NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7899805.stm


Man who microwaved cat walks free
Declan Baker (Pic:Paul Reid/Angus Pictures)
Declan Baker put the kitten in the microwave for about 10 seconds

A teenager who put a four-week-old kitten in a microwave has been given 120 hours community service and banned from keeping pets for seven years.

Declan Baker, 18, from Forfar, drunk half a bottle of whisky before cooking the young cat on 17 October last year.

A horrified friend rescued the kitten, which was convulsing and struggling to walk but it had to be put down by vets.

Animal welfare campaigners have said he should have been jailed and Baker was booed as he walked free from court.

Baker admitted the animal cruelty charges against him.

During questioning by police, he told officers that the kitten had been in the microwave for about 10 seconds.

He said it was a joke that went too far and that he regretted it.

Depute Fiscal Donna Brown told Forfar Sheriff Court: "The kitten showed signs of swollen legs and was given steroid injections to reduce inflammation.

"The next day it managed to eat and drink a little, but its body was still swollen. It was taken home by a vet nurse over the weekend and received treatment. But the decision was taken to put it to sleep.

"The vet said recovery would take too long and would involve too much suffering."


This individual's cruel and reckless behaviour clearly showed a total lack of empathy
Ross Minnett
Advocates for Animals

Defence solicitor Brian Bell told the court that his client had received death threats and had lost his job following the offence.

Sheriff Kevin Veal said: "To put a small, defenceless animal inside a microwave oven and then activate the oven, with the injuries the animal thereafter sustained is altogether appalling and utterly unacceptable."

However, he decided not to jail Baker, saying his sentence would be better served in the community.

He also ordered Baker to pay £150 compensation to cover vet's fees.

The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals described the act as "barbaric."

Senior inspector Mark Lumgair said: "This was a horrific act of animal cruelty, beyond any sort of reasonable understanding.

"Not only was the cat subjected to agonising torture, but it did not die from its injuries and endured pain and suffering until it could be put to sleep by a vet."

Ross Minnett, director of Advocates for Animals, added: "We are disappointed that the sheriff failed to acknowledge the severity of this offence.

"This individual's cruel and reckless behaviour clearly showed a total lack of empathy and disregard for the level of suffering caused to the kitten."


Absolutely horrific, in my opinion. I can't imagine the suffering of that poor animal, and I'm appalled by the sentence. You?

I think the sentence fits. It doesn't serve the state to jail him reactively, perhaps his community service will actually do some good to someone.

That said, as a judge I would not hand down such a sentence.

This is why I continue to believe we need to bring back the stocks as a punishment. If there's not enough prison spaces to put people like this in gaol, the public should have the right to humiliate the criminal and throw things at them (though of course we'd have to search everyone before they were allowed in to the area, don't want anyone bringing in deadly weaponry. No, we don't want that at all:rolleyes:)

But...humans are the superior species and do not have to worry about animals.

But...humans are the superior species and dio not have to worry about animals.

Indeed. Whenever some animallovers complain about the maltreatment of animals in the foodindustry people always mock them. Torturing animals to death is completely acceptable according to society. Complaining about this would make the average non-vegetarian a pathetic hypocrite.

Besides, cats are always cooked alive when served as food. Usually in boiling water and one removes the tongue first, to reduce the screams, but the principle is the same.

Indeed. Whenever some animallovers complain about the maltreatment of animals in the foodindustry people always mock them. Torturing animals to death is completely acceptable according to society. Complaining about this would make the average non-vegetarian a pathetic hypocrite.

Yes. Anyone who buys pieces of an animal to consume, then claims concern over animal rights, is a hypocrite.

Besides, cats are always cooked alive when served as food. Usually in boiling water and one removes the tongue first, to reduce the screams, but the principle is the same.

Cats do some pretty mean things to other animals. Anyway, how much worse is torture than murder?

Yes. Anyone who buys pieces of an animal to consume, then claims concern over animal rights, is a hypocrite.

Correction: anyone who buys pieces of tortured animals to consume, and then complains that torturing animals is bad is a hypocrite. Plenty of meat from non-tortured animals out there - but that often costs more money. Oh noes, not the moneyz !

Cats do some pretty mean things to other animals.

Jep. And humans also like to play with their food. We are a lot like cats there.

Anyway, how much worse is torture than murder?
Good question. Philosophers - assemble !

Correction: anyone who buys pieces of tortured animals to consume, and then complains that torturing animals is bad is a hypocrite. Plenty of meat from non-tortured animals out there - but that often costs more money. Oh noes, not the moneyz !

Killing a healthy animal is not humane, at least not if you believe humane is a rod which can be used in conjunction with animals.


Good question. Philosophers - assemble !

Killing an animal is consider totally normal, totally blameless, yet torturing one is considered extraordinarily unethical--why? They are both activities which are performed to stimulate the human at the animal's expense.

Correction: anyone who buys pieces of tortured animals to consume, and then complains that torturing animals is bad is a hypocrite. Plenty of meat from non-tortured animals out there - but that often costs more money. Oh noes, not the moneyz !
When possible, I kill the animal myself. The best way of meat preservation is keeping it alive.

Of course, it only works for small game, chicken and rabbit, and even then only half the time, but I'm still trying.

Yes. Anyone who buys pieces of an animal to consume, then claims concern over animal rights, is a hypocrite.

Are you saying that because I like hamburgers, I'm a hypocrite if I think stuffing a live kitten in a microwave is wrong?

Killing an animal is consider totally normal, totally blameless, yet torturing one is considered extraordinarily unethical--why? They are both activities which are performed to stimulate the human at the animal's expense.
Perhaps because the former is done out of the necessity for proteins, and possibly in a painless way, but the latter serves no purpose but sick entertainment.

Cats do some pretty mean things to other animals. Anyway, how much worse is torture than murder?
5% worse.

I think the judge should have gotten drunk and put the kid in an oversized microwave for 10 seconds. If the kid moves around a lot, he might find a safe pocket to minimize damage. No more time than that, though. That would be cruel and unusual.

Killing an animal is consider totally normal, totally blameless, yet torturing one is considered extraordinarily unethical--why?

The death penalty is considered just in some states, yet even there torture is considered cruel and unusual -- why?

They are both activities which are performed to stimulate the human at the animal's expense.

Eating =/= sadistic pleasure

Are you saying that because I like hamburgers, I'm a hypocrite if I think stuffing a live kitten in a microwave is wrong?

Yes.

Perhaps because the former is done out of the necessity for proteins,

Surely you know there are plenty of other sources of proteins?

and possibly in a painless way, but the latter serves no purpose but sick entertainment.

Both harm the animal for the human's pleasure; sick is not relevant.

Are you saying that because I like hamburgers, I'm a hypocrite if I think stuffing a live kitten in a microwave is wrong?

Were the animals that provided the meat for your juicy hamburger welltreated ?
Do you even care about such things when buying delicious meat ?

Would the cat microwaving be less offensive to you if the man had consumed it afterwards ?
Note that my boiling alive description of how cat is normally prepared in countries where it is part of the menu is quite accurate. Are the people in those countries deserving of jailtime ?

The death penalty is considered just in some states, yet even there torture is considered cruel and unusual -- why?


Because states are screwed-up; these are the same states where one can suffer incredibly, yet be denied the right to die.


Eating =/= sadistic pleasure

Then it is what type of pleasure the human feels that offends you, and not the inconsideration of the animal?

Then it is what type of pleasure the human feels that offends you, and not the inconsideration of the animal?

Because the animals regularly consumed in society are so often microwaved alive.

Were the animals that provided the meat for your juicy hamburger welltreated ?
Do you even care about such things when buying delicious meat ?

Would the cat microwaving be less offensive to you if the man had consumed it afterwards ?
Note that my boiling alive description of how cat is normally prepared in countries where it is part of the menu is quite accurate. Are the people in those countries deserving of jailtime ?
Obviously, they should be dissuaded from boiling a cat alive and eating it but that is about changing a culture, which is a bit time consuming. Jail time for every other person in a given society wouldn't really be the best tactic.

If I caught my Uncle Lenny snipping out a cat's tongue, boiling it in water and proceed to set the table... yeah - probably some jail time and definitely a lot of therapy.

Yes.
You fail to see the difference between killing a fluffy, poor nutritional value being by boiling it to death from inside and killing animals bred for food efficiently?


Sometimes I truly despise moral highgroundists.

Because states are screwed-up; these are the same states where one can suffer incredibly, yet be denied the right to die.

Nonsense. Was hanging the Nazis after the War Crimes Trials 'screwed up?' How do you imagine these states would not be 'screwed up,' if torture were legal there just because capital punishment exists? The two things aren't even related, let alone dependent on the other.

