Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

1) There are other past-times than murder. This forum is dedicated to one of them. If a person must cause death or inflict pain to stop himself from going insane, he's already past the point of no return. There's term for people like that. It's "Serial Killer." In fact, one of the signs of sociopathic tendencies, to the point where it's a cliche in every bit of Serial Killer fiction, is animal torture and death.

You can't murder a non-human animal: please do not try to anthropomorphise them while simultaneously attempting to dehumanize people.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

2) I don't think killing a kitten for some one's fetish is a viable career choice. If it were, you'd find a lot more of it.

Doing a thing for money is not the same thing as building a career.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

3) Read the links above. Our ancestors subsisted on vegetables, and it did not provide the necessary amount a protein to do anything decent. These alternative sources are insufficient.

Primitive primates did not have access to modern agriculture, animal husbandry*, and several complete protein crops; however modern humans do have access to those things.


*Which produces eggs, cheese, and whey protein.

Who let PETA on here?

-After revising the laws for murder, it turns out I missed the clause that the victim must be a human for it to count. As such, change murder to killing. Still the same idea.

-There are still other ways of getting money than killing kittens just so someone can get his jollies off.

-That is true. Meat is still a better source of protein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Who let PETA on here?

PETA would not be an applicable term. They are actually quite cruel towards animals.

But yes, this does seem to have gone OT.

Heh, off topic in the off topic forum. Inception?

Asia is a really weird place.

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The online mob also tracked down a piece of shiz who threw a dog off a bridge in Lithuania as well, so whilst it's potentially a dangerous thing, on these sorts of occasion, I have zero problem with them identifying and persecuting scum.

Mob justice, the best kind of justice.

To be clear, I'm a little bit disgusted by the fact that people will endorse the ruination of a human life because that human killed a non-human animal.

I'm not and we disagree.

dogma wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So animals are worthless then? I find it disgusting that animals are killed off or harmed just to give the bloke an ego boost.

No, but animal lives are worth less than human lives.

We also disagree on this. The wife and I share our house with a three-legged mainec00n cat that I hold a good deal of affection for and would certainly kill another human if that human posed a threat to that cat. I would, if the threat of legal ramification were removed, have no issue with killing either the woman who killed that kitten or the guy who dropped the dog from the bridge, if it meant saving either animal from these acts of cruelty.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The online mob also tracked down a piece of shiz who threw a dog off a bridge in Lithuania as well, so whilst it's potentially a dangerous thing, on these sorts of occasion, I have zero problem with them identifying and persecuting scum.

Mob justice, the best kind of justice.

To be clear, I'm a little bit disgusted by the fact that people will endorse the ruination of a human life because that human killed a non-human animal.

I'm not and we disagree.

dogma wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So animals are worthless then? I find it disgusting that animals are killed off or harmed just to give the bloke an ego boost.

No, but animal lives are worth less than human lives.

We also disagree on this. The wife and I share our house with a three-legged mainec00n cat that I hold a good deal of affection for and would certainly kill another human if that human posed a threat to that cat. I would, if the threat of legal ramification were removed, have no issue with killing either the woman who killed that kitten or the guy who dropped the dog from the bridge, if it meant saving either animal from these acts of cruelty.

That's.....well I can't say what that is without breaking the first rule.

Out of interest, do you support animal rights terrorists who advocate murdering scientists that perform medical trials on animal subjects?

 dogma wrote:

No, but animal lives are worth less than human lives.

Well, that's what we say, but in actual practice, I've spent more in time, money, and emotion, on my dog than I have really on any number of other human beings combined in the last 5-6 years.

I mean, let's be honest, the vast majority of people in the world endorse the killing of animals for consumption despite the fact that we can subsist on vegan diets. The reason for this is mere preference, not especially distinct from an "ego boost".

I'm going to handwave that away by claiming there is a difference between having someone else kill an animal for you to use its body as nourishment/clothing and wantonly murdering something without need or use. There is no product generated by the kitten killer other than a dead kitten, no purpose fulfilled from its death.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The online mob also tracked down a piece of shiz who threw a dog off a bridge in Lithuania as well, so whilst it's potentially a dangerous thing, on these sorts of occasion, I have zero problem with them identifying and persecuting scum.

