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.

I think there were only two or three "up against the wall" type posts, but they gave the whole thread a sour flavour.

Albatross wrote:@Wrex - I think it's more the frivolous nature of what she did. It's pretty callous to hurt an animal just because it 'looks cute' as a result. No-ones saying it's the crime of the century. Well, I'm not, anyway.

It seems to be the way that many are perceiving her actions as frivolous, to a degree that makes the actions stronger in terms of being, 'amoral behavior'.

If you want to talk about frivolous behavior, consider the penny-pinching practices of many corporations tasked with producing animal-food products. Comparing the two side by side, I might be able to string together a feasible line of understanding. This woman was trying to run a business, and image matters a lot. The process of creating those images (brands), varies from business to business, but the outcome is much the same overall.

Woman who pierces kittens ears with 14-gauge nails: I sell 'emo-goth' kitties, that emo-goth people like to purchase.

Beef industry: I sell hamburgers at incredibly cheap prices, doing untold damage to the planet and various cultures; everyone loves cheap hamburger though!

To take this a bit further, and to be more concise, I would compare this case, to others of a similar nature. I do think the fact that this woman was in essence, running a business, makes a considerable difference overall.

We do not know exactly what ruling will be made in connection to this case, but I expect a rather harsh one. Purely on the actions performed, and as I stated before, you are all 2-3 minutes away from finding a massive compilation of cases in the same ballpark; animal cruelty. Google it, I don't really want to be the one to bring up the worst of this whole mess... People have done, terrible, terrible things to animals, and by that alone I do not feel this case is especially concerning.

I do hope the woman at the very least, can gain access to some form of therapy, though her need or want of it, is an entirely different story.

Albatross, you pose an excellent question. The answer, or a very quick one that we can unpack as we go, seems to be "social norms." But surely the lines are somewhat arbitrary rather than objective. A tatoo is permanent, one might say, whereas piercings can close. But when a girl gets her ears pierced (not totally unusual for baby girls to have pierced ear in the US, either) it's never with the intention that the piercings will be allowed to close. So what's the difference between modification and mutiliation then? What we say it is. It's okay to do this, but not that. It's okay to put a huge plastic or metal tag in a cow's or sheep's ear but not in a cat's ear. (To the bystanders: this isn't an argument for or against either practice.) I think someone even already mentioned that the latter "has no purpose" implying that the former not only has a purpose (piercing the cats' ears had a purpose, after all) but that the purpose is legitimate.

As for this talk of "consent," I'll stop beating around the bush. An animal's inability to consent to anything at all has nothing to do with whether it is cruel or moral or socially acceptable to do a particular thing to it. An animal cannot consent to being neutered or spayed, either, (or have malignant tumors removed) but that has nothing to do with us doing it. The talk of consent is totally meaningless in this case.

OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

Manchu wrote:Albatross, you pose an excellent question. The answer, or a very quick one that we can unpack as we go, seems to be "social norms." But surely the lines are somewhat arbitrary rather than objective.

Of course they are. I never said anything to the contrary. My position is completely arbitrary (as are most people's positions on most things not directly related to their basic survival!). It's just the way I like to live my life - I'm a fairly big chap, so I go out of my way not to bully or otherwise hurt others. I just think it's the noble thing to do, and I extend that to my treatment of animals.

To be fair, I DID imply that I would like to punch that woman. As I am unlikely to ever meet her, I'm sure she has nothing to worry about!

Ktulhut wrote:OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

I was, for the sake of argument, assuming that it was the case. You are right to say that the article may have mislabeled this lady for their intents and purposes.

Anyway though, I think at the very least, we can all agree that this is goth. This picture...

Right here...



Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

Edited for exclamation points...

Exclamation point, Exclamation point, Exclamation point, Exclamation point... Exclamation point.

Wrexasaur wrote:Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

QFT! Weird.