Just like killing animals for food is different from killing them in the microwave as a "joke."

Then it is what type of pleasure the human feels that offends you, and not the inconsideration of the animal?

Gee yes, motivations for killing have a great impact on the ethical nature of said killing. Your only argument here is to ignore this. 'So, you support shooting someone in self defense, THAT MEANS YOU SUPPORT TORTURE AND MURDER!'

Well, I can't ignore it, and neither do these "screwed up states," and if you can't see any moral difference between killing an animal for food, and torturing and killing an animal for fun, that's your own inability.

Well, I can't ignore it, and neither do these "screwed up states," and if you can't see any moral difference between killing an animal for food, and torturing and killing an animal for fun, that's your own inability.

And it should be added that the torture of animals is usually indicative of more serious psychological issues.

PDF: http://www.brazosanimalshelter.org/the-link-web/The%20Link%202003%20version.pdf

When I was 13 or 14, I put my cat in the microwave. I thought she looked silly through the microwave door, walking around in tight circles. I didn't turn it on of course because I'm a barbarian, not a psycho. :tongue:

When I was 13 or 14, I put my cat in the microwave. I thought she looked silly through the microwave door, walking around in tight circles. I didn't turn it on of course because I'm a barbarian, not a psycho. :tongue:

LG, I hate to tell you this but I don't think you're going to like what you find when you open that microwave. That's quite a few years now, since you were 13.

Were the animals that provided the meat for your juicy hamburger welltreated ?
Do you even care about such things when buying delicious meat ?

Would the cat microwaving be less offensive to you if the man had consumed it afterwards ?
Note that my boiling alive description of how cat is normally prepared in countries where it is part of the menu is quite accurate. Are the people in those countries deserving of jailtime ?

The whole putting the cat in a micowave was a very sick act and all but so is the beef industy. Cattles are pumped full of growth hormoes until they can't moved and chickens are forced to lay eggs until they can't anymore and are killed in a slaughter house not for food but to be done with them. You can't find one offensive and not the other. Not even if you say well that was a mean pointless act of cruetly to a cute creature and the other I get to eat and their not even cute!

LG, I hate to tell you this but I don't think you're going to like what you find when you open that microwave. That's quite a few years now, since you were 13.

:eek:

A cat is merely property; its owner is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

It was a cat. Who cares.

sentence fits.

You fail to see the difference between killing a fluffy, poor nutritional value being by boiling it to death from inside and killing animals bred for food efficiently?

1. I cannot help but notice that people keep avoiding to admit that most animals live horrible lives, which indeed may well contain vastly more suffering than the cat from the OP had to endure. Instead they use words like "efficiently kill".
Why ?

2. "It was bred for this purpose" is a silly argument. That one breeds something for the explicit purpose of letting it suffer and then die does not mean that actually letting it suffer and die is in any way "just". Unless of course you believe that the scary man in Austria who locked his daughter up in his cellar did nothing wrong ? It was after all the destiny he had envisioned for her.
And before people jump in with the "humans are different" line: would it be wrong to microwave the cat if the cat was bred for that purpose ?
Sometimes I truly despise moral highgroundists.
As I do hypocrites and double standards based in lazyness. Where would the world be without something to despise ?

1. I cannot help but notice that people keep avoiding to admit that most animals live horrible lives, which indeed may well contain vastly more suffering than the cat from the OP had to endure. Instead they use words like "efficiently kill".
Why ?

In my opinion, lessening needless suffering in animals is an important, though secondary goal. This person clearly has mental issues if he finds it funny to watch suffering and it is not a stretch to think that he could be a danger to people. That is foremost on my mind.

And it should be added that the torture of animals is usually indicative of more serious psychological issues.

PDF: http://www.brazosanimalshelter.org/the-link-web/The%20Link%202003%20version.pdf

Unlike, say, eating a hamburger. Which is why I think he got off light.

Unlike, say, eating a hamburger. Which is why I think he got off light.

Hamburgers are tasty.

In my opinion, lessening needless suffering in animals is an important, though secondary goal. This person clearly has mental issues if he finds it funny to watch suffering and it is not a stretch to think that he could be a danger to people. That is foremost on my mind.

But then the question becomes why you consider people that enjoy seeing suffering to be a greater threat than people who have no problems with reaping the benefits from suffering. The second category after all tends to suffer from doublethink - which is also dangerous.

But then the question becomes why you consider people that enjoy seeing suffering to be a greater threat than people who have no problems with reaping the benefits from suffering.

A question easily settled by that handy-dandy link Desperate Measures posted.

(And it's not simply "seeing" the suffering, it's being the sole and direct cause of it as well, and deriving amusement from it.)

2. "It was bred for this purpose" is a silly argument. That one breeds something for the explicit purpose of letting it suffer and then die does not mean that actually letting it suffer and die is in any way "just". Unless of course you believe that the scary man in Austria who locked his daughter up in his cellar did nothing wrong ? It was after all the destiny he had envisioned for her.
And before people jump in with the "humans are different" line: would it be wrong to microwave the cat if the cat was bred for that purpose ?

That you would compare meat-eating with a man locking his daughter in the basement and sexually abusing her is telling.

Also, perhaps the fact that a live cat was stuffed in the microwave was quite a bit of the issue?

I don't know about you, but I generally don't try and cook things that are alive.

A cat is merely property; its owner is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

This is, as you would say, objectively wrong.

It was a damn cat, people, cats are hideous creatures.

I believe him walking free is fine, besides, it was his cat.. he can do what the hell he pleases with it.

This is, as you would say, objectively wrong.

A=A, motherfucker.

It was a damn cat, people, cats are hideous creatures.

Hideously adorable, you mean.

That you would compare meat-eating with a man locking his daughter in the basement and sexually abusing her is telling.

Just like it is telling that you keep refusing to address the point you mean ;) ?

Also, perhaps the fact that a live cat was stuffed in the microwave was quite a bit of the issue?

I don't know about you, but I generally don't try and cook things that are alive.

Of course not. You just let it be tortured for a few months before the cooking. Much more humane, indeed.

But then the question becomes why you consider people that enjoy seeing suffering to be a greater threat than people who have no problems with reaping the benefits from suffering. The second category after all tends to suffer from doublethink - which is also dangerous.

I can't speak for every butcher but I hope that for the majority of them enjoy the quality of the work that they do and the benefits that they provide for others. I don't think a person needs any less psychological help if they enjoy seeing an animal suffer just because that person happens to be a butcher.

They should have kicked his ass a little bit before turning him loose, but do I think he deserved jailtime or something? No. He's just an asshole with a tiny little mind and an even tinier soul. I'm sure the scorn of his fellows will be enough to punish him. He'll probably even get stomped a time or two in the future.

I liked the suggestion of bringing back the Stocks, too. I'd attend.

Poor cat, though I'm rather disturbed at the decission to put the cat down when its death was in no way certain.

And yes, this guy has something wrong with him. Being drunk does not suffice as an excuse. He seems to have quite the lack of empathy, and if he thought this was just a joke, he's also rather retarded. He needs jail, or psychiatric treatment, lest like some other animal abusers he graduates to humans.

Poor cat, though I'm rather disturbed at the decission to put the cat down when its death was in no way certain.

And yes, this guy has something wrong with him. Being drunk does not suffice as an excuse. He seems to have quite the lack of empathy, and if he thought this was just a joke, he's also rather retarded. He needs jail, or psychiatric treatment, lest like some other animal abusers he graduates to humans.

Quite a few serial killers started off on animal cruelty. One of the most notable was Peter Kurten aka The Vampire of Dusseldorf.

Surely you know there are plenty of other sources of proteins?
But none offering the complete package of vitamins and minerals that meat does.

Humans need meat - yes, most Westerners are overeating it - but they still need some.


Both harm the animal for the human's pleasure;
The former harms the animal for a necessity, not a pleasure. The latter does it for a sick pleasure. And yes, the sick part is relevant.

Absolutely horrific, in my opinion. I can't imagine the suffering of that poor animal, and I'm appalled by the sentence. You?

Well, no, I'm not appalled by him not being sent to jail. He was drunk, after all, and not a "professional" criminal: if they put him to some serious community service, that will teach him better than jail.

Anyway, too many people think of animals as things, and not as the sentient beings they are.

Killing an animal is consider totally normal, totally blameless, yet torturing one is considered extraordinarily unethical--why? They are both activities which are performed to stimulate the human at the animal's expense.

There's a purpose to killing an animal for meat, there's no purpose to microwaving a kitten.

Anyway, too many people think of animals as things, and not as the sentient beings they are.

I'd recognize them as living things, but hardly sentient.

there's no purpose to microwaving a kitten.

Sure there is.

It's just a purpose you don't approve of.

