Jhaedee Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 No, they are not. If it is a choice between saving a person and an animal, I would choose the person every time, even if the animal had a much greater chance of surviving. I would wager that you would make the same choice, even though it is not a logical one if we use your reasoning. That is what I said. Pet owners, however, treat animals as property and keep them in captivity for their own enjoyment. To me this borders on animal abuse, although it's more of a gray area if it is a cat that is allowed to roam freely. Then it is more of a mutual relationship. No. Yes they are. Just because a person chooses to save a human over an animal does not mean that the life of the animal is worth less than that of the human. It simply indicates that the human feels a stronger attachment to a member of the same species. I think it also depends on the human, if it was a choice between lola and mary bale i'd choose lola. Again not because Mary Bale deserves to die but because now, because of her actions the cat she abused is more deserving of being saved. And pet owners don't really treat animals as property. Well, some do but the majority of people don't. They take care of the animals. Feed them. Provide them with shelter. Hell the animal in this instance, cats, are generally let out and come and go as they please to feed and sleep inside when it's cold. Fair play. Just wondered, only reason i asked is you're POV is typically a christian one :) Are you homosexual by any chance? :laugh: Are you hitting on me? :ermm: j/k dude lol, no i'm not. i understand why you presented that question but i did just clarify my reason for asking if hdood was a christian in my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Yes they are. Just because a person chooses to save a human over an animal does not mean that the life of the animal is worth less than that of the human. Yes it does. It means you consider the animal worth less. This is perfectly natural, because we are the same species and because you can sympathize better with a human. A human may also be worth more if you consider the consequence their loss has. It can be more severe, far-reaching and damaging than in the animal kingdom. And pet owners don't really treat animals as property. Well, some do but the majority of people don't. They take care of the animals. Feed them. Provide them with shelter. Yes, they do. They keep an animal in captivity for their own enjoyment. It is selfish in nature. Hell the animal in this instance, cats, are generally let out and come and go as they please to feed and sleep inside when it's cold. As I said. It's not necessarily that simple though, because a cat bred and raised in captivity is not the same as a wild cat. It's not truly free, and has not been allowed to develop unhindered and naturally. Just wondered, only reason i asked is you're POV is typically a christian one :) No, it's a rationalist POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crompee Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Yes they are. Just because a person chooses to save a human over an animal does not mean that the life of the animal is worth less than that of the human. It simply indicates that the human feels a stronger attachment to a member of the same species. I think it also depends on the human, if it was a choice between lola and mary bale i'd choose lola. Again not because Mary Bale deserves to die but because now, because of her actions the cat she abused is more deserving of being saved. Ive never really understood this point of view. An animals life is worth ALOT less than a human life and the vast majority of humans agree. Lets take this point, if its a choice between a pigs life or having a lovely bacon sandwich? which would you choose? We kill animals in massive numbers every day just to have more enjoyable food. At the end of the day, you cannot take that stance if your not a vegetarion otherwise you become a huge hypocrit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Although I disagree with what she did I think a lot of you are taking it way out of proportion. Too much pent up hate in some of you! :wacko: I think the present punishment fits the crime, she's going to get harrassed and everyone who watches the news will know what she did. She did something stupid and she's facing the consequences. That's life. I doubt she'll do it again in a hurry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phenom II Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Shall we put her in a large box for 15 hours, with no food or water, ensuring she cannot move much, and see how funny it is? Yes we should, its called a cell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick H. Supervisor Posted August 25, 2010 Supervisor Share Posted August 25, 2010 The one thing I will say towards the idea of "If you eat meat then you can't say that an animal's life is worth as much as a human's" is that we're forgetting the emotional attachment formed with household pets. If a friend of yours was in danger and my dog was as well, you'd go to help your friend without hesitation. I would have a very hard time trying to choose between someone that I consider part of my family and a stranger that you call a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhaedee Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Yes it does. It means you consider the animal worth less. This is perfectly natural, because we are the same species and because you can sympathize better with a human. A human may also be worth more if you consider the consequence their loss has. It can be more severe, far-reaching and damaging than in the animal kingdom. Yes, they do. They keep an animal in captivity for their own enjoyment. It is selfish in nature. As I said. It's not necessarily that simple though, because a cat bred and raised in captivity is not the same as a wild cat. It's not truly free, and has not been allowed to develop unhindered and naturally. No, it's a rationalist POV. Oh dear, this is going to take longer than i thought... Right, firstly you missed my point. The whole concept of 'worth' in your argument is flawed because your talking about the human concept. In NATURE every life is as valid as any other. Nothing natural tells us we are better than animals. We decided that. And it was backed up by various other human constructs (like the bible, hence the christian comment). As for the capitvity thing, i'm not sure about the specifics but would something in captivity not have to at some point have existed in the wild? I don't mean a species as a whole but more the animals people have as pets. E.g. If you have a pet cat i'm willing to bet it was born of another domesticated pet cat. Domestic life is all it's known. So surely in this instance it would be more selfish to cast it out and let if fend for itself. Yes, i know some people will take in feral animals but usually this is out of kindness i.e. the animal is injured and the person takes it in to nurse it back to health. More often than not if the animal is not happy with this situation it will just return to the wild ('run away'). It's not a rational POV, it's a supremacist pov. As soon as you deem yourself of 'more worth' than some other species or race based on the physical attributes of said species or race then you are on a slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phenom II Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The one thing I will say towards the idea of "If you eat meat then you can't say that an animal's life is worth as much as a human's" is that we're forgetting the emotional attachment formed with household pets. If a friend of yours was in danger and my dog was as well, you'd go to help your friend without hesitation. I would have a very hard time trying to choose between someone that I consider part of my family and a stranger that you call a friend. I would choose my dog Im afraid to say, if a friend and my dog were drowning say, I would rescue my dog first. Why, because my dog would be petrified, not knowing or understanding what was going on, or if I was going to help her, my friend, would see what I was doing and hold on for a few seconds more knowing I was coming next. Pets do not understand life. As for eating animals, I have views on that. I feel it is fine, so long as: 1. The animal is not self aware (ie. cows, chickens, etc) but I am learning more about pigs, and it turns out there are more self aware and intelligent than dogs so I feel I will stop eating bacon. 