Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Salonika]

Shin:

Pets… in small moderation…A man is allowed to spend a certain amount of money for the sake of his own recreation. Some of this money can go to pets.

May a woman? a child? do the same. Or should I take my two cats to be put down because I am female and very fond of them - and yes I see and treat them as cats not surrogate children. Why should they die because of what you consider my overfondness?

Shin:

Perhaps it pleases his mind to contribute to some cause for care for animals – as long as the amount is reasonable, and the cause is just (which btw, PETA is NOT) then that is fine --as long also btw, that this does not replace or cut into any real charities or charitable contributions he would or should contribute to.

Do you mean that pet charities are not real charities? Think people should have a choice and it is the overall charitable effort that is important.

Shin:

A person with a pet that can require a large expense to take care of it has to consider whether the expense is worthwhile – generally, in fact it is not. But then, generally people spend their money badly and not for the sake of God in all cases not just pets.

If a pet has huge medical bills, in other words thousands of dollars – it is better to put the pet down. There are real human beings who with real medical problems who could use that support to survive. There is no moral equivalence here. The pet can be replaced cheaply.

Each human is different, Each animal is different. You do not replace a pet any more than you can replace a human being.

Shin:

There are many works of God which that money would further greatly. A thousand dollars could buy books of Catholic instruction and saints for many people who need the education, could buy medicine and food for those in need, could do very very much for God.

Yes, there are a varitiy of charities people can support. Each person has to make the decision for themselves according to their own conscience. If a person doesn’t have any food or a roof over their head I think feeding and housing them needs to be the first priority.

Shin:

Even a poor person can however have a pet, if it is not going to irresponsibly cut into the person’s income – even the poor if they can budget towards recreation for their mental health, should and can.

A fish, a hermit crab, smaller pets can be inexpensively owned.

Think the idea we “own” animals is not a good one. Think we have guardianship, a responsibility of care. Also a responsibility to let then be animals. To live a natural life.

Shin:

However, from the smallest pet to the largest one must not develop too great an attachment to it – just like anything, if it becomes something that could get between God and the person, out it must go. We must accept the will of Providence in our lives in regards to our pets.

Hope you are not suggesting that if anyone has to give up an animals they will do so in a inhumane way. No droppping the dog off in another part of town hoping that someone will take in it forgetting that if doesn’t it may die a long slow death from starvation or from injury. No dumping the cat near a farmhouse as it will be able to catch mice. Doubt St Francis would approve of that.

Shin:

Some people love pets more than people. This… is a very great problem in these times. It would be better for these people if their pets were not there.

Some people have little choice. They are rejected by many in society for being poor, for having a disabilty, for not fitting the norm. Many animals see the person within and respond to that. Maybe to the rejected respond to the animal’s lack of judgement.

Shin:

May the Lord free people from unhealthy obsession with pets and animals, and grant people only a healthy view of the Lord’s Creation.)

A healthy views sees all of creation having its place. It sees us as stewards of the Earth not its owner to do as we please.

 

[Shin]

May a woman? a child? do the same. Or should I take my two cats to be put down because I am female and very fond of them - and yes I see and treat them as cats not surrogate children. Why should they die because of what you consider my overfondness?

A man, woman or child may do so, these are included in the sense of the language.

If you are very fond of your pets to the point of where it causes you to be antagonistic towards human beings for their sake, you should put them down. The first responsibility is love towards fellow man for the sake of God.

Do you mean that pet charities are not real charities? Think people should have a choice and it is the overall charitable effort that is important.

Each human is different, Each animal is different. You do not replace a pet any more than you can replace a human being.

Charity is a theological virtue, acts done for the love of God, for the sake of Christ. The Lord God commanded animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, for sin. We must be willing to sacrifice our animals to God if it will help human beings.

Human hearts are strange things – they can grow too attached to anything on this earth and love it too much, rather than loving it for the sake of God. If you love something for the sake of God, when God chooses for it to go, your will is the will of God. When he tells you it is of lesser value, your will is the will of God.

It can be hard to let animals go because it is easy to become too attached. I have found it hard to lose even so small animals as fish that I have had as pets. But the Lord gives many animals brief lives so as to teach us not to form improper loves.

The oceans are teeming and full of fish – everyday they eat each other alive, this is the way of life. There are many, many dangerous animals towards people, and even pets are dangerous towards babies and can harm even adults at times. There was a recent story about a chimpanzee. . A recent prayer request about a person mauled by a dog. . People who separate themselves from nature acquire unnatural emotions about life values in relations to nature and animals.

