I can NEVER look at the Milo & Otis movie the same again.

[muy_thaiguy]

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.

And are you vegan (no eggs, milk, dairy, or anything animal produced)? Or do you just not give a crap about animals and therefore don't care what happens to them?

But, your "points" (hard to call them that, in your make believe world) only ring true if the world was black and white (it's not) and I fit into your narrow view on things (which I don't).

Your whole "point" about me HAVING to be vegan in order to care what happens to animals is a foolish extreme that only PETA considers to be true. Hell, if PETA had their way, they probably would have predatorial animals turned to vegans if they could.

Your point about me caring only about "cute fuzzy" animals also rings false. I'm against hurting and torturing any kind of animals. And if you're killing an animal, like a cow or a dog or something for whatever reason, my POV is that you do it quick and as painlessly as possible. This includes for food. I do NOT condone animal fights for profit, harming animals for entertainment, or torturing animals simply for the sake of it. Those make me sick. Which is why I created this thread in the first place, because needlessly putting these animals in harms way was cruel and sadistic.

[rdsrds2120]

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.

Yeah, unlike your view which is that it's ok as long as it can be justified economically. Pretty silly that you're holding others to a different standard than yourself.

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

And are you vegan (no eggs, milk, dairy, or anything animal produced)? Or do you just not give a crap about animals and therefore don't care what happens to them?

But, your "points" (hard to call them that, in your make believe world) only ring true if the world was black and white (it's not) and I fit into your narrow view on things (which I don't).

Your whole "point" about me HAVING to be vegan in order to care what happens to animals is a foolish extreme that only PETA considers to be true. Hell, if PETA had their way, they probably would have predatorial animals turned to vegans if they could.

Your point about me caring only about "cute fuzzy" animals also rings false. I'm against hurting and torturing any kind of animals. And if you're killing an animal, like a cow or a dog or something for whatever reason, my POV is that you do it quick and as painlessly as possible. This includes for food. I do NOT condone animal fights for profit, harming animals for entertainment, or torturing animals simply for the sake of it. Those make me sick. Which is why I created this thread in the first place, because needlessly putting these animals in harms way was cruel and sadistic.

You're mixing things up, so I'll restate my my position:
1. your position is inconsistent
2. it's rooted on moral sentiments--i.e. it's not strictly logical.

RE: underlined, the same could be said of anyone--even vegans, who--sure--do care about animals but not so much about other living organisms. The same definitely rings true with you. Do you not care about animals being killed in Madagascar? (1) How far does your care extend? (2) And within the US, why does it differ with particular animals? After applying your previous posts to #1 and #2, we can note the inconsistency. I'm not saying this is good or bad. I'm just pointing it out.

No where did I state you have to be vegan. You're making that up.

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

Also, you do condone the killing of animals in other production processes--e.g. the agricultural sector. "How cruel."--oh, but it isn't cruel if particular animals are killed as "quick and as painlessly as possible." But if the domesticated animals are treated in a similar fashion, then what? [insert rage]?. Still seems likely to be inconsistent--unless you support the mass 'painless' killing of cats and dogs (e.g. 'dog/cat extermination sites', a.k.a. "The Pound"). If so, then "do you just not give a crap about these animals?" Do you really care about them so much that you're okay with them being 'painlessly' exterminated?


"Need" is a vague term. It's not 'black-and-white', as you insist it isn't--yet you conveniently use a black-and-white framework in order to support your position. The wholesale slaughter of particular animals is fine and dandy because you deem it as necessary. What else is 'necessary'? Fur? Leather? Beef? Chicken? What about the range of products which vegans boycott? Are all those products 'necessary'? It's not black-and-white when you throw around the word 'need', and it really becomes arbitrary.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Yeah, unlike your view which is that it's ok as long as it can be justified economically. Pretty silly that you're holding others to a different standard than yourself.

BMO

Can you quote me on it?

I'll save you time. It isn't my position. I've been asking people to explain the inconsistency in people's moral positions about various animals. I examine the profit-seeking of farmers who kill/harm animals, and then I compare it with the profit-seeking of other services.

So far, the opposition is based on:

1. an emotional reaction which leads them to an inconsistent position on the treatment of animals and living creatures.
2. 'necessity' (which leads to them supporting veganism, but I doubt they'll do that).


To repeat:
(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).

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

Hopefully, that clears up your confusion.

