Could any of you give me a rational reason as to why it should be a crime? Leave your feelings and morals at the door, this isn't Oprah's book club.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-31 14:50
Because we slaughter millions of pigs, chickens, cows etc yet kicking a dog makes you worse than Hitler.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-31 15:02
Because causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. If everybody went round doing that to you and your family you wouldn't like it.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-31 15:12
Morals aside? That's the whole reason for it. Animals can't defend themselves.
But really, going up to a pack of stray puppies and punting one won't really affect anyone or anything besides the puppy and the person who kicked it. It still won't be right, though.
>>1
the same reason why mistreating humans is bad i guess.
give me any rational reason why murder should be a crime. >>4
Animals can't defend themselves.
thats pretty wrong dude.
>>8 give me any rational reason why murder should be a crime
Because humans are more important than animals, are sentient, and the person murdered (probably) contributed to society in some way where animals don't do anything to anyone.
I'm not some crazy animal abuser, but this is just common sense.
>>10 Because humans are more important than animals, are sentient, and the person murdered (probably) contributed to society in some way where animals don't do anything to anyone.
now you are being the one irational, most humans are just being, stupid and lazy. most of them are parasites on this planet wasting resources, spreading and destroying their envoirment until it is too late and then thy show "guild" but they dont learn of their mistakes and if given the chance would do it again. they try to distract themselfs from their own mortaility day by day until they die, but fortunetly they talk themselfs into the existence of a sky wizzard who just gives them free tickets to choclateland where they can do what they didnt dare to do on this planet.
most humans are not really sentient, they appear to be capable of thought and foresight, but they are not most of them form a collective disaster that will not only destroy themself but also inflict major damage on all other life on this earth. most are not capable of thought, they only follow the unspoken code of society which in essence is only the order to spread, consume and destroy and in the end brag about it and if you fuck up they are supposed to show fake sorrow, but they just wont learn.
most humans are just stupid, lazy and parasitic, if you killed many of them it would be a improvement on society, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
we can sum up humans are only animals in denial with technology whose purpose is to make up for our descrapencies, but it doesnt, it only serves as an excuse.
also: Because humans are more important than animal
what the fuck man, that is not rational at all, that is just BS.
please take no offence if i say, pull your head out of your ass and breath some reality.
>>13
What was that steaming pile of shit of a post even about?
please take no offence if i say, pull your head out of your ass and breath some reality.
Well damn, looks like IHBT.
Name:
Jacksonian2010-08-01 17:40
#2 I know. Its irrational.
#3 That is not good enough. Isn't "right" and "wrong" relative to "smart people"? My family consist of humans, not animals. Animals are property.
#4 "Right"? "Wrong"? Sure. I agree it wouldn't be "right" according to my morals, but rationally why should resources be spent on punishing that person?
#7 Thanks for dropping by.
#8 Oh please, human suffering brings joy to many. Probably you right?! Are you serious? You are elevating the life of a cat to that of the President? Really? If you do, the problem lies with you buddy, not me.
How about when others mistreat humans? Oh right, that's called "entertainment" to many people. Keep on with your "morals" soldier!
# 9 Excuse me but I support moral law. That is not the point of this thread, most people become hysterical if you mention the dreaded "M Word" because it makes you a "Fascist" or something. Why do the same people who poo-poo moral laws inexplicably support a "moral law" such as animal cruelty? The general attitude with "smart" people is that EVERYTHING should be legal EXCEPT animal cruelty. Give me a break! The same society that masturbates over beheading videos because they are "LOL" are the same ones that have the gall to cry over some puppy commercial? Your society is doomed and you can't even see it. Elevating animals near humans or above them is irrational. Period.
# 13 You're actually serious with that. Listen sweetheart, just because you have been shunned by others for being a sick fuck does not mean you should take it out on those of us that are not basement dwelling degenerates. I do not abuse animals and that is not what this is about. It is about morality and the twisted irrational although popular view that "smart" people have. If people are going to oppose morality than rationality should take its place, correct? Since "smart" people want to aim for "rationality" I ask you for a rational reason yet you failed to do so. You responded emotionally, so you fail. Let me ask you, how many fucked up shit do you "rationalized" and enjoy while dismissing "morality"? You want to have your cake and eat it too? Fine! Be rational and not emotional about it. I thought you were supposed to be "smart".
# 18 No I think he was serious.
Come on guys, I thought you were supposed to be "rational" and against puritanical "moralfags". Hit me with rationality. I dare you!
>>19 The same society that masturbates over beheading videos because they are "LOL" are the same ones that have the gall to cry over some puppy commercial?
A very small minority of society may do that. What does that matter? They don't speak for everyone else.
Your society is doomed and you can't even see it.
Yes, "my" society.
Come on guys, I thought you were supposed to be "rational" and against puritanical "moralfags".