Yes, there are a varitiy of charities people can support. Each person has to make the decision for themselves according to their own conscience. If a person doesn’t have any food or a roof over their head I think feeding and housing them needs to be the first priority.

Yes, and more than this too is basic and of higher priority than the lower priority of animals owned for their value as ‘pets’.

Think the idea we “own” animals is not a good one. Think we have guardianship, a responsibility of care. Also a responsibility to let then be animals. To live a natural life.

I must inform you, that animals have no rights before God, Christianity has never given them any – and so never can as God does not change – their existence and how they are treated are based on the human soul, rather than on themselves – they are transitory beings, retained only in the memory of God after they die. This means we must not be immoral towards them just as we wouldn’t be immoral generally, but we may use them for any moral purpose, that is for food, clothing, medicine, recreation, etc.

Hope you are not suggesting that if anyone has to give up an animals they will do so in a inhumane way. No dropping the dog off in another part of town hoping that someone will take in it forgetting that if doesn’t it may die a long slow death from starvation or from injury. No dumping the cat near a farmhouse as it will be able to catch mice. Doubt St Francis would approve of that.

I wonder what St. Francis would think. I have spoken to my own pets, telling them to love God and give thanks but I have also said what I have said here and recognize their transitory existence.

Perhaps St. Catherine has some words for our help.

*’. . . when I see man fix his affections on creatures, even, as he sometimes does, on a dog or a cat, or any other created thing, delighting greatly in it, doing all that he can to serve it, unable to admit into his heart any other love, and as it were, breathing by it, I long to exterminate these things which hold him thus employed and cause him to lose the great reward of the love of God which alone can satisfy and make him happy.’

St. Catherine of Genoa
*
These are common stories one hears from animal activists, the dropping off, etc. – one must not unkind to animals for the sake of one’s own self and not gaining habits of unkindness. Stray animals can be hazardous to people as well. If an animal is better off in a shelter rather than in the wild, that is what one should do all things being equal – some cats however, if they are trained by the parent are in fact quite fine at catching mice which is primarily why they were kept in farmhouses originally.

All animals are of wild origin though in some cases selective breeding has made them largely incapable of it normally.

Some people have little choice. They are rejected by many in society for being poor, for having a disabilty, for not fitting the norm. Many animals see the person within and respond to that. Maybe to the rejected respond to the animal’s lack of judgement.

A healthy views sees all of creation having its place. It sees us as stewards of the Earth not its owner to do as we please.

These are ways in which animals are helpful to people, but they can be harmful to these same people as well – all of the world is not a cold cruel place, and many people reject others and cling to animals for bad reasons and mental illnesses – they assign human traits to animals that animals do not have.

 

[Shin]

I personally know people who have exacerbated their mental illnesses because of having pets, and who spend huge amounts of money they do not have on these – and neglect family members with real medical problems at the same time.

This I regard as a demonic attachment and exploitation of mental illness and unreasonable social hostility many people get through bad experiences – that needs to be gotten over, kept hold of through transferring needs to pets.

I long to see more people free of unreasonable attachments to animals and in love with people for the sake of God again.

CCC 373

In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth as stewards of God.

This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”, to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.
2415

The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation.

Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.

Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives.

Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbour, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416

Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.

Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418

It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery.

One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[Salonika]

Shin:

If you are very fond of your pets to the point of where it causes you to be antagonistic towards human beings for their sake, you should put them down. The first responsibility is love towards fellow man for the sake of God.

Yes, I am antagonistic to people who are cruel to animals including people who just drop off pets to shelters because they can’t be bothered with them.

Shin:

Human hearts are strange things – they can grow too attached to anything on this earth and love it too much, rather than loving it for the sake of God. If you love something for the sake of God, when God chooses for it to go, your will is the will of God. When he tells you it is of lesser value, your will is the will of God.

Seems you are advocating the hermit life with no contact with humans or animals?

Shin:

The oceans are teeming and full of fish – everyday they eat each other alive, this is the way of life. There are many, many dangerous animals towards people, and even pets are dangerous towards babies and can harm even adults at times.

Not sure what you are suggesting - advocating getting rid of pets, banning them?

Shin:

I must inform you, that animals have no rights before God – they are transitory beings, retained only in the memory of God after they die.

And in the memory of the people whose lives they shared.

