You know you're an asshole when...

[cybercoma]

I think these posts also make a good case for the thread title.

Comparing comparatively trivial consumer boycotts or employer sanctions for bad behaviour with lynching (a terrorist practice associated with white supremacists) serves only to diminish the latter. Anyone who uses lynching to describe anything other than terror and death at the hands of an extra-judicial mob loses teh right to be taken seriously.

You take all the posters here seriously? Wow. I'm impressed.

[dre]

And this man kicked a puppy out of anger so you each have your personal reasons for abusing animals. Maybe you don't see any 'benefit' in his actions vs yours but when all is said and done, his puppy is still breathing, your dinner isn't.

He ABUSED. I USED. I do see a difference. We ALL exist in an ecosystem and we ALL live off of nature. And I supposed on some level we all are guilty of some hypocracy. You might not eat meat but if you live in BC millions of animals were killed and dispaced so that you could have hydroelectricity for example.

Maybe you don't see any 'benefit'

There IS no material utility in torturing or beating an animal. There clearly IS utility if you use it in a constructive way. You dared me to try to make a logical case and I think I did.

Personally, I'd much rather be the kicked puppy than your dinner.

You sure about that? The puppy was a human invention that never knew a second of real freedom, whos entire purpose was to serve people. As Bonham pointed out that puppy had probably been the victim of various kinds of abuse since the day it was born. At least if you were my dinner you would have lived your entire life free in the wild. Plus... I might have put some yummy sauce and seasoning on you

In any case I do have a lot of respect for your opinion.

I personally find the "utility" argument compelling. If a person cuts down a stand of trees to build a home then that seems like USE to me. If they toss a lit match into the stand so they can enjoy watching it burn it seems like ABUSE. In any case the trees are dead. I look at the difference between hunting for food and hunting/killing for sport in pretty much the same way.

And in my defense I wasnt one of the ones expressing "outrage" at the actions of this idiot. And I have some real issues with factory farming and almost completely boycott that system (I do sometimes buy chicken and pork but rarely).

Am I a hypocrit... Sure! In more ways than one! Sorry

Dre is the only one trying to defend his position, everyone else is deflecting.

Thank you I appreciate that

Edited August 30, 2014 by dre

[kimmy]

It's not a matter of justification. It's a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in people getting all outraged over a kick while ignoring the billions of animals of the same or comparably intelligent species being slaughtered for food, abused, trained with physical pain, etc. Westerners have very odd priorities and sensibilities.

This line of reasoning ignores the context of the relationship.

To illustrate, let's consider our relationships with our fellow human beings.

I see desperate panhandlers daily, and seldom offer any assistance.

I've fired people who really needed work desperately because they were crap workers.

In the course of years of dealing with drunk young adults, I've inflicted bodily harm on numerous occasions.

If I find the truck that "coal-rolled" me while I was biking last week I might vandalize it, and if given the opportunity I will kick the owner in his "truck nuts" so hard that he'll never reproduce.

But if I'm looking after my friend's adolescent daughter, I'll fight to my last breath to protect her from any harm.

So... what makes protecting my friend's daughter worth any risk, while some other human beings-- the drunk chick who wants a piece of me, or Mr Truck Nuts-- are entirely the opposite? Is she just inherently more valuable than they are? No, it's the context of the relationship. In agreeing to take care of her, I've accepted a duty. You'll take any risk to protect your spouse or your children. It's ingrained in us.

And similarly, if you take ownership of a pet, you are accepting a duty. You're affirming that this is no longer some dumb animal, this is your responsibility. And somebody who can't live up to that responsibility-- like this Des Hague person-- casts serious doubt on his character.

-k

[Remiel]

Two things: 1) Had the man in the elevator kicked a pig, it would have been equally unethical, no matter whether he was taking the pig to lunch or not. 2) Seeing as sterilizing someone against their will is basically considered a crime against humanity related to genocide, I really advise against kicking someone with the intention they not be able to reproduce afterwards. Like, really strong advise, morally.

[kimmy]

Two things: 1) Had the man in the elevator kicked a pig, it would have been equally unethical, no matter whether he was taking the pig to lunch or not. 2) Seeing as sterilizing someone against their will is basically considered a crime against humanity related to genocide, I really advise against kicking someone with the intention they not be able to reproduce afterwards. Like, really strong advise, morally.

I may be slightly exaggerating in regard to the extent of the kicking.

A pig would not have been on the elevator with that man unless it were either an intruder or his pet. I think that taking some sort of action might have been justified were it an intruding pig (or an intruding dog for that matter). If it were his pet pig, then he'd again be reprehensible for treating an animal under his care in such a way. Once again, the context matters.

