[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
About as cute as he ever was…[/quote]
Dawww!
I am so excited about this thread! I finally have a place to post videos of my birds.
[quote]Stern wrote:
Oops, meant to post this pic with the above.
[/quote]
OMG! This is AWESOME!
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
Hope this picture works…[/quote]
your dogs ears are huge compared to his head, cute, but thats the first thing i noticed… my dog is 100% retarded but is a good running buddy (runs 12+ miles and is still ready to go, just needs a water break every 3-4)
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
your dogs ears are huge compared to his head, cute, but thats the first thing i noticed… [/quote]
Yeah, he was only 3-4 months old in those pictures. I’ve been told it will take him about 2 years to reach full size. He still looks like a big dumb puppy, his ears are too big, tail too long, and paws so big he trips over all sorts of things.
I’m kind of surprised how few animal pictures are in this thread, I think in years back they went over a little better.
On the issue of animal cruelty. I’m a hunter, and I’ve never had much of a problem killing animals, but there is a big difference between shooting something with a high-powered rifle, and throwing rocks at a dog that’s chained up outside in the middle of winter. Personally, I dream of the day when I could own a cabin somewhere and have a couple freezers stocked with fresh kills.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
[quote]Ratchet wrote:
your dogs ears are huge compared to his head, cute, but thats the first thing i noticed… [/quote]
Yeah, he was only 3-4 months old in those pictures. I’ve been told it will take him about 2 years to reach full size. He still looks like a big dumb puppy, his ears are too big, tail too long, and paws so big he trips over all sorts of things.
I’m kind of surprised how few animal pictures are in this thread, I think in years back they went over a little better.
On the issue of animal cruelty. I’m a hunter, and I’ve never had much of a problem killing animals, but there is a big difference between shooting something with a high-powered rifle, and throwing rocks at a dog that’s chained up outside in the middle of winter. Personally, I dream of the day when I could own a cabin somewhere and have a couple freezers stocked with fresh kills.[/quote]
Throwing rocks that hurt = wrong
Blowing something’s head off causing death = okay
Hypocrisy FTW!!!
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Throwing rocks that hurt = wrong
Blowing something’s head off causing death = okay
Hypocrisy FTW!!![/quote]
I think there is something to be said here about meaninglessly causing pain and suffering vs. killing an animal humanely (and yes I do believe that to be about as humane as any death gets). I never said I thought there was something wrong with killing an animal. I knew a lot of farmers growing up who, when their dogs were getting old and slow, would take them in the field, throw a tennis ball or some food out and then take off their head with a shotgun. While it’s not something I’ve ever done, I never thought there was much wrong with it.
So how is torturing something and killing something (for any reason) the same thing? You sound like an idiot friend of mine who used to snort heroin before going to peace rallies and spitting on cops.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Throwing rocks that hurt = wrong
Blowing something’s head off causing death = okay
Hypocrisy FTW!!![/quote]
I think there is something to be said here about meaninglessly causing pain and suffering vs. killing an animal humanely (and yes I do believe that to be about as humane as any death gets). I never said I thought there was something wrong with killing an animal. I knew a lot of farmers growing up who, when their dogs were getting old and slow, would take them in the field, throw a tennis ball or some food out and then take off their head with a shotgun. While it’s not something I’ve ever done, I never thought there was much wrong with it.
So how is torturing something and killing something (for any reason) the same thing? You sound like an idiot friend of mine who used to snort heroin before going to peace rallies and spitting on cops.
[/quote]
I have absolutely no problem with hunting or killing an animal for food or sport. However, I fail to see what makes that so much more noble than throwing rocks at a domestic pet. I wouldn’t throw rocks at a dog, but only because it would be infinitely more fun to shoot a deer.
I also realize that doesn’t make me more moral than a punk kid who feeds firecrackers to a swan, just more common.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I have absolutely no problem with hunting or killing an animal for food or sport. However, I fail to see what makes that so much more noble than throwing rocks at a domestic pet. I wouldn’t throw rocks at a dog, but only because it would be infinitely more fun to shoot a deer.