Yep, she COULD be hot - if she didn't have all that gak in her face!

iuono, she might be very plain without all the clown makeup and metal

Manchu wrote:As for this talk of "consent," I'll stop beating around the bush. An animal's inability to consent to anything at all has nothing to do with whether it is cruel or moral or socially acceptable to do a particular thing to it. An animal cannot consent to being neutered or spayed, either, (or have malignant tumors removed) but that has nothing to do with us doing it. The talk of consent is totally meaningless in this case.

How many of the procedures you mention are for purely cosmetic reasons?

Wrexasaur wrote:

Ktulhut wrote:OH MY GOD, PIERCINGS DON'T MAKE THINGS MAGICALLY "GOTH"!!!!!!!

I was, for the sake of argument, assuming that it was the case. You are right to say that the article may have mislabeled this lady for their intents and purposes.

Anyway though, I think at the very least, we can all agree that this is goth. This picture...

Right here...

Hot in a kind of unsettling way... hmmm...

Teehee, her frilly neck things look like a beard.

Ktulhut wrote:How many of the procedures you mention are for purely cosmetic reasons?]

The very existence of many breeds (and perpetuation of most if not all) is cosmetic. The point is we do with animals what we feel is acceptable. The question is never "up to them" nor can it be.

Which is where we differ in opinion. I dislike the inbreeding of certain types of animal for a desired appearance, a quick google will show what it does to their gene line. And while I can see you using the same style of debate I use when people say things like "banish money" without explaining how they plan to go about it, and while I agree that there's no such thing as a quick fix, I simply disagree from a moral and philosophical point of view. I know you're talking about a type of injustice that's practicable while I'm talking about justice that isn't practicable in any way shape or form without turning the whole world on it's head. But then, who says I don't want the world turned upside down?

*EDIT*
I thought I'd add, in case you wanted to play devils advocate some more, that I have totally left the realm of constructive input to society with this, and am essentially "wishlisting", so don't take me over seriously.

No pets, period.

That is where your argument lays, having a pet in any form, leads to inherent human nature, taking effect.

There is flipping the world on it's head, and then there is reality. I don't mean to offend, but your overall philosophy, lacks serious substance.

I recommend living the life you want to, and leaving others to their own devices.

You can tell everyone they are bad for not eating tofu instead of beef (which is not what you are doing, to be clear, but the analogy stands), but that has an insignificant, and rather wasteful impact on the world at large. We would not have domestic cats, if it were not for breeding. Specialized breeding is simply a subset of that same action.

Again, no pets, period.

I feel that this argument, is in much the same area, as disputes over hunting. Is clubbing baby seals palatable to most? Of course not, but it is what most would consider a 'necessary evil'. By whose decision do people NOT have the right to hunt, within pragmatic limitations? I see no real reason to stop one from hunting, besides the 'unnecessary' violence, within that topic.

Ktulhut wrote:Which is where we differ in opinion. I dislike the inbreeding of certain types of animal for a desired appearance, a quick google will show what it does to their gene line.

Our desire is as legitimate an environmental factor as cold weather, or limited food sources.

Wrexasaur wrote:No pets, period.

That is where your argument lays, having a pet in any form, leads to inherent human nature, taking effect.

I dislike ownership of animals. There are simply too many people for it to work any other way, and I'm not going to have that conversation. Animals as willing companions is another story. If an animal likes you, it will choose to associate with you.

You can tell everyone they are bad for not eating tofu instead of beef (which is not what you are doing, to be clear, but the analogy stands), but that has an insignificant, and rather wasteful impact on the world at large. We would not have domestic cats, if it were not for breeding. Specialized breeding is simply a subset of that same action.

*Noms down a steak sandwhich*
Yes, telling people they're wrong is wasteful, but I don't see too many people who have any good ideas about life in general, so untill I do I'll just keep pointing out the flaws and admiring the wonder untill I notice a way to enact valid change to at least my own community. Nagging is better than silently wishing it was different. Neither is actually going to do much of ANYTHING, but one vents steam whereas the other just slowly crushes the majority into further silence and lack of opinion on anything.

I see no real reason to stop one from hunting, besides the 'unnecessary' violence, within that topic.

