Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[Sair]

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 wonder if it’s the same doe you see every morning? And, well, not every fish is on the menu. The ones that are, I think you’ll find, are in decline.

You make it sound like humans are as mindless as any other natural phenomenon. We’re not. We have a choice whether or not to be destructive. And pollution affects every living thing - disease and ill-health are great levellers.

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

I apologise for causing offence. But I just can’t bring myself to respect what looks to me like wilful ignorance.

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

we arent hunter gatherers anymore.

Cattle ranches, hog operations and poultry houses cause immense suffering to the intensively-farmed animals. And as for fish farms, the fish food has to come from somewhere, and usually it’s from the wild fish stocks in the oceans.

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

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.

Emotions are not the exclusive property of humans. Other animals experience them differently and have different triggers, but they do have emotions. I’m certainly not one of these crazy types who pretends my dog is human. In fact, sometimes - especially on days where someone has really pushed my misanthropy button - I value him even more precisely because he’s not human. And non-verbal communication goes a long way. My dog trusts me to look after him, and I do my best to justify that trust. He rewards my efforts by demonstrating what I can only describe as love. This may be a failure of vocabulary on my part, but it’s certainly not projection.

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.

I agree that it’s wrong to let animals suffer. They feel pain and fear, therefore they have an interest in being spared those things. That’s why I am opposed to things like intensive animal farming. Somehow, I can’t find it in myself to care that without intensive farming, lots of people wouldn’t be able to afford to eat meat. We can, after all, live healthy and happy lives without eating much meat.

Your comment about having the courage to end the life of a sick or infirm animal puts me greatly in mind of my feelings about abortion and euthanasia…

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

Well, gosh, if you’re talking monetary value, then, yeah - I’m sure human slaves once fetched a much prettier penny than livestock.

 

[Sair]

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

Apart from the overwhelming arrogance of this statement, it looks very much as though you are projecting the very human concept of purpose onto the natural world.

i think its all about us, creation wouldn’t exist just for animals would it?

Firstly, humans are animals, and the world did a pretty spectacular job of existing for many millions of years without us; secondly, you’re projecting again.

 

[Sair]

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?

Supreme predator refers to our place in the food chain. This is not the same as saying we are qualitatively ‘better’ than any other animal, or of more intrinsic value. I think you’ll find that prey species are actually quite important for the continued existence of predators…

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).

Again you’re assuming that the only justification for helping another - human or otherwise - is the expectation of return. I salute the courage of anyone who tries to assist the plight of endangered animals.

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

I’ll refer you to a few websites:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm

pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

dodosgone.blogspot.com/2007/06/extinction-rate-estimates.html

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

I’m well aware that ignorance and stupidity are different qualities, but I think you’ll agree that wilful ignorance - of which I’ve seen a fair amount of evidence in this thread - is pretty stupid.

Humans and animals are not equivalent.

Equivalent, no - entitled to compassionate consideration, yes.

Even more than the love from your mother?

You might notice I used the word ‘many’, not ‘all’ or ‘every’…

 

[Salonika]

Sair:

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.

Highwayhound in reply:

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.

Many a true word spoken jest!

You don’t think we have the technolgy to be able to destroy the world?

You don’t think that at least some humans are capable of using it?

You don’t think that some people through ignorance are already doing a good job of destroying, or helping to destroy the planet?

 

[Salonika]

Salonika:

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

**Reply by warpspeedpetey **- i think its all about us, creation wouldn’t exist just for animals would it?

Why not? Who knows what’s out there in the rest of the universe.

What about those places on earth where there aren’t humans - creation exists there for animals and other forms of life!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wonder if it’s the same doe you see every morning? And, well, not every fish is on the menu. The ones that are, I think you’ll find, are in decline.

might be sometimes, but i see her with several others, most mornings, didnt this morning though. as to the fish, i go home and pull them out of the bayou all day long.

