Why are some people cruel to animals?

[JimboUK]

hey man there is a link between animal abuse and serial killers.

 

imo just because they are linked doesn't mean I would equate their acts as equal crimes or carry the same severity of punishment.

 

I'm not equating their acts, I'm saying the same precautions taken against those who interfere with children should also be taken against those who abuse animals for the very reasons stated in countless studies. This isn't about punishment, it's protecting the public from someone who has shown he/she is a danger. Enjoying the suffering of others is clear indication of Psychopathy yet our courts fine these people a few hundred quid and let them walk away.

[Ghogiel]

You are miss representing the stats. If these studies said that all people who have abused an animal go onto abuse children then yeah. But they don't. What is says is that the percentage of people who have abused children are more likely to have also abused animals than..well no one else really.

 

Besides It only links them. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

For example people who are more likely to go on to be perpetrators of child abuse are the abused themselves, That is derived from the fact that all convicted child molesters have a rate 4 times higher than normal of being victims of child abuse themselves. By the logic of linking, we could lock up or otherwise do something to monitor all victims of child abuse because they pose the greater risk of becoming child abusers. I don't like it. Personally I think this sort of thing is bad news. I kinda hate all this terrorist watch list sort of malarkey.

 

Crime fits the punishment. Leave the statistics aside. IMO beating your dog to death just is not murder in the same sense as killing another human being is. Whether that puts the dog beater in a higher risk category of being.... who cares, it makes them a complete piece of s*** and is kinda non debatable, imo. :shrug:

Edited September 4, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

You are miss representing the stats. If these studies said that all people who have abused an animal go onto abuse children then yeah. But they don't. What is says is that the percentage of people who have abused children are more likely to have also abused animals than..well no one else really.

 

Besides It only links them. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

For example people who are more likely to go on to be perpetrators of child abuse are the abused themselves, That is derived from the fact that all convicted child molesters have a rate 4 times higher than normal of being victims of child abuse themselves. By the logic of linking, we could lock up or otherwise do something to monitor all victims of child abuse because they pose the greater risk of becoming child abusers. I don't like it. Personally I think this sort of thing is bad news. I kinda hate all this terrorist watch list sort of malarkey.

 

Crime fits the punishment. Leave the statistics aside. IMO beating your dog to death just is not murder in the same sense as killing another human being is. Whether that puts the dog beater in a higher risk category of being.... who cares, it makes them a complete piece of s*** and is kinda non debatable, imo. :shrug:

The last portion of your post is the only section that I am in accord with, the preceding two sections simply use sophistry and statistical analysis theory which we both know can be used to pervert or prove any point. But you must admit that one of the indicators of a sociopath is torturing animals prior to their human killing spree.

Since this thread is not about Child Abuse or the Watch List, I will leave that for another day and another thread.

[arcane20]

if that is not an ad hominem comment then I do not know what is.

No you don't know what an ad hominem is. Your comments *are* inane. An ad hominem is a statement

 

or something said to the 'person' in order to undermine the argument they're making. I addressed your

 

argument. Make sense? You on the otherhand made statements about me personally.

 

"his" is factually incorrect, since I am very obviously female

Very sorry for that I wasn't paying attention.

 

First off, would you decry the Aboriginal tribesmen who hunt in the outback or the former plains

 

Indians who hunted Buffalo on the American Plains?

Human rights have never outshined the suffering of others. Otherwise I could argue that it's my human

 

right to go around punching people in the face.

 

Most of the higher life forms with the admitted exception of Elephants are carnivores, it provides

 

a more calories in a more compact form than any form of grazing can possibly manage.

Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other animals do in the slightest.

 

I do not see man as anything more than the current apex of the predator pyramid

I don't care for your personal opinions.

 

if we do not divorce ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom how are we any less moral

 

than a Lion who eats meat?