Violence, shmiolence. If you're gonna eat it and you're not going out of your way to torture it you're just part of the food chain. Not a murderer any more than a spider, or a dolphin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Our desire is as legitimate an environmental factor as cold weather, or limited food sources.

So... our aesthetic tastes allow us to create inbred monstrosities that suffer prolific cancer and brain disorders, some breeds that can hardly walk anymore, which are destined for extinction (and soon)...

Just because we can? By that logic, I can murder babies, so I will.


*EDIT* I think the problem here is that I don't value the life of a human about the life of any other organism. Rail against this all you wish, but I love a good steak, wild deer of course being best, but push come to shove I'd eat any one of you, too.

Ok, but don't please.

I'm not going to, I was just pointing out crappy logic. Although the post did confuse me with it's wording and I may have taken it entirely backwards.

Ktulhut wrote:I dislike ownership of animals. There are simply too many people for it to work any other way, and I'm not going to have that conversation. Animals as willing companions is another story. If an animal likes you, it will choose to associate with you.

That means absolutely nothing. Animals choose to associate with you, because you feed them, and out of all the other animals around the whole shebang, you don't try and kill them. Adding your ideas of what is going through that pidgeon/fox/bear, whatever, doesn't change anything. There was no point where the fox went up to the guy, and said 'HEY! Your my new buddy!'. That all happened in the humans head, and has little to no bearing on the reality of the situation.

*Noms down a steak sandwhich*
Yes, telling people they're wrong is wasteful, but I don't see too many people who have any good ideas about life in general, so untill I do I'll just keep pointing out the flaws and admiring the wonder untill I notice a way to enact valid change to at least my own community. Nagging is better than silently wishing it was different. Neither is actually going to do much of ANYTHING, but one vents steam whereas the other just slowly crushes the majority into further silence and lack of opinion on anything.

First off, there is no reason silence has less of an impact that outrage. You can be as angry as you want, but it is not going to necessarily help you, or anyone else.

In terms of needing to be a part of an opinion, that pushes your form of morals, onto others, that is entirely your decision.

Violence, shmiolence. If you're gonna eat it and you're not going out of your way to torture it you're just part of the food chain. Not a murderer any more than a spider, or a dolphin.

I go to the woods, for no reason, besides my own satisfaction. There is no need, besides extending my 'connection to mother earth', which by practical functions mean: I don't deal well psychologically with the concrete jungle.


This is no different for the common hunter, most don't have any interest in eating their catches, and I personally don't blame them. If I were to go hunting, I would do bow-hunting, out of personal choice, not due to 'moral obligations. I also have absolutely no plans on eating anything besides fish that I catch. Even with fish, I would be very cautious of which fish I eat, and where I catch them.

Ktulhut wrote:I'm not going to, I was just pointing out crappy logic. Although the post did confuse me with it's wording and I may have taken it entirely backwards.

Legitimacy, does not necessarily increase the tenacity of an argument.

His logic is also not that faulty, considering context. Eating babies is bad, we don't need to discuss that any further. Piercing kittens with 14-gauge nails, is also bad, but by a different degree, and for different reasons. Your kitten, may have more personal worth to you, than it does for someone else; but that has no bearing on the fact that a kitten is not a human baby. There is no real comparison for that, in this conversation. Contrasting what you feel is faulty logic, with hyperbole, does little to substantiate your points.

Fair point. Here in New Zealand, pretty much anything is safe to eat as long as it's not near sewer outlet or a city road. Which the vast majority of the country isn't. There's a very strong hunter-gatherer tradition amongst the native Maori as well, which I suppose has rubbed off onto me. The last thing I killed and ate was fish though. I also go into the woods to enjoy nature, not to hunt, but for me the woods is a one minute walk down the road, and I'm in the capital city!

I'll add that I'm not trying to convert anyone. I might have come off like I am but I'm not. People should believe what they wish, if I don't like it I'll call it groxdung, just like they do with my opinions. Arguing and debating, giving as good as you get, is just as valid as "live and let live" when it comes to moral issues on interwebs forums. If everyone simply respected everyone elses pucky opinions, this would be a blog not a forum.