You make it sound like humans are as mindless as any other natural phenomenon. We’re not. We have a choice whether or not to be destructive. And pollution affects every living thing - disease and ill-health are great levellers.

still another evolutionary pressure, if we acted different then we would be disrupting the natural order.

I apologise for causing offence. But I just can’t bring myself to respect what looks to me like wilful ignorance.

its not willful ignorance, its scepticism of a bunch city folks treating animals like people, let me be clear that is emotions and nothing else.

Cattle ranches, hog operations and poultry houses cause immense suffering to the intensively-farmed animals. And as for fish farms, the fish food has to come from somewhere, and usually it’s from the wild fish stocks in the oceans.

sorry, but ive had cattle, hogs, and a chicken or two, they dont suffer. the alternative is life in the wild, no picnic. they are gonna get ate, it might as well be me doing the eating.

as for fish, they import fish food to the pens, on the catfish farms they by food from dealers and throw it in the ponds.

Emotions are not the exclusive property of humans. Other animals experience them differently and have different triggers, but they do have emotions.

then your the first human being to ever have evidence of that. the cat gets in bed with me, because im warm, the dog follows me because im its pack leader, the cattle and hogs come to the trough for the feed bucket.

those arent emotiions they are instinctive behaviors.

I’m certainly not one of these crazy types who pretends my dog is human. In fact, sometimes - especially on days where someone has really pushed my misanthropy button - I value him even more precisely because he’s not human.

thats what i like about them, people are tiresome, the dogs happy with a bone and ride in my pickup

And non-verbal communication goes a long way. My dog trusts me to look after him, and I do my best to justify that trust. He rewards my efforts by demonstrating what I can only describe as love. This may be a failure of vocabulary on my part, but it’s certainly not projection.

your dog is a pack animal, anything he thinks is his pack is ok by him, it makes him feel safe.

your dog rewards you with trust? with love?

how is that not projection?

when the cat paws at me in the middle of the night , i dont think its love i think it means, ‘scoot over!’

I agree that it’s wrong to let animals suffer. They feel pain and fear, therefore they have an interest in being spared those things. That’s why I am opposed to things like intensive animal farming. Somehow, I can’t find it in myself to care that without intensive farming, lots of people wouldn’t be able to afford to eat meat. We can, after all, live healthy and happy lives without eating much meat.

we are omnivores, we need a little of everything, if you want to eat vegan thats fine, but most people are verry unhappy that way.

hey, i dont eat veal, because i dont like to see calves penned up like that, but regular cattle, hog, and poultry operations dont cause any undue suffering.

Your comment about having the courage to end the life of a sick or infirm animal puts me greatly in mind of my feelings about abortion and euthanasia…

killing a human child is murder, slaughtering an animal is called eating.

Well, gosh, if you’re talking monetary value, then, yeah - I’m sure human slaves once fetched a much prettier penny than livestock.

what human slaves? you mean a few centuries ago? im talking now.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Apart from the overwhelming arrogance of this statement, it looks very much as though you are projecting the very human concept of purpose onto the natural world.

whats arrogant about that? you think G-d created the world to watch animals? all the time and effort spent on us was just a hobby? please

ypou cant project a concept, you project emotions onto other people or animals, read a psych text.

Firstly, humans are animals, and the world did a pretty spectacular job of existing for many millions of years without us; secondly, you’re projecting again.

projecting what? are trying to make light of projection, because its taught as basic psychological theory, if you choose to project emotions on animals thats your business, but being derisive wont change the facts.

the world existed before our creation, big deal. at to being animals, you are mistaking similar form form for substance, we have eternal, souls they dont. thats the difference.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

might be sometimes, but i see her with several others, most mornings, didnt this morning though. as to the fish, i go home and pull them out of the bayou all day long.

still another evolutionary pressure, if we acted different then we would be disrupting the natural order.

its not willful ignorance, its scepticism of a bunch city folks treating animals like people, let me be clear that is emotions and nothing else.

