Should Charges for Animal Cruelty be Tougher?

[New haven america]

How many people getting indignant about animal cruelty in here are vegetarians?

The slaughter of animals for food is extremely cruel, and it affects large numbers of animals. Eating meat and wigging out about animal cruelty is a little like being the guy that loads Jews on trains to Auschwitz, but you're demanding harsher punishment for a schoolyard bully because he pushed another kid off the swing set and the kid hit his head on the pavement and died. It's kind of glossing over the effects of your own actions in the larger scheme of things. Just because you aren't personally butchering the animals with your own hands doesn't mean you have no responsibility for what the system does to them.

Should animal abusers be punished? Yes.

But get some perspective and understand that it's not the crime of the century. It's a drop in the ocean compared to everything that humans do to animals.

Also remember that harsh punishments come with social costs. If you send people to prison for animal abuse, that clogs up the prison system and so forth. It takes people away from their jobs and their families, so that they are unable to fulfill any of their social responsibilities. That is not something that should be done lightly. It should only be a last resort for the worst repeat offenders.

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

Eh, Killer Whales, Dolphins, any species of Cat, and Chimps all kill for pleasure.

Killer Whales love to kill for fun and have made it a game to kill Humpback Whale calves (And in return Humpback Whales have been getting revenge by clearing Killer Whale waters of most of their usual food sources), Dolphins rape other animals and have been known to torture fish, Cat love messing with prey (I once had a cat that would suffocate mice for fun), and Chimps are related to humans and are actually more violent than us.

[The Blaatschapen]

How about cats and dolphins then? Are they artificial?

Natural =/= good.

Yeah, plenty of mammals are inherently dicks, let's be honest.

Can confirm

[The Free Joy State]

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

Eh, Killer Whales, Dolphins, any species of Cat, and Chimps all kill for pleasure.

Killer Whales love to kill for fun and have made it a game to kill Humpback Whale calves (And in return Humpback Whales have been getting revenge by clearing Killer Whale waters of most of their usual food sources), Dolphins rape other animals and have been known to torture fish, Cat love messing with prey (I once had a cat that would suffocate mice for fun), and Chimps are related to humans and are actually more violent than us.

Animal torture occurs in predator animals. Unsurprising, then, that it also occurs in predatorial humans -- hence why it's an early warning sign of psychopaths and future serial killers.

EDIT: Clearly, I was confining my remarks to human nature as we would (or should) expect humans to have more behavioural control than a cat.

[North Drederia]

I doubt you’ll get a judge to rule killing a swan or a dog as “murder”. That being said, animal cruelty should be prosecuted a little more harshly than it is.

A lot more harshly but it's not murder.

The pieces of excrement that did that should get at least 5 years though.
They caused extreme distress to an animal for absolutely no reason so why should anyone care about them going to jail?
They shouldn't have done that and there was no extenunating circumstance meaning they felt backed into a corner (unlike with some charges of violence against animals or people).
Lock em up and publicly name and shame them.

I don’t know if people under 18 can have their names legally released to the public.

[The Emerald Legion]

1. ... Is literally the only argument you know how to make to snidely question people's character?

2. Animals don't know how to write and therefore don't put up legible signs. Nor do they always choose convenient locations.

3. This happens when you live in a rustic place. Snakes, birds, all manner of things will move into your area and if you don't make a point of trying to drive them off, you lose your space to them.

4. Because, having empathy for venomous snakes living in your back yard gets you or your loved ones bit and dead.

1. No, but in this case the examples you've been providing are so specific I can't help but feel this comes from more of a place of personal experience rather than logical thought.
2. That doesn't answer my question.
3. That happens everywhere. Did you know we live in a society?
4. You know people, colleges, cities, etc... have services to move venomous snakes away from your property if they were to make their way there, right? Pretty cheap too as they like to study how the animals move across the areas.

2.) It does. Very handily.
3.)Did you know that you have a right to be in your own yard?
4.) Yes, because I'm going to wait hours for animal control to come and safely remove a snake, rather than doing like local residents and farmers have done for ages and just taking it's head off with a shovel.

Wild animals are not your friends. Unless of course you befriend them. In which case they become valuable family members and should be defended just like any other member of your family.