This means we must not be immoral towards them just as we wouldn’t be immoral generally, but we may use them for any moral purpose, that is for food, clothing, medicine, recreation, etc.

But shouldn’t we also be concerned with how they are treated in these process eg vivisection for medical research fine. Do you really think it is irrelevant whether our eggs came from hens penned for life sows in crates?

Shin:

when I see man fix his affections on creatures, even, as he sometimes does, on a dog or a cat, or any other created thing, delighting greatly in it, doing all that he can to serve it, unable to admit into his heart any other love, and as it were, breathing by it, I long to exterminate these things which hold him thus employed and cause him to lose the great reward of the love of God which alone can satisfy and make him happy.’
St. Catherine of Genoa

Think most of us would agree in this situation someone needs help with priorities.

Shin:

If an animal is better off in a shelter rather than in the wild, that is what one should do all things being equal

Most animals are not better in a shelter unless it is “no kill”. You won’t have to worry about anyone getting attached to them they will be DEAD.

And yes, in some cases dumping cats and a dogs at the shelter can have bad effects - eg children thinking that animals are disposable and if the animal has misbehaved giving children the idea that they misbehave them the same thing might happen to them.

These are ways in which animals are helpful to people, but they can be harmful to these same people as well – all of the world is not a cold cruel place, and many people reject others and cling to animals for bad reasons and mental illnesses – they assign human traits to animals that animals do not have.

I think the world would be a colder place without animals, especially those four footed ones who share their lives with us.

 

[Squishy]

Many people are under the illusion that the Catholic Church has limitless wealth. Much of that wealth is dependent on the wealth of the parishoners who are the donars. I would hate to be a pastor of a religious organzation dependent on parishoners for monetary support, plus trying to fill the demands of a Bishop (Catholic) who has his own charities to support and bills to pay.

In addition, I don’t know about the churches you are talking about, but our Parish Church has to be locked when not being used for Mass because of vandals.

What about our government which spends millions on groups such as Planned Parenthood and other anti life agenda?. Don’t you think “spread the wealth” should include those funds going to the poor and homeless?

I think you both missed what i was trying to get accross in my posts. The catholic church does not have limitless wealth. Nor should it have to give all its money to the needy. However before a catholic can state its immoral for people to give to animal charitys they would first of all have to explain why its not immoral for the catholic church NOT to give all its money to help the needy.

If you had people living in your churches their would not be much chance of vandelism. As regarding the government giving cash to planned parenthood. I much prefer that than spending it on wars in the middleeast. That we have no right fighting. But thats not really what this thread is about.

My posts where just trying to get across was the argument was a poor one. The only way we could avoid being immoral would be to live in a communist state. Which as has been proven in the field doesnt work.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

On a very basic level, animals are far more powerless to defend themselves against human cruelty and neglect than are other humans.

Tell that to the poor folks who got bitten by sharks, gored by rhinos, mauled by lions, stampeded by raging elephants, chomped on by mad hippos, strangled by snakes, bludgeoned by bears, poisoned by spiders, stung by lethal man-o-wars, eaten by komodo dragons, and all manner of savage violations.

Looking at a more ‘basic’ level, without our technology we humans are powerless in the face of wild beasts. We do not have fangs or claws and not all of us have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sorry, but it’s one thing to say we should care a little bit more about animals and the environment and another to think they’re all innocent and defenseless fuzzballs.

Just thought I’d point that out.

 

[Sair]

If you are very fond of your pets to the point of where it causes you to be antagonistic towards human beings for their sake, you should put them down. The first responsibility is love towards fellow man for the sake of God.

The oceans are teeming and full of fish – everyday they eat each other alive, this is the way of life. There are many, many dangerous animals towards people, and even pets are dangerous towards babies and can harm even adults at times. There was a recent story about a chimpanzee. . A recent prayer request about a person mauled by a dog. . People who separate themselves from nature acquire unnatural emotions about life values in relations to nature and animals.

I must inform you, that animals have no rights before God, Christianity has never given them any – and so never can as God does not change – their existence and how they are treated are based on the human soul, rather than on themselves – they are transitory beings, retained only in the memory of God after they die. This means we must not be immoral towards them just as we wouldn’t be immoral generally, but we may use them for any moral purpose, that is for food, clothing, medicine, recreation, etc.

These are ways in which animals are helpful to people, but they can be harmful to these same people as well – all of the world is not a cold cruel place, and many people reject others and cling to animals for bad reasons and mental illnesses – they assign human traits to animals that animals do not have.