How is that a valid reason to restrict his sacred right to do with his property as he pleases?

Sure there is.

It's just a purpose you don't approve of.

How is that a valid reason to restrict his sacred right to do with his property as he pleases?

Cats and Cows are bred for two totally different purposes. Cows are bred for food, cats are bred to kill plague bearing rodents. I'd say that's a valid reason to call microwaving a cat without purpose.

I'd recognize them as living things, but hardly sentient.

Hm?

*checking dictionary*

sentient (adj). having, able to have, feeling; experiencing sensation. (the Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press).


I'd say that at the very least all animals with both a central nervous system and a peripheral one qualify as sentient. They can feel pain? Yes, they do. Hence, sentient.

Sure there is.

It's just a purpose you don't approve of.

How is that a valid reason to restrict his sacred right to do with his property as he pleases?

we have restrictions on how one treats property.
If he was going to eat the kitten his treatment might be closer to valid.

Cats and Cows are bred for two totally different purposes. Cows are bred for food, cats are bred to kill plague bearing rodents. I'd say that's a valid reason to call microwaving a cat without purpose.

Cats are edible, though. During wartime all taverns in Italy served "rabbit"... and all the cats had disappeared.

(Anyway, no, I don't believe he was trying a homemade wartime cuisine experiment).

we have restrictions on how one treats property.
Not legitimately.


If he was going to eat the kitten his treatment might be closer to valid.
Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

Nobody shares your view that "nothing else is important". What in the world makes property important in the first place, let alone the only important thing?

Not legitimately.


Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

You base this on what again? Oh, right. A=A, blah blah blah.

Hm?

*checking dictionary*

sentient (adj). having, able to have, feeling; experiencing sensation. (the Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press).


I'd say that at the very least all animals with both a central nervous system and a peripheral one qualify as sentient. They can feel pain? Yes, they do. Hence, sentient.

I'd prefer not to use a dictionary to define sentience. For lack of access to my encyclopedias,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient

"Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively."

Only among a limited number of the higher mammals can be even remotely considered to think or feel subjectively, cats, unfortunately, are not.

Nobody shares your view that "nothing else is important".
Then everyone else is wrong, and should be ignored.

What in the world makes property important in the first place, let alone the only important thing?
It's literally equivalent to human life.

Only among a limited number of the higher mammals can be even remotely considered to think or feel subjectively, cats, unfortunately, are not.
On what basis do you claim that?

Not legitimately.


Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

There is no such thing as sanctity. The existence of the sacred is a myth invented by religious authorities to control the masses. And even if there is such a thing as sanctity, why should it apply to property?

Cats are edible, though. During wartime all taverns in Italy served "rabbit"... and all the cats had disappeared.

'tis not their cultural purpose, though. And, true, during times of scarcity people will eat all sorts of stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party).

(Anyway, no, I don't believe he was trying a homemade wartime cuisine experiment).

And when you go to Juarez, you'll never find a stray dog ;)

Not legitimately.


generally the idea of a social contract is restrictions on ones actions at the will of society. Id say society has laws in place on how certain property may be treated or owned.


Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

food can be argued to be a cultural or personnel taste issue and is something society is just prone to think as a strange quirk rather then an affront to societal values.

Not legitimately.


Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

I'm glad it is the real world and not your imagination.

On what basis do you claim that?

You can watch my cat try to smell the other kitty in the mirror over and over again, to no avail.

You can watch my cat try to smell the other kitty in the mirror over and over again, to no avail.
That proves that they DO have "subjective" thoughts, but are unable to grasp certain concepts. Non-sentient life-forms, like mushrooms for example, DO NOT try to smell the mushroom in the mirror, over and over again, or even once.

generally the idea of a social contract is restrictions on ones actions at the will of society. Id say society has laws in place on how certain property may be treated or owned.
What part of "legitimate" do you not understand?

food can be argued to be a cultural or personnel taste issue and is something society is just prone to think as a strange quirk rather then an affront to societal values.

Since "society" as an organic entity does not exist, "society" has no place to impose its values on the individual. No one is entitled to assault individual sovereignty, whether it be another individual or "the collective."

That proves that they DO have "subjective" thoughts, but are unable to grasp certain concepts. Non-sentient life-forms, like mushrooms for example, DO NOT try to smell the mushroom in the mirror, over and over again, or even once.

I've had mushrooms smell me before...

Then everyone else is wrong, and should be ignored.
How about if we ignore YOU, instead? You have provided us no indications that your opinions on any topic are particularly likely to be correct.

It's literally equivalent to human life.
No, it's not even metaphorically equivalent.

That proves that they DO have "subjective" thoughts, but are unable to grasp certain concepts. Non-sentient life-forms, like mushrooms for example, DO NOT try to smell the mushroom in the mirror, over and over again, or even once.

Uh, no. It proves that Aurora cannot recognize herself, because her primary motivations are those that drive her instincts, not her subjective cognitive ability.

Then everyone else is wrong, and should be ignored.
The criminally insane often claim that they're not crazy; everyone else is.

Not that I'm insinuating you're criminally insane, just sayin'.

It's literally equivalent to human life.

Not really.

If someone steals my TV, under the law, they might go to prison for a year or two at most. I have been set back about $100 and can easily buy another one.

If someone shoots me multiple times in the head, causing me to die, under the law, they might get life imprisonment, or execution. I have lost all of my property, all of my life's work, and my consciousness. None of these are replaceable.


Anyway, my question is, why would anyone microwave a kitten? It's not like they have any good eating on them. Kinda pointless really.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

There is no such thing as private property. There is only that which you can retain control over through force or threat of force. Private property is entirely a construct of society, and that same society sets rules and restrictions on what is and is not defined as private property. Without society and its accompanying rules, then your property is only as private as your ability to stop me from killing you and taking it.

That proves that they DO have "subjective" thoughts, but are unable to grasp certain concepts. Non-sentient life-forms, like mushrooms for example, DO NOT try to smell the mushroom in the mirror, over and over again, or even once.

Whenever I bite into a carrot I have to shut my ears to stifle the tiny screams it's emitting -- after cruelly having its leaves cut off and its skin removed with a sharp knife, it's finally eaten alive and in horrific pain, never to finish the magnificent six-act opera it was in the process of writing at the time.

What part of "legitimate" do you not understand?

legitimate means lawful last time I checked.
so the governments abilities to write laws comes by the consent of the majority of people governed. The people have by and large consented in regards to this restriction on microwaving kittens.


Since "society" as an organic entity does not exist, "society" has no place to impose its values on the individual. No one is entitled to assault individual sovereignty, whether it be another individual or "the collective."

As individualistic as the US is we still share common values and these tend to be legislated.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

Private property is actually fantastically useful, in terms of correcting for externalities, its incentive capability and fostering production of the goods and services society requires, but it's not sacrosanct.

Good question. Philosophers - assemble !
*swoops in, cloak flying in the breeze*

Philosophers Hooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Since "society" as an organic entity does not exist, "society" has no place to impose its values on the individual. No one is entitled to assault individual sovereignty, whether it be another individual or "the collective."

Individuals choose governments to take care of groups of individuals. Governments have the ability to redefine any societal values or constructs they see fit, and it is morally acceptable for them to sacrifice or disregard the needs of a few individuals if it will benefit the rest of them. If you don't like it, try living in a nation that isn't run by a government and see how far you get.

How is that a valid reason to restrict his sacred right to do with his property as he pleases?
Because there is no 'sacred right'.

Even a hardcore libert like yourself must recognise some restrictions on the use of private property; unless you're perfectly happy with me using my private property to, say, destroy all of your private property?

Indeed, you say it yourself:

No one is entitled to assault individual sovereignty, whether it be another individual or "the collective."
You have a self-refuting argument on your hands.

Even a hardcore libert like yourself must recognise some restrictions on the use of private property; unless you're perfectly happy with me using my private property to, say, destroy all of your private property?

Nice try, but you fail.

I've already considered that, and it's not a restriction on private property, but on what you can do to another regardless of the means by which it is done.

I think the sentence fits. It doesn't serve the state to jail him reactively, perhaps his community service will actually do some good to someone.

That said, as a judge I would not hand down such a sentence.

Jailing him wouldn't be a measure to help the state. I have the more Kantian perspective of justice for it's own sake. This guy committed a major wrong by the complete needless torture he inflicted, and by the recklessness of his actions, and thereby deserves punishment.

I ended my sentence too early: "and thereby deserves punishment fitting with his crime, more than community service."

I'd prefer not to use a dictionary to define sentience. For lack of access to my encyclopedias,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient
"Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively."

(As a matter of fact I used a dictionary to define the word "sentient" and not the concept of "sentience" - but this is just nitpicking, I confess.