sorry, but ive had cattle, hogs, and a chicken or two, they dont suffer. the alternative is life in the wild, no picnic. they are gonna get ate, it might as well be me doing the eating.

as for fish, they import fish food to the pens, on the catfish farms they by food from dealers and throw it in the ponds.

then your the first human being to ever have evidence of that. the cat gets in bed with me, because im warm, the dog follows me because im its pack leader, the cattle and hogs come to the trough for the feed bucket.

those arent emotiions they are instinctive behaviors.

thats what i like about them, people are tiresome, the dogs happy with a bone and ride in my pickup

your dog is a pack animal, anything he thinks is his pack is ok by him, it makes him feel safe.

your dog rewards you with trust? with love?

how is that not projection?

when the cat paws at me in the middle of the night , i dont think its love i think it means, ‘scoot over!’

we are omnivores, we need a little of everything, if you want to eat vegan thats fine, but most people are verry unhappy that way.

hey, i dont eat veal, because i dont like to see calves penned up like that, but regular cattle, hog, and poultry operations dont cause any undue suffering.

killing a human child is murder, slaughtering an animal is called eating.

what human slaves? you mean a few centuries ago? im talking now.

Good points & common sense.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

**Reply by warpspeedpetey **- i think its all about us, creation wouldn’t exist just for animals would it?

Why not? Who knows what’s out there in the rest of the universe.

What about those places on earth where there aren’t humans - creation exists there for animals and other forms of life!

because G-d says so. duh, what planet are you on? if He chose to create other people in other places, great, but that doesnt make animals anymore special.

as too creation where people dont exist, id be more amazed if the laws of physics just broke down at some radius of people

all these PETA style stuff is emotional, hippie, vegan, yada yada yada, i cant wait until global warming makes them all move to the north pole?

 

[Sair]

whats arrogant about that? you think G-d created the world to watch animals? all the time and effort spent on us was just a hobby? please

ypou cant project a concept, you project emotions onto other people or animals, read a psych text.

projecting what? are trying to make light of projection, because its taught as basic psychological theory, if you choose to project emotions on animals thats your business, but being derisive wont change the facts.

the world existed before our creation, big deal. at to being animals, you are mistaking similar form form for substance, we have eternal, souls they dont. thats the difference.

So…let me get this straight. You’re assuming that for the hundreds of millions of years before human existence, there was a god who just sat around twiddling his thumbs and waiting until he could put on the real show?

And maybe projecting was the wrong word, but the substance of the argument remains sound. It’s no less valid for me to assume, from my own observations, that animals experience emotions - simpler than those experienced by humans, certainly, but very much in evidence - than it is for you to assume, based on the teaching of the church, which is in turn based on a book written thousands of years ago by people of an entirely different culture and historical worldview, that the universe has any purpose beyond simple existence. And there is no rational basis for ascribing souls to humans without ascribing them to other animals as well. If the universe has a spiritual aspect, there’s no reason to suppose that it’s exclusive to one single species. My personal theory is that the belief in humans having a soul that animals lack is just a way to make people feel okay about the appalling treatment they bestow on other animals.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So…let me get this straight. You’re assuming that for the hundreds of millions of years before human existence, there was a god who just sat around twiddling his thumbs and waiting until he could put on the real show?

no, not at all, G-d, as first cause is necessarily non-physical, as nothiong physical can cause itself.

so time doesnt apply to the non-physical, ergo, time doesn’t apply to G-d

im sure your probably thinking “what?” but unless you care to explore Aquinan logic, and if your an atheist, you surely dont, then just go with it.

And maybe projecting was the wrong word, but the substance of the argument remains sound. It’s no less valid for me to assume, from my own observations, that animals experience emotions - simpler than those experienced by humans, certainly, but very much in evidence

really? because i have never heard any evidence of that whatsoever. thats just your opinion.

than it is for you to assume, based on the teaching of the church, which is in turn based on a book written thousands of years ago by people of an entirely different culture and historical worldview,

what makes you think that the teaching of the church is based on the bible?, we chose the books that went into the bible, we predate the bible, we were there. those people of a different culture and world view were us.

dont you know anything about Christianity?

that the universe has any purpose beyond simple existence

.

if the universe has no purpose, than why shouldn’t we treat animals anyway we want?