Wow. The anthropocentric arrogance on display in this thread is truly sickening to behold.

Did it ever occur to any of you that God may have intended us to care for other animals as an exercise in humility - an acknowledgement that this world isn’t just about us? I might remind you that these animal charities that have come in for such a drubbing in this thread are not in existence because of anything animals have done to themselves, or any flaw inherent within them, but because of what humans have done to them. Because of what we, in our thoughtless, ignorant selfishness, have inflicted upon them. It is only fitting that humans should work to right the wrongs humans have committed.

Alone amongst all animals, humans have the ability to reshape the environment to our own design and desire. It is only very recently in our history that we have come to realise the enormous responsibility that comes with this power. Already we have done monstrous amounts of damage to the natural world, and we will continue to do so while attitudes like those of some posters here persist. It is long past time that we owned up to the fact that we owe it to other creatures to care about their welfare. A fine place the world would be if humans were the only animals left.

Even when I was Catholic, I did not subscribe to the kind of thinking that relegates all other animals to the status of mere things. The fact that Christianity gives animals no place is a good indication, to my way of thinking, that it is a religion of human, not divine, origin.

 

[Sair]

Tell that to the poor folks who got bitten by sharks, gored by rhinos, mauled by lions, stampeded by raging elephants, chomped on by mad hippos, strangled by snakes, bludgeoned by bears, poisoned by spiders, stung by lethal man-o-wars, eaten by komodo dragons, and all manner of savage violations.

Sorry, but it’s one thing to say we should care a little bit more about animals and the environment and another to think they’re all innocent and defenseless fuzzballs.

Just thought I’d point that out.

Firstly, I don’t think I ever said, anywhere, that all animals were helpless fuzzballs. But even teeth, claws and massive size aren’t going to help most animals in the face of human technology. Just look at the whales being slaughtered by the Japanese.

And as for all these people who have been attacked by sharks, bears, spiders, stingrays, etc. etc. - for the most part, they should have known better. They had the choice to enter the animal’s territory, and they should have been aware of the consequences.

Oh, and to throw in a quick statistic - about 4 people (in the US, I think) are killed annually by sharks. During the same period, humans kill about 4 million sharks.

Just thought I’d point that out…

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Firstly, I don’t think I ever said, anywhere, that all animals were helpless fuzzballs.

Right…

…animals are far more powerless to defend themselves against human cruelty…

You didn’t say this for sure.

But even teeth, claws and massive size aren’t going to help most animals in the face of human technology. Just look at the whales being slaughtered by the Japanese.

Apparently you missed out this other part I said.

Looking at a more ‘basic’ level, without our technology we humans are powerless in the face of wild beasts. We do not have fangs or claws and not all of us have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I wonder why…?

And as for all these people who have been attacked by sharks, bears, spiders, stingrays, etc. etc. - for the most part, they should have known better. They had the choice to enter the animal’s territory, and they should have been aware of the consequences.

Oh, and to throw in a quick statistic - about 4 people (in the US, I think) are killed annually by sharks. During the same period, humans kill about 4 million sharks.

Just thought I’d point that out…

My point is animals aren’t as defenseless as you seem to have made them out in your post. Not everyone walks around the forest with a hunting rifle if you know what I mean.

 

[Sair]

Tell that to the poor folks who got bitten by sharks, gored by rhinos, mauled by lions, stampeded by raging elephants, chomped on by mad hippos, strangled by snakes, bludgeoned by bears, poisoned by spiders, stung by lethal man-o-wars, eaten by komodo dragons, and all manner of savage violations.

Looking at a more ‘basic’ level, without our technology we humans are powerless in the face of wild beasts. We do not have fangs or claws and not all of us have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sorry, but it’s one thing to say we should care a little bit more about animals and the environment and another to think they’re all innocent and defenseless fuzzballs.

Just thought I’d point that out.

Just to address these points a little more thoroughly -

In China, thousands of animals are skinned alive to supply the international fashion fur trade. In South Korea, stray dogs and cats are strangled slowly because it’s believed a painful death makes the meat more tender. Again, in China, bears are kept in tiny cages, their open abdominal wounds routinely drained for bile; sometimes their paws are cut off, too, while they’re still alive. In the West, on intensive chicken farms, the chickens are bred and pumped full of growth hormones to make them reach slaughter weight in a matter of weeks. As a result, their legs become deformed because they don’t grow fast enough to bear the weight of the body.