[QUOTE]Only among a limited number of the higher mammals can be even remotely considered to think or feel subjectively, cats, unfortunately, are not.

Can we be certain of that? I don't think (and no, I don't think that those experiment thingies with the mirrors provide us with a practical and operative definition of subjectivity - which is, having a mind able to operate without outside stimuli, or at least I understood that).

Different brains => different minds => different kinds, or degrees, of "subjectivity".

So, I'd rather keep the simpler, broader and more etimologically correct meaning of "sentient".

Then everyone else is wrong, and should be ignored.

I wonder why you don't follow the logical consequence and ignore us - unless it's comfy for you and your "ideas".

Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about that "universal code of what's right and what's wrong" you spoke of in another thread. This is my fourth request. Your prolonged refusal to explain is positively bordering on plain rudeness.

Nice try, but you fail.

I've already considered that, and it's not a restriction on private property, but on what you can do to another regardless of the means by which it is done.

You're going to be in trouble if you put your kitten in the microwave. I'm sorry about your freedom.
"What? the land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy" -RATM

I wonder why you don't follow the logical consequence and ignore us - unless it's comfy for you and your "ideas".

Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about that "universal code of what's right and what's wrong" you spoke of in another thread. This is my fourth request. Your prolonged refusal to explain is positively bordering on plain rudeness.

ehhh, after a certain point you encounter so many NS posters like that, it's not really worth arguing with them.

Although I still do get flashes of "But I can't stop now. Somebody is wrong on the internet! (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)"

ehhh, after a certain point you encounter so many NS posters like that, it's not really worth arguing with them.


Why? I've noticed that THEY, after knowing ME for a while, get into depression. One just has to be polite, logical, insistent and persistent. MUHUHAHA!

Since "society" as an organic entity does not exist, "society" has no place to impose its values on the individual.
Therefore, "property" does not exist. In the absence of "society", there is no such thing as "property", only "possession" of what you are physically strong enough to prevent someone else walking off with.

I wonder why you don't follow the logical consequence and ignore us - unless it's comfy for you and your "ideas".

Btw, I'm still waiting to hear about that "universal code of what's right and what's wrong" you spoke of in another thread. This is my fourth request. Your prolonged refusal to explain is positively bordering on plain rudeness.

I don't think you realize that A=A.

I've already considered that, and it's not a restriction on private property, but on what you can do to another regardless of the means by which it is done.
Your claim is that individuals have a "sacred right to do with [their] property as [they] please".

Again, your at an impasse. If individuals can do whatever they like with their property, then they can interfere with other individuals and their property. On the other hand, if instead "[n]o one is entitled to assault individual sovereignty", then individuals must be restricted, in some way, from doing as they please with their property.

You could say that 'individuals have a (sacred) right to do with their property as they please, so long as they do not infringe on individual sovereignty'.

I don't think you realize that A=A.

I do. And also:

A=B <=> B=A

and

(A=B and B=C) => A=C

See, I still recall what they taught me in first grade about equalities.

Sure there is.

It's just a purpose you don't approve of.

How is that a valid reason to restrict his sacred right to do with his property as he pleases?

Except it's not stated that the kitten was his in the first place.

Except it's not stated that the kitten was his in the first place.

of course the kitten is his. would he have microwaved it if it wasn't?

this doesn't describe the philosophy of eminent russian-american intellectual, classical pianist, and composer Sergei Rachmaninoff very well at all, but I was tired of people talking about that other chick.

of course the kitten is his. would he have microwaved it if it wasn't?

sounded like he would.

he was drunk and microwaving a kitten was "a joke".

1. I cannot help but notice that people keep avoiding to admit that most animals live horrible lives, which indeed may well contain vastly more suffering than the cat from the OP had to endure. Instead they use words like "efficiently kill".

I cannot help but notice the vegan radicals keep insisting that there's no such thing as humanely grown mass livestock and that their lives are automatically and always vastly more painful than having their internal organs cooked alive. Instead, they use words like "Horrible lives" as a universal label.

I also cannot help but notice that they always gloss over and avoid the question of animal deaths by combine harvesters or outright starvation and poison caused by farming and instead use excuses like "It's less deaths", as if they weren't beating the drum of "any harm whatsoever is bad!" a moment ago.

I wonder why?

Personally, I suspect it's a brand of fundamentalism that closes itself to any facts that might wobble their fragile moral high ground. You can run, try to hide, but you'll never really get away from being a hypocrite.

I cannot help but notice the vegan radicals keep insisting that there's no such thing as humanely grown mass livestock and that their lives are automatically and always vastly more painful than having their internal organs cooked alive. Instead, they use words like "Horrible lives" as a universal label.

I also cannot help but notice that they always gloss over and avoid the question of animal deaths by combine harvesters or outright starvation and poison caused by farming and instead use excuses like "It's less deaths", as if they weren't beating the drum of "any harm whatsoever is bad!".

I wonder why?

Personally, I suspect it's a brand of fundamentalism that closes itself to any facts that might wobble their fragile moral high ground. You can run, try to hide, but you'll never really get away from being a hypocrite.

Yeah it's pretty messed up to compare microwaving a cat to eating any meat whatsoever. Cats are carnivores does that make microwaving a cat a good thing because it means 'less death' for mice and sea-kittens (aka tuna).

Whats appalling about this is that it shows a total disregard for animal life but also an immense capacity for cruelty. It's a totally different thing to kill an animal for fun - as a joke, by burning it from the inside as it's own water molecules heat up - and killing an animal for food. Killing for food is killing with a purpose - the animals life is not wasted, it goes on to sustain more life.

5% worse.

I think the judge should have gotten drunk and put the kid in an oversized microwave for 10 seconds. If the kid moves around a lot, he might find a safe pocket to minimize damage. No more time than that, though. That would be cruel and unusual.

amen to that.

Personally, I suspect it's a brand of fundamentalism that closes itself to any facts that might wobble their fragile moral high ground. You can run, try to hide, but you'll never really get away from being a hypocrite.
Personally, I suspect you're characterising a lot of people, 'vegan radicals', as having a single view-point; and a rather dim one at that.

There's a hell of a lot more to the opposition to factory farming/meat eating than a simplistic 'harm is bad' approach; a fact that you yourself have acknowledged (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14503531&postcount=184) only a wee while ago. Attack the eejits and their arguments by all means, I'm with you, but don't tar all with the same brush.

Personally, I suspect you're characterising a lot of people, 'vegan radicals', as having a single view-point; and a rather dim one at that.

There's a hell of a lot more to the opposition to factory farming/meat eating than a simplistic 'harm is bad' approach; a fact that you yourself have acknowledged (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14503531&postcount=184) only a wee while ago. Attack the eejits and their arguments by all means, I'm with you, but don't tar all with the same brush.

Unless you're confessing to be a vegan radical, or alleging that you can't be a vegan without being a radical, I hardly see how applying the above moral standard to vegan radicals to be tarring all vegans with the same brush.

Furthermore, my acknowledgment was for personal reasons for vegetarianism. It had absolutely nothing to do with factory farming.

That guy will be facing the public's vengence. He'll be shunned for years.

The damn Drunk.

The whole putting the cat in a micowave was a very sick act and all but so is the beef industy. Cattles are pumped full of growth hormoes until they can't moved and chickens are forced to lay eggs until they can't anymore and are killed in a slaughter house not for food but to be done with them. You can't find one offensive and not the other. Not even if you say well that was a mean pointless act of cruetly to a cute creature and the other I get to eat and their not even cute!

Not where I come from they're not. I've seen beef cattle in Australia, they are well-grazed, well-fed and seeing as how they frequently travel across the roads, I think they can move quite well.

Chickens on the other hand - I buy free range chickens, and where possible, get the eggs or the chickens themselves from people on the land. That way I know they are well-looked after, because I can see how they are kept.

Eating meat is not always equivalent to animal cruelty and there is no reason to consider someone hypocritical because they think that microwaving a defenceless animal for fun is a horrific act.

Perhaps instead of taking the moral highground that simply turns people off, animal rights lobbyists could take the approach of enlightening people by highlighting the suffering that some meat animals feel using the attention that cases like these produce. People don't like being belittled.

EDIT: I often find that many of my vegan friends who abhor me for eating meat and animal products often are disinterested at best regarding the suffering of their fellow humans. For instance, I gave up eating chocolate or cocoa based products recently (a very hard concession) after reading about the slave trade in cocoa. I also drink fairtrade certified teas and coffees or where they aren't available, I don't drink them. Yet most of my vegan friends couldn't care less about the oppression of people to produce their foods. They still eat non-dairy chocolate, still drink tea and coffee and don't really care. I find this hypocritical in the extreme.

That guy will be facing the public's vengence. He'll be shunned for years.