And there is no rational basis for ascribing souls to humans without ascribing them to other animals as well

.

our basis for souls is our faith, if we dont have them and animals dont either, than there is no reason not to do whatever we wish to them, to eachother or ourselves.

if there are no souls then why shouldn’t we just commit mass suicide? we should all pull hemingways, who wants to get old?

no faith= no reason for me to restrain my behavior.

If the universe has a spiritual aspect, there’s no reason to suppose that it’s exclusive to one single species

as soon as i see apes worshipping a statue then, i might buy that argument, until then, i think a spiritual aspect can really only be assigned to people

My personal theory is that the belief in humans having a soul that animals lack is just a way to make people feel okay about the appalling treatment they bestow on other animals.

thats because your an atheist. if you dont like our treatment of animals, how can you justify our treatment of plants?

they are alive too.

there is no logical rteason to stop the hippie train at animals, dont eat plants either.

then you can become an air-a-tarian

 

[Sair]

still another evolutionary pressure, if we acted different then we would be disrupting the natural order.

No! not humans disrupting the natural order! 'cause that could never happen!

Okay, sarcasm aside, humans have made it our stock-in-trade to interfere with nature. Otherwise we would never have found cures for diseases, we would never have built cities, we would never have come up with any of the technological advances of the last couple of centuries.

its not willful ignorance, its scepticism of a bunch city folks treating animals like people, let me be clear that is emotions and nothing else.

There’s a big difference between treating other animals like humans and according them the compassion that is their due as sentient creatures. No-one is talking about awarding university degrees to apes here.

sorry, but ive had cattle, hogs, and a chicken or two, they dont suffer. the alternative is life in the wild, no picnic. they are gonna get ate, it might as well be me doing the eating.

I presume, since you claim your animals don’t suffer, that you take steps to ensure they have adequate space to roam, plenty of food and water to meet their needs, and that you do what you can to ensure they don’t get sick. Even animals bred for their meat have lives before they get slaughtered, and since they help sustain our lives with their meat, we should, in all justice, respect their lives and spare them undue suffering.

those arent emotiions they are instinctive behaviors.

Animals experience emotions. They experience happiness, anger, fear… these are all emotions. And I’m not the only one who has evidence of this. One example is the fact that psychoactive drugs such as prozac work on dogs in a similar manner to how they work on humans. Yes, animals can experience depression too. It stands to reason that at the very least, all mammals experience emotions to some extent. Human emotions are more complex, because our brains are more complex, but that’s no reason to suppose that animals don’t experience emotions at all.

your dog is a pack animal, anything he thinks is his pack is ok by him, it makes him feel safe.

And you don’t think that the feeling of contentment resulting from feeling safe qualifies as an emotion…?

we are omnivores, we need a little of everything, if you want to eat vegan thats fine, but most people are verry unhappy that way.

A little of everything is exactly my point. But some people like to eat steak almost every night, and because there are quite a lot of people who do so, there are factory farms. It’s just marketing that leads people to believe we need a lot of meat. And actually, the vegetarians and vegans I know are very happy with their choice.

killing a human child is murder, slaughtering an animal is called eating.

I would be inclined to argue that the animals slaughtered for meat have a far greater claim to sentience than a first-trimester foetus, but as I have demonstrated, I don’t believe humans are any more sacred than other animals. What you believe on this point is up to you. But the fact is that humans inflict suffering on other animals in many more ways than merely killing them for food.

what human slaves? you mean a few centuries ago? im talking now.