I also realize that doesn’t make me more moral than a punk kid who feeds firecrackers to a swan, just more common.[/quote]
My issue was mainly with my actions being viewed as hypocritical. I’m not sure why you don’t draw a line between torture/abuse and death. The question of nobility is convoluted, but I think there is some objectivity to be found in what a humble, honest, and rational being does to other living beings.
You really don’t think there is a difference between a man who locks mentally ill people in his basement (starves them and makes them live in their own shit and piss) so that he can collect their social security checks and say a man who fought and killed in the American Revolutionary War? Or does you’re logic only apply to humans interacting with non-humans? I understand those are hyperbolic examples, but you really think that the only reason you don’t abuse animals is because it’s so much more fun to kill them? That may be true-I’m just surprised you’re not currently being detained in a federal prison like a majority of the other psycho/sociopaths out there.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I have absolutely no problem with hunting or killing an animal for food or sport. However, I fail to see what makes that so much more noble than throwing rocks at a domestic pet. I wouldn’t throw rocks at a dog, but only because it would be infinitely more fun to shoot a deer.
I also realize that doesn’t make me more moral than a punk kid who feeds firecrackers to a swan, just more common.[/quote]
My issue was mainly with my actions being viewed as hypocritical. I’m not sure why you don’t draw a line between torture/abuse and death. The question of nobility is convoluted, but I think there is some objectivity to be found in what a humble, honest, and rational being does to other living beings.
You really don’t think there is a difference between a man who locks mentally ill people in his basement (starves them and makes them live in their own shit and piss) so that he can collect their social security checks and say a man who fought and killed in the American Revolutionary War? Or does you’re logic only apply to humans interacting with non-humans? I understand those are hyperbolic examples, but you really think that the only reason you don’t abuse animals is because it’s so much more fun to kill them? That may be true-I’m just surprised you’re not currently being detained in a federal prison like a majority of the other psycho/sociopaths out there. [/quote]
I’m saying most people would recognize a difference at first, including myself, but that it’s a largely arbitrary one.
Basically, none of us need to be killing animals with our own hands, not for food or sport. If one chooses to do this, I really see little difference between him and the guy that beats his dog with a pipe. One could argue they both have their reasons, but both are still causing unnecessary suffering. Of course, I still think it’s a bit silly to think killing is better than torture, in this particular instance. Your examples are extreme and don’t apply to the circumstance in question.
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that people who have no problem hunting game animals get all pissy when a cute widdle puppy gets slapped around.
Not to get too metaphysical is a lighthearted thread, but based on what we humans know about death, torture at least has the benefit of allowing for further options. The dog might have a bad day, or be traumatized for life, but the deer is fucking dead. Smash cut, fade to black.
As far as myself, I do not torture animals, nor have I ever. I have killed a couple, however, in hunting-type situations.
And the Revolutionary War bit was a little heavy-handed. Really, man, debate with dignity.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I’m saying most people would recognize a difference at first, including myself, but that it’s a largely arbitrary one.
Basically, none of us need to be killing animals with our own hands, not for food or sport. If one chooses to do this, I really see little difference between him and the guy that beats his dog with a pipe. One could argue they both have their reasons, but both are still causing unnecessary suffering. Of course, I still think it’s a bit silly to think killing is better than torture, in this particular instance. Your examples are extreme and don’t apply to the circumstance in question.
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that people who have no problem hunting game animals get all pissy when a cute widdle puppy gets slapped around.
Not to get too metaphysical is a lighthearted thread, but based on what we humans know about death, torture at least has the benefit of allowing for further options. The dog might have a bad day, or be traumatized for life, but the deer is fucking dead. Smash cut, fade to black.
As far as myself, I do not torture animals, nor have I ever. I have killed a couple, however, in hunting-type situations.
And the Revolutionary War bit was a little heavy-handed. Really, man, debate with dignity.