[crispybits]

Out of interest, the line between the animal world and the plant world is pretty blurred in places. It's not necessarily a fine defined distinction. There are many organisms that display the properties of both, and it is an area of biology which is currently classified as "unsolved", in that no current definition can be applied universally, and the difference seems to be a matter of degree rather than one of kind.

With this considered, even the vegan position becomes inconsistent, in that they are willing to kill (or at least maim) living entities in order to survive themselves.

I think the "no suffering" position is valid and consistent personally, but I admit that there are huge difficulties for the modern consumer to properly align their buying habits with the information available to ensure compliance. However, once we get outside of the grey area caused by inadequate flow of data, and into "should we break a kitten's paw to make a film", there is no grey area at all.

[2dimes]

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

I'm not fully convinced of this. I think there is a pretty fair difference between quick wholesale slaughter and the slow lingering torture of causing an injury such as a broken paw.

I don't know if I believe they broke the paw to make the cat limp. It's possible but seems like a stretch.

I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures.

The bear cub playing/wrestling with the pug, it would certainly be an un fair match but it was not as violent as the hot.. Erm, nostalgia chick makes it out to be. No I'm not suggesting the pug looked super tail wagging excited to be tossed about but it did not seem distraught and was not being torn apart. I'm pretty sure the seagull scenario in the Nippon production was much more violent.

Let's have another look at her.

Click image to enlarge.

[BigBallinStalin]

Out of interest, the line between the animal world and the plant world is pretty blurred in places. It's not necessarily a fine defined distinction. There are many organisms that display the properties of both, and it is an area of biology which is currently classified as "unsolved", in that no current definition can be applied universally, and the difference seems to be a matter of degree rather than one of kind.

With this considered, even the vegan position becomes inconsistent, in that they are willing to kill (or at least maim) living entities in order to survive themselves.

I think the "no suffering" position is valid and consistent personally, but I admit that there are huge difficulties for the modern consumer to properly align their buying habits with the information available to ensure compliance. However, once we get outside of the grey area caused by inadequate flow of data, and into "should we break a kitten's paw to make a film", there is no grey area at all.

Yeah, it's an emotional area.

Plenty of people use mousetraps and poison, which increases their cost-savings by killing those pests---OH but when Mr. Movie Maker breaks a kittens paw, OH NO!! utter rage!

Or what about circus animals? Total entertainment there, and sometimes work-related injuries can occur. Is this part of the "no gray area"? How so?

It's moral sentiments--an appeal to emotion. Don't you agree?

[BigBallinStalin]

As for you being against hurting animals, it's entirely inconsistent when you support the slaughter of particular kinds of animals. "Injury: not okay + Wholesale slaughter: okay" = inconsistent.

I'm not fully convinced of this. I think there is a pretty fair difference between quick wholesale slaughter and the slow lingering torture of causing an injury such as a broken paw.

I don't know if I believe they broke the paw to make the cat limp. It's possible but seems like a stretch.

I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures.

The bear cub playing/wrestling with the pug, it would certainly be an un fair match but it was not as violent as the hot.. Erm, nostalgia chick makes it out to be. No I'm not suggesting the pug looked super tail wagging excited to be tossed about but it did not seem distraught and was not being torn apart. I'm pretty sure the seagull scenario in the Nippon production was much more violent.

Let's have another look at her.

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

How about killing pests to preserve your food? Was that necessary? Couldn't you simply buy more food instead?


"I believe eating is a better reason than entertainment for dominating other creatures."

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.


"Dominating other creatures?" Essentially, our pets are our slaves, and we are their masters. When we film them doing entertaining things and upload it on YouTube, is this wrong? Why not? Entertainment is clearly involved--and the animals sometimes become slightly injured and sometimes humiliated.


Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

[2dimes]

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

Isn't that the death penalty? I don't have an issue with that.

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.

They're too delicious.

I don't mind if pets are humiliated.

Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

Probably but it was voluntary. I have failed to laugh at videos like that also. I used to wonder why people laughed at the three stooges, looked painful to me.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, suppose the painless killing of a particular group of human beings is acceptable--yet we advocate that torturing humans is wrong. Any problems with this stance?

Isn't that the death penalty? I don't have an issue with that.

Interesting! How about the "Final Solution"? If it was painless, would that make it acceptable? (Of course not, but why?)

If it's state executions, it's fine for you--because the perpetrators most likely broke some rules, to which they may have not given their full consent. But anyway, what rules have animals broken which justifies the mass slaughter?

