Is cruelty to animals a sin?

[Ideo]

Where did I make personal attacks ideo? All I did was eviscerate your arguments, many of which were personal attacks on a pregnant woman w/ cancer… It is illogical to say only your moral views can be proven. Moral views, by definition, cannot be proven, period. This was never about your straw man rainforest argument, It started w/ your over-reacting response (This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Do you do any research whatsoever?) to a random comment about the Catholic teaching on animal testing. Were you really so scandalized or are you just histrionic?

Catholic Doctrine most certainly can be proven; it’s all documented in the CC. Note, the doctrine of RCC beliefs is what I’m talking about (not faith issues), which is what your original tirade was about. This is not a true/false question; the doctrine exists, whether you agree w/ it or not.

Statements like, “It is silly and evil to kill animals for food when it is not necessary.” are themselves silly & not provable. Dietary choices are not evil. Also Still waiting for you to prove, “I believe that all living creatures are worth just as much”. On what do you base this statement?

Where do you come up w/ , “Your defenses are selective and hypocritical. It’s okay to kill/torture here, but not okay here.”??? Then you say, “It’s either wrong or it’s not. Either you can kill and torture every animal, including humans (yes, biologically, we are animals), OR you don’t kill or torture any…“ So why are you ok w/ killing/torturing unborn human babies, but not dumb animals? See ideo, it is you who are inconsistent, selective & hypocritical.

So why don’t you follow your own advice when you say, “ If you want to support cruelty support it. But don’t support it just for the higher animals- support it for the Lowest, also”. IOW words Ideo, if you think it’s ok to kill babies, why do you say it’s evil to eat meat? It’s a fair question. Especially since this is a Catholic site. I notice you give no religious affiliation; do you profess one? Again a fair question.

Excuse me? Now you are making NO sense. I NEVER attacked her, and it is ridiculous to suggest that I did.

Also, I am actually pro-life. I was using your own views to show your hypocrisy.
Forgive me, but a child with basic skills in reasoning and logic could tear down your arguments, so I take my leave. Have you ever heard of “burden of proof”? Please look it up. In this case, the burden of proof, by definition, lies on you. It is not my job to prove equality, but yours to prove inequality.

A few hundred years ago, the infallible Church accepted slavery. They also denied evolution up until half a century ago. Perhaps some day in the not-to-distant future, God will become an animal-lover, just like he learned to love people of different races, and learned how he made his own creation.

Now, I have said all I need to say, and any intelligent person can sort out the rest. It would be foolish of me to stay and argue with a fool. I must go and do something more productive now, like bang my head up against a wall.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

A cat is better at catching and killing mice than a trap. Traps did not work for us as there were too many mice. We’ve had no mice since we got a cat.

Thats a good cat. Most cats are terrible mousers. I have to use traps and find they work well. I also agree that this is not cruel. Neither I would say are slaughter facilities. They tend to have inspectors right on the killing floor. So, they are meeting our requirements.

Is being cruel to an animal is a sin? I would think like others have said that any cruelty is a sin. When you get into things like unneccesary suffering. Thats pretty subjective. I suppose you have to look at the intent of the person. Swatting a fly, No. Pulling the wings and legs off slowly, yes. But beyond the question of sin. I feel that you can tell alot about a persons character. By the way they treat their animals.
So,
Slaughter houses. No
Hunting, No
Fishing, No
Bull riding, and other rodeo work, No.
Dog and horse racing, No.
Dog fighting, Yes.
Test animals, No.
Making a nuisance of yourself while claiming to be fighting for
animal rights. Yes.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That’s what YOU believe, but you can’t prove any of it empirically. You stick your nose in the air when a sick woman gets an abortion of a fetus, and are okay with torturing chimps in the name of “science”. But you cannot empirically prove your views. They are MORAL views, not absolute ones. I believe that all living creatures are worth just as much- just like a mentally handicapped human is no less a valuable life than mine, even though in many cases they lack the moral judgement that people consider the defining thing about “humanity”.
If I believe that you killing an animal is just as bad as you killing an unborn child, why on earth would I not speak out against it? It is ridiculous and hypocritical of you to suggest that my views are less important than yours and should not be voiced. I believe it is wrong, you do not. That’s fine. But don’t suggest that I don’t have the right to tell others that I believe it is wrong, and WHY I believe it is wrong. You can quote bible verses all day, but at the end of the day, the one with empirical, scientifically proven research to back them up is me. I base my moral views on things that I can prove, like the fact that animals feel pain just as intensely as I do.