[/quote]
You’re British? I didn’t think British people actually liked punk music. Thought that was an american myth…
I don’t think we are in total disagree. I/m just trying to focus not on the importance of suffering but the implications of someone who causes suffering. It’s splitting hairs, but I don’t view killing something as making it suffer more than it would normally (unless you consider a shortened lifespan undue suffering, I don’t think the length of somethings life should correspond to its quality). So to me the argument is inflicting unjust suffering vs. death. There is a difference in the intellect of those that torture or abuse, and those that kill (whether they be a run of the mill murderer or soldier or whatever else). Or atleast that’s what I’ve read about from cognitive neuroscientists (I should know, I’m married to one). I think it’s this difference that matters.
To me it’s interesting that if you were to compare two children, one who shoots a bunch of crows on his farm and another who has abused animals, but far fewer and less often than the kid who is always killing them- science (again, my understanding) would say the kid who is affecting more animals lives (the killer instead of the abuser) has a healthier pattern of behavior.
I think the importance is just that there is a difference between the two behaviors.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
I’m saying most people would recognize a difference at first, including myself, but that it’s a largely arbitrary one.
Basically, none of us need to be killing animals with our own hands, not for food or sport. If one chooses to do this, I really see little difference between him and the guy that beats his dog with a pipe. One could argue they both have their reasons, but both are still causing unnecessary suffering. Of course, I still think it’s a bit silly to think killing is better than torture, in this particular instance. Your examples are extreme and don’t apply to the circumstance in question.
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that people who have no problem hunting game animals get all pissy when a cute widdle puppy gets slapped around.
Not to get too metaphysical is a lighthearted thread, but based on what we humans know about death, torture at least has the benefit of allowing for further options. The dog might have a bad day, or be traumatized for life, but the deer is fucking dead. Smash cut, fade to black.
As far as myself, I do not torture animals, nor have I ever. I have killed a couple, however, in hunting-type situations.
And the Revolutionary War bit was a little heavy-handed. Really, man, debate with dignity.
[/quote]
You’re British? I didn’t think British people actually liked punk music. Thought that was an american myth…
I don’t think we are in total disagree. I/m just trying to focus not on the importance of suffering but the implications of someone who causes suffering. It’s splitting hairs, but I don’t view killing something as making it suffer more than it would normally (unless you consider a shortened lifespan undue suffering, I don’t think the length of somethings life should correspond to its quality). So to me the argument is inflicting unjust suffering vs. death. There is a difference in the intellect of those that torture or abuse, and those that kill (whether they be a run of the mill murderer or soldier or whatever else). Or atleast that’s what I’ve read about from cognitive neuroscientists (I should know, I’m married to one). I think it’s this difference that matters.
To me it’s interesting that if you were to compare two children, one who shoots a bunch of crows on his farm and another who has abused animals, but far fewer and less often than the kid who is always killing them- science (again, my understanding) would say the kid who is affecting more animals lives (the killer instead of the abuser) has a healthier pattern of behavior.
I think the importance is just that there is a difference between the two behaviors.
[/quote]
I’m American.
Again, your examples don’t quite correlate, and you’re extrapolating behavior too much.
I’m saying that, to an animal, a shortened lifespan does equate with suffering. If you’re a deer every day is the same, more or less. To this deer, a day of getting viciously pelted with rocks is still preferable to a day of being killed. Animals are mostly about the whole survive/reproduce thing, it’s only we humans that make life much more complicated.
Because we have a choice to engage in the killing or torture(really, any activity that causes any sort of ‘loss’) of an animal at all (as stated, it’s not necessary to do either), I still fail to see how one is an acceptable behavior while the other isn’t. Both are merely increasing the pleasure one feels at the expense of an animal.
Again, we’re using entirely too much inductive logic. My accusation of hypocrisy was based solely on your contention that shooting an animal with a gun for pleasure is ‘right’ while throwing rocks at a dog for pleasure is ‘wrong’. In this instance, confined to this instance, the actions show little difference in terms, of, well, difference.
