Are Facebook taking animal cruelty seriously enough?

[Docturphil]

Do you even know what "innate" means?

Did I make that unclear or did I misuse the word at any point? I think it's pretty clear that I understand the meaning.

Just because you have that kind of connection doesn't mean everyone else does.

Correct. I'm speaking in generalities. I made that pretty clear.

Ergo, it can't be innate.

It cannot be innate because not everyone feels a connection with dogs? Bad logic is bad. Allow me to demonstrate by applying your logic to other scenarios.

Homosexuality cannot be innate because not everyone is gay.

Empathy towards other humans cannot be innate because some people are sociopaths.

Arms cannot be innate because some people are born without them.

See how ridiculous that is?

What is "more concerning" is not absolute, so don't pretend that it is.

No, but again I'm speaking in generalities. If we know that someone was raised in an environment which encouraged a hatred of rats then their burning of a rat becomes less concerning. The same is true of someone raised in an environment which encouraged a hatred of dogs. If two people are raised to hate dogs and one is burning rats and the other dogs, then we might be more concerned about the one burning rats.

But if we're given the same two people and we know nothing of their environment, then we'll probably be more concerned about the one burning dogs.

Humans are irrational in a lot of ways.

You're living proof.

Having a sliding scale of what we feel empathy for is irrational;

That's absurd. Do you feel empathy for a mosquito? There are generic levels of empathy that we can generalize for animals. That's real. It is not irrational. It is perfectly rational. Feelings, believe it or not, are quantifiable.

[kail]

i firmly believe human experimentation could lead to curing this kind of mental instability, and that breaking a few bad eggs along the way is worth it.

Alrighty then, you volunteering?

[Xargoth6634]

Like, one of my friends is super into public breast feeding advocacy. So boobs show up on my feed quite often.

There are worse things!

[derpkitteh]

Alrighty then, you volunteering?

if i had some dangerous mental disorder, i hope i would be caught and used. hopefully i would die quickly.

but i don't believe i do. some type of depression maybe, and anxiety.

[Deleted]

Won't someone think of the little rats.




In other words people are raging hypocrites and possibly serial killers.

It is impossible to reconcile the couple’s obvious love for the pets with the depravity of their crimes which were committed on and around Saddleworth Moor between 1963 and 1965.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-Murders.html

[Fargus]

Did I make that unclear or did I misuse the word at any point? I think it's pretty clear that I understand the meaning.

I don't think you do. Or you're being disingenuous.

Correct. I'm speaking in generalities. I made that pretty clear.

You made pretty clear that it was innate, but something cannot be innate if it is decided by society, rather than being default. Your organs are default, but your feelings or emotions for animals (and people for that matter) are not.

It cannot be innate because not everyone feels a connection with dogs? Bad logic is bad. Allow me to demonstrate by applying your logic to other scenarios.

See how ridiculous that is?

If you understood what "innate" means, then it's not ridiculous at all. The entire concept of human/animal rights are human-made and human-defined. Many times throughout history society has changed the standard of such... a good example is that slaves were perfectly acceptable for most of human history. It's only recently (relatively speaking) that we have found this unacceptable. That just goes to show you there is no such thing as absolute or universal rights. It's exactly the same thing with feeling empathy. Despite you assurances that it's "innate" to feel more empathy for a dog, 200 years ago they had the same kind of legal protections that your common street rat has now. That is, little to none at all. It was more acceptable back then to be brutal to a dog, because they were treated as property. Where was the empathy and "generalities" back then?

Your last example is also a false equivalency - arms aren't a metaphysical construct, they're something you have before you are born. They serve a biological purpose separate from what your experiences/upbringing/sexuality is.

No, but again I'm speaking in generalities. If we know that someone was raised in an environment which encouraged a hatred of rats then their burning of a rat becomes less concerning. The same is true of someone raised in an environment which encouraged a hatred of dogs. If two people are raised to hate dogs and one is burning rats and the other dogs, then we might be more concerned about the one burning rats.

"Generalities" are a product of society, not the individual. These have changed over time and are not stationary. For that reason I am saying it's not innate. Do you not get this point already?

You're living proof.

No, it's called being pragmatic. And that's a lot more rational than arbitrary lines.

That's absurd. Do you feel empathy for a mosquito? There are generic levels of empathy that we can generalize for animals. That's real. It is not irrational. It is perfectly rational. Feelings, believe it or not, are quantifiable.

Again, I'll direct you to this post:

I morally base the worth of an animal on its ability to feel pain, pleasure, and otherwise experience life. Any animal with a primary consciousness can do that, which means most vertebrates. So I actually have a reason based upon premises that make sense, instead of something like "but they're cuter and more fluffy".

The reason I don't feel empathy for a mosquito is because of the criteria above. "Generic levels" are arbitrary, and change depending on difference of opinion. If you're going to use a moral system, at least try to be consistent.

[purebalance]

I don't see why he couldn't use a quicker mouse trap either, bothering to torch it is just sad. The mouse probably still died fast, but he's clearly doing it for his own pleasure.
But the fact that it's a mouse, just makes it irrelevant to most people. If this was a cat or a dog, people would find this outrageous.

The small ones are easier to evade and still get the bait. The glue trap is the second best second only to the large ones that close when they go in. Glue trap is cheaper however.

[Bodakane]

The small ones are easier to evade and still get the bait. The glue trap is the second best second only to the large ones that close when they go in. Glue trap is cheaper however.

Glue traps are horribly inhumane. They cause the rat (or anything else that gets caught in there) to die of starvation, which is one of the worst ways to go.

