This ****** should have got a life ban on pets

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter #51
Great. When they start doing it to humans, chuck them in gaol. Until then, they're not harming anybody.
Sadism and psychotic behaviour still applies whether it's done to an animal or to a human being. Your "animals are things" logic doesn't apply here.

You also need to consider that such behaviour is an early warning sign, and more often than not it leads to worse. Doing nothing is being irresponsible and, I argue, immoral.

You should change your name from "Caesar" to "Caligula".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

H2F

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Posts
23,664
Likes
15,814
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#52
No living thing is our property.

We are morally bound to protect life, and more so animals we bring into our families.

I am a strong believer that you can see into a persons soul in how they treat animals.

Anyone who can hurt them for no reason, is scum in my books.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,138
Likes
7,869
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#53
Sadism and psychotic behaviour still applies whether it's done to an animal or to a human being. Your "animals are things" logic doesn't apply here.

You also need to consider that such behaviour is an early warning sign, and more often than not it leads to worse. Doing nothing is being irresponsible and, I argue, immoral.
Great. So they're a mental health risk. Give them counselling or some shit, like you would if they were a teenager threatening suicide. You don't criminalise somebody based on their psychological profile because you think they are at risk of committing a crime in the future. That's pretty basic common sense.

If you really care about this subject - stop bootstrapping your argument, put emotion aside and think about the issue rationally. Welfarism is an intellectually unsound position, and I think deep down you know that. Most welfarists are just animal rights advocates in denial.
 

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter #54
That's pretty basic common sense.
I would have thought it was common sense to realise that it's not ok to do whatever you want to an animal just because you see it as a thing.

If you really care about this subject - stop bootstrapping your argument, put emotion aside and think about the issue rationally. Welfarism is an intellectually unsound position, and I think deep down you know that. Most welfarists are just animal rights advocates in denial.
Sorry Caligula I am a human being with emotions, and not an unfeeling cyborg. I imagine even someone as logical as the Vulcans would raise an eyebrow.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#55
The catchcry is torturing something for pleasure is called sadism. If this act gives a person pleasure then it's likely they will have no moral issues when it comes to doing the same thing to other animals (including humans). Saying this is okay is like saying showing signs that psychopathic behaviour possibly exists is okay. Being psychotic is not okay. If someone is prone to violence, their anger tolerance is low, and tend to kill things to make themselves feel better then that is not good at all.

Would you feel comfortable or safe around a person like this?
Have you ever associated with corporates?
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,138
Likes
7,869
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#56
I would have thought it was common sense to realise that it's not ok to do whatever you want to an animal just because you see it as a thing.
Didn't say it's not. But you're arguing from your own morality, which is a terrible basis for law in a society founded on the principle that everybody should be able to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with each other. Like I said, it's the same shitty basis used by religious fundies who want to stop people watching Life Of Brian, or 'patriots' who want people thrown in gaol for burning flags.

You want to argue that it's not right to hurt animals, start from the logical place - the rights of the animal. Not your own bourgeois sentimentality. And be intellectually honest about where the reasoning takes you.

Sorry Caligula I am a human being with emotions, and not an unfeeling cyborg. I imagine even someone as logical as the Vulcans would raise an eyebrow.
You're completely missing the point, but anywho. Bedtime. Recommend you read the book I referenced earlier.
 

TheHoneyBadger

"I lost my phone"
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Posts
13,068
Likes
18,046
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
#57
No living thing is our property.

We are morally bound to protect life, and more so animals we bring into our families.

I am a strong believer that you can see into a persons soul in how they treat animals.

Anyone who can hurt them for no reason, is scum in my books.
Could not agree more with this. Find the way people connect with animals to be a very strong indicator of the kind of person they are, although that's not always the case.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#58
Yeah, not all people are like that, for instance myself, who adopted an injured and neglected cat, spent $1000 in vet fees for surgery, all because she was "cute", and have given her a whole room, am actually a prick.
 

nicky

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
27,653
Likes
3,957
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Crystal palace, socceroos
#60
I understand the argument Caesar is trying to make but absolutely do not agree that anyone has a right to torture animals. If that means that i'm an 'animals rights activist' in his eyes then i'm an animal rights activist.
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,764
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#61
Caesar, vealesy, do you own a pet? Would you be satisfied if I came to your house, tortured and killed it in front of your family, and then offered you the market value of your pet? I.e if it was a cat, I could replace that for about $50 if I looked on gumtree. If you had owned the cat for several years (also meaning you would have a stronger emotional attachment to it - but that doesn't exist in this case) I could replace it for next to nothing. Old cats from the pound are either very cheap or free. It wouldn't be very fair if I had to replace your old commodity with a new one. So I think I could kill and torture your hypothetical cat in front of you and your family, and around $20 - $50 would be a sufficient reimbursement. Would you be satisfied if this were a real life situation? ... putting political ideologies aside.

So does that give the pet owner more rights? More freedom? The fact that you and your family might actually see this animal as something more than another commodity is triumphed by your limitless freedom to do as you please with the animal.