Indeed. Evidently the value placed on a human life has changed in the last couple of centuries. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t that long ago that Africans were considered less than fully human. It was even more recently that women were acknowledged to have the same human rights as men. Given the existence of numerous animal charities and awareness of the value of biological diversity, it looks like reason is slowly prevailing, and we are gradually coming to understand that humans are not the only creatures on the planet who should be valued and accorded some basic rights.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

So…let me get this straight. You’re assuming that for the hundreds of millions of years before human existence, there was a god who just sat around twiddling his thumbs and waiting until he could put on the real show?

And maybe projecting was the wrong word, but the substance of the argument remains sound. It’s no less valid for me to assume, from my own observations, that animals experience emotions - simpler than those experienced by humans, certainly, but very much in evidence - than it is for you to assume, based on the teaching of the church, which is in turn based on a book written thousands of years ago by people of an entirely different culture and historical worldview, that the universe has any purpose beyond simple existence. And there is no rational basis for ascribing souls to humans without ascribing them to other animals as well. If the universe has a spiritual aspect, there’s no reason to suppose that it’s exclusive to one single species. My personal theory is that the belief in humans having a soul that animals lack is just a way to make people feel okay about the appalling treatment they bestow on other animals.

“Personal theory” here is key. It’s a free country & everyone has the right to personal opinion & theory, but this is a Catholic site.Don’t be too surprised to get Catholic replies to posts.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No! not humans disrupting the natural order! 'cause that could never happen!

Okay, sarcasm aside, humans have made it our stock-in-trade to interfere with nature. Otherwise we would never have found cures for diseases, we would never have built cities, we would never have come up with any of the technological advances of the last couple of centuries.

if humans are the equivqalent of animals, than whatever we are doing is ‘natural’ its just the evolution of life. good or bad.

There’s a big difference between treating other animals like humans and according them the compassion that is their due as sentient creatures. No-one is talking about awarding university degrees to apes here.

an animal is no more sentient than a robot, it is our projection of emotions that makes it seem different. like i said i dont have a rational reason to not eat veal, i jus dont like too see them penned up like that. its compassion. its just extremely limited in the face of human suffering.

I presume, since you claim your animals don’t suffer, that you take steps to ensure they have adequate space to roam, plenty of food and water to meet their needs, and that you do what you can to ensure they don’t get sick. Even animals bred for their meat have lives before they get slaughtered, and since they help sustain our lives with their meat, we should, in all justice, respect their lives and spare them undue suffering.

of course, they have to be well kept to provide the most meat. they get sunshine, hay, a shed when it rains, vets attention when its needed. im not saying be cruel.

Animals experience emotions. They experience happiness, anger, fear… these are all emotions. And I’m not the only one who has evidence of this. One example is the fact that psychoactive drugs such as prozac work on dogs in a similar manner to how they work on humans.

you must mean chemically, that doesn’t translate into actual emotions.

Yes, animals can experience depression too. It stands to reason that at the very least, all mammals experience emotions to some extent

.

on what basis? we need evidence.

Human emotions are more complex, because our brains are more complex, but that’s no reason to suppose that animals don’t experience emotions at all.

im hardly emotional at all, my friend crys at the drop of a hat. makes me want to leave the room everytime she does.

we still need evidence.

And you don’t think that the feeling of contentment resulting from feeling safe qualifies as an emotion…?

how do you know that the dogs feeling safe in the pack equates to the human emotion of contentment?

A little of everything is exactly my point. But some people like to eat steak almost every night, and because there are quite a lot of people who do so, there are factory farms. It’s just marketing that leads people to believe we need a lot of meat. And actually, the vegetarians and vegans I know are very happy with their choice.

i suggest thats based on their desire, not their biology,

meat is acomplete protein, you have to mix and match vegetables to reach that goal

I would be inclined to argue that the animals slaughtered for meat have a far greater claim to sentience than a first-trimester foetus, but as I have demonstrated, I don’t believe humans are any more sacred than other animals. What you believe on this point is up to you. But the fact is that humans inflict suffering on other animals in many more ways than merely killing them for food.

its funny to me that murder of an infant is ok by you, but a stray dog is a moral tragedy. how did you get priorities so far out of line with most of humanity?