Mob justice, the best kind of justice.

To be clear, I'm a little bit disgusted by the fact that people will endorse the ruination of a human life because that human killed a non-human animal.

I'm not and we disagree.

dogma wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

So animals are worthless then? I find it disgusting that animals are killed off or harmed just to give the bloke an ego boost.

No, but animal lives are worth less than human lives.

We also disagree on this. The wife and I share our house with a three-legged mainec00n cat that I hold a good deal of affection for and would certainly kill another human if that human posed a threat to that cat. I would, if the threat of legal ramification were removed, have no issue with killing either the woman who killed that kitten or the guy who dropped the dog from the bridge, if it meant saving either animal from these acts of cruelty.

That's.....well I can't say what that is without breaking the first rule.

Out of interest, do you support animal rights terrorists who advocate murdering scientists that perform medical trials on animal subjects?

No, I've hunted and fished and taken a lot of lives to provide tasty food for a very long time.

But I have zero tolerance for those who inflict needless cruelty and suffering, and our pets are dear to us. Certainly part of the family and certainly worth defending as such.

 dogma wrote:
No, but animal lives are worth less than human lives.

Depends on the animal and the human, really. Bagging the homeless elderly in OP's story probably won't get you paid more than bagging a gorilla's hands. In the same way, you'll probably get less money for all the snow tiger pelts in the world than for the Queen's head.

I mean, depending on the country, a kitten can be sold up to a few thousand dollars, depending on the breed. You'll have a real hard time trying to get a few thousand dollars for an elderly hobo. I mean, selling or killing hobos for monetary profit is far from the worse thing human beings have ever done. I'm a bit disgusted by anyone who would prefer to kill a kitten rather than a homeless person, really.

SeewhatIdidthere?.jpg

OP wrote:One of the first notorious cases involved the search for a woman who starred in an anonymous video using the high heel of her stiletto to crush a kitten's skull.

I remember few moments that fueled my hatred of humanity as much as this one. I'm quite happy there was at least some karmic pay-back involved. Fluffy kitten, your soul may rest in peace.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest, do you support animal rights terrorists who advocate murdering scientists that perform medical trials on animal subjects?

There's a huge difference between medical trials that cause suffering as an unfortunate price of getting the necessary information to save people in the future and sadistic s killing animals just for the fun of killing them. One group is working for the good of the world as a whole, the other would best contribute to the world by violently removing themselves from it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest, do you support animal rights terrorists who advocate murdering scientists that perform medical trials on animal subjects?

There's a huge difference between medical trials that cause suffering as an unfortunate price of getting the necessary information to save people in the future and sadistic s killing animals just for the fun of killing them. One group is working for the good of the world as a whole, the other would best contribute to the world by violently removing themselves from it.

Ditto.

/signed carnivore

 daedalus wrote:

Well, that's what we say, but in actual practice, I've spent more in time, money, and emotion, on my dog than I have really on any number of other human beings combined in the last 5-6 years.

I would argue that spending money on a pet is essentially spending money on yourself. It is akin to any other expenditure on entertainment.

 daedalus wrote:

I'm going to handwave that away by claiming there is a difference between having someone else kill an animal for you to use its body as nourishment/clothing and wantonly murdering something without need or use. There is no product generated by the kitten killer other than a dead kitten, no purpose fulfilled from its death.

Well, no, the product is a crush film and the purpose in its death is the entertainment of human beings which, as I've said, isn't all that different from killing animals simply because you happen to prefer meat over non-meat protein sources.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

No, I've hunted and fished and taken a lot of lives to provide tasty food for a very long time.

Not catch and release, I hope.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But I have zero tolerance for those who inflict needless cruelty and suffering, and our pets are dear to us. Certainly part of the family and certainly worth defending as such.