Is this a serious argument? Human beings have the ability to make a choice. Are you saying because

 

our cousins might do something we can't make any decisions for ourselves. Also lions can't suvive on

 

plants like we can. We might all belong to the animal kingdom but we're not the same animal, we don't

 

have the same brain the body the same digestive system.

 

It doesn't take a genius to know that suffering sucks. Suffering is bad. Why do I even need to mention

 

this? Suffering should be avoided. It is wrong to cause suffering on anything.

 

Most primitive societal groups such as hunter gatherers were omnivores not vegetarians, I

 

submit that it is genetically part of our make up to be such also.

Give me quotes from multiple experts saying we need meat to suvive.

 

Lastly I tend to agree with Ghogiel that morality is a social construct and is very subjective

 

It's ethics. And it's irrelevant unless you believe humans should have the right to cause harm on other

 

living beings. Do you believe that?

 

Anyone who has not had the opportunity to live in a farming / ranching environment might tend to

 

take a more removed view of raising food stock, with the exception of the mega corporate farms they

 

tend to treat their animals with extreme care being that it's very valuable property and most livestock

 

need constant care to flourish.

So they don't suffer? ever. Is that what you're saying? Unless you are saying that. This is irrelevant.

 

the ethically<sic> of being a carnivore might well hinge on how hungry you are when pressed, if

 

we take away your local markets, the veneer of modern civilization, the comfort of having others provide

 

your caloric intake and reduce you to primal man once again, my money for survival is on the

 

omnivores.

Again irrelevant. You can't prove this it's just speculation.

 

I could not agree more. Over here in the UK I am involved in the campaign against the

 

establishment of one of these mega corporate farms in my own fair county. For I live amongst farmers

 

and am from farming stock, and can confirm the care that the pig, sheep and cattle farmers around here

 

take of their stock. These men and women oppose the mega farm not so much because it is

 

competition - since the way the EU has stuffed livestock farming in the UK most of them were well on

 

their uppers anyway - but because of the animal welfare issues that they feel will bring the whole farming

 

community into disrepute.

 

When I read this all I get is "me. me .me .me .me blah blah blah. I know more so shut up."

 

Nearly all great apes eat meat and insects. Since there are no apes that are strict vegetarians it

 

is assumed our evolutionary ancestors were eating raw meat and able to eat raw meat.

I never argued that! I argued we evolved to eat meat. Show me evidence that shows otherwise.

 

But they do not hold the same reverence of the life of a plant.. Swatting a fly isn't perceived the

 

same as killing a cow. And so on up the evolutionary chain.

Plants do not have a central nervous system or pain receptors it's very unlikely that they suffer and if they do it's not as much as larger mammals. Suffering is the issue here.

 

Not saying as a supposedly evolving society in the 21st century we shouldn't extend protection and rights to animals, I'm just saying it is hardly child molestation imo.

So what because other things are worse this can't be bad?

 

Sorry if I missed anyones argument post it again and I'll be happy to tear it apart.

[marharth]

While I don't agree with you arcane and I don't want to get involved much, I would suggest you reword what you say so it doesn't seem like you think humans are not animals.

[arcane20]

While I don't agree with you arcane and I don't want to get involved much, I would suggest you reword what you say so it doesn't seem like you think humans are not animals.

 

Reread it.

I didn't make it seem like that. In fact I specifically stated "We might all belong to the animal kingdom but we're not the same animal".

So I'm not sure what you're talking about?

[Ghogiel]

 

Nearly all great apes eat meat and insects. Since there are no apes that are strict vegetarians it

 

is assumed our evolutionary ancestors were eating raw meat and able to eat raw meat.

I never argued that! I argued we evolved to eat meat. Show me evidence that shows otherwise.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf

 

Neanderthals ate raw meat if you care about the cooking thing still.

 

Not saying as a supposedly evolving society in the 21st century we shouldn't extend protection and rights to animals, I'm just saying it is hardly child molestation imo.

So what because other things are worse this can't be bad?

Not as bad as child abuse like what was proposed.

