#254849 - Wed Jan 26 2005 12:56 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Nov 12 2003
Posts: 2165
Loc: Nebraska USA
|
This is a very interesting thread. Now, I'm am not an animal rights activist. I am practical enough to recognize that animals, however I might love them individually and as a whole, can never have the same status as humans in a human-controlled society, nor do I think they should. However, I am an animal WELFARE activist, which some people might confuse with an animal rights activist, but which is quite different, really. I think animals should be treated decently, I don't think they should be fed at the table at supper time. Right.
Now then, US Dept of Justice statistics prove every year that an unreasonable percentage of people (men AND women) in jail for violent crimes had a history of cruelty to animals. I'm not sure I've seen stats going the other direction, ie how many people with a history of cruelty to animals go on to commit a violent crime, but I'm not inclined to give a person guilty of animal cruelty the benefit of the doubt. I think a huge majority of serial killers have had history of other types of cruelty, but the stats include all types of violent crimes, from rape to robbery at gunpoint, assault and murder, etc.
Much talk can be made of the "society is to blame" argument, and of course there is merit there. Being abused as a child often leads to being an abuser as an adult, and I could write books about what I think MY current government leaders are doing wrong in that arena, as far as useful programs being cut, etc. But in reality, a LOT of kids who are cruel to animals have perfectly fine home lives and so who is to blame then? Sure society can be blamed to an extent for not protecting a child from abuse and then expecting that child to grow up healthy and productive, but let's not remove the blame from the parent who abuses them, and surely society and the parent do not shoulder 100% of the blame when that child DOES go out and commit a violent act. Even kids with bad lives should be held accountable.
And the drowning man question, responses to which I've found both ammusing and enlightening: I'm of that group of people who consider our pets as family members. While I do not think I love my ferret and my daughter equally, I really don't know how to quantify either, so that is a moot point. The fact remains I love my ferret dearly and wouldn't hesitate to put my ferret's life above my own were it in danger, and I'd certainly put his life above the lives of many other people who's backgrounds are known. (If my ferret were drowning and a recently released murderer were drowning next to him, I'd have to save Samurai, regardless of his species. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I gotta tell you, the life of a member of my family, with or without fur, is a heck of a lot more important to me than that of a murderer. If it wasn't too late, I'd go back in for the guy, but I have my priorities.) I will have to say, if it were a stranger drowning, I, like Gatsby, would intend to save both, and would do so in whatever order was most appropriate to my mind at the time. I have no idea what that would be. But this idea of either A) holding my pet's life above any random human life or B) holding any random human's life above that of my pet's simply by virtue of species, well, both seem pretty odd to me.
And no, not all dogs swim. Scottish Terriers, for instance, have been known to drown in very little water. Because of the purpose for which they were bred, the swim instinct is all but gone, and their legs are too short to handle their weight and solid build. My own Scottie, Meaghan, (much beloved, rest her little doggie soul) literally could not swim to save her life. She was rescued from our backyard pool twice after having fallen in chasing a squirrel. Now that I think about it, if little Meaghsie were drowning next to some guy I didn't know, I'd probably save Meaghan first as much for emotional as for logistical reasons.
Edited by Lothruin (Wed Jan 26 2005 12:57 PM)
_________________________
Goodbye Ruth & Betty, my beautiful grandmothers.
Betty Kuzara 1921 - April 5, 2008
Ruth Kellison 1925 - Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254850 - Wed Jan 26 2005 08:30 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Mainstay
Registered: Sat Mar 03 2001
Posts: 571
Loc: Sykesville
Maryland USA
|
My dog and I are very close.
So I went downstairs and asked him if he had to choose between saving me from drowning or saving a Scottish Terrier which would he choose? .......
He thought it over a while ...... farted ...... and went back to sleep.
( Please no offense to anyone. Just trying to add some levity. I know how touchy cyber folks are. I love animals and respect some humans and I respect all the respondents in this thread. Animal cruelty is an issue which touches me more deeply than any other. As with many issues that seem to have no solution I don't see any for this. Cruelty has been around since the dawn of man and will always be. Punishment for it may make us feel better, but won't put an end to it. I can't imagine the mentality of people that would do such a thing, but I never could. Intentional cruelty is a thought process that eludes my sensibilities, and all I can do is wonder about it.)
