Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal Abuse leads to Violent Crime

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:41:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

We should award animals rights anyways and they shouldn't be allowed to be abused.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:48:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:41:10 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

We should award animals rights anyways and they shouldn't be allowed to be abused.

Have you read Singer's Animal Liberation? WHats your favorite argument for animal rights?
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:49:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:48:17 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:10 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

We should award animals rights anyways and they shouldn't be allowed to be abused.

Have you read Singer's Animal Liberation?
No and I have never heard of it

WHats your favorite argument for animal rights?

hmm that's a tough one, probably that they can feel pain and are intelligent too, or the "would you like it if it was done to you"? or the how about we put you through it?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:14:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

I think this was the exact reasoning used by the government recently to upgrade animal abuse from a minor crime to a more major one with stiffer penalties
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 6:19:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

BREAKING NEWS: MILK IS A GATEWAY DRUG! 99% of people who use heroin at one time drank milk!

Even if it is true, it's a terrible reason to award animal 'rights'. Stopping a person from abusing an animal wouldn't stop them from wanting to abuse an animal, and the studies don't even begin to address that distinction (hell, they don't even establish causation). Animal rights also isn't just about presenting abuse; it's a farcical moral creed which would do severe damage to human economical and social systems. Animal abuse could be banned for other reasons (it's wasteful and has no redeeming qualities).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:54:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The connection probably runs the other way. The kinds of people who would commit abuse against animals are the kinds of people who would be violent toward humans. Thus, animal abuse does not *lead to* violent crime, but rather is an *indication* of the sort of temperament that would lead someone to act violently toward other people. At least that's the most obvious explanation.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:01:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Although, it's quite likely that animal abuse would have a violence-inducing effect on people in and of itself. But the correlation between animal abuse and violence crime certainly cannot be wholly attributed to that.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:02:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:14:19 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

I think this was the exact reasoning used by the government recently to upgrade animal abuse from a minor crime to a more major one with stiffer penalties

It interested me because even if you conclude that humans' moral worth is greater than animals' (or even animals have no moral worth), you can still award animals rights by this logic in order to protect human suffering.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:08:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:19:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

BREAKING NEWS: MILK IS A GATEWAY DRUG! 99% of people who use heroin at one time drank milk!

Lmao

Even if it is true, it's a terrible reason to award animal 'rights'. Stopping a person from abusing an animal wouldn't stop them from wanting to abuse an animal and the studies don't even begin to address that distinction (hell, they don't even establish causation). Animal rights also isn't just about presenting abuse; it's a farcical moral creed which would do severe damage to human economical and social systems. Animal abuse could be banned for other reasons (it's wasteful and has no redeeming qualities).

https://www.youtube.com...
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:23:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:54:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The connection probably runs the other way. The kinds of people who would commit abuse against animals are the kinds of people who would be violent toward humans. Thus, animal abuse does not *lead to* violent crime, but rather is an *indication* of the sort of temperament that would lead someone to act violently toward other people. At least that's the most obvious explanation.

Makes sense
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:28:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's nice to know that you think that stroke victims should remain vegetative for the rest of their lives.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:30:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.

*similar to humans do

The debate over whether animals feel pain/suffer is one-sided, there is equal chance that animals feel pain than every other human besides yourself does.
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:34:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:28:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's nice to know that you think that stroke victims should remain vegetative for the rest of their lives.
Complete strawman
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:45:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:30:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.

*similar to humans do

The debate over whether animals feel pain/suffer is one-sided, there is equal chance that animals feel pain than every other human besides yourself does.

It's an important distinction, and the rebuttal of a false equivalency. Pain/suffering is actually irrelevant. We don't award rights based on whether something feels pain, and if we did then we would have to give it to trees before we gave it clams.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:47:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:34:23 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:28:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's nice to know that you think that stroke victims should remain vegetative for the rest of their lives.
Complete strawman

If you think that primates shouldn't be used for testing, then you oppose the research which lead to CI therapy, the most effective means of rehabilitating stroke victims. If people like you had had your way sixty years ago, my aunt would be in a vegetative state. That's the ugly human cost of your absurd idealism. Deny it all you want, but there it is.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:48:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.