Indeed. Evidently the value placed on a human life has changed in the last couple of centuries. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t that long ago that Africans were considered less than fully human. It was even more recently that women were acknowledged to have the same human rights as men. Given the existence of numerous animal charities and awareness of the value of biological diversity, it looks like reason is slowly prevailing, and we are gradually coming to understand that humans are not the only creatures on the planet who should be valued and accorded some basic rights.

hey, why dont you go give that speech at a juneteenth BBQ and see how far it gets,

it’ll get the same reactions the homosexuals got when they claimed that their desire to marry was the equivalent of blacks struggle for eqaulity.

which is to say, none at all.

 

[Sair]

“Personal theory” here is key. It’s a free country & everyone has the right to personal opinion & theory, but this is a Catholic site.Don’t be too surprised to get Catholic replies to posts.

I’m certain I have never evinced surprise at some of the posts to this thread. Disbelief, yes, and at times disgust, but I realise I should never be surprised or shocked that someone has such a vastly different viewpoint from my own. Indifference to other animals is not a purely Catholic phenomenon. And since, as you say, we each live in a free country (last time I checked, Australia still was one of those), I shall exercise my right to argue my case, but it is of course up to anyone reading as to whether or not they accept my arguments or agree with my point of view.

The thing is, even when I was growing up as a Catholic, I didn’t agree with the church’s teaching regarding other animals. I simply couldn’t reconcile the concept of a loving God who didn’t particularly care about animals, and who was apparently content to let them suffer at the hands of unscrupulous humans. And as for animals not having souls, I couldn’t find - and have yet to find - any rational reason for supposing that souls are exclusive to humans.

So much for my personal beliefs. In order to connect this thread with the OP’s original topic - spending money to help animals in preference to helping people - I’ll repeat my initial response, which was that people are entitled to choose how they use their own money, as long as they are not using it to cause harm. Giving to animal charities is still lessening the total amount of suffering in the world, and I can’t see that as a bad thing.

To add another element to this point, I’d like to propose that the - admittedly slightly-dubious-sounding - idea of the monkeysphere helps to explain people’s attitudes to giving money to charities. The monkeysphere concept proposes that most people can genuinely care about a maximum of around 150 people. Everyone outside that range is more or less a nameless, faceless statistic. So it’s quite likely that as far as altruism is concerned, to most people it makes no difference whether they give to humans or to other animals. They’re still doing a good deed, regardless of the recipients - whom they will probably never meet anyway.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I’m certain I have never evinced surprise at some of the posts to this thread. Disbelief, yes, and at times disgust, but I realise I should never be surprised or shocked that someone has such a vastly different viewpoint from my own. Indifference to other animals is not a purely Catholic phenomenon. And since, as you say, we each live in a free country (last time I checked, Australia still was one of those), I shall exercise my right to argue my case, but it is of course up to anyone reading as to whether or not they accept my arguments or agree with my point of view.

The thing is, even when I was growing up as a Catholic, I didn’t agree with the church’s teaching regarding other animals. I simply couldn’t reconcile the concept of a loving God who didn’t particularly care about animals, and who was apparently content to let them suffer at the hands of unscrupulous humans. And as for animals not having souls, I couldn’t find - and have yet to find - any rational reason for supposing that souls are exclusive to humans.

So much for my personal beliefs. In order to connect this thread with the OP’s original topic - spending money to help animals in preference to helping people - I’ll repeat my initial response, which was that people are entitled to choose how they use their own money, as long as they are not using it to cause harm. Giving to animal charities is still lessening the total amount of suffering in the world, and I can’t see that as a bad thing.

To add another element to this point, I’d like to propose that the - admittedly slightly-dubious-sounding - idea of the monkeysphere helps to explain people’s attitudes to giving money to charities. The monkeysphere concept proposes that most people can genuinely care about a maximum of around 150 people. Everyone outside that range is more or less a nameless, faceless statistic. So it’s quite likely that as far as altruism is concerned, to most people it makes no difference whether they give to humans or to other animals. They’re still doing a good deed, regardless of the recipients - whom they will probably never meet anyway.