_________________________
Gravity, not just a good idea....It's the law!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254851 - Wed Jan 26 2005 09:25 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Forum Champion
Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
|
Quote:
Let's change that slightly DN, YOU are drowning and also a non-swimming dog, which should a someone who is walking by save, should they save you or should they save the dog?
With my last gulp of breath I'd yell "Save the dog!".
Why you ask? Dogs can't talk; dogs have fur. Chances are his fur is becoming water-logged, making it more difficult to keep his head above water. While I on the other hand can yell, and I do not have fur that can water-log me, and if I had clothes on that could weigh me down, I could always remove them so that my chances of keeping my head above water is greater than the dog's.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254852 - Wed Jan 26 2005 09:43 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Pure Diamond
Registered: Fri May 18 2001
Posts: 123698
Loc: Canton
Ohio USA
|
Are we talking about your chance or the drowning dog's chance? With my dying breath, given all that, I'd say "Save us both!". But you have an extraordinary care in your gut for animals, Dakota. I think that's terrific. I won't drown instead of a dog (or hamster or rabbit or duck or even a moose). That's all I know.
_________________________
"The best teacher is not the one who knows most but the one who is most capable of reducing knowledge to that simple compound of the obvious and wonderful." ... H. L. Mencken
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254853 - Thu Jan 27 2005 04:04 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
Cats are certainly suffering quite a bit in Australia at this time. I read today of another attack that left two cats dead and strung up on a barbed wire fence.
The following is from here.
Quote:
YOUNG men considered it un-manly and un-Australian to like cats, and even experienced the same frustrations with them as they did with women, RSPCA chief Dr Hugh Wirth said yesterday.
His comments followed three attacks on kittens in Sydney and Melbourne which left one animal fighting for its life and two needing treatment for serious injuries.
Dr Wirth said the viciousness of the assaults, and the fact they were allegedly perpetrated by young men, was evidence of the widespread "detestation of cats" by Australian males.
"They believe it is un-manly and un-Australian for them to be liking cats, and this is worse in the country than it is in the city, but it's bad enough in the city," Dr Wirth said.
"They see [the cat] as a feminine thing they cannot control. They're quite happy with dogs but they can't boss cats around and there are parallels with attitudes to women."
Dr Wirth said the phenomenon of males harming cats was largely confined to Australia.
"You find, in Europe and England, that cats are actually in the majority in those countries," he said.
"This is an Australian issue, and while we allow boys to be reared with this stupidity, then you're going to find cruelty is going to continue."
Lionel Davis from the Australian College of Applied Psychology denied it was possible to draw comparisons between an abuser's attitude towards animals and people.
"To say abusing cats or animals is somehow similar to abusing women -- I don't understand the connection that [Dr Wirth] is trying to make there," he said.
"Trying to come to some sort of conclusion about similar psychological processes underlying abuse of women and cruelty to cats is just a ridiculous notion."
Although it had been well-documented that some criminals who had abused animals at a young age had later graduated to more serious crimes, one violent act did not necessarily follow another, Mr Davis said.
"Just because a child is cruel to an animal, it doesn't necessarily mean that that child is going to grow up to be a serial killer," he said.
But Lynda O'Grady from the NSW Cat Protection Society said there was little doubt cats were often subjected to acts of extreme cruelty and violence at the hands of male offenders.
Edited by damnsuicidalroos (Thu Jan 27 2005 04:06 AM)
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254854 - Thu Jan 27 2005 07:26 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Enthusiast
Registered: Sat Jul 19 2003
Posts: 246
Loc: Brisbane QLD Australia
|
Our cat Pouncer has just come in out of the rain soaking wet, and jumped straight onto my lap. I'll kill him!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254855 - Thu Jan 27 2005 11:43 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Tue Dec 28 2004
Posts: 2813
Loc: Hertfordshire<br>England UK
|
Quote:
With my last gulp of breath I'd yell "Save the dog!".
Why you ask? Dogs can't talk; dogs have fur. Chances are his fur is becoming water-logged, making it more difficult to keep his head above water. While I on the other hand can yell, and I do not have fur that can water-log me, and if I had clothes on that could weigh me down, I could always remove them so that my chances of keeping my head above water is greater than the dog's.