If you had to choose between your cat and your wife, I highly doubt you would choose your cat. I also hope you wouldn't put yourself in legal jeopardy over a threat to your cat, as the associated consequences would not bode well for either your or your wife.

 dogma wrote:
Well, no, the product is a crush film and the purpose in its death is the entertainment of human beings which, as I've said, isn't all that different from killing animals simply because you happen to prefer meat over non-meat protein sources.

Entertainment of human beings who, as s who get pleasure from the sadistic killing of pets, would also do a great service to humanity by violently removing themselves from it.

And I really don't see why you have such a hard time understanding the difference between hurting/killing an animal as a means to an end (food/medical research/etc) and hurting/killing an animal for the sole purpose of enjoying its pain/death.

If you had to choose between your cat and your wife, I highly doubt you would choose your cat.

But why are you proposing this choice at all? Valuing a pet highly doesn't mean that you can't value other things even more. In the choice between my pet and my wife/child/whatever I'm obviously going to choose the human member of my family, but in a choice between my pet and some random person who wants to hurt or kill my pet, well, that's what "stand your ground" laws are for. And I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about that choice.

 dogma wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Well, that's what we say, but in actual practice, I've spent more in time, money, and emotion, on my dog than I have really on any number of other human beings combined in the last 5-6 years.

I would argue that spending money on a pet is essentially spending money on yourself. It is akin to any other expenditure on entertainment.

Is spending money on children different?

 daedalus wrote:

I'm going to handwave that away by claiming there is a difference between having someone else kill an animal for you to use its body as nourishment/clothing and wantonly murdering something without need or use. There is no product generated by the kitten killer other than a dead kitten, no purpose fulfilled from its death.

Well, no, the product is a crush film and the purpose in its death is the entertainment of human beings which, as I've said, isn't all that different from killing animals simply because you happen to prefer meat over non-meat protein sources.

Semi-related question: Are there any actions that we as humans can take that do not fall into that same category? If there are, where do you use the narrow surgical instrument to separate them?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

If you had to choose between your cat and your wife, I highly doubt you would choose your cat. I also hope you wouldn't put yourself in legal jeopardy over a threat to your cat, as the associated consequences would not bode well for either your or your wife.

That's kind of a false dichotomy, but the wife is a logical choice, looking toward the long term, even if you're more fond of the cat. The cat can only provide so much for you, compared with the capabilities of the wife, and the cat's lifetime will not be as great as your wife's, though I might say that if you're being forced into a situation where you must choose between your cat and your wife, you've picked one or the other badly.

 Peregrine wrote:

And I really don't see why you have such a hard time understanding the difference between hurting/killing an animal as a means to an end (food/medical research/etc) and hurting/killing an animal for the sole purpose of enjoying its pain/death.

There is no way around killing or injuring animals in research, but there is a way around doing the same in food production. However, animals are tasty, so we happily kill them (often in inhumane ways) for no other reason than to make ourselves happy.

 Peregrine wrote:

But why are you proposing this choice at all?

Because MGS said his cat was part of his family, and he would defend it as such.

 Peregrine wrote:

In the choice between my pet and my wife/child/whatever I'm obviously going to choose the human member of my family, but in a choice between my pet and some random person who wants to hurt or kill my pet, well, that's what "stand your ground" laws are for. And I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty about that choice.

Behaving that way puts you at legal risk which jeopardizes not only you, but the people who depend on you for financial and personal support. As such, it seems unwise to respond to an attack on your property (the pet) as you would respond to an attack on your family member. Indeed, I highly doubt anyone believes that what constitutes justifiable force in the defense of property is equivalent to that used in the defense of a person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

Is spending money on children different?

Yes, because they are human and therefore have rights and privileges not accorded to non-human animals.

 daedalus wrote:

Semi-related question: Are there any actions that we as humans can take that do not fall into that same category? If there are, where do you use the narrow surgical instrument to separate them?