The damn Drunk.

Hey, when I drink half a bottle of whiskey I don't go around microwaving cats. Being drunk is no excuse for that sort of thing - only for passing out naked in other peoples lawns.

Hey, when I drink half a bottle of whiskey I don't go around microwaving cats. Being drunk is no excuse for that sort of thing - only for passing out naked in other peoples lawns.

Yes... yes, that's it. I was... drunk. Yeah.

Not even doom music justifies microwaving cats.

Hm?

*checking dictionary*

sentient (adj). having, able to have, feeling; experiencing sensation. (the Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press).


I'd say that at the very least all animals with both a central nervous system and a peripheral one qualify as sentient. They can feel pain? Yes, they do. Hence, sentient.

Are we confusing sentient and sapient?

Not even doom music justifies microwaving cats.

Dude, nothing makes seal clubbing cool. Not even epic music.

Dude, nothing makes seal clubbing cool. Not even epic music.

the clothing produced does.

You can watch my cat try to smell the other kitty in the mirror over and over again, to no avail.
which proves your cat is seriously retarded or are just making shit up and dont in fact have a cat.
Cats ignore mirrors. They know there's no cat there because they use all their senses, not just sight. They can see another cat but because it gives off no smell, taste (they can literally taste what they smell and vice versa) or sound (and their hearing is better than dogs) they know it's not real and thus will ignore it.

That really does sicken me...They should stick him in a Microwave for Ten seconds...

Douchebag...

which proves your cat is seriously retarded or are just making shit up and dont in fact have a cat.
Cats ignore mirrors. They know there's no cat there because they use all their senses, not just sight. They can see another cat but because it gives off no smell, taste (they can literally taste what they smell and vice versa) or sound (and their hearing is better than dogs) they know it's not real and thus will ignore it.

I'm not actually sure about this one. I was in a museum a few days ago that actually used a point similar to this to illustrate how dolphin intelligence is similar to human intelligence.

Apparently a dolphin, like a human, can recognize itself in a reflection whereas a cat or a dog cannot.

But apart from when they were kittens and pawed at the image, my cats usually do not pay any attention to mirrors in my experience.

It was a damn cat, people, cats are hideous creatures.

Thou shalt be prey unto Nyarlatothep, while cat-lovers will be protected. Thus spake Lovecraft.

I believe him walking free is fine, besides, it was his cat.. he can do what the hell he pleases with it.
The law says the contrary.

Are we confusing sentient and sapient?
No.

Sapient (compare with latin: sapiens) is "able to gather knowledge".
Sentient (compare with latin: sentio) is "able to feel".

You feel through nervous system. You know through mind (not brain; mind).

Yeah it's pretty messed up to compare microwaving a cat to eating any meat whatsoever. Cats are carnivores does that make microwaving a cat a good thing because it means 'less death' for mice and sea-kittens (aka tuna).


Tuna is carnivore too. Hence eating sea-kitten means less death for small fishes.

I'd recognize them as living things, but hardly sentient.

What about chimps?

That guy will be facing the public's vengence. He'll be shunned for years.

The damn Drunk.

It's Scotland, that country was built on cat-microwaving. He'll be hailed as a hero.

which proves your cat is seriously retarded or are just making shit up and dont in fact have a cat.
Cats ignore mirrors. They know there's no cat there because they use all their senses, not just sight. They can see another cat but because it gives off no smell, taste (they can literally taste what they smell and vice versa) or sound (and their hearing is better than dogs) they know it's not real and thus will ignore it.

I've lived all my life with cats and I must humbly disagree with you.

Every cat I've known has freaked the first time it sees itself in a mirror. They then gingerly (if you forgive the pun) check the mirror out and don't get fooled again.

It seems they learn.

I've lived all my life with cats and I must humbly disagree with you.

Every cat I've known has freaked the first time it sees itself in a mirror. They then gingerly (if you forgive the pun) check the mirror out and don't get fooled again.

It seems they learn.

None of mine have, and ones extremely intelligent by cat standards.

okay i dont care how bad this sounds i hope he does move on to torturing humans because then poeple will start to see how torturing animals and being allowed to walk free can escalate into something that heartless (there just animals) people can see as wrong and will start to pay more attention to cruel acts like this and punish accordingly
like castration
i certainly dont want this man spawning

You can watch my cat try to smell the other kitty in the mirror over and over again, to no avail.

meanwhile in kitty's head...

damn, I look good!

Unless you're confessing to be a vegan radical, or alleging that you can't be a vegan without being a radical, I hardly see how applying the above moral standard to vegan radicals to be tarring all vegans with the same brush.
You're tarring all vegan 'radicals', however.

It's a mistake to assume that all people who propose a revolutionary change in attitude/behaviour towards nonhuman animals do so from the motive of minimising harm.

You're tarring all vegan 'radicals', however.

It's a mistake to assume that all people who propose a revolutionary change in attitude/behaviour towards nonhuman animals do so from the motive of minimising harm.

I've yet to see a vegan radical who hasn't at least espoused the whole "meat = murder" bunch of codswallop. I suspect it's primarily because the ones who don't peddle that sort of argument are more reasonable about the whole issue.

I've yet to see a vegan radical who hasn't at least espoused the whole "meat = murder" bunch of codswallop.

Dunno. The two vegans who tried me to persuade me into joining their cause looked quite radical (in their veganness) and used the "meat=pain" instead.

Vegans, meh. That's what the Atlas UFO Robot is for.

There are a few posts in this thread that bother me. Other posters have responded already to some of them but I thought I'd add my twopence worth.

Perhaps because the former is done out of the necessity for proteins, and possibly in a painless way, but the latter serves no purpose but sick entertainment.

There are other ways of getting proteins. People eat meat for pleasure. The subject of the OP microwaved the cat for pleasure. To me, the question to be asked is how much suffering is involved in this pleasure.

It was a damn cat, people, cats are hideous creatures.

I believe him walking free is fine, besides, it was his cat.. he can do what the hell he pleases with it.

People might think that RT is hideous. Does that mean it is OK to microwave RT?

People don't own cats. If you think they do then you've never lived with one. The relationship is a contract for the mutual benefit of the two parties.

Poor cat, though I'm rather disturbed at the decission to put the cat down when its death was in no way certain.

And yes, this guy has something wrong with him. Being drunk does not suffice as an excuse. He seems to have quite the lack of empathy, and if he thought this was just a joke, he's also rather retarded. He needs jail, or psychiatric treatment, lest like some other animal abusers he graduates to humans.

Nobody needs jail. Are you saying being in jail helps someone? It might help society, but not the prisoner.

But none offering the complete package of vitamins and minerals that meat does.

Humans need meat - yes, most Westerners are overeating it - but they still need some.

The former harms the animal for a necessity, not a pleasure. The latter does it for a sick pleasure. And yes, the sick part is relevant.

As I said earlier, nobody needs meat. There are other ways of getting all the nutrition that meat provides even if, as in my case, you take supplements (for me, it's B12). A vegetarian diet is also cheaper, but that's by the by.

People eat meat for pleasure. To some that is sick. Whether it is equivalent to microwaving a live cat is a matter for debate. To me, to re-state, it's a question of the suffering involved.

There's a purpose to killing an animal for meat, there's no purpose to microwaving a kitten.

Again, both are done for pleasure.

Cats and Cows are bred for two totally different purposes. Cows are bred for food, cats are bred to kill plague bearing rodents. I'd say that's a valid reason to call microwaving a cat without purpose.

No, the purpose is the same. Again, for our pleasure.

Not legitimately.


Why do his reasons matter? It's his; nothing else is important.

What radical leftists such as yourself refuse to understand is that private property is sacred. There are absolutely zero valid, legitimate restrictions on what one can do with his private property.

Legitimate = lawful. Show me the law, please. You remind me of religious fundamentalists by equating belief with fact.

Whenever I bite into a carrot I have to shut my ears to stifle the tiny screams it's emitting -- after cruelly having its leaves cut off and its skin removed with a sharp knife, it's finally eaten alive and in horrific pain, never to finish the magnificent six-act opera it was in the process of writing at the time.

It's hard not to be sarcastic when I hear, yet again, this tiresome joke.

I cannot help but notice the vegan radicals keep insisting that there's no such thing as humanely grown mass livestock and that their lives are automatically and always vastly more painful than having their internal organs cooked alive. Instead, they use words like "Horrible lives" as a universal label.

I also cannot help but notice that they always gloss over and avoid the question of animal deaths by combine harvesters or outright starvation and poison caused by farming and instead use excuses like "It's less deaths", as if they weren't beating the drum of "any harm whatsoever is bad!" a moment ago.

I wonder why?

