What would your reaction be if this happened right in front of you?

[Bazal]

Are you saying you're no better than a housecat?

If so, then I shall force you to use kitty litter and eat the crap they call 'cat food' off the floor.

Oh no, we're much better than house cats. Top of the food chain and all that. Still animals.

 

[Tone83]

Fox baits are cruel
rat poison is cruel
whipping a horse in a race is cruel
mulesing lambs is cruel
any form of livestock slaughter is cruel (including halal)

I just find it odd that you:
Don't care about the rat
Don't care that the rat died
Care immensely that the rat was tortured

that process makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Things die, everything is gonna die, and most of them will die in a somewhat cruel way. However, they should never die by way of being boiled to death by a pervert for his pleasure, that's just an insult and a waste of their life. His shit jollies being met are in no way worth the torment the rat went through, his entire life isn't worth it.

 

[madunit]

So now there's acceptable cruelty and unacceptable cruelty?

 

[Bazal]

Cruelty is a human concept anyway. Who decides what is and isn't cruel?

 

[madunit]

Cruelty is a human concept anyway. Who decides what is and isn't cruel?

exactly.

Cruelty has one definition, but for some reason these two are happy to ignore most forms of cruelty just to be offended by another piece of cruelty.

And apparently animals aren't cruel to other animals, because that's just nature.

Only humans are cruel. Does that make us unnatural animals?

 

[Curtis89]

How do you know that a cat has no concept of suffering or morals?

Because they're cats. Morals are a human concept... cats don't have the intelligence, or the thought, to come up with things like ethics and morals.

And how do you know animals aren't the same.

They are clearly not because most animals are cognitively limited.

it's an odd argument you make. You don't care for the rat and you don't care that it dies unnaturally, but you do care if its death is painful. It's a rather odd tangent to get upset about.

How's it odd?

I don't disagree with killing animals... sometimes it is a necessity to do so. But not in this method. Certainly not for pleasure either. How is being against, and upset with such disgusting behaviour an "odd tangent" ?

status shouldn't matter? There's a food chain and every animal has its place either above or below other animals. Status, whether you like it or not does matter, because its nature.

This has nothing to do with the "food chain" or "nature". You're making a naturalistic fallacy argument. Just because animals do stuff to each other in the wild doesn't mean it's acceptable for humans to do the same.

so this torture is sadistic but the purposeful use of chemicals to kill them is not, simply because the animal dies quickly.

People don't usually use chemicals just to get sadistic pleasure. They usually don't have a choice, and it's usually done to preserve health and to protect property. Unlike boiling something to death and laughing about it.

Do you think naepalm use was also acceptable on people?

No.

I get that the act itself is cruel, but you can't get on your high horse about one animals death and turn a blind eye to a multitude of other animal deaths that mostly are just as cruel, if not moreso, but the resultant death of the animal is much quicker.

I certainly can. You can't put non-human animals to the same standard as human beings because an animal like a cat is very limited cognitively.

Essentially any unncessary and unnatural death of an animal could be considered cruel.

Fox baits are cruel
rat poison is cruel
whipping a horse in a race is cruel
mulesing lambs is cruel
any form of livestock slaughter is cruel (including halal)

I just find it odd that you:
Don't care about the rat
Don't care that the rat died
Care immensely that the rat was tortured

that process makes no sense.

Why wouldn't it make any sense? It's a psychopath/potential violent individual we're talking about here... I don't wish for such people to move onto bigger targets.

Let's be realistic here; we can't avoid cruelty entirely. A lot of the things we do will attribute to an animal dying. But there is a massive, massive difference between say, building a house and displacing the animals on that land, or killing an animal humanely for meat, to trapping an animal in a cage and using an incredibly painful means to kill it just for a laugh.

I find it even more odd that you can't seem to make the distinction between this and the points you listed. Not all cruelty is the same.

 

[Curtis89]

Cruelty is a human concept anyway. Who decides what is and isn't cruel?

Sounds like a cop-out to me.

exactly.

Cruelty has one definition, but for some reason these two are happy to ignore most forms of cruelty just to be offended by another piece of cruelty.

And apparently animals aren't cruel to other animals, because that's just nature.

Only humans are cruel. Does that make us unnatural animals?

I am not ignoring most of them, if you're going to say that death and killing is cruel then fine. I don't agree that the act of killing is itself cruel, not at all. However, saying what this guy did is the same as what other animals do to each other in the wild, or a person promptly slaughtering a lamb for food is a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Bazal]

Pretty sure I'm arguing with an alt, but whatever. How is it a cop out? Is a lion cruel when it takes over a pride and kills the previous males cubs? If humans did that as part of our programmed biological behaviour, would we see it as cruel? Cruelty is not objective. Deal with it.

 

[Curtis89]

Pretty sure I'm arguing with an alt, but whatever. How is it a cop out? Is a lion cruel when it takes over a pride and kills the previous males cubs? If humans did that as part of our programmed biological behaviour, would we see it as cruel? Cruelty is not objective. Deal with it.

It just sounds like you are trying to justify pouring boiling water over a live mammal trapped in cage, on the basis that lions rip apart their prey target. If that's the case then you can justify anything, because animals do that to each other too.

No, we wouldn't see it as cruel. But that's a moot point, because we can clearly see past that.

 

[Bazal]

And it sounds like you actually have no idea what I'm saying...not surprising.

 

[Bazal]

I find the use of the word mammal interesting. Why is it significant?

 

[Misanthrope]

Nobody likes reptiles.

 

[Curtis89]

I find the use of the word mammal interesting. Why is it significant?

Primarily because we are mammals too.

 

[Bazal]

So you wouldn't be as outraged if it was, say, a catfish or a toad?

 

[Curtis89]

So you wouldn't be as outraged if it was, say, a catfish or a toad?

I wouldn't be, no, that doesn't mean I agree to it or wouldn't be disgusted by it.

 

[Bazal]

I wouldn't be, no, that doesn't mean I agree to it or wouldn't be disgusted by it.

So it would be less cruel in your eyes...and so you're a hypocrite. A catfish is a giant ball of very sensitive nerve endings, as is a toad. The pain they felt in the same situation would be infinitely greater than the rat. Thus, you see, cruelty is subjective. You admit it yourself.

 

[Curtis89]

So it would be less cruel in your eyes...and so you're a hypocrite. A catfish is a giant ball of very sensitive nerve endings, as is a toad. The pain they felt in the same situation would be infinitely greater than the rat. Thus, you see, cruelty is subjective. You admit it yourself.

So you made the leap from me saying "being less outraged" to me saying "being less cruel".

Fantastic strawman effort.

 

[Didgi]

I have a fair idea who this is, and well played.

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

Love watching Baz debate an alt...

 

[Bazal]

Hey I admitted I was debating an alt! Better than debating myself