It was a general collection among the populus, so yah, it was their business, but why do we show more concern about fuzzy animal friends that people?
Sorry about the sig.
Don’t worry about the sig. There’s so many around here that get changed so often, how could you keep up?
I have no idea why people would rather catch someone who threw a dog out of a window than a person in the situation you described. Personally, I’d rather see a murderer rot in jail. Part of it might be that people have been somewhat desensitized to murder, it’s always on the news, but animal abuse reports aren’t as common, so it holds more shock value.
You are forgetting though, that Humans are just animals also. Just because we have opposable thumbs and higher thought capability does not make us reign over animals. That is very egocentric of you.
I wholeheartedly agree w/ the fact that this man should be fully punished for what he did. But, I do have a beef w/ the fact that our society slaughters defenseless cows legally, no pun intended. So what, in essence makes a cow different from a puppy?
Cows make us think that they are so dumb and spacey with those bug glassy eyes; when in reality they are plotting our demise. (I know, I saw the swastika on one’s forehead)
but on the same hand, go ahead and slaughter a dog and eat it.
Cows are butchered, and killed somewhat humanely and quickly so that we may eat. this man killed a dog because he was mad at it for crapping on his carpet.
He is a big Fathead.
You really don’t see a difference in these two acts? The cows are not being slaughtered as punishment or for fun. Their deaths or not drawn out to be any more painful or slower than they need to be. The killing of the cow serves a purpose - to feed people.
The abuse and torture of a puppy (or any animal) is unnecessary and cruel. It serves no purpose other than making the abuser feel better.
It’s not the animal that makes a difference, it’s the method and motives behind the actions that make it inexcusable.
This is the opening line of the article:
“A 72-year-old Rhode Island man could get a prison term for kicking his girlfriend’s puppy and injuring it so severely that it died after several hours of agony, state police said.”
Why is it that it never says EXgirlfriend? I know if my SO killed my pet with a choking and kicking spree- I might just be upset enough to break up with her!
Jeez- all the puppy did was shit on the floor- that’s like getting upset because a politician is full of shit! That’s what puppies do!
:eek:
:mad:
:insert crying face:
<going off to love on my Jack Russell puppy and two kitties>
And, if you knew how much unconditional love and attention and company they’ve been while Mr Bear’s so far away… ‘just an animal’ indeed.
Bullshit. Ugly and cute are all deserving of a reasonable degree of humaneness.
I eat meat, but I don’t believe it’s acceptable to exaggerate and prolong a food animal’s pain and fear. In the state of Washington recently a series of news stories surfaced about abuses in slaughterhouses. It was damned horrifying to see a steer hung by its hind legs, skinned and gutted while it was still wide-eyed and screaming. And why’d this happen? Some underpaid yokel got sloppy with the pneumatic stun-hammer and the company ordered workers never to stop the conveyor.
They’re just animals, and ugly ones at that, right?
In high school I worked on a ranch and ate some animals I probably once petted and hand-fed. Did it stop me from eating a steak? Nope, just made me more aware of the process innocent animals endure. Why compound their predicament when it’s unneccessary to do so?
And there’s NO reason to kick a dog–much less a puppy–to death. I hope the old fuck ends his days in the kind of misery he gave to the pup.
Before proceeding, I never said that it is okay to abuse animals, or that abuse should not be punished. All I was standing against was that many of you seem to elevate crimes against animals to a plateau of punishment higher than for crimes against humans.
Many here expressed a desire to see the person who killed that puppy to experience death, harm, or a long-term permanent torture. I also suspect that many of you here are anti-death penalty, anti-corporal punishment, anti-torture when it comes to perpetrators of violent acts against people. As a note to Crunchy Frog, notice I used the word “many” here; your criticism was correct and I should not have used the word “none” in my first post.
I am not saying that this man should not go to jail. He should. He should be barred from ever owning an animal. But his punishment should not be worse than had he killed another person. It should not be worse than had he hurt another person. There is a line somewhere; a dog’s life has value but its value is not comparable to that of another (any other) human being. [As a mind game: you are forced to choose between beating to near-death a complete stranger, and shooting to death your dog. Which do you choose?]
There is no such thing as JUST an animal.
That is just silly. If you are an atheist then you must believe that fundamentally all non-plant species are just animals. If you are not an atheist then odds are you are part of a religion that places human life above that of other animals, for those religions they are just animals.
You…you…there are no words. JUST AN ANIMAL? So are YOU!!! We all are!
Yes, I quite agree. But it does not necessarily follow that a dog’s life (or a cow’s or a bald eagle’s or a gnat’s) is equal in value to my own.
**Would you like someone to kick you to death? **
No, I would not.
Do you think that that puppy didn’t feel any pain?
Yes, of course it did.
That it didn’t KNOW it was dying?
I think honest people can honestly disagree on the extent to which non-human animals understand the concept of death. But I think it is reasonable to say that a dog can understand the concept of its own death.