The animals in these situations have no recourse to international laws forbidding torture. They have no redress against people who deny that they are sentient creatures entitled to be spared unnecessary suffering. That is what renders them powerless. That is the point that has not been grasped here. Show me any place in the world where this level of atrocity routinely happens to humans on a mass scale, while others stand by and just let it happen because they’re “just animals” - then I might concede your point. But I’d have to say, all this sounds a lot worse than a handful of humans being killed in animal attacks.

Your simplistic interpretation of my argument only holds true when humans and animals meet on a level playing field, and that doesn’t happen much. It’s pointless to say “without the benefit of technology”, because humans always make use of technology. Without it, we really would be helpless, and we’d probably be extinct. In any case, it seems spurious to talk of animal attacks on humans when the vast majority of violence against humans is committed by other humans. Animals can be violent, certainly, but only humans are capable of calculated cruelty.

To further illustrate the kind of helplessness I’m talking about - I once read about the 18th century execution of a man named Damiens for attempted regicide. Appalling though it was - his flesh was torn with pincers, sulphur was poured in his wounds, and he was pulled limb from limb by horses - people either stood by and cheered or turned away in disgust. This was the operation of ‘justice’, and no-one interfered. Then, much more recently, was the prostitute caught plying her trade on the streets of Iraq. The soldiers who caught her boiled her alive. That was okay, though, because she was “just a woman”, and a fallen woman at that.

My point is, atrocity is atrocity, no matter who its victims are. I feel the same sense of sick revulsion, disgust and loathing for all the situations I have described here, and no-one will ever convince me it’s wrong to feel that way. Let’s never forget that anyone capable of abusing animals is also perfectly capable of abusing their human fellows. Most serial killers cut their teeth on torturing and killing small animals. Cruelty to animals is still cruelty. That the victims are not human doesn’t make it any less evil.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Your simplistic interpretation of my argument only holds true when humans and animals meet on a level playing field, and that doesn’t happen much. It’s pointless to say “without the benefit of technology”, because humans always make use of technology. Without it, we really would be helpless, and we’d probably be extinct. In any case, it seems spurious to talk of animal attacks on humans when the vast majority of violence against humans is committed by other humans. Animals can be violent, certainly, but only humans are capable of calculated cruelty.

Now that’s not necessarily the case. I am merely pointing out that you said animals are defenseless on a “basic level” which is far from what you have described. For one, the methods you mentioned are employed by entire corporations who have technology at their disposal. That is not “basic” that is an aspect of humanity at its prime. You think our ancestors had stuff like that thousands of years ago? The only ‘technology’ employed then were stones and spears!

What you described as a “level playing field” actually fits the term basic. I mean what could be more basic than stripping us humans of our technology and reducing us down to our own natural weapons? (Which actually pales in comparison to those of many other animals btw).

Look the thing is, you can illustrate examples of animal cruelty all you want but what you said about animals being defenseless little critters on a basic level is something I just couldn’t stand. It made you sound like a PETA acolyte.

 

[Sair]

Now that’s not necessarily the case. I am merely pointing out that you said animals are defenseless on a “basic level” which is far from what you have described. For one, the methods you mentioned are employed by entire corporations who have technology at their disposal. That is not “basic” that is an aspect of humanity at its prime. You think our ancestors had stuff like that thousands of years ago? The only ‘technology’ employed then were stones and spears!

What you described as a “level playing field” actually fits the term basic. I mean what could be more basic than stripping us humans of our technology and reducing us down to our own natural weapons? (Which actually pales in comparison to those of many other animals btw).

Look the thing is, you can illustrate examples of animal cruelty all you want but what you said about animals being defenseless little critters on a basic level is something I just couldn’t stand. It made you sound like a PETA acolyte.

The use of technology and the ability to manipulate the environment are fundamental, basic differences between humans and other animals. Even something as simple as a spear - a thrown weapon - confers a huge advantage to someone who knows how to use it. Couldn’t imagine killing a cave bear without one! The ability to use technology is what raised humans from the status of prey to supreme predator. This is a fundamental difference.

And on an even more basic level, other animals are rendered powerless by the human assumption that “they’re just animals”, and therefore they don’t matter. People will only support a cause if they believe it’s worthy of their support, and half the posters to this thread are busy saying that animal causes aren’t worthy of support - at least, not until every ounce of human suffering has been dealt with (and that will never happen, by the way, as long as humans remain human). I’d much rather be assumed to support PETA than be guilty of anthropocentric ignorance.