[Thepeopl]

As ilfrean already stated:
Thougher punishment does NOT lower crime.

The perpetrators should be reeducated in empathy and respect for animals/ environment.
We should raise our children with more conscience.

[Ideal Britain]

As ilfrean already stated:
Thougher punishment does NOT lower crime.

The perpetrators should be reeducated in empathy and respect for animals/ environment.
We should raise our children with more conscience.

I agree to some extent but harsher punishments could be part of that education (showing that society views it as a big deal)
This disconnect with nature happens for the same reason people want men and women to be treated the same these days.

[Ifreann]

As ilfrean already stated:
Thougher punishment does NOT lower crime.

The perpetrators should be reeducated in empathy and respect for animals/ environment.
We should raise our children with more conscience.

I agree to some extent but harsher punishments could be part of that education (showing that society views it as a big deal)
This disconnect with nature happens for the same reason people want men and women to be treated the same these days.

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

[The Alma Mater]

I agree to some extent but harsher punishments could be part of that education (showing that society views it as a big deal)
This disconnect with nature happens for the same reason people want men and women to be treated the same these days.

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

[The Free Joy State]

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics: using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

[Geneviev]

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

If I have to eat meat I would prefer to not be reminded that it's essentially murder.

[The Blaatschapen]

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Let's go one step further. Eat aborted foetuses.

[Ifreann]

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Let's go one step further. Eat aborted foetuses.

You'd need a lot of them to get a good meal.

[Ideal Britain]

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics: using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

How is making someone aware of what they're doing emotional blackmail?

A pregnant woman was beaten by racist cops.
Her unborn child died.
Many in BLM would (rightly) consider her child a victim of police brutality.
If so they should be against abortion.
People know they could get pregnant when they have sex.
It's fine if they don't want babies and so use contraception but that's a risk their taking. So how is it restricting their "right to choose" if they don't.

[The Alma Mater]

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of meatproduction involves torture, the overwhelming majority of consumption is done for pleasure, not because of a need. Torture for pleasure is torture for pleasure; the animal does not care if you do it because you are a sadist or because you really like the taste of its flesh.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics

Yes, that is what I said. I was inspired by that new law they just passed.

using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

True. But as I mentioned earlier, most humans eat "slightly" more meat than they need to stay healthy. By a factor of 20 or more. Which actually is unhealthy

[The Alma Mater]

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

Let's go one step further. Eat aborted foetuses.

Hmmm, eggsies.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It should be no different than being cruel a human. Because of society being messed up and sometimes encouraging cruelty, rehabilitation and prevention should be the main focus, moreso than for crimes in general.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

There is a stark difference between an animal being stunned and killed quickly, without the intent to cause pain, for food and being tortured deliberately -- causing it a great deal of pain -- to cause some thug gratification.

You can condemn the latter while still accepting -- as humans are natural omnivores -- the need for the former.

There is nothing natural about seeking out and tormenting an animal, enjoying its pain.

Eh, Killer Whales, Dolphins, any species of Cat, and Chimps all kill for pleasure.

Killer Whales love to kill for fun and have made it a game to kill Humpback Whale calves (And in return Humpback Whales have been getting revenge by clearing Killer Whale waters of most of their usual food sources), Dolphins rape other animals and have been known to torture fish, Cat love messing with prey (I once had a cat that would suffocate mice for fun), and Chimps are related to humans and are actually more violent than us.

Natural does not necessarily mean pleasant/ethical.

[The Free Joy State]

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics: using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

How is making someone aware of what they're doing emotional blackmail?

A pregnant woman was beaten by racist cops.
Her unborn child died.
Many in BLM would (rightly) consider her child a victim of police brutality.
If so they should be against abortion.
People know they could get pregnant when they have sex.
It's fine if they don't want babies and so use contraception but that's a risk their taking. So how is it restricting their "right to choose" if they don't.

Wrong thread.

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of meatproduction involves torture, the overwhelming majority of consumption is done for pleasure, not because of a need. Torture for pleasure is torture for pleasure; the animal does not care if you do it because you are a sadist or because you really like the taste of its flesh.

Again, you're completely blurring the lines between... say... farmers who use recommended methods for killing an animal as humanely as possible and those who actually deliberately torture.