[Fargus]

The small ones are easier to evade and still get the bait. The glue trap is the second best second only to the large ones that close when they go in. Glue trap is cheaper however.

It's not cheaper when you take into account cage and snapping traps are reusable. Also, according to this research paper, glue traps are less effective.

- - - Updated - - -

Glue traps are horribly inhumane. They cause the rat (or anything else that gets caught in there) to die of starvation, which is one of the worst ways to go.

Worse, if they die as a result from the physical trauma of breaking/biting their legs off trying to escape. No different to the gin trap that was banned here decades ago for that very reason. Snare traps in general are pretty sickening.

[Docturphil]

I don't think you do. Or you're being disingenuous.

K

You made pretty clear that it was innate, but something cannot be innate if it is decided by society, rather than being default. Your organs are default, but your feelings or emotions for animals (and people for that matter) are not.

But the capacity for those feelings and emotions is absolutely innate. No, we're not born loving dogs. We're born with the capacity to love them. For most people the capacity to care about dogs is greater than the capacity to care about rats. Big sad puppy eyes have an effect on us which is completely disconnected from the influences of other humans. The dead looking expressionless face of a rat doesn't really do much for most people. Place a cute little puppy in front of someone. You don't have to tell them to find it adorable.

Yes there is an influence bestowed by other humans. But how do you think that came about as a thing in society in the first place? Did people just randomly choose dogs? It's not a coincidence.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think it is that no one says "Rats, man's best friend"?

[Fargus]

But the capacity for those feelings and emotions is absolutely innate. No, we're not born loving dogs. We're born with the capacity to love them. For most people the capacity to care about dogs is greater than the capacity to care about rats. Big sad puppy eyes have an effect on us which is completely disconnected from the influences of other humans. The dead looking expressionless face of a rat doesn't really do much for most people. Place a cute little puppy in front of someone. You don't have to tell them to find it adorable.

We are not talking about capacity (even rats and dogs show emotions), we are talking about how much empathy we should partition to what animal. That decision primarily comes from outside influences. And it's something I wouldn't consider "innate" based on that factor.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about before - "big puppy eyes, daww" and "but it's adorable". That kind of superficial shit is not as important as the animal suffering itself. A rat doesn't need big, puppy dog eyes for us to feel sorry for it. All it needs to do is scream and writhe around. If people can't identify with that, regardless of animal, then they hardly have any empathy at all. If I saw that happening to a rat, a cat, a dog, whatever - my first thought wouldn't be "damn, that dog is too cute to suffer, I gotta help it", it would be "shit it's suffering I need to help it asap". That point right there is precisely why I think, fundamentally, whether it's a dog or a rat matters not one iota. It would actually be hypocritical of me to say otherwise. Is hypocrisy rational to you?

Yes there is an influence bestowed by other humans. But how do you think that came about as a thing in society in the first place? Did people just randomly choose dogs? It's not a coincidence.

That's not the point. It's to demonstrate that as a collective, we have the ability to give animals certain rights. And can just as easily strip it from them. Giving and taking away something that is a human concept will never be innate.

Let me ask you this. Why do you think it is that no one says "Rats, man's best friend"?

Erm, because they're not? I'm not making the case that rats are man's best friend. Though I could say they're the medical scientist's best friend. Rats have actually contributed a lot to helping humanity despite their reputation. Not on the level of dogs, but it's still there. And I can appreciate that, unlike some idiots who'd rather torture them because "eww icky rats".

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, by the way...

Place a cute little puppy in front of someone. You don't have to tell them to find it adorable.

Meet Sweetpea. Do I have to tell them to find it adorable either?

A lot of people would actually consider her cuter than the corgi in the video.

[kail]

if i had some dangerous mental disorder, i hope i would be caught and used. hopefully i would die quickly.

but i don't believe i do. some type of depression maybe, and anxiety.

Advocating inhumane experiments could easily be seen as a mental disorder symptom.

[Docturphil]

See, this is exactly what I was talking about before - "big puppy eyes, daww" and "but it's adorable". That kind of superficial shit is not as important as the animal suffering itself.

That kind of superficial shit is also innate. What is it that makes us find cute puppies adorable? What is it that allows us to identify individuals? What is it that allows us the empathize with anything or anyone in the first place? These are all innate abilities. These are all things that almost everybody can do when they're born or very early on in their life.

Erm, because they're not? I'm not making the case that rats are man's best friend.

OK so let me get this straight. Rats are not man's best friend, and dogs are; but it's purely because of the influence of society and has nothing to do with any sort of ability for mankind to connect with dogs on any level?

[derpkitteh]

Advocating inhumane experiments could easily be seen as a mental disorder symptom.

no, it's a symptom of realizing that sometimes things must be done for the greater good.

if we can erase sociopathy and psychopathy from humanity going forward, or other personality and mental disorders, it's worth the cost.

[kail]

no, it's a symptom of realizing that sometimes things must be done for the greater good.

if we can erase sociopathy and psychopathy from humanity going forward, or other personality and mental disorders, it's worth the cost.

And there is the saying about "good intentions".

[derpkitteh]

And there is the saying about "good intentions".

such sayings are naive platitudes, worth little more than the oxygen expended on them.

this is the real world. real solutions must be found to problems.

[belfpala]

There are worse things!

Same friend is also an anti-vaccination witch, so....

[Avar ize]

Yeah, that's all the nazi's did. Hurt feelings.

and how is deleting pepe memes helping fight the "nazis" in any way or form?

[Kerplank]

I'm glad I left that stupid site years ago. Is their report system automated or do they have someone actually reviewing these videos?

[breadisfunny]

depends on what animal. if it's goats i see no issue as they are evil sinful creatures.