It's all hypothetical anyway, as such a situation is highly unlikely to occur, and even if it did, your reaction at the time may be quite different if you realised the dog is probably in a lot less danger than yourself. In fact both fur and clothes have negative buoyancy, and would not cause you or the dog to sink any faster than if they weren't there. They may inhibit swimming, but this is only relevant if swimming to safety is an option. Clothes and fur would both act like a wetsuit and prevent cold ingress to the body. A regular question in sailing exams is 'should a person who falls overboard remove their sailing boots (wellies)?'. The correct answer is 'no' even if they fill with water!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254856 - Fri Jan 28 2005 11:36 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Prolific
Registered: Mon Jun 03 2002
Posts: 1037
Loc: Hobart Tasmania Australia
|
Quote:
Just wanted to let you know that I am NOT a vegetarian...I DO eat meat (cows, pigs, turkeys, and chickens). However, the meat I eat comes from domesticated animals raised for food. I will NEVER eat venison or any other wild meat.
I actually take the opposite point of view as you though my view is based on conditions in Australia.
I think it would be much better for the environment if Australians ate more wild meat (especially roo meat). This is because of the damage cattle and sheep do to the environment in Australia.
My husband and I eat mainly eat mainly fish but also some roo meat. I don't mind eating Tasmanian beef and lamb because the Tasmanian environment is more suitable for raising cattle than mainland Australia is.
However I should get back to cruelty towards cats. There was a case here several years ago (more than 5 years ago because that is the time we were away from Tasmania) where two teenagers men aged about 16 or 17 set a cat on fire and were given a good behaviour bond. One of those boys grandfather had been an very dedicated RSPCA inspector and I am sure the grandfather would have told him about animal welfare. I am not sure how the grandfather reacted to what his grandson did but I am sure he would have been angry and very disappointed.
Personally I think the boys should have got a custodial sentence.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254857 - Sat Jan 29 2005 12:15 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Forum Champion
Registered: Tue Jul 10 2001
Posts: 6168
Loc: Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
|
Quote:
However I should get back to cruelty towards cats. There was a case here several years ago (more than 5 years ago because that is the time we were away from Tasmania) where two teenagers men aged about 16 or 17 set a cat on fire and were given a good behaviour bond. One of those boys grandfather had been an very dedicated RSPCA inspector and I am sure the grandfather would have told him about animal welfare. I am not sure how the grandfather reacted to what his grandson did but I am sure he would have been angry and very disappointed.
Back in 1996, in a suburb of Philadelphia, three men in their 20's were arrested on felony animal cruelty charges.
The story came out that a lady who owned a 5 year-old Dalmatian named Duke was going to be moving in a few months and couldn't take her dog with her. She needed to find Duke a good and loving home. At a party (I think it was a graduation party), she met one of the three young men who told her that he wanted a dog and would take really good care of Duke, and told her she could come visit. The lady agreed and the next day brought Duke over to the young man's home.
The next day, the lady, feeling that something wasn't right went to the young man's home to see if Duke was okay, and she was told by the young man that he didn't have Duke anymore. The lady went to the police and this is what they discovered:
The young man and his two friends had a pitbull named Dixie. The three young men were into fighting pitbulls and needed live bait for Dixie. Duke the Dalmatian was tied to a tree and Dixie was allowed to go "at" him. When Dixie failed to kill Duke, the three young men cut Duke's ears and tail off, and when that failed to kill him, they slit his belly open. When that failed to kill Duke, they smashed his head in with a cinderblock.
The case of Duke the Dalmatian was all over the news. Animal lovers, along with their animals, held vigils and marches outside the courthouse.
The three young men were found guilty of felony animal cruelty and were sentenced to 3 months in jail.
The case of Duke the Dalmatian made people pause, and wonder why the men were only sentenced to 3 months in jail for a crime like that.
_________________________
“In a world where you can be anything, be yourself.”
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254858 - Sat Jan 29 2005 04:47 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Enthusiast
Registered: Sat Jul 19 2003
Posts: 246
Loc: Brisbane QLD Australia
|
Dakota, I feel very sad having read your post. Funnily enough, that sadness is directed mainly toward the three young men who perpetrated this outrage. They and others who commit such acts are so lacking in basic human decency, one wonders how they can fulfil any kind of worthwhile role in society. Perhaps a twelve month stint working with those who tend injured animals would help rehabilitate them. If nothing else, such a step MIGHT alert them to the fact that animals do form an important part of our lives, and must be treated accordingly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254859 - Sat Jan 29 2005 05:23 AM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
Quote:
Perhaps a twelve month stint working with those who tend injured animals would help rehabilitate them.
And if it doesn`t rehabilitate them they should have any sickness whipped out of them. Flog them till they are broken and more malleable to the rules of the societies in which they live. Beat the lesson so far into them that they would never dare to act in such a manner again.