Whoops, sounds like you aren't familiar with this place. You shouldn't start either, it doesn't sound like you'd fit in too well. Maybe head to /b/?
# 20 Minority? Hardly? There are websites which are solely dedicated to people dying, being killed and so on. Your society in general does not give a shit about that, but lord have mercy if someone post a fucking dogfight, then you must be burned. Snuff=FUN!!
/b/ is full of irrational moralfags. I'm not either of those.
#24 OK. That's why I asked for a rational reason to my question which you did not answer.
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-02 16:23
>>25
pseudo-intellectual detected. It's already been said: all laws against cruelty and harming other living creatures are based on moral reasoning, the base assumption is that it is wrong to cause suffering in others. Just like you're against murder because your base assumption is that humans are the most important animal. Our laws are based on either property protection, or morals. When you are no longer a fifteen-year-old virgin you will understand why. You will understand that your precious "rationality" is only a tiny part of overall reasoning and consciousness.
>>25 Not citing posts in the correct format /b/ moralfags
We know where you must head back to. Do you?
Name:
Jacksonian2010-08-02 20:40
# 26 How much of a fucking moron are you? Most people oppose "moral" laws. Pretty much all of them. The only "moral" law that people support is animal cruelty. Anytime morality is brought into the picture it is derided as irrational and stupid. Why is this "moral" law just? But all other irrational?
Pay some fucking attention.
Oh and by the way, I am criticizing the "pseudo intellectuals", you're just too much of a dummy to understand my point and main criticism.
Figures.
Let's see if this gets through to you. Why is "moral" law in other cases irrational? Everything should be legal right?!
Most people oppose "moral" laws in other cases, therefore everything according to "you" should be legal. Drugs, prostitution, possessing child porn, cannibalism etc. EXCEPT animal cruelty.
Why should "morality" be disregarded in other cases but held up on this one?
You oppose punishing child porn possessors because its "thought crime" and the possessor according to "smart" people could NOT be considered an accessory after the fact, right? THAT moral law must be abolished in the name of "FREEDOM". But kick a dog and you must be ostracized. Everything is victimless, except animal cruelty. You have not given me a rational reason yet. Only emotionalism of which you are selective of. You probably spit on others who might engage on "emotionalism" as "puritanical" and "irrational", correct?
Is the cake real?
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-02 21:25
>>28
I guess you're right. Most people do oppose laws against assault and rape, which have no argument against then other than a moral one. There's no rational reason why you shouldn't hurt those you are stronger than, if you feel like it. Way to be a pseudo-intellectual, bro!
>>28
Pseudo-intellectual checklist:
Overuse/misuse of quotes CHECK.
Misunderstanding of the word that forms the crux of the argument CHECK.
Aggressively stating that anybody that disagrees is stupid CHECK.
Worshiping a shallow definition of rationality CHECK.
Lame, wrong assumptions about your opponents based on your extremely limited experience with people (your family and schoolmates) CHECK.
Name:
Jacksonian2010-08-03 12:40
# 29 Dude, I am not a "pseudo intellectual". The point of the post is to CRITIZE mental masturbators that dismiss morality, I support morality and think our laws should be based on a combination of morals, ethics and rationality, OK. The criticism is against those that jerk off about how rational they are and dismiss morals yet support this ONE moral law while opposing others. Does that make sense?!
This is for those of you that spit on "moralfags" while claiming how rational you are. I ask about animal cruelty and the "rational" people give me morals, which of course they previously dismissed. Again, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They demand rationality yet fail to do so when asked for it and instead rely on "moralfaggotry" which they were making fun of previously for being "irrational". Do you understand?
# 30 I know what the word means dummy. My use of the quotes is meant as mocking those that dismiss "morals". If you're so smart explain to me why morals must be used on cases concerning animal cruelty but must be dismissed on a topic such as I don't know prostitution. Do you blindly defend prostitution on the grounds that you are being rational and those that might make a moral argument as "idiots"? You probably do, right?
# 31 Another moron. I am mocking "pseudo intellectuals" dumbass.
The quotes are meant as an insult, genius.
There is no misunderstanding of anything on my behalf, you're just to stupid to notice I was mocking you.
You are stupid if you failed to get my point dummy, is not like its hidden or anything, genius.
More mocking shithead, its those of you that are rational Libertarian types that want EVERYTHING legal except animal cruelty EVERYTHING else is rationalized, are you fucking understanding my criticism? For god's sake I could not be more direct yet an idiot like you can't see the forest for the trees.
What limited experience? According to 4Chaners EVERYTHING in the world must be legal with the exception of animal cruelty. You and others did not refute me on the "accusations" I made which probably means that you agree. EVERYTHING should be legal in other cases because you're being "rational" and not a stupid "moralfag", right?
Really, just leave. You have no idea what you're talking about and you clearly don't belong here. You know nothing of the humble people of /lounge/. Save yourself (even more) embarrassment and just get out.