Why does a shortened lifespan equate to suffering? For anything, not just deer. I’m not sure why they would prefer getting stoned to getting killed. I’m not sure why they would prefer any one thing over another besides perhaps avoiding pain. If I kill them I’m not really introducing any excessive pain into their lives. They are going to die in the long term regardless. It happening sooner rather than later, and the fact that it was by my hands is (for the purpose of this one point) irrelevant. They were, however, not always going to be abused, so that is introducing them to a level of extraneous suffering. Extraneous intentional suffering probably being the key to my point.
The hypocrisy issue deals exclusively with intent and belief ( belief in this instance being irrelevant according to theories of cognitive dissonance). I think my previous statements still hold merit. Only according to your ‘beliefs’ on suffering was I being hypocritical.
You’re right though, we are using entirely too much induction. Also, I’m finishing up a graveyard shift and have been awake for way too long so my logic in general is on the decline, but will hopefully be going to sleep very soon. Thanks for helping me stay awake.
[quote]forkknifespoon wrote:
Why does a shortened lifespan equate to suffering? For anything, not just deer. I’m not sure why they would prefer getting stoned to getting killed. I’m not sure why they would prefer any one thing over another besides perhaps avoiding pain. If I kill them I’m not really introducing any excessive pain into their lives. They are going to die in the long term regardless. It happening sooner rather than later, and the fact that it was by my hands is (for the purpose of this one point) irrelevant. They were, however, not always going to be abused, so that is introducing them to a level of extraneous suffering. Extraneous intentional suffering probably being the key to my point.
The hypocrisy issue deals exclusively with intent and belief ( belief in this instance being irrelevant according to theories of cognitive dissonance). I think my previous statements still hold merit. Only according to your ‘beliefs’ on suffering was I being hypocritical.
You’re right though, we are using entirely too much induction. Also, I’m finishing up a graveyard shift and have been awake for way too long so my logic in general is on the decline, but will hopefully be going to sleep very soon. Thanks for helping me stay awake. [/quote]
Anytime.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with us as a species that we maim and murder weaker beings for fun? If I ever saw someone doing something like that to any animal, regardless of whether it’s cute or not, I’d beat them until my fists were raw and I couldn’t lift my arms anymore.
[/quote]
Hypocrisy FTW![/quote]
How is that hypocrisy? I asked how we can be fucked up enough to hurt innocent beings for fun. I also stated that if I saw someone participating in said act of fuckedupness, that I would beat the ever-loving shit out of them. At what point did you decide that I would call this fun?
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with us as a species that we maim and murder weaker beings for fun? If I ever saw someone doing something like that to any animal, regardless of whether it’s cute or not, I’d beat them until my fists were raw and I couldn’t lift my arms anymore.
[/quote]
Hypocrisy FTW![/quote]
How is that hypocrisy? I asked how we can be fucked up enough to hurt innocent beings for fun. I also stated that if I saw someone participating in said act of fuckedupness, that I would beat the ever-loving shit out of them. At what point did you decide that I would call this fun?
[/quote]
Self-righteous indignation FTMFW!!!
By the way, that dog didn’t just have a bad day. It no longer has a fucking mouth. I can try and post the picture if your smart ass wants to see if a dog having no muzzle is somehow worse than a deer dying.
Nothing beats a troll ruining a thread.
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
By the way, that dog didn’t just have a bad day. It no longer has a fucking mouth. I can try and post the picture if your smart ass wants to see if a dog having no muzzle is somehow worse than a deer dying.[/quote]
Fuck me.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand.
Deer is animal.
Dog is animal.
Dog get boo boo is hurt. Dog have no mouth is sad.
Deer get died killed.
Deer can no be sad because DEER IS FUCKING DEAD.
But deer no personal widdle cute pet so deer died killed okay.
Dog fetchy newspaper make cute facebook picture, so doggie puppy no mouth BAD BAD.
Okie Dokie?
I love animals