And to suggest that the rainforest situation is a myth is ridiculous. It is a known fact, and what it has to do with things is that 1) 99% of earth’s variations are in rainforests, 2) scientists believe that the cures to those diseases you wish to sacrifice animals for are in these forests, and 3) you wouldn’t have to find vegetation that would grow in those areas if you left them alone in the first place.

Like someone else suggested, why not go ahead and build in those areas? We are constantly expanding, anyways, so if a place is not good for growth, why not use it in another way? Another false dichotomy you are creating.

independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/rainforest-razed-so-cattle-can-graze-1521677.html
news.mongabay.com/2008/0801-amazon.html
rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm
rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Talk about ridiculous. Listen, you silly wee man. Go make a nuisance of yourself elsewhere.

 

[holy_moly]

Thats a good cat. Most cats are terrible mousers. I have to use traps and find they work well. I also agree that this is not cruel. Neither I would say are slaughter facilities. They tend to have inspectors right on the killing floor. So, they are meeting our requirements.

Is being cruel to an animal is a sin? I would think like others have said that any cruelty is a sin. When you get into things like unneccesary suffering. Thats pretty subjective. I suppose you have to look at the intent of the person. Swatting a fly, No. Pulling the wings and legs off slowly, yes. But beyond the question of sin. I feel that you can tell alot about a persons character. By the way they treat their animals.
So,
Slaughter houses. No
Hunting, No
Fishing, No
Bull riding, and other rodeo work, No.
Dog and horse racing, No.
Dog fighting, Yes.
Test animals, No.
Making a nuisance of yourself while claiming to be fighting for
animal rights. Yes.

Priceless & level headed :yyeess:

 

[holy_moly]

Excuse me? Now you are making NO sense. I NEVER attacked her, and it is ridiculous to suggest that I did.

Also, I am actually pro-life. I was using your own views to show your hypocrisy.
Forgive me, but a child with basic skills in reasoning and logic could tear down your arguments, so I take my leave. Have you ever heard of “burden of proof”? Please look it up. In this case, the burden of proof, by definition, lies on you. It is not my job to prove equality, but yours to prove inequality.

A few hundred years ago, the infallible Church accepted slavery. They also denied evolution up until half a century ago. Perhaps some day in the not-to-distant future, God will become an animal-lover, just like he learned to love people of different races, and learned how he made his own creation.

Now, I have said all I need to say, and any intelligent person can sort out the rest. It would be foolish of me to stay and argue with a fool. I must go and do something more productive now, like bang my head up against a wall.

How mature ideo… Not to beat a dead horse, but since thou protest too much… at least 4 times you ridiculed BB or attacked her views: 1. You stick your nose in the air when a sick woman gets an abortion of a fetus, and are okay with torturing chimps… (sick on the fetus comment; where is she for ‘torturing’ chimps?). 2. … as bad as you killing an unborn child…(bad analogy to use w/ a pregnant woman). 3. You can quote bible verses all day. (she quoted 0). 4. …the rainforest situation myth is ridiculous (her view on RF was neutral, so why the vitriol?)

As you can see ideo, the only thing that is ridiculous is your behavior & denials. No substance, just rhetoric & ad homs. Obviously, you don’t do so well when your straw men are systematically dismantled. You’re not fooling anyone, as you were using your sick abortion arguments on BB, before I ever brought them up, so to say, Also, I am actually pro-life. I was using your own views to show your hypocrisy. is the intellectual equivalent of ‘nanny nanny poo poo”. Grow up.

It does not surprise me that you cut & run. Have a nice day

 

[4elise]

Hi one and all ---- I know people on this topic feel strongly - I certainly do.

I believe we do this better when we speak from the first person, (I believe, I feel, I have noticed, for me this makes sense, for me… - and avoid 'you, your, etc…)

I think it is very important not take what appears to be the bait of someone who appears to be trying to elicit a response that is uncharitable - I try but certainly don’t always respond as if the intention is not to inflame, and if I think that is the only intention I am learning just to leave it and not respond at all.

