36_Thoughtless

Social

Relationship Status

Single

More on Dogfighting (In Response to Brittany Jamison)

July 30 2007

In response to your remark, because the Constitution says that all men are created equal, and not all species, slavery is illegal.  Some slaves were treated quite well, but with slavery, treatment wasn't the issue.  Rather, we came to agree--While forcibly, it was rightly so--that colored people, being people, had the same rights as the white people in rule at that time.  It's not a question of treatment of property, but status.  Dogs have a property status: men and women don't.
The other argument you had is commonly used by the PETA crowd--that animals suffer and therefore should be morally immune from certain treatment.  First of all, how do you know when an animal suffers and exactly how it does?  I mean, you could guess, but you would never really know because you could never thoroughly communicate with the animal.  Second, why give preferential treatment to dogs?  Cockroaches feel, theoretically, and by your argument should be granted the same treatment.  However, no sane person likes cockroaches: they're vermin.  Same with rats.  Rats carry disease, defecate frequently, and scatter pieces of trash.  Likewise, they feel, but no sane person loves rats.  So if we agree that some species deserve elimination or serious restriction, what basis are we arguing from that says one species feels more than another?  It's simply subjective morality.

There seems to be some tendency to try to "humanize" animals.  You'll hear voice-overs on some animal show explaining the details of how chimps (or such the like) are so amazingly close to humans.  But even if you believe in Evolution, you have to agree that chimps are nowhere close.  They haven't built cities; they haven't begun wars; and they really can't consider the implications of their actions.  They certainly have compared and contrasted their intellect with other species or have begun to synthesize their own brains.  Do dogs feel bad when they attack a human?  When tigers eat little children do they stop and think should I do this?  It's not considerably evident if they do.

I started this post knowing I'd probably get some flack for it, but the opposition (namely, veganism), however well-meaning, seems terribly misguided. 

Jonathan Wood

July 30 2007
While it is true that the moral compass of a non-human creature is not always on target with the moral compass of a human, it still does not mean that such beings can not experience pain. Having had a dog recently die of kidney failure, I can tell you with full confidence that she experienced quite a bit of pain and suffering. Your lamp analogy was pure crap because an inanimate object, such as a lamp, can not experience pain as it has neither nerve cells nor a brain to interpret the electrical impulses of such. Dogs who are tortured to death are a far cry from such things as they can feel, and it is not a quick drop, but a drawn-out, bloody fight to the death. For those who believe in the Biblical account of creation, try not to forget that God told us to be good stewards over creation, not to torture it to death. I eat meat. I love to eat meat. I tastes very good. However, I will not slowly torture an animal to death to eat it. It is neither humane nor human. To pretend that the brutal killing of any creature, be it a cockroach or a dog or a human, is anywhere near to the destruction of a lamp tossed off of a ladder is completely ludicrous and an ill-attempted maneuver to try to exemplify either the speaker's own intelligence (failure), the speaker's own superior viewpoint on the substance of life and death (failure), or the apparent innocence of the perpetrator via either the speaker's knowledge or perspective (failure). In plain talk, so you can understand, you're a fool to believe that the torturous death of any creature is equivalent to the destruction of an inanimate object and even worse off if you try to show other people the "error in their ways" by sharing. I'm not saying not to share your thoughts, as I believe in a complete freedom of speech, but I do wish that you'd think about what you're saying and what others say before you run your mouth off and make a fool of yourself yet again.

Brittany Wood

July 31 2007
Apparently you did not care to read anything that I wrote to you. I did not reply to your post in hopes of starting a debate on what the Constitution says. Your quote, "It's not a question of treatment of property, but status. Dogs have a property status: men and women don't," shows me that you clearly did not see the meaning behind my remark. My analogy using slavery was not meant to be analyzed by todays ethical standards. I was mearly making a point that although animals are not human, which I clearly acknowledged, it still doesn't make it right to torture and kill them. As to your rant about animals feeling pain: have you ever owned a pet, in particular a dog? I have pets, and have accidently stepped on my dogs paw before. My dog jump back a bit and yelped. Forgive me if I wrong, but don't humans react in much the same way when we have a foot stepped on? Based on the dog's reaction and our own to a similar situation, I think it's fair to assume that dogs have some degree of feeling and an intolerance for pain. All you are doing is ranting about things you don't even seem to know about. I do agree with your view that one is entitled to do what they wish with their own property, but animals are never really referred to as property, are they. I believe we use the term pets. In my opinion, I think there is an obvious difference between a pet and property.

Pix

Friends