Monster. Non-humans are humans too! #equality
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:48:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:48:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.

Monster. Non-humans are humans too! #equality

Lol. Animal rights in a nutshell.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:15:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's not a nice thing but in my view its necessary in some circumstances. There is no alternative strategy other than carrying out those tests on humans.
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:57:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:15:16 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:41:54 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:16:57 PM, Hayd wrote:
There is a large connection between animal abuse and violent crime. For example, of 36 convicted multiple murderers questioned in one study, 46% admitted committing acts of animal torture as adolescents [1]. 65% of those arrested for animal crimes have also been arrested for battery against another person. [2] Between 71% and 83% of women entering domestic violence shelters reported that their partners also abused or killed the family pet [3]. This concept is demonstrated beautifully by William Hogarth"s Four Stages of Cruelty [4].

Is this a good reason to award animal"s rights? Thoughts?

[1] http://okeyspromise.com...
[2] http://judiciary.house.gov...
[3] http://animalstudiesrepository.org...
[4] http://www.tate.org.uk...

Agree people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people and vise versa. I agree inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals is wrong and should be illegal. However i strongly support the use of animals for testing purposes and the legality of slaughtering animals for human consumption.

Are you familiar with Singer's argument from marginal cases. If that argument is true, all humans are not equal, and its more evil to kill one human rather than another, or animals have equal moral status to humans. And thus anything thats evil to do to a human is evil to do to an animal, such as slaughtering animals for human consumption

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's not a nice thing but in my view its necessary in some circumstances. There is no alternative strategy other than carrying out those tests on humans.

Yes human volunteers should always be welcome
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:00:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:47:22 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:34:23 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:28:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's nice to know that you think that stroke victims should remain vegetative for the rest of their lives.
Complete strawman

If you think that primates shouldn't be used for testing, then you oppose the research which lead to CI therapy, the most effective means of rehabilitating stroke victims. If people like you had had your way sixty years ago, my aunt would be in a vegetative state. That's the ugly human cost of your absurd idealism. Deny it all you want, but there it is.

Why does it have to be primates, what is so special about humans?
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:04:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:45:14 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:30:45 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:26:59 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:12:31 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 6:09:58 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 5:51:25 PM, Hayd wrote:

Im not actually familiar with it. Never heard of it actually, explain the basics if you like. I don't see from what you said above anything except in your opinion animals should be given equal rights to humans and the judicial and legal system should reflect that?

I disagree on the basis that I value human life more purely on the fact it is more intelligent. An animal does not suffer at all during the slaughter process. It feels stressed obviously to some degree from being moved around in unfamiliar settings but it does not understand death or know it is about to be killed, unlike a human.

Animals do suffer and feel pain just like humans do.

A nonsensical statement. The only way to 'suffer and feel pain just like humans do' is to BE human.

*similar to humans do

The debate over whether animals feel pain/suffer is one-sided, there is equal chance that animals feel pain than every other human besides yourself does.

It's an important distinction, and the rebuttal of a false equivalency. Pain/suffering is actually irrelevant. We don't award rights based on whether something feels pain, and if we did then we would have to give it to trees before we gave it clams.

You are straw manning the other side, trees don't feel pain, you know that you are straw manning.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:29:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:28:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:17:47 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:14:15 PM, beng100 wrote:
Agree. Hence I believe intentionally abusing an animal should be a criminal offence.

Sorry I thought you were saying they weren't

I am on th fence about animal testing for disease but I am strongly against it for cosmetics and I believe there should be no primate testing.

It's nice to know that you think that stroke victims should remain vegetative for the rest of their lives.

Nice to know that you believe mice should experience severe nausea, muscle paralysis, as they slowly suffocate to death over the course of 3 to 4 days while humans in a vegetative state experience no pain whatsoever, even when we've already mapped the human genome.