The same abilities that allowed humans to become one of the animal kingdom’s supreme survivors have also made us responsible for its worst depredations. As long as humans continue to assume that we’re better and more important than other animals, the destruction will continue. As long as other animals are denied a voice, they will remain powerless to defend themselves against human savagery and greed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As long as humans continue to assume that we’re better and more important than other animals, the destruction will continue. As long as other animals are denied a voice, they will remain powerless to defend themselves against human savagery and greed.

why wouldn’t we be more important than animals? we eat them, not the other way around.

and what destruction? what voice of animals, what human savagery and greed? why shouldn’t we be people centric?

the problem is your making arguments from emotion with no logical basis other than some sentimentality about animals. i assure you, animals couldnt care less about you.

we are better and more important than animals, i see no reason to think otherwise.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The use of technology and the ability to manipulate the environment are fundamental, basic differences between humans and other animals. Even something as simple as a spear - a thrown weapon - confers a huge advantage to someone who knows how to use it. Couldn’t imagine killing a cave bear without one! The ability to use technology is what raised humans from the status of prey to supreme predator. This is a fundamental difference.

I cannot understand why you keep missing a simple point such as mine. I’ll ask you again, what could be more basic than to reduce human beings down only to their own natural bodies? As I said before, the use of any technology is no longer basic. For you to call animals helplessly defenseless against humans on a basic level is just ridiculous. They have fangs, claws, venom, horns and all we have are blunt nails, saliva, and flat teeth.

You cannot say that a human’s ability to come up and utilize technology as something natural and basic because it already extends to something beyond a human’s own physical body to the point that is relying on the artificial. Besides, not everyone with a spear can kill a bear.

Once again, it is one thing to say that humans are abusing nature and endangering animal species and another to present a sugar-coated image of animals being harmless, defenseless little buggers of the petting zoo variety. Seriously, have you ever been attacked by an animal (or at least bitten by a dog)?

 

[Sair]

why wouldn’t we be more important than animals? we eat them, not the other way around.

and what destruction? what voice of animals, what human savagery and greed? why shouldn’t we be people centric?

the problem is your making arguments from emotion with no logical basis other than some sentimentality about animals. i assure you, animals couldnt care less about you.

we are better and more important than animals, i see no reason to think otherwise.

There it is.

That attitude, in a nutshell, is what accounts for the vast destruction humans have wrought on the planet. The notion that a human-centred god has given us dominion over other animals and the right to use and abuse them however we like.

You want evidence? Open your eyes. Look around you. Humans are responsible for habitat destruction, overhunting, overfishing, introduced species, environmental pollution…all of which have helped contribute to the highest rate of extinction of species in geological history. I can’t imagine you’re serious in professing ignorance of such things, because it would be uncharitable to assume you were that stupid…

Why should we care, you ask? Because this is our world too, and the damage we have done is already coming back to bite us. The richness of the natural world is disappearing before our very eyes. Even with a basic understanding of nature, you should realise that the predators at the top of the food chain are dependent upon the prey species below them. That’s another reason we should be worried. If we continue on the path of mindless destruction, there won’t be much of a world left for us to dominate. Even if compassion doesn’t inform our choices, long-term self-interest should.

And…animals don’t care? Well, considering the attitude you express, indeed, why should they? Do you care about other people only because you expect a return? In any case, it’s not the issue whether animals care about me, or any other person, but whether they have an interest in their own welfare. Do you suppose that the humans in other countries who receive charitable monies from Western nations actually give a damn about anything beyond their own welfare? Also, it’s obvious you’ve never had a pet - the unconditional love and devotion I receive from my dog far surpasses what I’ve received from many another human.

If you don’t care, that’s up to you, but don’t assume that everyone should be so arrogant and lacking in compassion for other creatures. Thankfully, there are people who will continue to speak out for the plight of other animals, even in the face of entrenched narrow-mindedness.

 

[Sair]

I cannot understand why you keep missing a simple point such as mine. I’ll ask you again, what could be more basic than to reduce human beings down only to their own natural bodies? As I said before, the use of any technology is no longer basic. For you to call animals helplessly defenseless against humans on a basic level is just ridiculous. They have fangs, claws, venom, horns and all we have are blunt nails, saliva, and flat teeth.