I find it very effective to pause - re-read my post and then edit if necessary, and sometimes just hit cancel.

None of us do our ‘position’ on this issue ANY good when we respond in a way the ‘brings on the moderators’ making them remove posts or close threads.

So - not having read all the posts, but sensing that things had gotten heated I offer this with love…

 

[mercifulJan]

Some US meat is imported from third world countries who have made grazing land out of their forests. A Sister even was murdered by them because she tried to stop it (an article about her was in National Geographic).
I would love to see the Church come up with a program for us Catholics, so we can be educated about this part of our faith walk with Jesus to fulfill our commission to be good stewards of all creation including our consumption and consumerism of animals. It is very much needed.

 

[Bluegoat]

Thats a good cat. Most cats are terrible mousers. I have to use traps and find they work well. I also agree that this is not cruel. Neither I would say are slaughter facilities. They tend to have inspectors right on the killing floor. So, they are meeting our requirements.

Is being cruel to an animal is a sin? I would think like others have said that any cruelty is a sin. When you get into things like unneccesary suffering. Thats pretty subjective. I suppose you have to look at the intent of the person. Swatting a fly, No. Pulling the wings and legs off slowly, yes. But beyond the question of sin. I feel that you can tell alot about a persons character. By the way they treat their animals.
So,
Slaughter houses. No
Hunting, No
Fishing, No
Bull riding, and other rodeo work, No.
Dog and horse racing, No.
Dog fighting, Yes.
Test animals, No.
Making a nuisance of yourself while claiming to be fighting for
animal rights. Yes.

You know, the job of a slaughterhouse inspector, generally, is not to prevent cruel practices. And they are limited in what they can object to - that is, if it’s legal, it doesn’t matter if it’s cruel. They are mostly there for reasons related to public health.

Do you understand what it is about large slaughterhouses that tends to be seen as cruel, or perhaps it would be better to say, and providing an opening for cruelty? One example is transportation of livestock. Animals are highly stressed (This is also an advantage to corporate farms and a disadvantage to family farms.)ed during trucking, and not fed or watered. This can be for several days, though almost always less than a week. There is a somewhat surprising number of deaths during trucking, or animals that are too sick on arrival to be eaten. But it is allowed because it is still cheaper to have centralized, large processing plants rather than more small ones, which would reduce trucking times. These difficulties with shipping are not some secret supposedly revealed by animal rights organizations, they are well known in the meat industry. But in a cost benefit analysis it is deemed worthwhile.

Is cost benefit analysis really what Catholics should be using to make moral and ethical decisions? Keep in mind that protections against cruelty for livestock are in many cases almost non-existent - it is not the same as for pets. It is seen as an economic issue.

All of those other things, to me, could be a “sometimes”. There are hunters and fishermen who take little thought to have a clean kill. Horse racing has many questionable practices involved, again, because it is big business. There are some forms, like chuck wagon racing or steeplechasing, that produce enough mangled horses to raise questions, as do some rodeo activities. (I’d ask if regularly mangled animals are ok for sport/entertainment, why object to dog fighting or bear baiting or bull fighting?)

And animal testing is funny too - there are a lot of tests that go on that are done badly, or unnecessarily. Someone mentioned make-up testing as “ok”. So suffering is ok for vanity? And since there are several large companies that make make-up without any animal testing, it seems even more unnecessary.

But I don’t think this question is just about cruelty - it’s about our North American Food system. It tends to allow cruelty, and environmental degradation. It supports farming being controlled by big business, and that is dependent on fossil fuels. It tends to raise serious issues with food security for various regions. This is all because it is based on quick money, and not paying for all the costs. I’m not sure how this can be supported by any Catholic - it is certainly against all the Catholic documents about stewardship.