2. It is done humanely, quickly and completly stress and pain free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farstrider Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I have read the entire thread and there is one thing that I am missing, please set me straight if I have missed it someplace! The person who recorded the footage, why did he/she not go help the animal or at least inform some authority about what had happened??? They then are just as bad as the person who put the poor thing in the bin in the first place! :huh: :huh: :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phenom II Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I have read the entire thread and there is one thing that I am missing, please set me straight if I have missed it someplace! The person who recorded the footage, why did he/she not go help the animal or at least inform some authority about what had happened??? They then are just as bad as the person who put the poor thing in the bin in the first place! :huh: :huh: :huh: It was the owners CCTV and they only reviewed the footage after the cat had been missing for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 In NATURE every life is as valid as any other. Why? You could easily rate every being's importance to an ecosystem on a scale, and in nature that would presumably be the basis of how much something is worth. Nothing natural tells us we are better than animals. We decided that. Yes we did, and doing so is natural. It is natural to sympathize more with your own species, because you can relate to other members of it and because they are more relevant to your survival and happiness. You could also argue that we are worth more because we are so highly evolved, although that is obviously in conflict with how valuable we are to the ecosystem. I'm not exactly sure what better means, but our superior skills and intelligence would land us fairly high on a list of the species that have evolve the best. Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be. E.g. If you have a pet cat i'm willing to bet it was born of another domesticated pet cat. Domestic life is all it's known. So surely in this instance it would be more selfish to cast it out and let if fend for itself. That is correct. You can't undo the damage done by humans for their own selfish enjoyment. It's not a rational POV, it's a supremacist pov. As soon as you deem yourself of 'more worth' than some other species or race based on the physical attributes of said species or race then you are on a slippery slope. In what way is it a slippery slope? Supremacy and dominance is an integral part of nature. It's not a human construct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I just saw her on Sky News. What a stupid arrogant women! Very dismissive and kept referring to a press statement being issued as if that would answer all the questions. Just face the Camera's and say your god damn sorry! :crazy: She's just makingt things harder for herself acting like she is. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jhaedee Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 It's not a rational POV, it's a supremacist pov. As soon as you deem yourself of 'more worth' than some other species or race based on the physical attributes of said species or race then you are on a slippery slope. In what way is it a slippery slope? Supremacy and dominance is an integral part of nature. It's not a human construct. Oh dear... :no: Heil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Oh dear... :no: Heil? Hitler loved animals. It's humans he wasn't too fond of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richteralan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 It's not a rational POV, it's a supremacist pov. As soon as you deem yourself of 'more worth' than some other species or race based on the physical attributes of said species or race then you are on a slippery slope. it is exactly your attitude. you have empathy for the cat and you will save the cat. this is exactly you deem yourself superior to that lady, and anybody having a different opinion. do you donate to local animal hospital? do you help stray cats/dogs? do you help to educate people that getting a pet is a RESPONSIBILITY? there are tons of questions we should question ourselves before throw out things like "jail her!114365272486". yes the cat is poor, but let's not get carried away here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted August 25, 2010 Member Share Posted August 25, 2010 What she did was wrong and she should be punished. I'd say 30 hours of community service. Sending her to jail for this seems a bit extreme to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0sit0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Wow... she's messed up in the head. :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strelok1911 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I hope someone throws the bitch in the trash bin as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Marge Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I can't believe the saddos I've been reading about who are yelling for her to be put to death :blink: Poor cat, though why did it take them 15 hours to realise it was missing? Do they not feed it regularly or something? If our cats gone more 30 mins we always know and go looking for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCordRm Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I can't believe the saddos I've been reading about who are yelling for her to be put to death Poor cat, though why did it take them 15 hours to realise it was missing? Do they not feed it regularly or something? If our cats gone more 30 mins we always know and go looking for him. First response? Because you care about your pet. What she did was wrong and she should be punished. I'd say 30 hours of community service. Sending her to jail for this seems a bit extreme to me. Sometimes, I don't mind extremes. But in this, I mind the cost. Like I said earlier, putting her in jail just makes me fit the bill. Make her pay a damn fine and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 First response? Because you care about your pet. Sometimes, I don't mind extremes. But in this, I mind the cost. Like I said earlier, putting her in jail just makes me fit the bill. Make her pay a damn fine and be done with it. A fine and banned from keeping a pet of her own. Problem is, especially in the UK, we can be rather funny about mistreatment of pets. Stories like this often result in a lynch mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COKid Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Problem is, especially in the UK, we can be rather funny about mistreatment of pets. Stories like this often result in a lynch mob. Not in the USA. Here, they get multimillion dollar contracts to play American football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Not in the USA. Here, they get multimillion dollar contracts to play American football. Rugby for girly-men. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intersect Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Rugby for girly-men. :p lulz yeah and they seem to for get a Ball is suposed to be round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Animals are not worse than humans, and we should never treat one in any manner that we wouldn't consider treating another human. Not only do they have the same capacity to feel pain and terror, they also have lower intelligence which means they lack the capacity to understand what is happening to them which will make the terror even worse. There is absolutely no remit for this kind of shabby behaviour at all, it is truly disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts