Conquer Club

Ever. I will say, I enjoyed it as a kid (3-7 years old) because it had a cute dog and kitten who went on adventures. But damn, because, well, here's what I mean. Let the Nostalgia Chick below show you what happens.

The Japanese movie was so much better - damn those American re-makes!

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 thought the cliff was from the Japan produced movie.

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?

In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.

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.

2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.

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.

Nah, I don't want to ruin a childhood memory. I'll just remain blissfully ignorant.

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.

How amusing!

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

9/10
Would be friend-zoned by her.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.

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.

It's a lot easier to drive in Wyoming when there's only 32 people in your state.

Crazyirishman wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

2dimes wrote:In the middle of delicious cattle county no less.

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.

It's a lot easier to drive in Wyoming when there's only 32 people in your state.

There's a few more than that, but the winds here can make it, interesting at times...

Mainly because Colorado sucks and Montana blows.

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

Nope. But I don't take amusing positions!

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

She looks like a young Janeane Garofalo. alt 3!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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).

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:

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.

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

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?

[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.

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.