Which is disingenuous, simplistic and frankly rather silly -- unless you propose punishing people who participate in the meat trade?

FTR (and to get more back on-topic): I wouldn't oppose penalties for abattoirs that slaughter animals inhumanely, using methods that cause additional distress.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics

Yes, that is what I said. I was inspired by that new law they just passed.

Nothing like taking one shitty idea as inspiration for another, is there?

using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

True. But as I mentioned earlier, most humans eat "slightly" more meat than they need to stay healthy. By a factor of 20 or more. Which actually is unhealthy

But your ludicrous notion wouldn't aim to make people eat less meat. It would aim to make people eat no meat.

And then B12 deficiencies would shoot right up. Which would be truly unhealthy.

[Solarampa]

There should definitely be harsher punishments for animal abusers. It will depend on how many animals are abused and if it is a repeate time, and really if you post it on social media the website should ban them for animal abuse. Take for example Twitch "streamer" Alinity, in several of her streams, on LIVE camera, she has abused her cats in like yelling at them for laying on her "gaming" chair and most importantly she threw, THREW her cat across the room. It was so bad that PETA issued a statement on that and Youtube blocked the video on their site, but Alinity around a 3 day ban. I mean really a three day ban for abusing your animals?!? She should of had a harsh punishment from whenever she lives and a ban from Twitch.

[Kowani]

If you want to reduce crime by imposing harsher punishments then you don't agree, to any extent, that harsher punishments do not reduce crime.

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

…Considering that doesn’t work for abortion, (mostly because that’s not how they do it) I don’t know why you’d think you’ve thought this through.

[The Emerald Legion]

You never had a dog, have you?

Or any pet capable of melting your still beating heart with the immeasurable radiance of its goofiness and/or adorableness.

Pets are not wild animals. I can both kill snakes and other vermin without a second thought, and also love my adorable cat.

[The Alma Mater]

Hoe about we use the anti-abortion tactics ? If people e.g. want to buy meat they would first have to watch a video of the life the animal had and it being slaughtered.
Preferably with sound.

…Considering that doesn’t work for abortion, (mostly because that’s not how they do it) I don’t know why you’d think you’ve thought this through.

I am referencing an actual anti-abortion law that was just signed.

[New haven america]

1. No, but in this case the examples you've been providing are so specific I can't help but feel this comes from more of a place of personal experience rather than logical thought.
2. That doesn't answer my question.
3. That happens everywhere. Did you know we live in a society?
4. You know people, colleges, cities, etc... have services to move venomous snakes away from your property if they were to make their way there, right? Pretty cheap too as they like to study how the animals move across the areas.

1) It does. Very handily.
2. Did you know that you have a right to be in your own yard?
3. Yes, because I'm going to wait hours for animal control to come and safely remove a snake, rather than doing like local residents and farmers have done for ages and just taking it's head off with a shovel.

Wild animals are not your friends. Unless of course you befriend them. In which case they become valuable family members and should be defended just like any other member of your family.

1. Except no, it doesn't.
2. Yes.
3. Why do you feel this need to feel power over creatures or people you view as smaller/lesser than yourself? We know from the corporal punishment/abuse thread that you had problems beating up other kids so... Where did this need for control come from?

[State of Turelisa]

Firstly, linking the practise of eating meat with sadists who torture animals is a cheap and disingenuous attempt at point-scoring that completely blurs the debate.

Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of meatproduction involves torture, the overwhelming majority of consumption is done for pleasure, not because of a need. Torture for pleasure is torture for pleasure; the animal does not care if you do it because you are a sadist or because you really like the taste of its flesh.

Second, that would be like anti-abortion tactics

Yes, that is what I said. I was inspired by that new law they just passed.

using low emotional blackmail to pressure people out of making a choice that is optimal for their health (some vital minerals, not to continue this for too long, are most easily found and digested from meat sources)

True. But as I mentioned earlier, most humans eat "slightly" more meat than they need to stay healthy. By a factor of 20 or more. Which actually is unhealthy ;)

I eat a diet in which there's a ratio of 3:4 between vegetables and meat. The meat is ostrich. It's lean and provides enough protein and Vitamin B12. The company that provides the meat keeps the ostriches protected and healthy on large farms.