Your point is simplistic, not simple. I’m not sure how you can’t see how pointless it is to argue that humans are helpless without technology. If it weren’t for technology, we would either be extinct, or we would inhabit small areas of the globe in vastly smaller numbers than we do, and the issue of animal abuse would never come up. We would be part of the natural world and subject to its rhythms, rather than holding ourselves apart from it, as we do now. My point, if you read my words in context, was not that all animals are helpless, fluffy, cuddly little darlings. It was that animals are more defenceless than humans in the face of human-inflicted violence and neglect - this is because they can’t use technology as we can, and because they don’t have access to the same kinds of protection humans have.

Once again, it is one thing to say that humans are abusing nature and endangering animal species and another to present a sugar-coated image of animals being harmless, defenseless little buggers of the petting zoo variety. Seriously, have you ever been attacked by an animal (or at least bitten by a dog)?

Well, we are abusing nature. And see above. Also, I actually have been bitten by a dog, and seriously scratched up by a cat, but I was big enough to own up to my own stupidity being responsible for that. I learned from the experience, built a bridge and got over it. I now happily share my house with two dogs and two cats.

 

[Highwayhound]

The ability to use technology is what raised humans from the status of prey to supreme predator. This is a fundamental difference.

As long as humans continue to assume that we’re better and more important than other animals, the destruction will continue.

The two quotes above are from the same post. In the first humans are deemed “the supreme predator”. Yet, in the second post, humans ‘assume’ that humans are better.

Which is it?

I can suggest reading Alaska Bear Tales by Larry Kaniut. One bear attack involved a lady(I forget her name) who was out in the wilderness trying to help the bears. The bear did not care about her good will. For her efforts she lost one arm at the elbow and the other arm at the shoulder. She did use technology to save herself. She was carrying a radio. So after being mauled she was able to radio for help. Personally, I would rather have a 30-06 or at least a good ice pick (one man killed a grizzly which had attacked him with two well placed ice pick blows to the bears cranium).

On the non-advanced technology front one man who was treed by a bear was able to discourage the bear based on the fact that the bear did not appreciate urine being deposited into its eyes from above. I kid not. Sometimes human cleverness is how we succeed.
kaniut.com/index.html

You want evidence? Open your eyes. Look around you. Humans are responsible for habitat destruction, overhunting, overfishing, introduced species, environmental pollution…all of which have helped contribute to the highest rate of extinction of species in geological history. I can’t imagine you’re serious in professing ignorance of such things, because it would be uncharitable to assume you were that stupid…

I will profess ignorance. Please enlighten me by providing at least a source for your amazing claim about geological history.

(By the way ignorance and stupid have 2 different meanings. I can be ignorant yet not stupid.)

Why should we care, you ask? Because this is our world too, and the damage we have done is already coming back to bite us. The richness of the natural world is disappearing before our very eyes. Even with a basic understanding of nature, you should realise that the predators at the top of the food chain are dependent upon the prey species below them. That’s another reason we should be worried. If we continue on the path of mindless destruction, there won’t be much of a world left for us to dominate. Even if compassion doesn’t inform our choices, long-term self-interest should.

Well, after we get rid of all the animals we will just be vegetarians.

Before you get bent out of shape by that one it was a joke. We are not capable of destruction at that level.

And…animals don’t care? Well, considering the attitude you express, indeed, why should they? Do you care about other people only because you expect a return? In any case, it’s not the issue whether animals care about me, or any other person, but whether they have an interest in their own welfare.

Humans and animals are not equivalent.

Do you suppose that the humans in other countries who receive charitable monies from Western nations actually give a damn about anything beyond their own welfare?

I know the ones I donate to do care. I know this from personal emails and official letters I have received.

Also, it’s obvious you’ve never had a pet - the unconditional love and devotion I receive from my dog far surpasses what I’ve received from many another human.

Even more than the love from your mother?

God bless

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There it is.

That attitude, in a nutshell, is what accounts for the vast destruction humans have wrought on the planet. The notion that a human-centred god has given us dominion over other animals and the right to use and abuse them however we like.

You want evidence? Open your eyes. Look around you. Humans are responsible for habitat destruction, overhunting, overfishing, introduced species, environmental pollution…all of which have helped contribute to the highest rate of extinction of species in geological history. I can’t imagine you’re serious in professing ignorance of such things, because it would be uncharitable to assume you were that stupid…

over hunting? i see a doe almost ever morning in a city of 2 million, overfishing? i cant throw a cricket in a pond around here and expect him to make it out alive.

as to extinction, humans are just another evolutionary pressure. big deal. you might as well be angry with an asteroid.

pollution is a problm, but what that got to do with animals and humans being equal in value?

i am aware, i just dont see the logical connection between these things and sentimentality for animals.

your making statements here not argumants, but thanks for calling me stupid for not agreeing with you.

Why should we care, you ask? Because this is our world too, and the damage we have done is already coming back to bite us. The richness of the natural world is disappearing before our very eyes. Even with a basic understanding of nature, you should realise that the predators at the top of the food chain are dependent upon the prey species below them. That’s another reason we should be worried. If we continue on the path of mindless destruction, there won’t be much of a world left for us to dominate. Even if compassion doesn’t inform our choices, long-term self-interest should.

i dont see pressures on animal husbandry, plenty of cattle ranches, hog operations, fish farms, and poultry houses.

we arent hunter gatherers anymore.

And…animals don’t care? Well, considering the attitude you express, indeed, why should they? Do you care about other people only because you expect a return? In any case, it’s not the issue whether animals care about me, or any other person, but whether they have an interest in their own welfare.

animals dont care because they dont have human emotions, whoever has the food bowl is their buddy.

Do you suppose that the humans in other countries who receive charitable monies from Western nations actually give a damn about anything beyond their own welfare?

no, but they are people, we are required to care for our brothers.

Also, it’s obvious you’ve never had a pet - the unconditional love and devotion I receive from my dog far surpasses what I’ve received from many another human.

unconditional love and devotion? does it tell you this in english, or are you just projecting your emotions on a dog?

ive had pets, dogs, cats, birds, fish, calves, ponies etc.

and not once has one turned to me and said “you know petey, i love you, for who you really are, and not just for the bowl of food and warmth, and protection from predators you offer me. i love you for who you are”

nor did i ever project my emotions on dumb animals.

If you don’t care, that’s up to you, but don’t assume that everyone should be so arrogant and lacking in compassion for other creatures.

i dont want to see them suffer, i believe in humane slaughter practices. a man should have the courage to put down a sick or aged pet or suffering livestock in a quick and painless method.

i dont like people that refuse to shoot suffering animals, because they aint got the stomach for it. and ive known a few jerks that would rather let an animal suffer needlessly than to do the right thing.

Thankfully, there are people who will continue to speak out for the plight of other animals, even in the face of entrenched narrow-mindedness.

if you choose to believe that your dog loves you more than his food bowl, thats up to you, but you havent presented logical arguments that raise animals to the same level of value as a human

to wit, a preg checked heifer may run 1500

a human being…priceless

 

[Salonika]

why wouldn’t we be more important than animals? we eat them, not the other way around.

If you mean more important because we have more power over the future of the planet then I agree - with that goes greater responsbility not to destroy creation.

warpspeedpetey:

and what destruction? what voice of animals, what human savagery and greed? why shouldn’t we be people centric?

What destruction? Just think of the endangered species - those whose habitat has been been destroyed. Think of the “domestic” animals killed in shelters every year due to humans not being responsible. Think of the other examples like those Sair gives in post 108.

warpspeedpetey:

the problem is your making arguments from emotion with no logical basis other than some sentimentality about animals. I assure you, animals couldnt care less about you.

Some of the best things that humans do comes from sentimentality or emotion, sometimes when logic would say do nothing eg getting rid of slavery, opposing corruption. What’s need is both logic and emotion.

Yes, some animals don’t care about us. Some do when they come into contact with us eg when we destroy them and their environment.

Think that some “domesticated” animals do care about people. If they didn’t then why would we “sentimental” about them.

Tell people whose “pets” show they care when you are sad or upset that they don’t care and they will challenge you.

warpspeedpetey:

We are better and more important than animals, I see no reason to think otherwise.

Isn’t it more that everything in creation has its place and that those who have more power have a responisibility to use that power responsibility.

Yes, we are important in that we have the power to destroy the world. But that doesn’t make us better. Who created The Holocaust, Pol Pot’s killing fields? humans not animals. At times we are more animal than animals. That goodness there is another side to us as well.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you mean more important because we have more power over the future of the planet then I agree - with that goes greater responsbility not to destroy creation.

i mean as in, we are the purpose of creation.

What destruction? Just think of the endangered species - those whose habitat has been been destroyed. Think of the “domestic” animals killed in shelters every year due to humans not being responsible. Think of the other examples like those Sair gives in post 108.