It may not prevent the average sicko from committing their violent acts because of some sickness before being caught but I bet it would halt them being brought up before the courts for similar offences.
Hurt them so deeply that instead of becoming innured to pain and holding a grudge against society they are simply terrified of breaking any law again.
Quote:
A national approach to stamping out animal cruelty was called for by the country's peak veterinary body.
The call comes following a number of callous attacks on animals in several states.
The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) welcomed the establishment of an Animal Cruelty Taskforce by the NSW state government, but implored the Federal Government to do more.
"While we support this initiative and offer our assistance to the NSW Government, we believe these issues are not confined to one state as can be seen from the recent incidents of sadistic animal abuse in several states," said AVA National President Dr Matt Makin.
"Animal abuse is a national issue that occurs in all states and territories and the issue needs state-wide cooperation to be effective.
Dr Makin said a holistic approach to the problem was necessary.
"Increasing penalties is only part of the answer. The problem must be tackled consistently on several fronts, including increased community awareness, childhood education programs, improved reporting mechanisms with effective follow-up and better liaison between stakeholders," he said.
Following a brutal attack in Sydney on a kitten by three teenagers two weeks ago there have been a string of callous copy-cat attacks reported.
From here.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#254860 - Sat Jan 29 2005 02:48 PM
Re: animal cruelty
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Nov 12 2003
Posts: 2165
Loc: Nebraska USA
|
I take a similar viewpoint to Kuu. I'm not a vegetarian. I eat both domestic and wild meat. I live in an agricultural hub, one of the largest corn, beef and hog farming states in the US. (Production-wise, not geography-wise.) My state also has multitudes of deer, pheasant, fish (albeit introduced fish...), turkey and all sorts of other game. I have seen the conditions under which many domestic species are farmed, killed, packaged, etc., and I have seen a wild animal shot.
Under those circumstances, I honestly cannot understand why anyone would rather eat the domestic animal, citing animal welfare as the reason. Yes, domestic species are bred for food, but surely you can't think that means they deserve or don't notice the horrible conditions under which they live their lives. Cows aren't smart, but they understand walking in their own waste day in and day out and getting little to no excersize, and then being blugeoned to death.
Deer aren't a whole lot smarter, but they get to live free, to taste fresh food, to run and play... Perhaps I'm anthropomorphizing too much, but still. The fact remains, the life of a wild game animal is likely far superior to that of a domestic meat animal, and while I feel there is actually an element of ending the suffering by eating domestic meat, I feel no remorse in enjoying my venison sausage knowing the animal who died to feed me lived a wild and free life. I feel far more guilty (in so far as I feel guilty, which is not so much, really. Living in the state I do, I avail myself of all the data I can and make informed consumer choices on where and from whom to buy my domestic meats) eating domestic meat, knowing to what I am contributing: An industry which owns a product, not an animal, cares not what conditions in which the animal lives unless those conditions are likely to damage the end-product, cares nothing for what conditions in which the animal dies, provided it happens eventually... The domestic meat industry in the US is cruel. Far more cruel than any hunting man I've ever known, and I've got considerable experience with both.
As I said above, I'm an animal welfare activist. I believe animals should be treated decently, and perhaps I even believe they have the RIGHT to be treated decently, but I also believe it is we humans' OBLIGATION to treat them decently, to connect with them on a biological level which cannot be denied, to empathize with their pain, if not so far that we deny our omnivorous nature, then at least such that we do our best to limit their pain, grieve their loss, thank them for their contribution to our own lives and never take for granted that without them we are doomed.
Humans are animals. I may be species-centric, thinking my own species superior to others, but I acknowledge I AM an animal. Seeing the way humans treat other humans, I am never surprised to see the way humans treat other species. I do believe cruelty, no matter at whom it is aimed, is to some extent a physiological issue (and I think research bears that up) and since I DO believe the species barrier is so very thin, I honestly think that any human capable of being cruel to another species is equally capable of being cruel to a human, and I don't really want them around. Animal cruelty laws should begin identifying more the biological links rather than subscribing to the old ideas of humans being intended to rule over the animals, thereby relegating animals to that lowly status that allows such cruel, and in my opinion, horrible people to get away with these crimes.
_________________________
Goodbye Ruth & Betty, my beautiful grandmothers.
Betty Kuzara 1921 - April 5, 2008
Ruth Kellison 1925 - Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index