Jodi I gotta question you on this one. What is your definition of significant and necessary tangible benefit? I mean, I think we would all agree that testing cancer and AIDS drugs on monkeys and bunnies is fine, even if it entailed jabbing them with red hot pokers, cuz finding a cure for those is clearly a S&NTB to humanity. But how about finding a cure for that most dangerous of human conditions, the dreaded BO? Do you know how many wabbits spent their lives in a rightguard bath so you don’t have to pass out on the subway? These things have to be tested to make sure they don’t cause allergic reactions, cancer, contain poisions, etc… Is it a S&NTB to humanity to ensure that you don’t have a bad hair day? Cuz to make sure you don’t have bed-head Bobo lined up every morning to take a shot of hairspray to the eye.
And there are thousands of these examples, some are necessary to humanity, such as soap (arguable, considering how some of my cow-orkers smell), others are clearly luxuries. And I know you use them. We all do. It’s hard not to. But if you consciously went out of your way to avoid these things and researched all your purchases to ensure they were not animal tested, then you are a truly remarkable person.
I am not remarkable. As far as I am concerned there is a pecking order in this world and I am on top of it. The food chain stops at me, and if it doesn’t it means I deserved to get eaten because I walked off my safari tour. I will not kick a dog, but I wouldn’t hesitate to eat veal. 'Cept for the fact that I’m cheap. I’m no Bubba, but I’m not going to pretend that there is no hypocrisy in hugging the animals killed in the arena and ignoring those dying in the labs.
And while were on the subject, someone was also saying that killing animals for entertainment did nothing for humanity. I gotta disagree. Entertainment has intrinsic value in our society, from the art hanging in the museums to the b-movies in the second run theaters, it’s all entertainment. As a society we live to entertain ourselves, we’ve made a science of it, an art of it. There is as much art in pitching a no hitter as there is in a Picasso, and as much entertainment in a goal-line tackle as in a well-killed bull. Fuck Sparc, no shit that looks like fun. Anybody who does that gets mad props in my book, more so than race car drivers. But then again, who am I to judge another’s art/entertainment?
But I am a vegetarian, so what’s all this crap about supporting factory farming etc.? Opposing bullfighting abroad does not mean supporting the meat industry at home. Cruelty is not limited by geography.
Actually, I can’t think of one off-hand, that would be of such surpassing importance that it would justify torturing – not merely injecting, or causing some pain to, but torturing – animals.
I don’t have to comment on that, because fortunately neither AIDS nor cancer research involves jabbing animals with hot pokers. It does, however, often involve administering drugs to them and then seeing if they die or, even if they don’t, then killling them to see why they didn’t die. Grim as animal medical testing is, and I’m fully aware that it is, I generally support it.
But as it happens, I don’t support painful or harmful animal testing for non-medical reasons. I know some companies spray perfume into the eyes of rats, but they’re not doing it for my benefit because I don’t buy those products. Just like I don’t attend bullfights.
I love this reasoning! The world is black and white and either/or, is it? If I eat beef, I must think the torture of animals is okay! Because it’s an all or nothing, right? You cannot utilize animals while minimizing their suffering in every way you can, and simultaneously condemn the voluntary torture of them for entertainment, because, heck, there’s no difference there. You’d eat veal but you wouldn’t kick a dog? Well, why the hell not? It seems to me that under your “all or nothing” rationale, you’d be gleefully kicking every dog you see – 'cause, heck, you eat meat, so you must think gratuitious torture is okay. How massively stupid is that?
Bullshit. We should not sell our humanity for entertainment. We do not bait bears. We do not run lion pits. We do not torture cats, or even flies. Why? Because we recognize as a moral matter that refraining from causing unnecessary pain to sentient beings outweighs our completely selfish desire to be “entertained.” There may well be as much art in a no-hitter as in a Picasso, but then neither of those things require the torture and death of an animal to accomplish.
Ah, yes, the dubious refuge of moral relativism. I trust you feel the same way about people who are entertained by child pornography and nonconsensual human brutality. Because who are you to judge those either?
Jodi: Y’know, it’s not so much being told that I can’t read and/or think that bothers me, it’s the fact that everytime somebody disagrees with you, you trot that little insult out. Often, as you just did in this thread, several times in one post. Get some new material, already. If you’re going to take the time to insult me, you could at least make it entertaining. I mean, you’re not even particularly good at it: “I cannot read, much less think.” Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Isn’t reading dependent upon thinking, and not vice versa? Along those lines, accusing someone of not being able to read in an argument in a purely written medium is just silly. Where’s the sting in such a self-evidentally false insult? Whereas the only time I insulted you was when I called you a hypocrite, which is demonstrably true, as I am once again about to demonstrate. And considering that you went out of your way - twice - to tell me how much you don’t care if I think you’re a hypocrite, I’m guessing you felt that one a bit. Anyway, moving on to your argument, such as it is. Let’s start with this bit from the end:
So, your saying torturing animals is never okay unless absolutely necessary. Well, that’s a bit of a departure from your earlier post, where you said, “But to torture animals is IMO in all cases morally indefensible.” (Emphasis mine, btw.) You really ought to try and be more consistent in your debates; people will probably take you more seriously.
So, we’ve established that, yes, sometimes it is okay to torture animals. What are the happy occasions that allow for this? You offered medical testing, but I think I’ll let this one fall by the wayside for now, at least until you’ve had a chance to respond to Spider’s excellent post on the subject. Your other instance? Livestock. Interesting. How exactly does this mesh with your “absolutely necessary to provide a tangible benefit to mankind that can be achieved in no other way” exception to your blanket “Never okay to torture animals” rule? Since when is eating meat “absolutely necessary”? Both OpalCat and Muffin are both vegetarians, and they seem okay to me (well, I’m not so sure about Opal, but I doubt that has anything to do with her diet.) Since neither of them has starved to death yet, aparently the benefits of eating meat can be provided in another way. Making the suffering of animals raised for slaughter unnecessary and immoral, at least by your lights.
So, one must wonder, why do you persist in eating meat? All of the vitamins and nutrients provided by meat can be provided by other means. Going veggie means even the minor suffering* caused by factory farming is avoided, plus all that land used to raise cattle (and all the land used to raise the feed to keep that cattle alive) can be re-planted to help feed starving people everywhere, thus taking us all a long step closer to ending world hunger. Hey, how’s that for a tangible benefit? So what’s up with the meat eating, Jodi? Could it be that, like me, you like the way it tastes? Wouldn’t that mean that the cattle that was killed for that steak was killed purely for your enjoyment? Doesn’t that make you just like all those immoral, barbaric bullfighting fans you’re so much better than? See, this is where the hypocrisy part comes in. You are decryng a perceived injustice while willfully participating in an identical injustice. The only difference is a matter of scale, and it just so happens that the scale is tipped against you. Far more animals suffer unnecessarily to support the meat-heavy diets of Americans than suffer in the bullfighting arenas of Spain, simply because Americans like the way meat tastes. It’s animals dying for our entertainment. We just don’t make as much of a spectacle of it.
Let’s see, what else did you post. Hmm. I’m seeing a lot of hot air, restatements of previously refuted positions, more poorly crafted ad hominums… Oh, here’s one: You want me to defend bullfighting. Easy: it’s a cow. Who gives a shit how it feels? This is the same attitude that makes me absolutely comfortable eating a rack of lamb, stepping on a spider, or watching a bullfight. You may not find it to be particularly nice, enlightened, or even moral. But at least it’s consistent, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you.
*If it is, indeed, minor. And I suspect that it is not.
There is a no moral obligation. People are free to do what they wish with thier property. Now, if one were to treat his animals were cruelty, he’d likely be a jerk, but not immoral.
Animals, firstly, are not sentient. Secondly, “moral imperitives” are entirely secondary to property rights.
Slavery isn’t legal, now is it? At any rate, people and animals are on entirely different levels of morality. So, no, torturing fellow humans is not okay.
My moral system being different from yours does not make it amoral.
Nope, but I would not expect animal rights enlightenment from a meat based culture. What I hope for, however, is for incremental recognition of humane values. Thus while I would prefer for us to be vegetarians (and I am the first to recognize that even vegetarians harm animals, though on a much reduced scale), I am pleased when people opt for reducing meat in their diets, or shop for family farm meats rather than factory farm meats, and I am particuarly pleased when people learn to recognize and reject gratuitiously inhumane treatment of animals, be it growing veal or bullfights. So I applaud those who state their averison to the torture of bullfights. Even if animals are harmed by such person’s own dietary choices, they recognize the basic importance of humane treatment, and are speaking up about it. That’s one step on a long road, but let’s recognize it for what it is – the step that changes the paradigm in a person’s value system from humanocentric to encompassing. It may not seem like much, particularly when comparing a few thousand bulls against milllions of beeves, but it is a big step none the less, and I hope that for many it then leads to further steps.
Assuming you mean pick one to shoot, I’d probably shoot my dog first. This is for two reasons:
My dog is riddled with arthritis, and a few tumors. He doesn’t have long to live as it is.
Osama bin Laden deserves to stand trial.
And why, exactly is that? Because I advocate absolute property rights? Because my moral system is different from yours? This kind of vitriol is absolutely uncalled for, Pit or no Pit.
As a general proposition, this is patently and demonstrably false, and only an incredibly ignorant person would even think of saying it. Mammals, at the very least, are sentient under any definition of the word that does not tautologically refer to human beings; and great apes and cetaceans are in all likelihood not only sentient but highly cognitive. Both can pass the “mirror test” for self-recognition.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no question, sentience aside, that animals are capable of feeling pain. Taking as an assumption, however, your claim that animals are not sentient, the intentional causing of unnecessary pain in creatures capable of feeling it and not capable of understanding why you are doing it is not only immoral, it is positively monstrous.
[quote] Originally posted by pldennison
The intentional causing of unnecessary pain in creatures capable of feeling it and not capable of understanding why you are doing it is not only immoral, it is positively monstrous.[/quote
That may be, but animal rights are secondary to property rights.
Not in Canada. Here cruelty to animals is a criminal offence, regardless of property rights. Since you have claimed the opposite for your jurisdiction in Kentucky, would you please provide your citations.
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be.
(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(d), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.
(5) Where an accused is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any other sentence that may be imposed for the offence, make an order prohibiting the accused from owning or having the custody or control of an animal or a bird during any period not exceeding two years.
(6) Every one who owns or has the custody or control of an animal or a bird while he is prohibited from doing so by reason of an order made under subsection (5) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Animal cruelty is also against the law in Kentucky, as it is in all 50 states:
KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES
TITLE L KENTUCKY PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 525 RIOT, DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND RELATED OFFENSES
525.125 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IN THE FIRST DEGREE
(1) The following persons are guilty of cruelty to animals in the first degree whenever a four-legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit:
(a) The owner of the animal;
(b) The owner of the property on which the fight is conducted if the owner knows of the fight;
(2) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.
(3) Cruelty to animals in the first degree is a Class D felony.
525.130 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IN THE SECOND DEGREE
(1) A person is guilty of cruelty to animals in the second degree when except as authorized by law he intentionally or wantonly:
(a) Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit, (including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit) mutilation, beating, torturing, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means; or
(b) Subjects any animal in his custody to cruel neglect; or
(3) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.
(4) Cruelty to animals in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
MYTHOS, you didn’t answer my question. I asked why the fact that an animal is someone’s property means that it is now okay to cause it horrific pain for your own enjoyment, when it would not have been okay to treat that very animal that way if it were no one’s property. You responded,
That’s nothing more than a reassertion of the thesis I’m asking you to defend, which doesn’t even begin to count as a defense.
For those of you who enjoy the sport and skill displayed in bullfights: wouldn’t you still enjoy them if they could be conductecd humanely? Here’s an idea: change the tips of the matador’s weapons to brushes dipped in red paint, and give him a special lance that functions as a syringe, filled with an overdose of tranquilizers. He can display his skill to the audience by “painting” the bull, and when he is ready to bring the fight to an end, he can kill the bull relatively painlessly. The outriders could be armed with smaller doses of sedatives to use if the matador wants the bull weakened.
MILLER, your response to Jodi didn’t make sense. Surely you understand that one can approve of a particular practice (medical research using animals, eating animals) without approving of every aspect of the way that practice is carried out? And that one can approve of the use of animals for “entertainment,” (that is, food) so long as they are treated humanely,* without approving of torturing them for fun?
*I agree with you that current practices in factory farms and slaughterhouses are abominably cruel, and I think it follows from that fact that one should not support such practices. However, from what I hear it’s possible to find meat from humane sources.
** piaffe**, I applaud your attempt to find some way to appease those who simply * must* have their bullfighting, but your suggestion is quite ludicrous. You propose we should find skill and artistry in painting dots on a half blind stumbling drugged-out-of-its-goud bull? Ever done downers? The effect is not pretty on motor control. I’m sorry, but this is simply not an option, certainly not in comparison to the event as it exists now. It would be much like replacing tackle football with flag football because too many athletes get injured, or baseball with tee-ball because, godamnit, those pitchers whip the damn things in too fast.
Spider, I don’t see why it’s ludicrous. The effects of some tranquilizers on animals varies with the dosage; it’s possible to achieve anything from mild sedation to “stumbling-drugged-out-of-it’s-goud (gourd?)” to unconsciousness. Also, the only reason I can think of for why one wouldn’t be satisfied by being able to see where the matador would have stabbed the bull if he’d had a real spear, and watching his skill in aiming correctly, avoiding death, etc., is that part of the enjoyment is in seeing an animal actually hurt, with real blood and real pain. However, I had the impression that what most fans of bullfights enjoy watching is the skill and courage of the matador and that they see the pain and injury caused to the bull as just a necessary evil. If that impression is mistaken, and the real attraction is watching the slow painful agonizing death of another sentient creatrue, then I don’t see how bullfight fans are not on the same moral/ethical level as people who (for example) toss kittens into pens with starving dogs just for fun.