of this as a staircase. Humans being on the top at the moment, and bugs being one of the bottom steps. I personally find shame in the thought of torturing or killing a helpless bug, but it doesn't mean most of us haven't done it when we were kids.

On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote:
People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.

Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.

It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?

On April 21 2010 06:22 KwarK wrote:

Can't we just be selfish and say the reason we think humans are more important is because we are humans and we make the decisions about what we do. That's no more selfish than the thought process of a lion attacking a human, it's hungry and it makes the decisions about what it does.

Do we need all this rationality justification about why we favour our own species or can we just be blunt and say that we think we're pretty awesome.

On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote:
People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.

On April 21 2010 06:19 sc4k wrote:
People often forget one very important thing here which is quite disturbing to me. They seem to find it easy to make the distinction between animals and humans- rationality, self-awareness, ability to comprehend concepts and take part in society voluntarily. But what if someone is disabled or injured to such an extent that they are *only* living? A human, who has far less mental and physical capabilities than a chimpanzee? In my mind, you either have to now say that the disabled person is to be owned as property, because it is simply an animal; or you have to accept that this is more complicated than that.

Although animals should not have rights per se, they should be clearly defined from inanimate objects in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of society. It should always be illegal to inflict severe pain on and kill complex living creatures that do not endanger human life.

It strikes me that it's society's responsibility to defend any creature that can feel pain from feeling that pain if it is decided by a worthy arbiter that the motivation for causing the pain is unworthy. Culling foxes that attack sheep- worthy. Standing on dog for pleasure- unworthy. Anyone really going to take issue with me here?

On April 21 2010 06:22 KwarK wrote:

Can't we just be selfish and say the reason we think humans are more important is because we are humans and we make the decisions about what we do. That's no more selfish than the thought process of a lion attacking a human, it's hungry and it makes the decisions about what it does.

Do we need all this rationality justification about why we favour our own species or can we just be blunt and say that we think we're pretty awesome.

On April 21 2010 08:17 SheepKiller wrote:
It is actually quite disturbing to me that you think there isn't a difference from an injured/disabled human to a chimpanzee.

On April 21 2010 08:19 sc4k wrote:
Speak for yourself. I don't de facto favour my own species. I'd say that humanity has the capacity to do some ridiculously barbaric and uselessly destructive things. I'd say that a good deal of humans are completely worthless to me, and I couldn't care less what happens to them. If you want to talk about selfish, I'm going to be selfish and say that if a pedophile rapist is shot in the street when discovered raping a child; I couldn't give two shits. There are some animals which just flat out rock.

Dogs for the blind just flat out fucking rock. Let me tell you if I saw anyone attacking one I would hit them with a brick. If I saw anyone attacking a pedophile rapist who was raping a child, I would applaud. My plan is that I hope there are enough people who are like me, and don't just immediately favour humans over animals, who will be on my side when we change the law to make complex and especially helping animals not just property but valuably and worthwhile creatures that people should not be allowed to inflict pain upon needlessly.

Ok the applauding part was an exaggeration but I was in fact extremely happy when Eugene Terreblanche was brutally hacked to death, if we're going to be totally selfish and honest!

On April 21 2010 01:53 Biochemist wrote:


Pit Bull Terriers who attack children are like any other dog who attacks children. In virtually every instance I've ever heard of, few if any attempts were ever made to socialize the dogs. If you leave a high-energy dog chained in your backyard for its entire life, should you be surprised when a child climbs over your fence and gets mauled? It's the owner's fault, not the breed.

Pit Bulls aren't what they were when dog fighting was common. How long has it been since we were selecting for aggression? How many generations has it been now that dog owners are actually selecting AGAINST aggressive tendencies? If pit bulls cause more problems than other breeds, it's more likely to be a symptom of the type of person likely to get a pit bull (i.e. the type of person that leaves it chained in the backyard) and not one of the breed itself.