Considering the large majority of Australians are pet owners or have owned pets, and the fact that many pet owners view their pets as more than a commodity, many even viewing their pets as one of the family, at the end of the day, does this extreme libertarian view give the typical Australian pet owner more or less freedom?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#62
It can be a part of your family in your own mind, but it is not a legal person so does not have "human rights".

I OWN a cat. Im spending a small fortune fixing her up because i love her. Aww. See im not such a prick.


And if you kill her I will feed you to some pigs, she is my property.
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,764
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#63
It can be a part of your family in your own mind, but it is not a legal person so does not have "human rights".

I OWN a cat. Im spending a small fortune fixing her up because i love her. Aww. See im not such a prick.


And if you kill her I will feed you to some pigs, she is my property.
I'm not talking about giving rights to the animal and I'm not calling you a prick, I'm talking about the rights of the pet owner in a make believe libertarian world.

In said world, I could kill your cat, and by law, would have no criminal charges against me, and would probably only have to reimburse you zero dollars for the cat considering you adopted it, and if you're very lucky maybe some of your vet fees. But really, you wouldn't even bother with taking me to court considering the low potential of significant reimbursement.

So, I could kill your cat and effectively nothing would happen to me, and you would just have to replace it. It's just too bad you spent a small fortune fixing a cheaply replaced commodity.

Considering you say you love your pet, me killing it would probably cause you great emotional stress, but this would be irrelevant as it's only a commodity which can be replaced. You don't have the right to claim you have suffered emotionally, even if you genuinely have, because that doesn't exist in this world. Is that freedom for the typical pet owner? Someone else dictating to you what your pet means to you?
 

Peck

Todd Marshall fan
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Posts
10,287
Likes
6,756
Location
Melbourne, VIC
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Left is Best
#64
A lot of people shouldn't be allowed to own pets. I think a pet license should be required particularly to buy a dog or a cat. So many people just have no idea how to look after these animals.

Also pet stores are just plain evil.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#65
I'm not talking about giving rights to the animal and I'm not calling you a prick, I'm talking about the rights of the pet owner in a make believe libertarian world.

In said world, I could kill your cat, and by law, would have no criminal charges against me, and would probably only have to reimburse you zero dollars for the cat considering you adopted it, and if you're very lucky maybe some of your vet fees. But really, you wouldn't even bother with taking me to court considering the low potential of significant reimbursement.

So, I could kill your cat and effectively nothing would happen to me, and you would just have to replace it. It's just too bad you spent a small fortune fixing a cheaply replaced commodity.

Considering you say you love your pet, me killing it would probably cause you great emotional stress, but this would be irrelevant as it's only a commodity which can be replaced. You don't have the right to claim you have suffered emotionally, even if you genuinely have, because that doesn't exist in this world. Is that freedom for the typical pet owner? Someone else dictating to you what your pet means to you?
Where were the rats referred to as pets?

If you kill my cat and i dont know who did it. Good luck to you. I wont lose sleep. I will get another cat.

If i caught you however...
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,764
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#66
Where were the rats referred to as pets?

I'm not really referring to the article and more the libertarian stance you are taking. But I assume if he bought the rats from a pet store they would be considered pets.

If you kill my cat and i dont know who did it. Good luck to you. I wont lose sleep. I will get another cat.

If i caught you however...
Why do you suggest you would harm me if you caught me killing your cat? Would you 'feed me to the pigs' if I ate a free food sample you got given to you? You got the cat for free didn't you? If it's a commodity that can be easily replaced, why the strong emotion? Physically harming someone over property you acquired for free is craziness. You should be fully satisfied with a replacement and should not be seeking punitive action. What if I bought you a new cute little kitten? That's worth more than an old cat. You seem to be treating the cat as something more than a replaceable commodity.
 

vealesy

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Posts
10,093
Likes
4,151
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#68
I'm not really referring to the article and more the libertarian stance you are taking. But I assume if he bought the rats from a pet store they would be considered pets.



Why do you suggest you would harm me if you caught me killing your cat? Would you 'feed me to the pigs' if I ate a free food sample you got given to you? You got the cat for free didn't you? If it's a commodity that can be easily replaced, why the strong emotion? Physically harming someone over property you acquired for free is craziness. You should be fully satisfied with a replacement and should not be seeking punitive action. What if I bought you a new cute little kitten? That's worth more than an old cat. You seem to be treating the cat as something more than a replaceable commodity.
I treat it that way emotionally.

But the reality is its just an object.

I love my bike. I get emotional when i scratch or mark it. But its replaceable.

Its not a person.
 

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,870
Likes
22,722
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter #71
There have been traps deliberately set up to catch rats (who are pests) in one of my houses I lived in Sydney, is that a vile act?
Yeah, because setting up traps to catch a problemsome animal is the same as torturing one slowly for a laugh. o_O

I wonder if you're really this stupid or are pretending to be stupid for a laugh.
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,764
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#75
So again, the justification is the only difference.
Yes, there is justification for killing rats that are pests in your home with the intent of removing them from your home. There is no justification in torturing rats for entertainment.

The justification is all the difference, that's why when someone is killed by someone else for example, we don't just say "well the end result was death, therefore the punishment should be the same as every other case that resulted in death". We have 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, self defence, manslaughter etc. which are all based on intent.
 
Top Bottom