Personally, I suspect it's a brand of fundamentalism that closes itself to any facts that might wobble their fragile moral high ground. You can run, try to hide, but you'll never really get away from being a hypocrite.

As a vegetarian I am simply trying to make the world a better place. My chosen lifestyle may still cause suffering. How much of an effort are you making to reduce suffering? (I'm being rhetorical - I'm sure you make an effort in some areas.)

Yeah it's pretty messed up to compare microwaving a cat to eating any meat whatsoever. Cats are carnivores does that make microwaving a cat a good thing because it means 'less death' for mice and sea-kittens (aka tuna).

Whats appalling about this is that it shows a total disregard for animal life but also an immense capacity for cruelty. It's a totally different thing to kill an animal for fun - as a joke, by burning it from the inside as it's own water molecules heat up - and killing an animal for food. Killing for food is killing with a purpose - the animals life is not wasted, it goes on to sustain more life.

That other people or animals kill for meat is no reason why I should.

the clothing produced does.

That's horrible.

As a vegetarian I am simply trying to make the world a better place. My chosen lifestyle may still cause suffering. How much of an effort are you making to reduce suffering? (I'm being rhetorical - I'm sure you make an effort in some areas.)


As a pragmatist, there's almost nothing you can do in human society that isn't tied to human suffering somewhere. The lines of connection are simply too many and intricate. Whether a omnivore or a vegetarian, the amount of human suffering caused is approximately the same unless you become a total recluse and gain self sufficiency.

Once you open the lines of connection to animal suffering, you might as well chuck the idea of moral high ground from reduced suffering out the window. It doesn't happen anywhere except only in your imagination and because you close your eyes.

I've said it before. All life is dependent on death and the suffering related to that, whether directly or indirectly. There is no exception to this rule whatsoever. Anyone who pretends otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

As a pragmatist, there's almost nothing you can do in human society that isn't tied to human suffering somewhere.

Agreed. So far.

The lines of connection are simply too many and intricate.

Oh. It's all too hard.

Whether a omnivore or a vegetarian, the amount of human suffering caused is approximately the same unless you become a total recluse and gain self sufficiency.

Cop out. Try harder.

Once you open the lines of connection to animal suffering, you might as well chuck the idea of moral high ground from reduced suffering out the window. It doesn't happen anywhere except only in your imagination and because you close your eyes.

You and I can both make choices that will materially reduce suffering in this world. Have you considered trying it?

I've said it before. All life is dependent on death and the suffering related to that, whether directly or indirectly. There is no exception to this rule whatsoever. Anyone who pretends otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

Doesn't mean we can't make the effort to reduce suffering. I really think you're taking the easy way out.

There are other ways of getting proteins. People eat meat for pleasure. The subject of the OP microwaved the cat for pleasure. To me, the question to be asked is how much suffering is involved in this pleasure.

To me, the question to be asked is the motivation behind the act. This man microwaved a cat. Because he was drunk. People eat meat because they are not as educated, because they believe that they need to. Try coming out to central QLD and telling the people they don't need meat. Telling people that they shouldn't care about the suffering of this little kitten because they eat meat is a disgusting point of view. Not saying its yours, but it is the POV of many vegans.





As I said earlier, nobody needs meat. There are other ways of getting all the nutrition that meat provides even if, as in my case, you take supplements (for me, it's B12). A vegetarian diet is also cheaper, but that's by the by.

People eat meat for pleasure. To some that is sick. Whether it is equivalent to microwaving a live cat is a matter for debate. To me, to re-state, it's a question of the suffering involved.


People eat meat because they are not educated, or because they make the choice to eat meat. I think it's sick that people eat Nestle or Hershey's or Cadbury chocolate, because I understand the suffering of many slaves on cocoa plantations. I think it disgusting that people wear diamonds, since again, a small but significant amount of diamonds are mined by slaves. I think it disgusting that people drink tea and coffee, since again, there are huge issues there with slavery and forced labour. I choose not to alienate my friends and family by expressing this opinion in those words. Would that my vegan friends do the same for my choice to eat meat.




As a vegetarian I am simply trying to make the world a better place. My chosen lifestyle may still cause suffering. How much of an effort are you making to reduce suffering? (I'm being rhetorical - I'm sure you make an effort in some areas.)

Your chosen lifestyle, if everyone participated in it, would cause great suffering to cattle, sheep and pig farmers in this country, most of whom look after their animals appropriately. I make every effort to reduce human suffering by making conscious choices about my food. I gave up chocolate upon finding out about the slave trade - something that was very difficult for me to do. What do you do to reduce human suffering? (I expect that you do quite a lot - again a rhetorical question).

...[Interesting and valid things]...



I think we aren't far apart. People ought to think about the consequences of their decisions, be it eating animals or chocolate.

I think we aren't far apart. People ought to think about the consequences of their decisions, be it eating animals or chocolate.

Glad to see there's at least one level-headed individual in this place who actually reads posts.

Thanks for that. I agree. I acknowledge that eating meat is my choice absolutely, but I do make an effort to buy locally produced meat killed in my area where I know it's done humanely (I know some of the abattoir workers out here) or pay extra for free range meats. I also take the time to research the companies to make sure their animals are appropriately and humanely treated.

I'm not sure I buy into the meat is murder theory, but I'm also not sure I agree that animals are necessarily as below us humans as they seem.

Oh. It's all too hard.

Try impossible. Take for example, cocoa. Nice to make a hot drink with right? Except cocoa has strong ties (http://www.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm) to child slavery in the fields where they're grown. There are many intermediaries between the production of cocoa beans and the end product, but the consumer still gains on the very basic foundation of slave labor.

What about other consumer goods? TV's for example. In all likelihood, it was produced in China in a factory built on stolen land belonging to farmers.

Or how about the clothes you wear? Cheap stuff should be fine, right? Wrong. If you trace it far enough, you might see where either the production or the raw materials came from people who were mistreated.

Everywhere you look, the foundations of society are built on someone being screwed over by the standards of those who stand on top of the filth. The only reason why moralists can preach is because they either cannot or don't want to see the suffering their societies are built on.


Cop out. Try harder.


You call it a cop out, but I don't see you taking up a life of a hermit now do I?


You and I can both make choices that will materially reduce suffering in this world. Have you considered trying it?

Materially reduce? Idealistic, but laughable. Why don't you provide a workable solution then hmm? Say, the cocoa slavery. Let's hear your brilliant idea on not only how to put a stop to that kind of thing, but prevent the inevitable economic crash that is going to collapse on the now useless slaves.


Doesn't mean we can't make the effort to reduce suffering. I really think you're taking the easy way out.

I'm taking a realistic viewpoint. I don't go out of the way to cause harm to others, but I acknowledge the fact that simply by existing, I will end up causing harm to some indirectly.

Just remember. Resources are finite, and people will screw each other over to gain them, one way or another. The more lines of separation there are, the easier it will be for them to do so.

Everywhere you look, the foundations of society are built on someone being screwed over by the standards of those who stand on top of the filth. The only reason why moralists can preach is because they either cannot or don't want to see the suffering their societies are built on.
I fail to see your point.

If society is based upon the exploitation of others, what is the problem with recognising this exploitation, and calling for its abolishment? Indeed, if society is based upon exploitation, then those who oppose it have no choice but to call for reform and revolution in the midst of exploitation.

I live in a patriarchal, inegalitarian, racist, oppressive society. Are you saying I can thus never legitimately support those movements calling for an end to such practices?

I fail to see your point.

If society is based upon the exploitation of others, what is the problem with recognising this exploitation, and calling for its abolishment? Indeed, if society is based upon exploitation, then those who oppose it have no choice but to call for reform and revolution in the midst of exploitation.

I live in a patriarchal, inegalitarian, racist, oppressive society. Are you saying I can thus never legitimately support those movements calling for an end to such practices?

Remember that discussion we had some time back? Where resources were limited, and that wants were both infinite and mostly tied to possession of resources?

The more lines of separation there are between what someone wants and the actual suffering caused in getting that want fulfilled, the less the person will care. It's rather that simple. Society is simply a group extension of this mentality, and no amount of movements that call for an end to this sort of behavior will really put an end to it. You can't, because that would be calling for the abolishment of wants altogether.

Non Aligned States, why so pesimistic? Yes, the world is nasty and exploitative but don't give up. Fight the good fight. You can make a difference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7899805.stm



Absolutely horrific, in my opinion. I can't imagine the suffering of that poor animal, and I'm appalled by the sentence. You?
So what about people who eat meat from factory farms? Those people walk free too. Before you get all holier-than-thou, it might be an idea to ask yourself what you have done to animals that you didn't need to. The same goes for whatever employee fired him, and the people who booed him out of court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't regard what he did as being defensible itself, but I'm just trying to make a point here. I can't help but get the impression that there's a favoritism within popular opinion towards the "rights" of cuter animals like cats. It's like how seal-hunt protestors talk about how they have popular opinion on their side, yet that their protestors aren't hypocrites because they campaign for the rights of other animals too; obviously unless the majority of people are vegetarians, they aren't consistent about supporting animal rights; which suggests that claiming to have popular opinion on one's side is claiming that most of one's supporters are hypocrites.