 

[Marfran]

Some US meat is imported from third world countries who have made grazing land out of their forests. A Sister even was murdered by them because she tried to stop it (an article about her was in National Geographic).
I would love to see the Church come up with a program for us Catholics, so we can be educated about this part of our faith walk with Jesus to fulfill our commission to be good stewards of all creation including our consumption and consumerism of animals. It is very much needed.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Ione]

To those being cruel to HUMAN posters:

Ephesians 4:31-32 (New International Version)
31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
(Bold is mine)

1 Thessalonians 5:14-16 (New International Version)
14And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else
(The bold is mine)

Are you following the Catholic religion when you are responding? I’m embarrassed to be Catholic when I read the way some people respond to others with nastiness and hate. And I don’t believe it says you have to be a Catholic to be on the forum. Why not show that Catholics are loving and compassionate beings rather than tell someone to leave and call them names.:tsktsk:

 

[Ione]

You know, the job of a slaughterhouse inspector, generally, is not to prevent cruel practices. And they are limited in what they can object to - that is, if it’s legal, it doesn’t matter if it’s cruel. They are mostly there for reasons related to public health.

Do you understand what it is about large slaughterhouses that tends to be seen as cruel, or perhaps it would be better to say, and providing an opening for cruelty? One example is transportation of livestock. Animals are highly stressed (This is also an advantage to corporate farms and a disadvantage to family farms.)ed during trucking, and not fed or watered. This can be for several days, though almost always less than a week. There is a somewhat surprising number of deaths during trucking, or animals that are too sick on arrival to be eaten. But it is allowed because it is still cheaper to have centralized, large processing plants rather than more small ones, which would reduce trucking times. These difficulties with shipping are not some secret supposedly revealed by animal rights organizations, they are well known in the meat industry. But in a cost benefit analysis it is deemed worthwhile.

Is cost benefit analysis really what Catholics should be using to make moral and ethical decisions? Keep in mind that protections against cruelty for livestock are in many cases almost non-existent - it is not the same as for pets. It is seen as an economic issue.

All of those other things, to me, could be a “sometimes”. There are hunters and fishermen who take little thought to have a clean kill. Horse racing has many questionable practices involved, again, because it is big business. There are some forms, like chuck wagon racing or steeplechasing, that produce enough mangled horses to raise questions, as do some rodeo activities. (I’d ask if regularly mangled animals are ok for sport/entertainment, why object to dog fighting or bear baiting or bull fighting?)

And animal testing is funny too - there are a lot of tests that go on that are done badly, or unnecessarily. Someone mentioned make-up testing as “ok”. So suffering is ok for vanity? And since there are several large companies that make make-up without any animal testing, it seems even more unnecessary.

But I don’t think this question is just about cruelty - it’s about our North American Food system. It tends to allow cruelty, and environmental degradation. It supports farming being controlled by big business, and that is dependent on fossil fuels. It tends to raise serious issues with food security for various regions. This is all because it is based on quick money, and not paying for all the costs. I’m not sure how this can be supported by any Catholic - it is certainly against all the Catholic documents about stewardship.

Nicely put!

 

[Marfran]

You know, the job of a slaughterhouse inspector, generally, is not to prevent cruel practices. And they are limited in what they can object to - that is, if it’s legal, it doesn’t matter if it’s cruel. They are mostly there for reasons related to public health.

Do you understand what it is about large slaughterhouses that tends to be seen as cruel, or perhaps it would be better to say, and providing an opening for cruelty? One example is transportation of livestock. Animals are highly stressed (This is also an advantage to corporate farms and a disadvantage to family farms.)ed during trucking, and not fed or watered. This can be for several days, though almost always less than a week. There is a somewhat surprising number of deaths during trucking, or animals that are too sick on arrival to be eaten. But it is allowed because it is still cheaper to have centralized, large processing plants rather than more small ones, which would reduce trucking times. These difficulties with shipping are not some secret supposedly revealed by animal rights organizations, they are well known in the meat industry. But in a cost benefit analysis it is deemed worthwhile.

Is cost benefit analysis really what Catholics should be using to make moral and ethical decisions? Keep in mind that protections against cruelty for livestock are in many cases almost non-existent - it is not the same as for pets. It is seen as an economic issue.

All of those other things, to me, could be a “sometimes”. There are hunters and fishermen who take little thought to have a clean kill. Horse racing has many questionable practices involved, again, because it is big business. There are some forms, like chuck wagon racing or steeplechasing, that produce enough mangled horses to raise questions, as do some rodeo activities. (I’d ask if regularly mangled animals are ok for sport/entertainment, why object to dog fighting or bear baiting or bull fighting?)