Sure, you could subsist on a vegetarian or vegan diet while being justifiably angry at people that kill/injure animals, and be without fear of holding any sort of related, hypocritical beliefs.

 daedalus wrote:

That's kind of a false dichotomy, but the wife is a logical choice, looking toward the long term, even if you're more fond of the cat. The cat can only provide so much for you, compared with the capabilities of the wife, and the cat's lifetime will not be as great as your wife's, though I might say that if you're being forced into a situation where you must choose between your cat and your wife, you've picked one or the other badly.

No, its a forced choice intended to illustrate the distinction between family and property.

This guy spit at somebody, he didn't crush any heads.

Internet vigilantism is bad times.

 dogma wrote:
There is no way around killing or injuring animals in research, but there is a way around doing the same in food production. However, animals are tasty, so we happily kill them (often in inhumane ways) for no other reason than to make ourselves happy.

You didn't answer the question: why don't you understand the difference between killing something as a means to an end and killing something for the sole purpose of enjoying its death?

Because MGS said his cat was part of his family, and he would defend it as such.

But your question doesn't make any sense in that context. Being willing to defend a cat as part of his family does not have anything to do with whether he'd choose his wife or the cat if he could only save one. You can ask the same "if there was a fire and you could only save one" question about a person's two children, but the fact that you could force them to choose one doesn't have anything to do with whether they're both part of the family.

As such, it seems unwise to respond to an attack on your property (the pet) as you would respond to an attack on your family member.

That's a practical legal concern, not a moral one. Legally yes, depending on the jurisdiction*, I might be forced to refrain from stopping the attack on my pet because it's not worth spending the rest of my life in prison, but that's no different than a hypothetical scenario where you have to watch and let a person die because I'm going to shoot you if you try to stop the murder.

*This issue doesn't exist in a "stand your ground" state, since anyone who is attempting to hurt/kill my pet is an immediate threat to me as well and therefore I'm free to shoot them.

Indeed, I highly doubt anyone believes that what constitutes justifiable force in the defense of property is equivalent to that used in the defense of a person.

Depends on the property and the person offering their opinion. I've seen quite a few people claim that it's justified to kill someone in defense of property (for example, shooting them as they're trying to steal your car). And, while I don't think that lethal force in defense of inanimate property that is easily replaced would be justified, I wouldn't feel one bit of guilt about shooting someone in defense of my pet.

Sure, you could subsist on a vegetarian or vegan diet while being justifiably angry at people that kill/injure animals, and be without fear of holding any sort of related, hypocritical beliefs.

You do realize that farming kills animals, right?

No, its a forced choice intended to illustrate the distinction between family and property.

Except it doesn't do that. It just demonstrates that if you create a scenario for the sole purpose of forcing a choice between one family member or the other you can get someone to admit to having different values for different family members (for example, sacrificing their own life to save their child).

 dogma wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Semi-related question: Are there any actions that we as humans can take that do not fall into that same category? If there are, where do you use the narrow surgical instrument to separate them?

Sure, you could subsist on a vegetarian or vegan diet while being justifiably angry at people that kill/injure animals, and be without fear of holding any sort of related, hypocritical beliefs.

But we're not talking hypocrisy here, at least, I'm not. I'm asking if there are any sort of actions that one can take, as a human being, that DO NOT fall into your category of "ego boost"/entertainment. The term I'm going to use for this set of behaviors is "in order to feel 'good'" behaviors. Would you agree with that label as appropriate?

 Peregrine wrote:

You didn't answer the question: why don't you understand the difference between killing something as a means to an end and killing something for the sole purpose of enjoying its death?

Your question is irrelevant.

My argument is that killing something for the sole purpose of enjoying its death is killing something as a means to an end (the end being enjoying its death), and that doing so is not morally distinct from supporting the meat industry because there are alternatives to eating meat. As such I find it unnerving that people are willing to endorse the ruination of another person's life due to killing/injuring a non-human animal despite the fact that most of us support such behavior.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's a practical legal concern, not a moral one. Legally yes, depending on the jurisdiction*, I might be forced to refrain from stopping the attack on my pet because it's not worth spending the rest of my life in prison, but that's no different than a hypothetical scenario where you have to watch and let a person die because I'm going to shoot you if you try to stop the murder.