That said, I don't support animal rights; at least not yet. But at least I'm not inconsistent about it.

So what about people who eat meat from factory farms? Those people walk free too. Before you get all holier-than-thou, it might be an idea to ask yourself what you have done to animals that you didn't need to. The same goes for whatever employee fired him, and the people who booed him out of court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't regard what he did as being defensible itself, but I'm just trying to make a point here. I can't help but get the impression that there's a favoritism within popular opinion towards the "rights" of cuter animals like cats. It's like how seal-hunt protestors talk about how they have popular opinion on their side, yet that their protestors aren't hypocrites because they campaign for the rights of other animals too; obviously unless the majority of people are vegetarians, they aren't consistent about supporting animal rights; which suggests that claiming to have popular opinion on one's side is claiming that most of one's supporters are hypocrites.

That said, I don't support animal rights; at least not yet. But at least I'm not inconsistent about it.

Accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency are complete red herrings. A hyprocrite who makes the world a better place is doing far more good than a constistent person who does nothing. No-one can live a perfect life. But that's no reason to give up.

Accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency are complete red herrings. A hyprocrite who makes the world a better place is doing far more good than a constistent person who does nothing. No-one can live a perfect life. But that's no reason to give up.
Fair enough, but I don't mean to sound consistency-centric. I'm just making a point about the holier-than-thou judgemental hypocrisy on this subject... which, granted, isn't exclusive to this subject.

Fair enough, but I don't mean to sound consistency-centric. I'm just making a point about the holier-than-thou judgemental hypocrisy on this subject... which, granted, isn't exclusive to this subject.

I'm far too modest to ever come across as holier-than-thou. :wink:

But...humans are the superior species and do not have to worry about animals.

sure you are, primate.

http://www.marvel.com/universe3zx/images/5/56/Magneto442px.jpg

JOIN THE BROTHERHOOD!

EDIT: I'll leave this post up, but we are, again, hijacking. I won't continue this conversation, unless you want to move it to another thread.

Remember that discussion we had some time back? Where resources were limited, and that wants were both infinite and mostly tied to possession of resources?
Yes, I remember we disagreed on almost everything.

The more lines of separation there are between what someone wants and the actual suffering caused in getting that want fulfilled, the less the person will care. It's rather that simple. Society is simply a group extension of this mentality
Current society might fairly be classed as such, but I reject the notion that all human societies are necessarily exploitative.

...and no amount of movements that call for an end to this sort of behavior will really put an end to it. You can't, because that would be calling for the abolishment of wants altogether.
Then how do you explain social change? The (continuing) struggles of the civil rights and feminist movements?

People eat meat because they are not as educated, because they believe that they need to.
I eat meat because its delicious and I don't care about the "suffering" of cows or chickens or whatever.

I eat meat because its delicious and I don't care about the "suffering" of cows or chickens or whatever.

Which is what I've been arguing all along. People eat meat for pleasure. The subject in the OP microwaved his cat for pleasure (it seems). To me, the question then becomes how much suffering we are prepared to put animals through for our pleasure. Did the cat suffer more or less than meat animals do in the slaughterhouse?

So... if I'm a hypocrite for eating meat and not microwaving kittens, am I also a hypocrite for not eating Veal?

I'm just curious.

So... if I'm a hypocrite for eating meat and not microwaving kittens, am I also a hypocrite for not eating Veal?

I'm just curious.

I don't care whether you're a hypocrite or not. I don't really even care if you eat meat or not. What I do advocate is that people 1) think about the ethical ramifications of their decisions and 2) do something (even if minor) to make the world a better place. Some vegetarians wear leather shoes. That may not be consistent but its better than not being vegetarian at all.

I don't care whether you're a hypocrite or not. I don't really even care if you eat meat or not. What I do advocate is that people 1) think about the ethical ramifications of their decisions and 2) do something (even if minor) to make the world a better place. Some vegetarians wear leather shoes. That may not be consistent but its better than not being vegetarian at all.

That wasn't actually aimed at you. I was more talking to the people who implied that meat-eaters had no grounds to criticize kitten-baking.

So... if I'm a hypocrite for eating meat and not microwaving kittens, am I also a hypocrite for not eating Veal?

I'm just curious.

Depends. What are your reasons to do or not do all those things ?

Now you need to hear reasons not to bake a kitten in the microwave? You're really reaching. Why don't you just drop the "lol, everyone except vegetarians are hypocrites" 'argument' already?

Why don't you just drop the "lol, everyone except vegetarians are hypocrites" 'argument' already?
Because simply being told to drop an argument isn't a good reason to do so.

Because simply being told to drop an argument isn't a good reason to do so.

"You're hypocrites" is not an argument.

Okay... Im not going to waste my time by reading all of the posts since I know they probably don't contain anything based on what I wish to confront...

But here it goes...

Personally... sure... thats a pretty damn sick thing to do... But what makes me mad...

is that they didnt realize that it was effed up beyond repair... I would've just uthinized the little critter right there... I wouldnt spend the time and money on trying to revive some non-important animal thats been through that much suffering already.

"You're hypocrites" is not an argument.
No, it isn't. But that's not what Alma Mater is claiming.

Torturing animals is bad.
Microwaving a cat is torture.
Therefore, microwaving a cat is bad.
Meat farming is torture.
Therefore, meat farming is bad.
Therefore, those who are appalled at microwaving a cat but not at meat farming are hypocrites.

The above is a valid argument, and it is what Alma Mater is claiming. By all means, debate the argument, but simply stating that s/he should 'drop it' is not a meaningful contribution.

So what about people who eat meat from factory farms? Those people walk free too. Before you get all holier-than-thou, it might be an idea to ask yourself what you have done to animals that you didn't need to. The same goes for whatever employee fired him, and the people who booed him out of court.

Don't get me wrong, I don't regard what he did as being defensible itself, but I'm just trying to make a point here. I can't help but get the impression that there's a favoritism within popular opinion towards the "rights" of cuter animals like cats. It's like how seal-hunt protestors talk about how they have popular opinion on their side, yet that their protestors aren't hypocrites because they campaign for the rights of other animals too; obviously unless the majority of people are vegetarians, they aren't consistent about supporting animal rights; which suggests that claiming to have popular opinion on one's side is claiming that most of one's supporters are hypocrites.

That said, I don't support animal rights; at least not yet. But at least I'm not inconsistent about it.

Very well said!

No, it isn't. But that's not what Alma Mater is claiming.

Torturing animals is bad.
Microwaving a cat is torture.
Therefore, microwaving a cat is bad.
Meat farming is torture.
Therefore, meat farming is bad.
Therefore, those who are appalled at microwaving a cat but not at meat farming are hypocrites.

That is precisely what I said he's 'arguing.' Thank you for agreeing.

The above is a valid argument, and it is what Alma Mater is claiming. By all means, debate the argument

He ignored it when I did. So, now I'm asking nicely, since his purpose is just to use a horrific event as an excuse to bash people for holding a completely unrelated position on a completely unrelated fucking subject.

, but simply stating that s/he should 'drop it' is not a meaningful contribution.

It's a lot more meaningful than what you're 'contributing' right now.

I eat meat because its delicious and I don't care about the "suffering" of cows or chickens or whatever.

And I also eat meat as well as support the entire idea across the wide spectrum of humanity BECAUSE humans have been eating meat for.... well...

for as long as we've been around...

I eat meat cause we were made to. I wont say that we WERENT made to eat those yummy greens as well... I'm just sayin... People were built to eat meat. So eat meat.

That is precisely what I said he's 'arguing.'
No, you stated that TAM's argument was "You're hypocrites".

Perhaps a recap on the difference between a whole and a part is in order?

No, it isn't. But that's not what Alma Mater is claiming.

Torturing animals is bad.
Microwaving a cat is torture.
Therefore, microwaving a cat is bad.
Meat farming is torture.
Therefore, meat farming is bad.
Therefore, those who are appalled at microwaving a cat but not at meat farming are hypocrites.

The above is a valid argument, and it is what Alma Mater is claiming. By all means, debate the argument, but simply stating that s/he should 'drop it' is not a meaningful contribution.

The argument is valid, but I question some of the premises. Is meat farming torture? How are we defining torture in this context? If I simply kill an animal quickly and painlessly, is that also torture? Can you obtain meat without torture?

