Powerful, sad picture

[The Question]

Here's a question to really nail my point home: Your house is on fire, and you can save either your child or your pet -- but not both. The pet is closer, and the walls are coming down. Do you grab the animal and abandon the human to the flames?

 

[eloisel]

Of course it is -- but is that no more heinous than the same thing done to a dog?

Yes and no. I would say it would seem more heinous to me if it were a human baby such a thing were done to but that is because I am human. The bottom line, though, a person that could do such a thing to a dog is capable of doing that to a human and very likely to do so. That type of person gets something psychologically out of causing pain and suffering to the helpless, the life form is merely what is available.

Naturally -- of course, that actually is part of human history, isn't it? We outgrew (at least the original iteration of) gladiatorial combat, didn't we?

Again, I disagree. We still have prize fighters, and we are still a bloodthirsty bunch.

No, it's not. The kind of sick and twisted mind we're talking about is the one that sees humans as being no better than any other kind of animal. There's a difference between treating lower life forms with kindness, which is healthy, and equating your fellow human beings to them, which is exactly what propels people who act like sadistic fucks toward animals to act like sadistic fucks toward people -- like animal "rights" radicals, they make no value distinction between the two.

We may be speaking of different kinds of sick and twisted minds then. I am talking about the kind of sick and twisted mind that gets its kicks by causing pain, suffering and death to living beings. I disagree that a person who respects life is likely to be sadistic to any kind of life form because they value human and animal life equally. While the sadistic person may equate the worth of humans and animals, what propels their actions is not the value they put on a living creature but their psychological need to abuse.

Now, if you want to go deep and wide, you might want to consider the part animals have played in the survival and evolution of humankind. It may be comforting to think of animals as a "lower life form" because of how humans have used them for food, clothing, transportation, protection and work, but that does not make us a higher life form. It is almost like saying air is a lower life form although without air humans would be non-existent. The only difference between air and animals in that equation is humans have evolved to the point we could survive without animals but it wouldn't be a life very much like what we have now.

 

[The Question]

Yes and no. I would say it would seem more heinous to me if it were a human baby such a thing were done to but that is because I am human. The bottom line, though, a person that could do such a thing to a dog is capable of doing that to a human and very likely to do so. That type of person gets something psychologically out of causing pain and suffering to the helpless, the life form is merely what is available.

Right, and my point is that the people who make that transition also see no more intrinsic value in human life than in any other kind -- whether you hold them both in equally high regard or equally low regard doesn't change that you hold them in equal regard, and that's the fundamental sickness common to both.

Again, I disagree. We still have prize fighters, and we are still a bloodthirsty bunch.

The difference, though, is that participation in bloodsport is no longer padded by slave combatants.

We may be speaking of different kinds of sick and twisted minds then. I am talking about the kind of sick and twisted mind that gets its kicks by causing pain, suffering and death to living beings. I disagree that a person who respects life is likely to be sadistic to any kind of life form because they value human and animal life equally. While the sadistic person may equate the worth of humans and animals, what propels their actions is not the value they put on a living creature but their psychological need to abuse.

You're accentuating the difference, but the commonality taken on its own terms is the more startling of the two. It is inherently abnormal to place no greater value on the lives of those like you than those unlike you -- be the negative manifestations of that fact of human nature as nasty as they've been, it is a fact of human nature. Average humans of sound mind and decent character are more often than not more generous toward, and more protective of, their mates, their families, their friends, their communities and their countrymen -- and eventually, their own species -- and more or less in that order.

Now, if you want to go deep and wide, you might want to consider the part animals have played in the survival and evolution of humankind. It may be comforting to think of animals as a "lower life form" because of how humans have used them for food, clothing, transportation, protection and work, but that does not make us a higher life form. It is almost like saying air is a lower life form although without air humans would be non-existent.

Air isn't a life form at all, of course. Other than that, animals are living beings, but they are not on an even playing field with us. They have varying degrees of intelligence, but nothing approaching our own, and nothing that makes them essential to our survival as anything other than a resource. That doesn't mean anyone should abuse them -- because, like any other renewable resource, animals are finite -- they should never be wasted or rendered ineffective for the constructive purposes they serve.

Look, I'd feel the same as you do, if real animals even remotely resembled the fluffy little anthropomorphized, talking midgets-in-pyjamas that you see in the Disney flicks, but Golly, this being the real world, they don't. They're not "little people". Animals are not people too. People are people. (And this is not a "Global [third world] Village", by the way, it's a big ol' smelly fuckin' planet, full of little smelly fuckin' people on it who each have their own wants and needs that nobody in any international or global committee will ever give a tenth of a percent of a shit about, to burst another utopian bubble.) Animals are food, clothing, a quaint mode of transportation or shipping, something to keep old ladies from crying themselves to sleep at night after their selfish, materialistic fucking hellspawn leave the state and their Misters suck down their last ever-gumming mouthful of pureed oatmeal, and sometimes the base compounds for office supplies. That's what animals are, and just because they've been useful doesn't mean they ever were or ever will be our peers.

 

[Mandi]

They aren't our peers, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated with a little fucking respect. I mean if you can't even treat a dog with a little bit of decency.

 

[eloisel]

Right, and my point is that the people who make that transition also see no more intrinsic value in human life than in any other kind -- whether you hold them both in equally high regard or equally low regard doesn't change that you hold them in equal regard, and that's the fundamental sickness common to both.

Not exactly. There is a positive and a negative aspect here. The common denominator in the types of people is that they hold animals and humans in equal regard - whether that be equally high or equally low. The fundamental sickness would be between the types of persons who hold animals and humans in equal regard, either equally high or equally low, and choose to treat them cruelly. Might add into that group persons who have no regard for living beings, period.