**Walk up to an “animal” sometime and look at them. Look at their eyes. How are they different from you? **
Assuming I am looking into the eyes of a non-human animal I would say that they are very much different from me.
I can’t even discuss this.
No, I imagine you can’t. All you can do is pull your hair and shriek “but it is a puppy”!
First, it was a PUPPY, not a full grown dog. It had no chance to defend itself. It had no way of knowing it was wrong to turn the carpet into a toilet facility, and definitely didn’t deserve to be beaten like that.
I don’t think that being a puppy is particularly relevant. In your eyes, would it have been even slightly more acceptable for that dog to be beaten to death if it had been full grown? And of course it didn’t deserve to be beaten to death, I never said it did.
**Second, dogs are not just one more poop-producing machine on the planet. They are loving, caring, intelligent creatures who seek our companionship as much as we seek theirs. They depend on us for nuturing, support, medical care, and attention; we depend on them for affection, friendship, and a sense of happiness in our lives. **
Yes, dog’s do depend on us, but only because we have perverted their form over the millenia so that they can not lead healthy lives without our intervention. That said, there is still nothing inherent to a dog’s nature that makes it love people. Let a dog go feral from birth and you are not going to have an animal that naturally licks your hand. Dogs and cats are only different from other animals because we have decided to treat them that way.
No, we do not depend on dogs. If aliens came and removed them from the planet tomorrow I don’t think many lives would have been shortened for their absence.
I think that poor little puppy deserves every bit of our sympathy.
Well, you might want to save a little bit for the poor woman down the street with a toddler dying of leukemia.
**Some uneducated folks think that because it says in the Old Testament the God gave humanity “dominion” over animals that means we can do anything we like to them. Not so. The original language . . . **
That is a good argument and I suggest you use it on anybody that is arguing mankind’s dominion over animals based on the Old Testament.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god, a soul, or the Old Testament. I do not believe we have “dominion” over the animal world. I do believe we are superior to non-human animals, but that is a fluke of evolution and luck.
If we take it in we have the obligation to care for it to the best of our abilities. That means food, shelter, medical care, etc.
I agree completely with that. However, just because a person chooses to take on additional responsibilies towards an animal does not make that creature anything more than an animal, it is not elevated to quasi-humanness.
I personally have not owned a dog since I began living in apartments because I do not feel that I can fulfill the responsibilies of dog-ownership from an apartment. I have a personal rule that I will not take ownership of a new pet after the age of 50 because of the good chance that the pet will outlive me.
We may be the master/mistress but that just means we have assumed a duty, not that we have become all-powerful.
Actually, we are all-powerful, at least from the point of view of almost every other species on this planet. If we decided to we could eradicate almost any species from this planet. This is just a fluke of evolution, but it is a fact.
You are further correct that having power does not mean that it should be used. And that is where I think this man’s crime lies: his beating of that dog was an abrogation of his fundmental personal responsibilities. It is the violation of these responbilities that indicates in unwillingness to play by the rules of society and society needs to punish him for it. The question is, how are responsibilities towards pets to be valuated in comparison to responsibilities towards people?
Also, from what I’ve read, these criminals that abuse animals often graduate to people.
That is not correct. Yes, most serial killers show patterns of animal abuse throughout their life, but it has not been shown that most animal abusers become serial killers (in fact, most childhood animal abusers grow out that phase relatively quickly). It is only when you combine animal abuse with several other indicators (bedwetting, sexual abuse, pyromania, etc.) that you begin to develop a solid indicator of likely sociopathy.
Similarly, most novelists can be shown to have a history of letter-writing, but most letter-writers do not become novelists.
Have you owned a dog?
Yes, I have owned many dogs; and I treated each and every one as part of the family; and I have emotionally anthropomorphized each and every one to the extent that you do in your next statements. Additionally I have owned many cats, rats, snakes, birds, a rabbit, even had a pet chicken once, gerbils, and mice. I’ll assume this establishes my credentials as a pet owner. The only reason I do not currently own pets is because our apartment building does not allow them but I am continously lobbying Baglady that we should move somewhere that does.
**What is just a dog, if not a living creature that is taken into someone’s home wanting nothing more than love and protection? **
I don’t see how an instinctual desire for love and affection separates a dog from being “just an animal”. I would pretty much say that it goes a long way to defining “just an animal”.
**but owning a dog is much like having a 2 year old child, and people get attatched in the same way. **
Yes they do, and yes I do. But that does not mean that a dog should be considered equal to a 2-year-old child (and I realize that you, Crunchy Frog, have not personally made that argument).
You honestly think nobody here would be screaming for this man’s head if he beat an old woman to death
Notice that I never said “to death”, I said “beat up”. I think beating up an old woman (but she survives) is much worse than beating up a young dog (that dies). And yet I don’t think very many here would advocate the same deaths and tortures for a person who beat up an old woman, as they are for the person who killed the young dog.
You are forgetting though, that Humans are just animals also. Just because we have opposable thumbs and higher thought capability does not make us reign over animals. That is very egocentric of you.