Basic Christian teaching ,as I understand it, is that we are to use animals to our benefit but not mistreat them.Folks who have lived away from farms for a generation or two sometimes get out of touch with the realities of raising livestock.
I imagine taking care of stray animals can be accomplished without taking away from human charities but the needs of people have to have precedence over animals.
Speaking of purely personal theories & opinions, mine is that after years of observing folks in a completely unscientific & possibly biased fashion, it seems that individuals who are deeply into animal “rights” & welfare often have poor relationships with other human beings & may substitute animals for companionship. Just a thought.Not a fact.

 

[Sair]

Basic Christian teaching ,as I understand it, is that we are to use animals to our benefit but not mistreat them.Folks who have lived away from farms for a generation or two sometimes get out of touch with the realities of raising livestock.
I imagine taking care of stray animals can be accomplished without taking away from human charities but the needs of people have to have precedence over animals.

It’s certainly true that the majority of humans - the ones living in urban and suburban areas - are very out of touch with the land, and the rhythms of the seasons. This is a price we pay for a certain ‘quality’ of life. It’s also true that certain other creatures - like cockroaches, rats, pigeons, for example - thrive in the human-created environments of cities. Nevertheless, without endeavouring to ignore the realities of raising livestock, I do know that it’s possible to breed and keep animals for food in much more humane conditions than factory farms, feedlots and batteries. The reason the animals are made to suffer in these conditions is due to economic demands, not genuine need. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it’s not necessary for humans to eat a lot of meat. It’s marketing and custom that have created this fiction. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest that eating too much meat might actually be bad for us. However, because there is a continuing market for meat, and because the producers are far, far fewer than the consumers, and the consumers want to buy lots of meat cheaply, inhumane farming practices will continue while people are happy to ignore the facts of where their food comes from.

Speaking of purely personal theories & opinions, mine is that after years of observing folks in a completely unscientific & possibly biased fashion, it seems that individuals who are deeply into animal “rights” & welfare often have poor relationships with other human beings & may substitute animals for companionship. Just a thought.Not a fact.

Oh, for sure. Everyone’s heard about ‘crazy cat ladies’ and the like. However, I wonder how much of this is not so much that people substitute animal relationships for human relationships, but that they are given little choice. There are many elderly people living alone, whose relatives can’t be bothered to visit them, who seek solace in the companionship of pets. Conversely - and this is a bit more than just a personal theory - people who mistreat animals often are not capable of sustaining good relationships with other people. Research into serial killers, for example, shows that many of them started off by torturing and killing animals. So it works both ways. There’s no reason that compassion should be species-specific.

 

[Sair]

if humans are the equivqalent of animals, than whatever we are doing is ‘natural’ its just the evolution of life. good or bad.

Humans and animals are not the same, just as no individual - other than animals which reproduce asexually, by cloning - is the same as any other. The qualities we share - the important ones in this debate - are sentience - the ability to feel, to perceive with the senses - and an interest in not feeling pain and fear. These are the qualities which make any creature worthy of compassion.

an animal is no more sentient than a robot, it is our projection of emotions that makes it seem different. like i said i dont have a rational reason to not eat veal, i jus dont like too see them penned up like that. its compassion. its just extremely limited in the face of human suffering.

Not wishing to participate in the suffering of an animal is a perfectly rational reason to not eat veal. It’s the same reason that I do my best to always buy free-range or organic meat and animal products. I don’t agree with intensive farming practices, because they are inhumane and cause undue suffering to the animals bred and kept in overcrowded, unnatural conditions.

you must mean chemically, that doesn’t translate into actual emotions.

on what basis? we need evidence.

Human emotions are products of chemical responses in the brain. I’m not sure what you mean by claiming that ‘chemical’ emotions are different to ‘real’ ones.