It is first and foremost a legal issue, but it becomes a moral one when you consider the harm your actions might cause to others who depend on you personally and financially. This goes beyond children and spouses, and extends to parents, aunts, uncles, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

*This issue doesn't exist in a "stand your ground" state, since anyone who is attempting to hurt/kill my pet is an immediate threat to me as well and therefore I'm free to shoot them.

That's not how stand your ground works. Generally speaking an individual is not authorized to use deadly force in defense of property that is not his home.

 Peregrine wrote:

You do realize that farming kills animals, right?

Yep, but those injuries/deaths are actually necessary consequences of the need for human beings to eat.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except it doesn't do that. It just demonstrates that if you create a scenario for the sole purpose of forcing a choice between one family member or the other you can get someone to admit to having different values for different family members (for example, sacrificing their own life to save their child).

You're correct, though I still believe considering a non-human animal to be "family" is weird. A highly valued pet (piece of property), sure, but not family.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

But we're not talking hypocrisy here, at least, I'm not. I'm asking if there are any sort of actions that one can take, as a human being, that DO NOT fall into your category of "ego boost"/entertainment. The term I'm going to use for this set of behaviors is "in order to feel 'good'" behaviors. Would you agree with that label as appropriate?

Yeah, sure, and you clarified your point well.

No, there are no human behaviors that do not fall into that category, but there are some that do so exclusively. Behaviors which are merely "in order to feel 'good'" behaviors, like producing/supporting "crunch" films, throwing dogs off bridges, and supporting the meat industry.

 dogma wrote:
My argument is that killing something for the sole purpose of enjoying its death is killing something as a means to an end (the end being enjoying its death), and that doing so is not morally distinct from supporting the meat industry because there are alternatives to eating meat. As such I find it unnerving that people are willing to endorse the ruination of another person's life due to killing/injuring a non-human animal despite the fact that most of us support such behavior.

And that argument is based on the ridiculous assumption that enjoying the suffering and death of an innocent animal for no purpose other than making it suffer/die is a morally acceptable desire. Intent matters, a person who eats meat would probably be perfectly happy if there was a magic suffering-free way to get that meat, while a person who enjoys torturing kittens just to hear them scream considers the suffering and death the primary goal. It's just like how it works in other situations: kill civilians as an unfortunate side effect of bombing an enemy factory and it's a legitimate act of war, kill civilians because you think that murdering them is fun and you're executed for war crimes.

It is first and foremost a legal issue, but it becomes a moral one when you consider the harm your actions might cause to others who depend on you personally and financially. This goes beyond children and spouses, and extends to parents, aunts, uncles, etc.

No, you're still talking about the legal issues. The fact that society sometimes punishes lethal force in defense of a pet is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally justified to use lethal force in defense of a pet.

That's not how stand your ground works. Generally speaking an individual is not authorized to use deadly force in defense of property that is not his home.

In theory. In practice if I encounter someone torturing my pet and shoot them "because I thought they were reaching for a gun" it's going to be a pretty easy case of self defense.

Yep, but those injuries/deaths are actually necessary consequences of the need for human beings to eat.

But that's not the point. As a vegetarian you're still responsible for the deaths of animals so that you can eat. Like killing animals to eat their meat you're choosing to accept those deaths as a means to an end. That's entirely different from someone who values the injuries/deaths for their own sake.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The online mob also tracked down a piece of shiz who threw a dog off a bridge in Lithuania as well, so whilst it's potentially a dangerous thing, on these sorts of occasion, I have zero problem with them identifying and persecuting scum.

When I read this article I actually thought of this case. Here is the issue, when the dog tosser was outed, they (4chan?) made public the personal information of multiple possible suspects. Only one of them was guilty.

More recently a college girl had sex in public then turned around and claimed it was rape the next day. The internet mob outed the girl, except the personal information they posted was the WRONG girl.