As I have stated above, I do not think we rule over other animals. I do think that opposable thumbs and higher though processes do make us superior to other animals, however.
So what, in essence makes a cow different from a puppy?
When a cow is raised for meat no one has taken on a fundamental personal responsibility for that cow’s well-being. It is when people violate personal responsibilities that society as a whole must view that person as suspect. The thoughts and opinions of the dog or cow don’t really enter into the picture.
I think most of us would look on in as much horror at someone who could kill and eat their pet cow as we would someone who could kill and eat their pet dog (though the law would not treat them the same).
This does not mean it is ok to abuse a dairy cow, however. Society must also view with suspicion those who derive pleasure from causing pain. If it is purely the act of causing pain that gives pleasure (and not the specific act of causing pain to a salamander or whatever) then society must worry that the social contract will not be strong enough to keep that person from causing pain to a human.
Ok, I am done ranting now. I am just bothered by the number of people here who equated my drawing a firm line between non-human and human life, with advocating abuse of animals. I think this man should be sent to jail. I think he should probably be sent to jail for a long time (10 years would not be unreasonable to me), but I do not think he should be fed to lurkernomore’s dog, and I do not think he should be subjected to a slow, painful death.
“So far no one has mentioned that most serial killers have a history of animal abuse, torture and killing.”
I mentioned it.
All too often it happens. A sadistic asshole is a sadictis asshole and they keep going onward and upward (?).
obfusciatrist
Well, that I agree with, as I’ve stated in previous posts here. I admit that 2 years seemed harsh punishment, until I heard he was a 3 time offender.
But all in all, I agree with the sentiment that human life is more vauable than a pet’s life. Thanks for clarifying, I hate these little misunderstandings, don’t you?
Just as a side note:
I believe in the death penalty and corporal punishment, but what exactly do you mean by anti-torture?. When can torture be a good thing?
I don’t think torture is ever a good thing (though there may be extreme instances where it is required; during war, maybe) and that is why I suspect pretty much everybody here would be against torture as a means of punishment.
Yet, several times in this thread forms of torture are exactly what are proposed. Further, I recognize that the people suggesting these things probably would not go so far as to support them in real life, but it is the sentiment that bothers me.
Honestly, I meant to say “these people would not go so far . . .” rather than “these things . . .”
Oh man. Now I am misreading my own posts and posting incorrect corrections as a result. I think I should just go back to bed.
Disregard the immediately preceding post, thank you.
Look, I’m obviously not advocating going out and kicking puppies. But, honestly, no one is EVER prompted to open a discussion like this because they saw someone squash a slug or smack a sewer rat. It is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS about puppies or kitties or bunny rabbits – cute animals. The test where the rabbits have cosmetics dropped in their eyes draws bloodthirsty outrage and wild declarations of love for Fido or Hoppy or some other pet; force-feeding rats thousands of times the dose of saccharin to see if it’ll cause cancer, well, that doesn’t. Now, eventually, animal lovers always get around to the “No, wait, I like slugs and sewer rats and ugly animals, too!” message, and I believe them. But they don’t typically defend the ugly animals unless prompted.
Me, I like ducks. Used to have a creek in my backyard back home. We fed them bread or corn.
I know what you mean. A while back there was a thread about a dog that is featured in calendars. Many of the Dopers suggested torturing and killing the puppy because it is too sickeningly cute for them (a couple of them posted in this thread also, but spoke out against the man, so it’s ok to talk about it, just don’t do it :rolleyes: ). When I spoke out against those violent sentiments (and gave my reasons why - I used to work with abused animals and have seen horrible things done to them) I was told to get a sense of humor about it.
I’ve seen needless violence to animals and humans. It’s just not a joke to me to be bandied about so easily.
Good point. I agree with you here.
**
[/QUOTE]
Now you have to see there’s a big difference there. One study is to test a product made for vanity, the other is a scientific expreriment to prolong life. I forget who said it, but I once heard a someone say, “Torturing an animal to see if my wife’s mascara clumps is wrong, but if hooking a monkey’s testicles up to a car battery will cure cancer in 10 years I got two things to say: The red is positive and the black is negative.”
This goes along with human life being more valuable than animal life, which I’ve already said I believe.
But as for the meaning behind your post, yes I agree, too often people don’t care about the mistreatment of a pet snake or iguana because they aren’t cuddly enough. I just didn’t get that message from your first post. To me, it seemed as if you were calling the defenders of the puppy hypocrites for not mentioning the non-cute animals that are mistreated. My apologies if I missed your meaning, which apparently, I did.
Dammit. I knew I should have previewed that first.
Well, you suspect wrong. Oh, I know it’ll never happen, it’s against the Constitution, but for certain crimes, I think state sponsored death by torture would be a terrific deterent. Are you going to risk a long and agonizing death just to kill a child? I wouldn’t. Even if it dosent, the revenge factor is soooo sweet.