**And animal testing is funny too - there are a lot of tests that go on that are done badly, or unnecessarily. **Someone mentioned make-up testing as “ok”. So suffering is ok for vanity? And since there are several large companies that make make-up without any animal testing, it seems even more unnecessary.

But I don’t think this question is just about cruelty - it’s about our North American Food system. It tends to allow cruelty, and environmental degradation. It supports farming being controlled by big business, and that is dependent on fossil fuels. It tends to raise serious issues with food security for various regions. This is all because it is based on quick money, and not paying for all the costs. I’m not sure how this can be supported by any Catholic - it is certainly against all the Catholic documents about stewardship.

FABULOUS POST!!!
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Marfran]

Anyone interested on viewing a short documentary film from the HSUS website (called Eating Mercifully) discussing the Christian view of factory farming?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=354124

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You know, the job of a slaughterhouse inspector, generally, is not to prevent cruel practices. And they are limited in what they can object to - that is, if it’s legal, it doesn’t matter if it’s cruel. They are mostly there for reasons related to public health.

Do you understand what it is about large slaughterhouses that tends to be seen as cruel, or perhaps it would be better to say, and providing an opening for cruelty? One example is transportation of livestock. Animals are highly stressed (This is also an advantage to corporate farms and a disadvantage to family farms.)ed during trucking, and not fed or watered. This can be for several days, though almost always less than a week. There is a somewhat surprising number of deaths during trucking, or animals that are too sick on arrival to be eaten. But it is allowed because it is still cheaper to have centralized, large processing plants rather than more small ones, which would reduce trucking times. These difficulties with shipping are not some secret supposedly revealed by animal rights organizations, they are well known in the meat industry. But in a cost benefit analysis it is deemed worthwhile.

Is cost benefit analysis really what Catholics should be using to make moral and ethical decisions? Keep in mind that protections against cruelty for livestock are in many cases almost non-existent - it is not the same as for pets. It is seen as an economic issue.

All of those other things, to me, could be a “sometimes”. There are hunters and fishermen who take little thought to have a clean kill. Horse racing has many questionable practices involved, again, because it is big business. There are some forms, like chuck wagon racing or steeplechasing, that produce enough mangled horses to raise questions, as do some rodeo activities. (I’d ask if regularly mangled animals are ok for sport/entertainment, why object to dog fighting or bear baiting or bull fighting?)

And animal testing is funny too - there are a lot of tests that go on that are done badly, or unnecessarily. Someone mentioned make-up testing as “ok”. So suffering is ok for vanity? And since there are several large companies that make make-up without any animal testing, it seems even more unnecessary.

But I don’t think this question is just about cruelty - it’s about our North American Food system. It tends to allow cruelty, and environmental degradation. It supports farming being controlled by big business, and that is dependent on fossil fuels. It tends to raise serious issues with food security for various regions. This is all because it is based on quick money, and not paying for all the costs. I’m not sure how this can be supported by any Catholic - it is certainly against all the Catholic documents about stewardship.

First off, I apologize. It’s sunday and I really don’t have the time to give the internet smack-down that you so richly deserve.

But just off the top of my head. Centralized slaughter facilities are better for many reasons.
They allow for safer handling of the resulting waste.
They are much easier to regulate.
They are also much more efficient. We all realise that money or wealth if you will. must be treated as a resource to be managed wisely.

Since you took a half hearted swipe at hunters and anglers. We’ll use that as a base. I like to hunt. I’m proficient with the tools of the trade. I also use a well trained dog to insure that no game is lost. With all that there are still kills that are not perfect. Just like, in a slaughterhouse, some kills may not go as well as others. So, as catholics of course we look to the intent. In this, the intent of the actor. Whether it’s myself on the hunt or the worker on the kill floor. Is to provide food as humanely and efficiently as possible.

I did not mention bear baiting or bull fighting because they belong to another culture. so, I know very little about them. You should have extended the same courtesy. Too slaughterhouse workers, scientist, hunters, rodeo atheletes and anyone else you insulted with your foolish post. thats all the smack-down I have time for. Again I apologize.

 

[Marfran]

More than 1 million pigs each year die during transport.

statistic courtesy of HSUS

 

[Michael_Francis]

***Thanks to al who participated in this discussion. ***
This thread is now closed.