-k

[BC_chick]

He ABUSED. I USED. I do see a difference. We ALL exist in an ecosystem and we ALL live off of nature. And I supposed on some level we all are guilty of some hypocracy. You might not eat meat but if you live in BC millions of animals were killed and dispaced so that you could have hydroelectricity for example.

There IS no material utility in torturing or beating an animal. There clearly IS utility if you use it in a constructive way. You dared me to try to make a logical case and I think I did.

When you have other food sources available to you and you CHOOSE to eat meat for your personal reasons (taste/frugality), it's not using, it's abusing.

You sure about that? The puppy was a human invention that never knew a second of real freedom, whos entire purpose was to serve people. As Bonham pointed out that puppy had probably been the victim of various kinds of abuse since the day it was born. At least if you were my dinner you would have lived your entire life free in the wild. Plus... I might have put some yummy sauce and seasoning on you

You're undermining the will to live. People living in captivity don't lose their will to live because survival is an instinct strongly ingrained in sentient beings. Farmed animals lead torturous lives but they shed tears and show fear as they are being led to slaughter.

And in my defense I wasnt one of the ones expressing "outrage" at the actions of this idiot. And I have some real issues with factory farming and almost completely boycott that system (I do sometimes buy chicken and pork but rarely).

I know, which is why it's kind of strange that you and I got into this debate. You're quite consistent your view and your hypocrisy is far less than many of the others on the thread.

I said earlier everyone is hypocritical to some level but getting outraged over this while willfully ignoring the torture of the animals that served your dinner is Ted Haggard kind of hypocrisy.

Edited August 30, 2014 by BC_chick

[BC_chick]

This line of reasoning ignores the context of the relationship.

To illustrate, let's consider our relationships with our fellow human beings.

I see desperate panhandlers daily, and seldom offer any assistance.

I've fired people who really needed work desperately because they were crap workers.

In the course of years of dealing with drunk young adults, I've inflicted bodily harm on numerous occasions.

If I find the truck that "coal-rolled" me while I was biking last week I might vandalize it, and if given the opportunity I will kick the owner in his "truck nuts" so hard that he'll never reproduce.

But if I'm looking after my friend's adolescent daughter, I'll fight to my last breath to protect her from any harm.

So... what makes protecting my friend's daughter worth any risk, while some other human beings-- the drunk chick who wants a piece of me, or Mr Truck Nuts-- are entirely the opposite? Is she just inherently more valuable than they are? No, it's the context of the relationship. In agreeing to take care of her, I've accepted a duty. You'll take any risk to protect your spouse or your children. It's ingrained in us.

And similarly, if you take ownership of a pet, you are accepting a duty. You're affirming that this is no longer some dumb animal, this is your responsibility. And somebody who can't live up to that responsibility-- like this Des Hague person-- casts serious doubt on his character.

-k

People's relationship with one another is generally meant to be one of harmony. Maybe if our relationships were based on cannibalism and we chose certain people to not eat then there would be comparison.

The whole idea that it's okay to eat some animals but not harm others is where the disconnect in logic takes place.

Edited August 30, 2014 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

Kimmy has it right. When you acquire an animal as a companion, you are accepting the same responsibility as a parent. Abuse of that animal is a breach of trust. Using BC Chicks logic, Inuit should not keep dogs because they eat seal and whale meat.

[BC_chick]

Wilber, on this thread others took my point of view to mean I'm excusing this man's behaviour. Eating animals and experimenting on animals is so ingrained that automatically everyone assumes that I think it's ok to kick puppies just because we eat meat. It's the other way around.

[Wilber]

Wilber, on this thread others took my point of view to mean I'm excusing this man's behaviour. Eating animals and experimenting on animals is so ingrained that automatically everyone assumes that I think it's ok to kick puppies just because we eat meat. It's the other way around.

I don't believe you think it is OK to kick puppies but I also don't think it is hypocritical to eat meat and have a puppy.

[Boges]

I'm late to the thread but I'd thought I'd add this.

[BC_chick]

I don't believe you think it is OK to kick puppies but I also don't think it is hypocritical to eat meat and have a puppy.

I'm quite aware. Most people in the west share your opinion because that's when we grew up believing. So if you adopt a pig, you don't eat it but you can eat the pig that's outside on your farm? How about rabbits? How about a fish? Where does the fine line between ownership end and 'relationship' begin?

A friend of mine had a pet goat on the farm for years. We used to play with the goat all the time. To my shock, one day they slaughtered him and ate him. Should they have not played with the goat because it would one day be dinner or should they not have killed it because us kids had befriended him and developed a 'relationship'?

If you consider animal lives inferior to humans, there is no 'relationship'. Everything thereafter is ethnocentrism.