There is a difference between a serial killer/terrorist/psychopath type personality and people who wish to do no harm to any living thing.

I do agree with you that some animal rights activist are just as warped - same coin, different side - as they would advocate torture and death of humans.

The difference, though, is that participation in bloodsport is no longer padded by slave combatants.

I don't know that that is true. I know that slavery still exists.

You're accentuating the difference, but the commonality taken on its own terms is the more startling of the two.

The commonality is not a black and white, cut and dried parameter. That commonality requires action to be anything other than dormant and/or benign. And, there are many other common denominators in the mix - all being living creatures, all being human, all requiring air to breathe, all having the capacity to eat bread ... it is a very long list.

It is inherently abnormal to place no greater value on the lives of those like you than those unlike you -- be the negative manifestations of that fact of human nature as nasty as they've been, it is a fact of human nature. Average humans of sound mind and decent character are more often than not more generous toward, and more protective of, their mates, their families, their friends, their communities and their countrymen -- and eventually, their own species -- and more or less in that order.

Agreed.

Air isn't a life form at all, of course.

Certainly, but humans would not have survived much less evolved without it.

Other than that, animals are living beings, but they are not on an even playing field with us. They have varying degrees of intelligence, but nothing approaching our own, and nothing that makes them essential to our survival as anything other than a resource. That doesn't mean anyone should abuse them -- because, like any other renewable resource, animals are finite -- they should never be wasted or rendered ineffective for the constructive purposes they serve.

Agreed.

Look, I'd feel the same as you do, if real animals even remotely resembled the fluffy little anthropomorphized, talking midgets-in-pyjamas that you see in the Disney flicks, but Golly, this being the real world, they don't. They're not "little people". Animals are not people too. People are people. (And this is not a "Global [third world] Village", by the way, it's a big ol' smelly fuckin' planet, full of little smelly fuckin' people on it who each have their own wants and needs that nobody in any international or global committee will ever give a tenth of a percent of a shit about, to burst another utopian bubble.) Animals are food, clothing, a quaint mode of transportation or shipping, something to keep old ladies from crying themselves to sleep at night after their selfish, materialistic fucking hellspawn leave the state and their Misters suck down their last ever-gumming mouthful of pureed oatmeal, and sometimes the base compounds for office supplies. That's what animals are, and just because they've been useful doesn't mean they ever were or ever will be our peers.

Agreed - animals are not people too - they are living creatures. They are not our peers and we are not theirs either. Try going toe to toe with a lion in its natural habitat with nothing more than your naked body - no tent, no sleeping bag, no pre-packaged food, no water in a clean container, no matches, no tools, no weapons other than your body, no clothing, no service animals - pure animal to animal - and see how long you'd last.

 

[Mandi]

I love how everything i've said in this thread is ignored.

 

[The Question]

Try going toe to toe with a lion in its natural habitat with nothing more than your naked body - no tent, no sleeping bag, no pre-packaged food, no water in a clean container, no matches, no tools, no weapons other than your body, no clothing, no service animals - pure animal to animal - and see how long you'd last.

I have to agree with this, up to a point -- the fact is that to strip the human in that scenario of his or her tool-using nature, and the results of that nature, would be like stripping the lion of its claws and teeth.

 

[Mandi]

I must disagree here. Lions were born with claws and teeth, humans weren't born with guns and baseball bats in hand. If you were to put a lion toe to toe with a human as they were born, the human would be lunch.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, but then you'd have to put the infant human up against an infant lion.

See, tool-using is how we climbed to the top of the food chain globally, just as speed, strength and hunting skills are what allow lions to occupy the top of the food chain in their local habitat. Put an adult human armed with its weapons against a lion armed with its weapons, and the human wins. Depriving the human of its tools and ability to use them skews the scenario.

 

[Mandi]

While I can see your point, I still think you're wrong.

 

[SilentBtViolent]

TQ, I don't think they were saying that hurting an animal is worse than hurting a human because the animal is somehow more valuable, but rather that it is worse because the animal is at a disadvantage relative to the human.

It's a moral call. Like, do you think it is morally worse to punch a retard than to punch a regular person? It's a loosely analogous situation (though I've done a crap job explaining it).

 

[Mandi]

no actually you've done a very good job.

 

[The Question]

no actually you've done a very good job.

I get that a lot. "Well, you're right, but... no."

 

[Mandi]

No, I said I can see your point..........I didn't say you were right

 

[The Question]

You didn't get the memo? I'm always right.

 

[Mandi]

sorry no didn't get the memo.

 

[headspace]

I see this arguement a lot and it scares me. I live in a country where the Cats Protection League gets more funding than Amnesty and many medical research funds.

@Mandi - the arguement is not, in my mind, anything about wether we are cruel or show some kindness to animals, it's about scale of response.

How many forums have fecking cat sections where people go all gooey over pictures, or shit like this - Oh, someone has been cruel to animals, let's all post about how shocked we are. It feckin winds me up.

Here, let me show you a freezing Pakistani child who will die this winter because of the earthquake. She may also die because she looks a little like a terrorist, so we all haven't given as much money as we did to the Tsunami - that's the kind of thing we should be feckin upset about, not 2 fuckin cheetahs. They are overgrown fuckin cats.

 

[MamaKitty]

Thats just sad.. The poor little things People can be so evil.

 

[Hambil]

Trust me, we can't save humanity without saving the animals.

 

[The Question]

Trust me, we can't save humanity without saving the animals.

Sorry, what does humanity need saving from, exactly? And why is it that I've never heard a liberal use the word "save" in that context without it coming off as a mile beyond ominous?