So more on topic, supporters of mob justice, is it ok to ruin the lives of innocent people as long as you get the criminal? How much collateral damage is acceptable?

I will be the first to admit the legal system has problems, but due process and innocent until proven guilty exist for a reason. The internet mobs get whipped into a frenzy pretty easily and I personally think more harm than good comes from it every time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Out of interest, do you support animal rights terrorists who advocate murdering scientists that perform medical trials on animal subjects?

There's a huge difference between medical trials that cause suffering as an unfortunate price of getting the necessary information to save people in the future and sadistic s killing animals just for the fun of killing them. One group is working for the good of the world as a whole, the other would best contribute to the world by violently removing themselves from it.

There's a difference in degree, because we place utility value on medical testing, but the core ethical case is the same; animal lives are worth less than human lives. Now, I'm not pro-animal cruelty, and there should certainly be criminal penalties for needless abuses like those described above, however; if we accept that animal lives are worth less than human lives, which we must to justify animal testing and even industrialised meat production, there is no point at which killing a person because of what they do to an animal becomes acceptable.

A person who is cruel to animals is cruel to animals, a person who kills another person because the latter individual was cruel to animals is a murderer. You might feel emotionally satisfied by the act, you might even believe yourself justified, but you would still be a murderer, just as you would be a murderer if you killed someone over inanimate property, or because they had wronged you, or cheated on you, or done any number of other things that you find emotionally repellent but which are not "they were categorically and imminently a threat to my life".

And those are just the arguments against specific hypotheticals, as Mecha_budda points out, the reality is we're talking about unregulated mob-"justice" which frequently targets the wrong people entirely.

So lets take both factors out of the equation; no personal attachments to a particular creature, no mob-rule:

Would you support the death penalty for people convicted of animal cruelty, as a general point of law? Because that brings us to the crux of the matter; if you support the death penalty for animal cruelty(or life imprisonment if you're opposed to the death penalty as a concept which, judging by your comments about standing ground you're not, but I could be wrong, the point is not the punishment as much as it is the equivalence), you're making that crime equivalent to the torture and murder of a sentient human, in which case you must necessarily admit that animal lives are as valuable as human lives, and so to maintain any semblance of consistency must also oppose animal testing and consumption of animal products which require cruelty towards or the killing of animals to make. If you truly believe that animal lives are worth less than human lives, and so we are justified in valuing their utility in medical experiments and as sources of food more highly than their lives and the quality of those lives, then you cannot also argue that torturing or killing an animal is an action deserving of the same punishment we would mete out to someone who does such things to another sentient human, and if the argument cannot support state-sanctioned, court-monitored, evidence-based killing for such a crime, it certainly can't justify extrajudicial killing by individuals or groups of people acting out of emotional attachment to a particular pet.

You can use the utility argument to justify making animal cruelty a criminal offence(as it is) while meat production and medical testing on animals remain legal and, while regrettable, generally acceptable, but it's not sufficient to distinguish the three acts to the point that performing one makes a person deserving of death while the others do not.

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

No, I've hunted and fished and taken a lot of lives to provide tasty food for a very long time.

Not catch and release, I hope.

No, sports angling is daft. I fish to eat the results. I would attempt to release a fish that was unsuitable for consumption and, being fairly knowledgable about fish, I know most have a remarkably good recovery from the experience if handled appropriately and released swiftly.

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But I have zero tolerance for those who inflict needless cruelty and suffering, and our pets are dear to us. Certainly part of the family and certainly worth defending as such.

If you had to choose between your cat and your wife, I highly doubt you would choose your cat. I also hope you wouldn't put yourself in legal jeopardy over a threat to your cat, as the associated consequences would not bode well for either your or your wife.

I would choose my wife, as I would choose my wife over my brother or my aunt. I would have to weigh up my cat's life vs a perceived 'innocent' stranger, in this Sophie's Choice game you're suggesting.