Slaughtering animals for food isn't a painless process for them. Wouldn't you agree? Have you seen some videos about it? Very interesting stuff that renders MTG's "if it's painless killing, then it's okay" argument moot.

Why not stop eating the flesh of animals? Surely, there are better substitutes--as many vegans and vegetarians will tell you.

They're too delicious.

I don't mind if pets are humiliated.

Ah, "delicious"! I agree, yet that's being arbitrary. Simply because it tastes good to eat the flesh of animals, it doesn't really justify slaughtering them--from a logical perspective, devoid of emotional appeals. And since there are substitutes, then this whole "it's necessary cuz food" argument falls apart.

Have you laughed at any video where a human being was hurt?

Probably but it was voluntary. I have failed to laugh at videos like that also. I used to wonder why people laughed at the three stooges, looked painful to me.

Unanswered Qs:

So, have you laughed at any video where a cat jumps and falls off a bed or bonks its face into a wall? Surely, it's not a serious injury, but many people do find this entertaining--thus, the injury becomes justifiable. Wouldn't you agree?


So, you kill pests to preserve your food? You have no problem with painfully killing some animals and living creatures, right?

[2dimes]

Filming and capturing a cat wiping out doesn't seem like the same thing as breaking it's paw for effect.

I have not knowingly killed non insect pests.

I have seen videos of cows being slaughtered. I have also watched my dad and my mom's step dad skin, gut and halve cows we later ate. I have also stood on top of the cat walk over the knock box when I worked here. http://www.xllakeside.com/about.php

When a lady and I were being toured through the facility as new hires they take you there after a little talk about it. The guy with the stun gun hits the cow with the first spike, then moves it over and hits it a second time. Because it uses compressed air, brains and blood shoot out of the first hole spraying the new hires. While not as much as the guy who did it, I laughed at that.

The point of the stun gun is to stun them so there is supposed to be no pain when they slit the cow's throat. I don't know if it's true. It didn't look comfortable when the chain around their ankle hangs them upside down for the guy with the knife.

One thing that was odd. I don't remember the exact time, I think it was like 20 minutes between the knock box and the cow being two sides of beef. At which point it is still twitching. Obviously not brain waves because the brain is in another part of the building.

[2dimes]

Oh, I have never seen pigs slaughtered but. A man who had, told me, "Pigs are much smarter than cows. They know what's going on and are very upset about the slaughter house. Cows just wander up the spiral ramp. Pigs scream and squeal, some try to get back in the truck. Some try to jump the fence. Some get away. Cows are much more oblivious."

No contextual point. Just thought I'd share that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, that's great to hear! After experiencing that tour, I'm still glad you enjoy your animal flesh--I most certainly do as well.

So currently:

1. the injury of animals for entertainment is okay in some cases (e.g. some youtube videos of cats bonking their faces into walls)
2. the painless slaughter of particular animals doesn't seem too painless, but it's acceptable
3. profiting from the death and/or injury of some animals (livestock) is okay, yet profiting from the death and/or serious injury of other animals (cats, dogs) is not okay.

3a. Because injury/death for entertainment is wrong--except when it isn't (e.g. YouTube videos involving minor injuries)
3b. Because allegedly painless death for food is necessary--except it really isn't necessary considering the abundance of substitutes, and it really isn't painless, so oops.

4. Injuring and/or killing 'pests' for profit (cost-savings) is acceptable because it's necessary--(or rather, no one wants to continue repurchasing food which the rats ate), thus it's 'necessary'.

5. Insects, albeit living creatures, don't really matter. Neither do other living organisms like bacteria and what not. (Probably because the emotional association with their species is lacking--unlike cats and dogs).



So far so good? 2dimes? mtg? rds?

[2dimes]

I'm at war with mosquitoes, they are killed personally with extreme prejudice and malice by me. It is pretty emotional I'd say.

I suppose I was ok with making wages (profit) at XL off the death and possible injury of a few thousand cows per day.

I can't say I'm upset or even going to talk my kids out of watching Milo & Otis.

Did you want to go to England or somewhere to film a similar motion picture? I could operate the cameras and help out. I'm not in favour of breaking any paws to produce a limp but I suppose if the cheques keep coming and the beef is imported I'll likely continue to work on the set.