Assuming for a moment that the conclusion leads us to agree that meat is only obtainable by torture--which is still not a forgone conclusion, mind you--we must also argue degrees of magnitude.

The argument is valid, but I question some of the premises.
Quite.

I am merely demonstrating that there is an argument.

The question of whether meat farming is torture, and further what 'torture' is, are important ones, though perhaps TAM should answer the challenges to his/her own argument, not me.

Which is what I've been arguing all along. People eat meat for pleasure. The subject in the OP microwaved his cat for pleasure (it seems). To me, the question then becomes how much suffering we are prepared to put animals through for our pleasure. Did the cat suffer more or less than meat animals do in the slaughterhouse?

People don't only eat meat for pleasure. They eat it because it provides a lot of the life sustaining nutrients which the body needs. It may happen to also taste damn good but thats just a side effect of our enjoying what our bodies need.

Microwaving a Kitten has absolutely nothing to do with meat eating. For one - animals are not made to *needlessly* suffer. One may have a point in condemning some of the cruel practices which go on in slaughterhouses today but there is quite a difference morally between pointless suffering and suffering caused for a purpose. (No, I don't eat veal either!)

Let's take the argument up a notch and consider the suffering of humans. Many neo-cons support torture as a method of extracting information from suspected terrorists. Personally I think it's barbaric, but I wouldn't think them hypocritical if they also condemned kidnapping and torturing little girls.

FYI, it's interesting to note that animals which live good lives and don't suffer when they die actually taste better. It's because the adrenaline produced when an animal is afraid taints the meat.

he's lucky I'm I'm in another country.




I've damaged a Russ-chav's brain severely for messing with my kitten. >.>

People don't only eat meat for pleasure. They eat it because it provides a lot of the life sustaining nutrients which the body needs. It may happen to also taste damn good but thats just a side effect of our enjoying what our bodies need.

Microwaving a Kitten has absolutely nothing to do with meat eating. For one - animals are not made to *needlessly* suffer. One may have a point in condemning some of the cruel practices which go on in slaughterhouses today but there is quite a difference morally between pointless suffering and suffering caused for a purpose. (No, I don't eat veal either!)

Let's take the argument up a notch and consider the suffering of humans. Many neo-cons support torture as a method of extracting information from suspected terrorists. Personally I think it's barbaric, but I wouldn't think them hypocritical if they also condemned kidnapping and torturing little girls.

FYI, it's interesting to note that animals which live good lives and don't suffer when they die actually taste better. It's because the adrenaline produced when an animal is afraid taints the meat.


That's the clearest argument on the subject I've heard.

Then everyone else is wrong, and should be ignored.


It's literally equivalent to human life.
That is the single most ridiculous thing I have heard. Property =/= human life.
Human life cannot be replaced.
A car can.

That is the single most ridiculous thing I have heard. Property =/= human life.
Human life cannot be replaced.
A car can.
To play devil's advocate, a human life can be replaced in as much the same way a car can; insofar as we're talking about a new human/car replacing a no longer existent human/car.

just once i'd like to see a cat microwave a human and walk free.
preferably a human who deserved it, well actually i wouldn't really like to see that happen to anyone, but you know if some idiot goes out in the woods and does something stupid and gets torn up by a cat, oh how awful, no one asks if the cat was merely defending itself, they send someone out to shoot it.
what's good for the cat is good for the human either way.
i'm not advocating capitol punishment, rather an end to this idiotic nonsense of species chauvinism.

what's good for the cat is good for the human either way.
i'm not advocating capitol punishment, rather an end to this idiotic nonsense of species chauvinism.

Between being dinner for a lion or vice versa, which would you pick? I'm rather curious where the line is when moralists start arguing that all lives across species are equal.

I have no qualms if someone kills a kitten, or any animal for that matter for survival. It's the food chain. When someone tortures a kitten, takes it out, then laughs at it that's where I draw the line.

I say put him in a scaled microwave for ten seconds and see how much he likes it.

People don't only eat meat for pleasure. They eat it because it provides a lot of the life sustaining nutrients which the body needs. It may happen to also taste damn good...

I disagree with you. The world is full of functional, healthy vegetarians. Some suffer from an iron or a B12 deficiency but those problems can be easily overcome with supplements. People eat meat because they want to, not because they have to. You admit as much yourself when you say it's tasty.

I disagree with you. The world is full of functional, healthy vegetarians. Some suffer from an iron or a B12 deficiency but those problems can be easily overcome with supplements. People eat meat because they want to, not because they have to. You admit as much yourself when you say it's tasty.

It may be a choice to whether or not to absorb needed nutrients from animal flesh or from other sources but the fact is that people eat meat for food. Food is life sustaining so the animals don't die for nothing. It's not hypocritical to condemn cruel and pointless suffering (ie. microwaving a live cat) and to still eat meat. I think my previous post shows that comparing the two is ridiculous.

I think that the fact that you did not address my main argument but instead chose to nit-pick about nutrition shows that on some level you recognize that this is logical. You may still disagree with both eating meat and cruelty to animals but the fact that some people disagree with one and not the other does not make them hypocritical.

Excuse me, I have to feed my cat dead animal flesh now...

It may be a choice to whether or not to absorb needed nutrients from animal flesh or from other sources but the fact is that people eat meat for food. Food is life sustaining so the animals don't die for nothing. It's not hypocritical to condemn cruel and pointless suffering (ie. microwaving a live cat) and to still eat meat. I think my previous post shows that comparing the two is ridiculous.

I think that the fact that you did not address my main argument but instead chose to nit-pick about nutrition shows that on some level you recognize that this is logical. You may still disagree with both eating meat and cruelty to animals but the fact that some people disagree with one and not the other does not make them hypocritical.

Excuse me, I have to feed my cat dead animal flesh now...

I haven't accused you of hypocrisy. Please re-read this response of mine to a previous post:

I don't care whether you're a hypocrite or not. I don't really even care if you eat meat or not. What I do advocate is that people 1) think about the ethical ramifications of their decisions and 2) do something (even if minor) to make the world a better place. Some vegetarians wear leather shoes. That may not be consistent but its better than not being vegetarian at all.

And this one:

Accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency are complete red herrings. A hyprocrite who makes the world a better place is doing far more good than a consistent person who does nothing. No-one can live a perfect life. But that's no reason to give up.

And I've already fed my non-vegetarian feline housemate tonight.

Which is what I've been arguing all along. People eat meat for pleasure. The subject in the OP microwaved his cat for pleasure (it seems). To me, the question then becomes how much suffering we are prepared to put animals through for our pleasure. Did the cat suffer more or less than meat animals do in the slaughterhouse?

This is the post which I am referring to... and the implication that microwaving a cat is in anyway similar to slaughtering animals for meat. (You not the only one who as made that argument) If you want to say that eating meat is wrong, fine. But recognize that eating meat is killing done for a purpose. Microwaving a cat 'as a joke' is truly unrelated to the topic as it is cruelty for cruelty's sake. For me it's not a matter of more or less suffering it's an issue of purposeful vs. pointless suffering.

This is the post which I am referring to... and the implication that microwaving a cat is in anyway similar to slaughtering animals for meat. (You not the only one who as made that argument) If you want to say that eating meat is wrong, fine. But recognize that eating meat is killing done for a purpose. Microwaving a cat 'as a joke' is truly unrelated to the topic as it is cruelty for cruelty's sake. For me it's not a matter of more or less suffering it's an issue of purposeful vs. pointless suffering.

Summary (correct me if I'm wrong).

You say: Meat is life-sustaining and that is why we eat it.
I say: Meat is not essential, therefore there is another reason - pleasure.

If we can't agree on the basic premise of why we eat meat then any further argument cannot go beyond frustration.

I disagree with you. The world is full of functional, healthy vegetarians. Some suffer from an iron or a B12 deficiency but those problems can be easily overcome with supplements. People eat meat because they want to, not because they have to. You admit as much yourself when you say it's tasty.

Supplements. So basically, if civilisation collapses tomorrow, you're fucked?

And by the same token, why bother eating anything at all? It can all be replaced by supplements.

Supplements. So basically, if civilisation collapses tomorrow, you're fucked?
Many vegans would be, but vegetarians wouldn't. Though, if civilisation collapses, we're all a bit fucked.

And by the same token, why bother eating anything at all? It can all be replaced by supplements.
Except it can't.

Except it can't.

A sizable chunk of the diet could be.

A sizable chunk of the diet could be.
Needless to say, 'sizeable chunk' =/= 'all'.

Supplements. So basically, if civilisation collapses tomorrow, you're fucked?

If it were necessary I would eat meat. If it were a matter of survival, I'd eat you.