Edited August 31, 2014 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

I'm quite aware. Most people in the west share your opinion because that's when we grew up believing. So if you adopt a pig, you don't eat it but you can eat the pig that's outside on your farm? How about rabbits? How about a fish? Where does the fine line between ownership end and 'relationship' begin?

If you consider animal lives inferior to humans, there is no 'relationship'. Everything thereafter is ethnocentrism.

Would you think a vegan who ownes a dog is a hypocrite?

[Boges]

You feed a pig and you slaughter a hog.

Food animals and working/companion animals have different roles in our society.

Regardless cruelty to any animal is something we generally frown upon.

Recently in Toronto a man was charged for beating a Raccoon with a shovel.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/03/12/man_who_attacked_raccoons_with_shovel_pleads_guilty_to_animal_cruelty.html

How many Raccoons have a similar fate coming from our cars. Hitting an animal with a car is not intentional cruelty though.

[BC_chick]

Would you think a vegan who ownes a dog is a hypocrite?

If they're running a puppy mill or buying from a puppy mill, yes. If they're rescuing an existing dog, no.

[BC_chick]

You feed a pig and you slaughter a hog.

Food animals and working/companion animals have different roles in our society.

Regardless cruelty to any animal is something we generally frown upon.

Recently in Toronto a man was charged for beating a Raccoon with a shovel.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/03/12/man_who_attacked_raccoons_with_shovel_pleads_guilty_to_animal_cruelty.html

How many Raccoons have a similar fate coming from our cars. Hitting an animal with a car is not intentional cruelty though.

Oops, goes the whole 'relationship' argument.

[Wilber]

If they're running a puppy mill or buying from a puppy mill, yes. If they're rescuing an existing dog, no.

At least we agree on the puppy mills.

So a vegan believes a meat eater who owns a puppy is a hypocrite but a vegan who owns a natural carnivore as a pet is not.

[BC_chick]

At least we agree on the puppy mills.

So a vegan believes a meat eater who owns a puppy is a hypocrite but a vegan who owns a natural carnivore as a pet is not.

Dogs aren't carnivores, they can survive without meat. Humans also don't need meat to survive so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Wilber]

Dogs aren't carnivores, they can survive without meat. Humans also don't need meat to survive so I'm not sure what your point is.

All dogs are descended from wild dogs and are carnivores. Just look at their teeth. Most do like some fruits and berries but meat is their natural diet. Forcing them to eat something just because it fits your view of the world would be cruelty.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Wilber

[Boges]

Dogs don't need meat but it certainly makes them healthier.

Now cats have to have meat.

[Mighty AC]

Would you think a vegan who ownes a dog is a hypocrite?

I don't. A vegan who mistreats their dog would be though. Would a vegan who owns a Bulldog or Boston Terrier, without mistreating them, be a hypocrite though?

[Mighty AC]

Dogs don't need meat but it certainly makes them healthier.

Now cats have to have meat.

Dogs are mainly carnivorous but are adaptable and can survive on an omnivorous diet. Actually, dogs are closer to being naturally omnivorous than humans are. We are natural vegetarians that can tolerate meat.

[Guest]

Would a vegan who owns a Bulldog or Boston Terrier, without mistreating them, be a hypocrite though?

A Yankees fan who owned a Boston Terrier might be.

Edited August 31, 2014 by bcsapper

[BC_chick]

All dogs are descended from wild dogs and are carnivores. Just look at their teeth. Most do like some fruits and berries but meat is their natural diet. Forcing them to eat something just because it fits your view of the world would be cruelty.

Veganism has many different interpretations but generally it means living your life in a way that causes as little harm to animals as possible. I know people love to split hairs how there is no such thing as a true vegan but it's really about doing the best that you can.

Now let's see a dog is created and in need of a home so a vegan rescues it. Instead of feeding it meat at every meal because dogs are 'carnivorous' (which they're not as already pointed out), the vegan gives it an omnivorous diet or perhaps even plant-based

First, the dog's life was made better and second, less animals are potentially fed to the dog. How is that against veganism as defined above?

For the record, I'm pointing out a flaw in the logic on this thread but I'm not vegan (though I'm mostly vegan). The person who actually brought the issue up on this thread consumes meat and believes in animal-testing. You don't have to be a vegan to see the disconnect.

Edited August 31, 2014 by BC_chick

[Wilber]

Dogs are primarily carnivores and cats are definately carnivores. Put a piece of meat or fish and the vegetable dish of your choice in front of them and see which one they go for. Stop trying to turn them into something they are not in order to appease some human philosophy.

PS A dog might go for the veggies if you put a ton of cheese on them. A good sharp cheese preferably.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Wilber