Ktulhut wrote:
So... our aesthetic tastes allow us to create inbred monstrosities that suffer prolific cancer and brain disorders, some breeds that can hardly walk anymore, which are destined for extinction (and soon)...

Just because we can? By that logic, I can murder babies, so I will.

No, that's really not the same thing, and I'd appreciate it if you would avoid hyperbole. No one intends to kill dogs when they go about breeding them, but it does happen in consequence. There's a distinction between intending malice, and intending modification.

By simply existing human beings have deprived a number of different creatures access to our ecological niche, and thereby modified their development. Really, to me it seems like you're confusing a desire to avoid suffering with a desire to preserve homeostasis. One is laudable, and the other is impossible.

I've been misenterperated due to my alien ideas again. I have no desire to end suffering, I was playing devils advocate more than anything I guess. Yes, homeostasis is what I'm about. Yes, it's impossible once you enter humans into the mix. Yes, my answer is get rid of the humans. Yes, that includes you. Yes, that includes me.

Bleak? Yes.

Unrealistic? Hell yes.

What would be good for the world, and probably any worlds near enough for us to settle? Definately.

By your own personal guidelines, not 'mother earths', not any specific god, besides the ones that we merit our actions to.

This is a massive rock spinning through a void of mass. It is not an idea that we came up with, we can only attempt to explain it. By my imagination alone, we are the least threatening sentient being to hit the face of reality, in a massive set of much more aggressive, and devastating lifeforms; that may or may not be considered sentient.

We only stand to destroy ourselves, at this point in time. Perhaps we could figure out how to destroy planets... individual planets amongst a group beyond number. We are specks on the back of a fly, on the back of a speck, on the back of a fly, landing on us.

We impact each other, not the galaxy (which I have doubts of us even being able to traverse), and certainly not the universe.

I think we're actually sort of agreeing here, but I'm just a glass half empty type. Although IMO we won't just destroy ourselves, if we do anything stupid enough to wipe us all out, my guess is that everything other than cockroaches and sea monkeys will die with us.

I'm a bit of both kind of guy. There is no reason that a speck has to be a bad thing for me to be. There is also no reason that may not consider myself a speck, mid-range, along a spectrum of specks.



It is really both at the same time, most of the time.

Indeed, although if one wanted to, one could (facetiously) make the argument that a speck who conciously dominates and generally makes life unpleasant for it's fellow specks is less deserving of speckdom than other specks in the spectrum. That's all assuming you're the type of speck with the luxury of the sapience to discuss such issues.


SPECK!

L33T BACON FTW!!!



We all like bacon. Mmmm... bacon...

Edited to add 33 to l33t.

Those vegan types don't like bacon. You've gotta make fake bacon out of veges for them. Then you make the fake bacon out of... BACON! Haha!

And I know it's irrelevent, but there are several individual birds that show up in my garden for the juicy juicy bugs, then hang around chirping inquisitively and watching my antics. Animals (including humans) are meant to tolerate each other or eat eachother, it just so happens there's so many humans we have to farm livestock, and with agriculture we gained symbiosis with the cat and dog.

Oh dear, what have we done to the thread?

Vegans don't actually have it all that bad. I occasionally eat tofurkey links, and they are really quite good. I cannot cope physically without meat, it is simply not going to happen.

Page three, derailed into a bacon, sub-OT, sounds about right to me.

And a random Youtube clip, just to be sure.

Ktulhut wrote:
What would be good for the world, and probably any worlds near enough for us to settle? Definately.

Good? Why would it be good? Natural selection brutally weeds out those beings unfit to survive; particularly genetic mutants. Humans are only a part of that process, not the whole of it. You may as well simply extend that notion to all life, as life which does not exist cannot have a negative impact on itself. But then the absence of a negative impact is not really good, its simply neutral.

I don't think the argument is so much that this is Animal Cruelty, but more so that Goths should not be allowed to do things like this or anything really.

Next we will be seeing Goth Furries. Nobody wants that.