Here in Alberta there used to be a patrol at the Saskatchewan border that killed rats to control disease, they claimed Alberta is rat free.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm at war with mosquitoes, they are killed personally with extreme prejudice and malice by me. It is pretty emotional I'd say.

I suppose I was ok with making wages (profit) at XL off the death and possible injury of a few thousand cows per day.

I can't say I'm upset or even going to talk my kids out of watching Milo & Otis.

Did you want to go to England or somewhere to film a similar motion picture? I could operate the cameras and help out. I'm not in favour of breaking any paws to produce a limp but I suppose if the cheques keep coming and the beef is imported I'll likely continue to work on the set.

Here in Alberta there used to be a patrol at the Saskatchewan border that killed rats to control disease, they claimed Alberta is rat free.

If mosquitos looked like kittens, would you continue waging your Emotional Crusade against the mosquittens?

[2dimes]

If they think they can just attack me trying to take my blood? Of course.

[BigBallinStalin]

What if the mosquittens are taking your food? Is violence permitted?

[2dimes]

I don't get usually get sentimental about others killing vermin for entertainment. I was working at a malting plant and one of the employees came around to murder pigeons with a pellet gun for stealing the grain. A guy I was working with noticed I appeared to get upset and called me on it. It was a long time ago so I might not remember the exact phrasing of his comment but as I recall he said, "are you OK? I can tell you didn't like that." I told him, Yeah I understand, I just didn't really love watching it today for some reason.

So I'm not an emotionless terminator robot. I tend not to do the killin' myself but in the big picture I don't mind people murdering meat or other organisms that want to challenge us for it.

My general opinion is if you need or just want to kill mosquittens, do it quickly. Torturing things is not cool.

I have not killed many mammals myself. Once I hit a rabbit driving home late one night. I only broke the poor bugger's hip. I did not have anything with me to finish it off with. I spotted a police patrol car and flagged them down. Explained what happened and asked if they night be able to help. The one guys says in a somewhat sarcastic tone, "We can't just discharge our fire arms in the city."

I know, I didn't ask you to do that, I'm wearing running shoes here and hoped you might have something in your vehicle to take care of it with. The more pleasant partner said, "We have a shovel."

Warning do not read the rest of this post. Graphic violence committed toward fuzzy rabbit. Not suitable for some viewers.

I say, "Well, I'll give it a try. I don't think it's right to just let the thing suffer." So I figure, just go chop it's head off with the shovel, I'm heavy enough. Well the shovel was much too dull. I bounced off bunny rabbit's neck. That got it's attention as to my plan. It decided it was time to try a desperate escape. Jumped up and tried to run. With it's back leg spinning like a propeller it didn't get far at all. Now I feel like a jerk. I went over and leaned the shovel on it's neck until it suffocated.

[crispybits]

I had a similar thing happen 2dimes, but the police here are a bit better equipped.

Just like you I hit a rabbit, and when I went back over to check on it I could tell it was very badly injured, at least both the back legs were obviously broken, but it was still alive. I went back to my car and picked up the wheel nut spanner to finish it quickly, and a police car pulled up. They asked what I was doing, I told them, and they took one look at the rabbit and said "leave it to us". One of them went to the boot of their car and came back with a large syringe. While I watched, he injected the rabbit with the full dose. I expected the poor thing to die, but to my amazement it quickly jumped right back to it's feet, twitched it's nose at us and hopped off quite happily into the bushes at the side of the road. I couldn't understand what had just happened so I had to askt he police what the hell was in that syringe. Their response: "Hare Restorer"

[2dimes]

Endorsed.

~leaves a bunch of carrots~

[crispybits]

On a serious note I'm much too soft to harm almost anything that isnt trying to either actively bite or sting me (or wasps, which I just hate regardless how far away from me they stay)

A couple of years back I found a frog on the path near my office with a bike tyre track across it's back, twitching slightly. I picked up a rock but couldn't bring myself to actually make the kill. A co-worker had a good laugh at me for that and then took the rock off me and squished it.

[2dimes]

I understand the bravado behind. "Haha, I'm Manley and can overcome compassion." but find no need to be a jerk about it.

I think the world would probably be better if everyone was a Buddhist. I was pretty involved with a neo chan Buddhist cult when I felt compassion towards the thieving pigeons.

Another time later in life, I was at a local Christian mega church once and was disturbed when a guy murdered a bee for coming inside the building.

It's true my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I'm probably mildly bipolar if there is such a thing.