Have you ever observed an abused dog that has been rescued and rehabilitated? They start off being fearful and painfully shy of any human contact. They gradually learn to trust their new owner, and slowly become more affectionate. These are emotional responses. Dogs mourn the death or loss of companions, both human and otherwise. They become lethargic, disinclined to eat, and can also become more needy, more clingy towards their remaining companions. I have observed this happening. Wild elephants have been shown to grieve for lost or dead herdmates. The evidence for animal emotions is plain to see. You seem to be choosing to ignore it.

i suggest thats based on their desire, not their biology,

meat is acomplete protein, you have to mix and match vegetables to reach that goal

On the contrary, human biology suggests that meat is a supplementary food, not an everyday necessity. There are proven health benefits to a vegetarian or low-meat diet, such as reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer and obesity.

its funny to me that murder of an infant is ok by you, but a stray dog is a moral tragedy. how did you get priorities so far out of line with most of humanity?

The murder of an infant is, qualitatively and ethically, very different from aborting an early-term foetus. I would venture to suggest that a significant proportion, probably even a majority, of the rest of humanity, would agree with that assessment. Before around 24 weeks of pregnancy, a developing foetus is not sentient, not capable of feeling pain, nor does it have any personal interest in its own continued existence. It can’t, because its brain hasn’t developed to the point where self-awareness is possible. I invoked the comparison with killing animals in an effort to illustrate the irrationality - and inaccuracy - of supposing that non-human animals are not sentient. You chose to twist and misapply my words to create a comparison that I have never made - between a dog neglected by its owners and a child being put to death. Of course there’s no comparison there.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

It’s certainly true that the majority of humans - the ones living in urban and suburban areas - are very out of touch with the land, and the rhythms of the seasons. This is a price we pay for a certain ‘quality’ of life. It’s also true that certain other creatures - like cockroaches, rats, pigeons, for example - thrive in the human-created environments of cities. Nevertheless, without endeavouring to ignore the realities of raising livestock, I do know that it’s possible to breed and keep animals for food in much more humane conditions than factory farms, feedlots and batteries. The reason the animals are made to suffer in these conditions is due to economic demands, not genuine need. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it’s not necessary for humans to eat a lot of meat. It’s marketing and custom that have created this fiction. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest that eating too much meat might actually be bad for us. However, because there is a continuing market for meat, and because the producers are far, far fewer than the consumers, and the consumers want to buy lots of meat cheaply, inhumane farming practices will continue while people are happy to ignore the facts of where their food comes from.

Oh, for sure. Everyone’s heard about ‘crazy cat ladies’ and the like. However, I wonder how much of this is not so much that people substitute animal relationships for human relationships, but that they are given little choice. There are many elderly people living alone, whose relatives can’t be bothered to visit them, who seek solace in the companionship of pets. Conversely - and this is a bit more than just a personal theory - people who mistreat animals often are not capable of sustaining good relationships with other people. Research into serial killers, for example, shows that many of them started off by torturing and killing animals. So it works both ways. There’s no reason that compassion should be species-specific.

No, I understand about elderly & lonely folk who have pets, I was thinking more of people who have difficulty forming positive relationships with other human beings & then become advocates for animal rights.I just generalize based upon past experiences with folks I’ve run into.My thought is that their perspective is a bit warped against humanity.

 

[Watchman]

No! not humans disrupting the natural order! 'cause that could never happen!

Okay, sarcasm aside, humans have made it our stock-in-trade to interfere with nature.

You seem to be employing both sides of the argument depending on which side bolsters your point.

If humans are no different than animals:

• They cannot disrupt natural order or interfere with “nature”.
• They are a part of nature.
• They cannot be held to any standard beyond self-interest.
• Any extinctions they cause simply join the billions that took place prior to humanity and would continue without them.

The only way to justify holding us to a higher standard is to believe that we are of a different “nature”. You can’t call us animals and in the same breath condemn us for acting as such.