I’m pretty sure there’s no law against having a leather hanging on your wall. If there is, these guys are in big trouble.
:rolleyes: Some societies do not prohibit a husband beating his wife to death. Does that mean that laws against spousal abuse in the US are purely social convention, or is their an articulate underlying moral or ethical theory underlying such laws? Can you come up with a similar underlying moral or ethical reason to lock these people up? If you can’t, then you’re outraged solely because these people don’t love puppies as much as you do. And that’s a bullshit reason to put someone in jail.
Can you prove that they didn’t kill the dog with one shot? How do you know they shot it in any non-vital areas? The dog was shot ten times, but there’s no evidence that they were shooting to deliberately wound, and not that they just shot it as much as they could to make sure it was dead.
I’m pretty sure it’s not leather until it’s tanned. But you knew that, didn’t you? Your example is not at all what we’re talking about here. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Oh shit. Rolleyes. I’ve really gone and done it now, haven’t I, Desi?
At any rate, being a social convention and having an underlying moral or ethical theory are not mutually exclusive. Or at least I don’t think so.
I can try to come up with one that outlaws cruelty to animals. But I could also come up with one that says it is OK to murder infidels, so I’m not sure what value it will have.
Here goes. As a society, we have determined that certain animals that serve as companions for millions of people deserve to be treated as humanely as possible. Humans form a bond with these animals that approaches the bond they can form with other humans. Torturing those animals has a negative psychological effect on society as a whole, and so we, as a society, have enacted laws to prevent such torture. The fact that, to my knowledge, there has never been a serious effort mounted to overturn those laws suggest to me that they fall within the moral and ethical framework that most people espouse.
I said what they did was horrible. I’m not outraged. More and more I grow numb to the atrocities that some folks are capable of. These folks aren’t a pimple on the butt of the accused serial cat killer in Miami, for example. I suppose you wouldn’t mind having him for a neighbor either, would you? They’re just cats, right? That shit happens every day. Nothing to see here. Move along.
This is what I’m saying. I am trying to see the other side of this, and I think I do more than some others. All I ever said was that these people were probably crazy assholes. I didn’t bust out laughing at Even Steven’s “funny” story, but my perspective changes due to the cultural differences where his story took place. Am I saying what’s ok, (in my opinion) in those cultures, shouldn’t be ok here? I would need more info on that culture, but I do understand the hypocrisy in flat out saying; “yes”. I do however factor in that these people ARE from the west, and I’m sure have an inkling that this shit is taboo here. Like I said before, it was just out of hate and SEEMS unnecessary. I have a feeling they did it, not to make a belt, but to kill something out of anger or spite of something not related. I think the thread has opened my mind to the argument that there is no difference between this and butchering animals to make things that I may wear or consume. It’s something I’ll surely be thinking about…
I know that most people have their own guidelines to follow. I doubt a lot of people defending this behavior would do something like this themselves, but that’s because I think they’re rational people. I don’t know… it’s subjective. I don’t know if mswas found it to be a stupid question, but I’m once again curious about the answer. What about humans that don’t or can’t contribute to society? Do they get a pass simply because they are human? Why? Why draw the line at humans, and not cats and dogs?
No, I can’t say that I did. Why does that make a difference in deciding if this is okay or not?
It’s not? I thought we were talking about killing an animal and hanging it’s skin on your wall. Why does puppy skin versus cow skin change the moral tenor of the situation?
I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive. A lot of social conventions do have a strong moral/ethical reason for existing. A lot of them don’t. The ones in the former category are reasonable subjects for legislation. The ones in the latter are not.
Well, it would give more shape to this discussion than, “OMG dead puppies!!!1!” So that would be a plus.
That’s fine. Except, I’ve already said that I don’t have an objection to laws against torturing animals, and that if it can be demonstrated that this couple tortured the puppy before it died, then I don’t have a problem with them being arrested.
Absolutely irrelevant. The same argument could be used (and, indeed, has been used) against any innovation in law or society. The fact that an idea is novel is not, in and of itself, an argument against that idea. Which works well for you, since animal cruelty laws themselves are a pretty recent invention. Most folks a hundred years ago would have laughed you out of the room if you’d suggested that killing a cat or a dog should be treated as a felony.
Wow, let’s count the ways that this story is entirely unlike the one in the OP!
He was killing other people’s pets.