But as I originally stated, killing someone who was about to inflict a sadistic end to an animal for no purpose other than taking enjoyment in the act is killing someone who has already divorced themselves from my list of reasons to keep them alive and killing someone, as I said earlier, who was seeking to kill my cat, which I identify as part of my family and perhaps a surrogate child to some part of my primitive monkey brain, well, I would likely grease them with extreme prejudice.

I did also state that the legal ramifications would have to be removed from the situation, however I might feel, it doesn't overwhelm my self preservation about going to prison, at least in the case of an animal I don't identify with. In the case of a beloved pet, I'm not so sure, if I were to come home and find an intruder seeking to harm my cat, or learn someone had taken the cat and was keeping it with the intention of harming it, then my feelings of attachment and affection for the animal may override the threat of the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mecha_buddha wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The online mob also tracked down a piece of shiz who threw a dog off a bridge in Lithuania as well, so whilst it's potentially a dangerous thing, on these sorts of occasion, I have zero problem with them identifying and persecuting scum.

When I read this article I actually thought of this case. Here is the issue, when the dog tosser was outed, they (4chan?) made public the personal information of multiple possible suspects. Only one of them was guilty.

More recently a college girl had sex in public then turned around and claimed it was rape the next day. The internet mob outed the girl, except the personal information they posted was the WRONG girl.

So more on topic, supporters of mob justice, is it ok to ruin the lives of innocent people as long as you get the criminal? How much collateral damage is acceptable?

I will be the first to admit the legal system has problems, but due process and innocent until proven guilty exist for a reason. The internet mobs get whipped into a frenzy pretty easily and I personally think more harm than good comes from it every time.

You're quite right, and I feel deeply sorry for wrongly identified people, just as I've felt deeply sorry for wrongly prosecuted and sometimes executed people the law has targeted.

 Peregrine wrote:

And that argument is based on the ridiculous assumption that enjoying the suffering and death of an innocent animal for no purpose other than making it suffer/die is a morally acceptable desire.

No it isn't. Its based on the assumption that animal lives are worth a lot less than human lives, and therefore we shouldn't try to destroy a human life simply because said human destroyed an animal one.

 Peregrine wrote:

Intent matters, a person who eats meat would probably be perfectly happy if there was a magic suffering-free way to get that meat, while a person who enjoys torturing kittens just to hear them scream considers the suffering and death the primary goal.

There is a magic way of reducing the suffering that stems from eating meat: don't eat meat. Hell, there's even a decent argument that eating meat leads to human suffering (by way of negative health consequences) far in excess of the hedon loss following from its consumption. And yet people still eat meat while complaining about animal cruelty.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, you're still talking about the legal issues. The fact that society sometimes punishes lethal force in defense of a pet is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally justified to use lethal force in defense of a pet.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Whether or not a person should place himself at risk of legal consequences is very definitely a moral issue.

 Peregrine wrote:

But that's not the point. As a vegetarian you're still responsible for the deaths of animals so that you can eat. Like killing animals to eat their meat you're choosing to accept those deaths as a means to an end. That's entirely different from someone who values the injuries/deaths for their own sake.

I don't see why you don't believe the creation of entertainment, or feeling entertained are "ends".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

No, sports angling is daft. I fish to eat the results. I would attempt to release a fish that was unsuitable for consumption and, being fairly knowledgable about fish, I know most have a remarkably good recovery from the experience if handled appropriately and released swiftly.

Good on you.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Haven't we also had problems with Anon and Reddit "investigating" events like the Boston Bombing and naming the wrong people as suspects?

Internet mobbing happens here but its not a huge phenoma in the West (I've never heard of this thing in CHina before). Anonymous has done similar things like with the Stubenville Rape case and some instances of internet bullying, but we definitely don't have it even remotely close to that bad. It's kind of terrifying really (the the watch uncle bit is hilarious).

I'll also echo MeanGreen. Not much sympathy for someone who crushes a kitten's head.

Hel, remember when the George Zimmermn thing first came up, Some black Activist group gave the adress of his house....tourned out zimmerman is not an uncommon last name.

You know who had a German last name that ISN'T common?