What Do You Think (not for the faint of heart!!)

There's no need to let them go extinct. We could protect them instead, as we do endangered species. It's the meat-eaters who insist they "must" be killed because nobody would keep them if there's no profit in it. It's pretty arrogant for humans to insist that we own the Earth and that every square inch of it must be dedicated to producing profit.

And do you really, honestly, believe that the "designed purpose" of animals is to be food for us?

There is the cruelty of action, and there is the cruelty of neglect. One of the many marvels of the human mind is its ability to rationalize. "It's not my fault, so it's not my problem, so I'm not responsible." But we are all responsible for preventable suffering if we do nothing to prevent it. You may never have killed an animal you didn't eat (as if eating an animal lessens the cruelty of killing it!) but if you've ever walked past a homeless person on the street without inviting her or him into your home, then you are as cruel as I am, and as those boys are.

They are not being punished for cruelty. Not really. They are punished for being cruel in a socially unacceptable manner.

I remember a cartoon in the New Yorker decades ago: An emaciated man is chained to a dungeon wall, and a big burly guy with tatoos and a cat-o-nine-tails is saying, "... and then I discovered how to channel my aggression into a socially-acceptable outlet."

 

I agree that there is no correlation between what was done to the dog and hunting. No real hunter will ever need more than 2 shots and 1 is sufficient most of the time. I know people who bow hunt. They don't even think about shooting if the animal is more than about 20 yards distant, the chance for accuracy just isn't there, even with good equipment. More often than not, they shoot at 20-30 feet. Why? Because they are in the woods and any little twig will move an arrow off target.

There is a range of feelings, from "people should be able to hunt for any reason they like" to "people shouldn't eat any animal because it suffers, either when killed, or the more extreme view, during its entire captive life not wandering in the wild".

I will have to agree with Evan on this one. All living things eat something, some are very specific and others have a wide range of foods. Cabbage moth caterpillars eat the leaves on my broccoli plants. It is their food and they are damaging it when they eat. I also damage it when I cut off the flower stalk. Then I am 'cruel' and leave it to heal over and grow new flower stalks in its attempt to reproduce. In the fall, it will slowly die no matter what.

Do animals feel pain? Yes. Do plants? I don't know. It seems to be that killing an animal for the purpose of eating it concerns some. Yet, I bet that everyone here has felt more and longer lasting physical pain than a slaughterhouse animal at the point when it is killed. Fell off your bike and broke your arm maybe. Hell, my migraines are a lot more painful and last a lot longer than what a slaughterhouse animal goes through. I'm sure that Evan has seen way more pain and suffering than most of us given his occupation.

Those young men, for whatever reason in their past or chemical imbalances in their minds, are about guaranteed to do worse in the future unless they get help.

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't a witness to that incident. I'd likely be in jail right now over those two losers being beaten to within an inch of their lives. I cannot think of what would be a "suitable" sentance.

I am one that cannot hunt. The thought of shooting an animal with anything more than a camera, is beyond my ability. However, I do eat meat, and have no problem with others hunting. Wild game is downright tasty.

I'm not going to make assertions as to the cultural taboos regarding why we as a peolpe take offense over the thought of eating one animal over another. That is just the way different people are raised, and the world turns.

 

What kind of "criminal history" do these two have? If they already have a history of cruelty towards people/animals, and reform/punishment has failed to change that, then a lengthier stint in jail is probably called for.

But no amount of jail time will undo the death of that dog. The focus should move from punishing these two to making sure that the two of them never do anything like this again. They're 19 and 20 yrs old. I don't think an extended jail sentence will turn them into productive, contributing members of society down the line.

Furthermore, a harsh punishment is unlikely to deter other young men from doing equally stupid and cruel things to other animals. How many hours a week do you think these two guys spent reading the newspaper or watching the news? Would another pair of knuckleheads with a bow and arrow learn from the mistake of these two?

Given the left-leaning attitudes on this message board, I'm surprised that (I think) I'm the first one to buck the "throw 'em in jail forever" instinct.

 

Dave that would be stooping to their level, we know better than that.

 

Your epistemology is showing!

I find some of the comments in this thread fascinating. It is clear that morality and ethics has become just a matter of personal opinion. Any authority is just a matter of who has “legal force†(the government) on their side.

Consider my original reply. What makes a dog or a cow more valuable than a unborn child? A carrot is also a living thing, what makes it less valuable than a cow?

Can there be design by chance? Design requires a designer. There is a major problem with creationism. A creator is required to have creation. The 150 men who gathered at Westminster Abbey in the 1640’s made a clear statement of what creation implies.

 

I am heartless in my treatment of carrots. While I often buy dead ones at the store, I much prefer to eat them alive with their greens still on. Fresh ones are best, still breathing and screaming at me to have mercy on their little lives and put them back in the ground where they belong. I cut their toes off with a dull knife, and then I bite off their feet, and their legs, and their torso, and finally their neck, chewing slowly to savor the juicy flesh. I care not a whit for their lengthy suffering. I prefer to extend my own pleasure in the eating of them. My cruelty knows no bounds.

Oh, and by the way, the Hindus are possibly the only religion in the world (or one of the very few) that not only does not push their beliefs on others, but that formally and dogmatically recognize the legitimacy of all religions. Of course, they are bloodthirsty and cruel in their wars against the Muslims and the Sikhs, as every religion and every nation is bloodthirsty and cruel in its wars against anyone weaker than itself; but as far as religion goes, the Hindus respect all religious beliefs.

 

Oh, and P.S.: a carrot is indeed less valuable than a cow. If you don't believe me, offer to trade a carrot for a cow. You'll get no takers. But if you offer to trade a cow for a carrot, the world will beat a path to your door. (Except for me. I don't want a cow. But I still would not give you a cow for a carrot.)

 

Dave, I personally take offense to your statement about India. Four of my dearest friends are Indian; I know firsthand that they do not push their beliefs on anyone. When was the last time you saw Indian missionaries start a church in America or had two Indians come to your door telling you if you don't convert to Hinduism that you'll go to hell? Secondly, not all Indians are vegetarians. There are many different forms of Hinduism, some with dietary restrictions, and some without. "They" certainly deserve more credit and respect than you've shown in your post.

 

Superstition is a poor basis for a system of ethics and a poor substitute for real knowledge. When you seek to convince others, remember that one man's religion is another man's belly laugh.

 

Your tone about India sounds judgemental and intolerant

 

Many years ago while in the Arctic of Canada in Aklavik I would take a 22 rifle and for entertainment shoot northern "Tarmigan" birds who were so "stupid" you could shoot them one at a time as long as you started at the bottom of the tree (small) and worked up so as to not disturb those above.
I was in my late teens then and should have known then that this was not a sport. I have always regretted this act.
Recently, and locally in conversation with a local Native Canadian gentleman, I related this and his reply was," If hunting is necessary to sustain human life then it is common sense and morally acceptable and necessary to do so as long as suffering is avoided". He then added, " To take any life, unnecessarily and however humane, unless to alleviate unavoidable and terminal suffering cannot be substantiated under any circumstances."
That sums it up for me!