He was breaking into people’s homes to get to their pets.
He was torturing the animals to death - which, again, we don’t know to be the case with the puppy.
Yeah, that’s a relevant comparison. Good job, there.
Hell, that’s easy: because I might be in that position myself someday, so it behooves me to make sure we have a society that takes care of such people, so that I’ll be taken care of myself if I’m in their place.
BTW, I don’t know what punishment these two should face, but I wouldn’t think a ‘mental health evaluation’ would be unnecessary IF the animal was shot several times on purpose while still alive; as pointed out before, that can be a sign of worse things to come. That’s not to say they are sociopaths.
Hmm… so far I can’t think of anything wrong with that answer.
Yes, humans should get a pass. Because I am a human, and I don’t want them opening up the door to people judging who is and is not worthy to live. We all agree that you shouldn’t skin your own kind.
Now, people don’t seem to get that I’m not arguing that animal cruelty is no big deal. I am just asking why it’s worse to skin a puppy than an ermine or baby goat or whatever? Is it only cruel if the animal is cute and cuddles with you at night?
Personally I am against skins of any kind that do not come from a food animal. Wearing cow skin is fine because someone ate the cow. Personally I think it’s silly to have laws against eating puppies, because it’s mainly for sentimental reasons. Why is it that it’s ok to do all these things to a puppy but not to a cow?
If someone shot a cow ten times to put it down would they go to jail for it?
Thanks for the answer, and I will admit that it’s difficult, (for me), to argue with this logic. I don’t think I will ever be able to get past the mental barrier that’s been ingrained in me… but so far you’re making sense to me. I’m sure people can trust you to look after their pet when they’re away, and that’s all I need to know not to think you’re a dick.
The thing is, there are plenty of humans suffering as we speak, and the fact that a lot of people often gravitate to animal sentiment over human is stupid. Can’t help but feel bad for that pup though.
By law, dogs are not considred food animals here. You must’ve missed my posts on the subject over the last few years. And, a couple of years ago, a couple of homeless guys dognapped a blind man’s guide dog and cooked it up. That hit the media here.
No evidence the other way either. You are assuming. I am extrapolating from the disrespect they showed for it, that it was a likely scenario. If you don’t like dogs, you should face charges for killing someone elses dog. You should not own one. If you do and torture or deliberately kill it ,you should face abuse charges.
I immediately thought of Theresa the Rhode Island Red. We kept chickens when I was a kid and several had names and personalities! Theresa (RIP) was an ace at untying your shoelaces. Gonzo (RIP) was always first into the mash tray.
Somehow, every time I interact with you, I am astounded all over again by how stupid you are. You think I’d be used to it by now. Well, one would think I’d be used to it by now. You, clearly, don’t think at all.
There’s a scene in Margaret Maron’s latest Judge Knott mystery (at least I think it’s the latest), where Judge Deborah Knott is presiding in court over a case involving the death of a chicken. A city woman had moved in next door to a woman who’d been keeping chickens for a long time and a city/county confusion had lead to a fistfight (I think).
The scene was mostly noteworthy because Judge Knott and the lawyer representing the woman who owned the chickens had had chickens as pets as children and knew how they behaved, and the other lawyer was Deborah’s cousing and was clueless about chickens.
Got it wrong again ,don’t you. Why shoot a dog ten times. Especially a little one. It was a protracted act of cruelty. It was not a quick kill. Is that really too difficult for you to absorb. Why shoot it 10 times? I suppose they liked to. It gave them a sick pleasure. It this too deep for you.
Maybe the intent was to shoot it only once, but the first shot was not a clean kill? Surely in that situation it would be worse to not finish it off as quickly as possible?
I don’t know where you got the idea that I think skinning puppies is good. I just take it a step farther and say that all skinning of animals is bad. If skinning a puppy is illegal so should skinning an ermine be.
So the question is not about whether I or miller object to animal cruelty, it’s whether those arguing another position do. Do you object to animal cruelty or do object to canine cruelty?
It seems like a lot of people here care only because it was a puppy. In that case it shows they don’t give a fuck about animal cruelty, they only care because it was a puppy.
I eat meat, so there is some inherent cruelty involved in that, but more parts of the animals I eat than just their skins are used.
I don’t think you should torture and kill a puppy, I just think it’s hypocritical to have laws for animal cruelty that only apply to cute and cuddly sentimental animals.