[arcane20]

 

Nearly all great apes eat meat and insects. Since there are no apes that are strict vegetarians it

 

is assumed our evolutionary ancestors were eating raw meat and able to eat raw meat.

I never argued that! I argued we evolved to eat meat. Show me evidence that shows otherwise.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf

 

Neanderthals ate raw meat if you care about the cooking thing still.

I'm gonna have to read that later. I'm a bit busy the the SYW mod at minute but I will read it when I have time.

 

Not saying as a supposedly evolving society in the 21st century we shouldn't extend protection and rights to animals, I'm just saying it is hardly child molestation imo.

So what because other things are worse this can't be bad?

Not as bad as child abuse like what was proposed.

 

I didn't propose that though. Just to be clear. I don't see people who eat meat anywhere near on par with people who hit children or animals.

 

I'll get back to that link later.

[Ghogiel]

 

I didn't propose that though. Just to be clear. I don't see people who eat meat anywhere near on par with people who hit children or animals.

 

I know you didn't. But that is what that quote of mine was in context to. JimUK proposed punishments that were equivalent between animal and child abuse.

[ginnyfizz]

if that is not an ad hominem comment then I do not know what is.

No you don't know what an ad hominem is. Your comments *are* inane. An ad hominem is a statement

 

or something said to the 'person' in order to undermine the argument they're making. I addressed your

 

argument. Make sense? You on the otherhand made statements about me personally.

 

Don't patronise me. I know perfectly well what an ad hominem statement is, and calling someone's comments inane - which is your OPINION, rather than an established fact, certainly falls in that category. Put it this way, it would get ruled out of order in any debating chamber that I know of. I have used no such insulting terms towards you personally, I have argued against your standpoint - the fact is that many militant vegetarians do use the term "Meat is murder" as a slogan, if that is what is winding you up. I have given instances where I feel that what seems to be cruelty may in fact be anything but, to try and illustrate the fact that the situation is not always as black and white as your argument tries to make it.

 

You, on the other hand, have deliberately repeated the personal attack quite deliberately.

 

 

I could not agree more. Over here in the UK I am involved in the campaign against the

 

establishment of one of these mega corporate farms in my own fair county. For I live amongst farmers

 

and am from farming stock, and can confirm the care that the pig, sheep and cattle farmers around here

 

take of their stock. These men and women oppose the mega farm not so much because it is

 

competition - since the way the EU has stuffed livestock farming in the UK most of them were well on

 

their uppers anyway - but because of the animal welfare issues that they feel will bring the whole farming

 

community into disrepute.

 

When I read this all I get is "me. me .me .me .me blah blah blah. I know more so shut up."

 

Sorry if I missed anyones argument post it again and I'll be happy to tear it apart.

 

Another ad hominem attack that is factually incorrect. If you really read that statement of mine you would see that it talks mainly about the local farming community and their thoughts/feelings.

 

Just tearing people's arguments apart is not debating. This thread is actually about cruelty to animals, and I have been striving to stay on topic by not sidetracking into the argument about whether it is necessary to eat meat, which is not actually relevant. The fact is that people do eat meat, it is legal to do so. I have therefore tried to stick to the arguments surrounding the production and husbandry, and the slaughter of farm animals. Because it is something that I do know about, and because I know that it is one of the areas where there is a huge hue and cry about welfare standards, and there are many accusations of cruelty. Some of it justified (hence why I myself oppose live export of animals, for example,), some of it misconceived.

 

One other sector of animal care where I have seen a lot of un-necessary suffering is the equine sector, another where I can speak from a knowledgeable standpoint. One thing I can never get is the excessive use of the whip by jockeys - whipping a horse that is already galloping? No way should you be doing that. Also another thing that got to me was that jump racing horses, until recently, had frequently not been formally schooled to jump properly, unless you count being ridden full pelt at practice brush training. That's why in jump racing the horses tend to get killed, in eventing, where the horses bascule properly when they jump, the riders tend to be the ones that are hurt or killed. The answer of course, is money. The fast buck.