Pet peeve, literally a peeve about pets!

[warpspeedpetey]

**“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

NOT “Do unto other human beings as you would have them do unto you.”

Limerick**

im pretty sure im supposed to be ignored, yet someone still seems to be reading my posts.

that said, the golden rule cannot apply to animals because they can not follow it. there golden rule is eat or be eaten, as it is in all nature.

nor has it historically been considered has applying to animals, at least i know of no such case.

and until someone can show me that animals arent just chemically programmed meatbots, then. you may as well apply the golden rule to my roomba.

the preoblem is that their is no evidence that animals arent simply meat robots.

further, Christ was clear as to the morality of feeding the dogs before the children, in the story concerning the syrophenoecian woman.

please put me back on your ignore list

 

[Highwayhound]

On the basis that humans are capable of distinguishing good acts from evil acts, by whatever system of ethics they choose to apply. (Not all humans, of course - some act completely from expedience, but this is a useful generalisation for our present purposes). It seems to me that if we wish to claim the moral high ground, to take ourselves seriously as moral beings, then we must use our power for benevolent ends. Abusing the natural world and its creatures just because we can is by no means a demonstration of moral superiority - it is an exercise of the might=right principle, which is an inedequate basis for informing any ethical system. A ruler who murders and tortures his people just because he can will never be considered a ‘good’ or ‘just’ ruler.

Yes, yes, but I asked specifically about you and how you determine these things. I asked so I could better understand your reasoning. The given answer tells of general humanity which does me no good. If you care to answer specifically about the basis you use in determing that humans are obliged to act in a positive manner that would be super, but if you chose to bypass answering - life will go on.

Next thought - WSP has mentioned robots (Roombas in particular) and has suggested that animals are equivalent to those robots. There is one obvious difference. Of all the animals I have owned not one has had a “On/Off” switch.

As I explained previously, humans are biologically hard-wired to care most about those closest to them in their family circle and their immediate community.

I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. I would cite St. Kolbe’s actions in Auschwitz as an example of a man that was not hard wired in such a manner.

www.auschwitz.dk/Kolbe.htm

The issue of suffering being a measuring standard of whether animals are sentient or not has been mentioned.

As I have previously stated on this thread, one of the most basic values that infoms many ethical systems is respect for life. Some prefer to limit this respect to humans alone, others find that it is more appropriate to apply it to all forms of life, particularly sentient life.

As I have also mentioned in previous posts, animals are in fact sentient. Whether they are capable of self-awareness to the same extent as humans is open to debate, but self-awareness is not necessary to the ability to suffer. As the utilitarian ethicist Jeremy Bentham stated, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”

I am not sure who Jeremy Bantham is. I would ask not “Can they suffer?”, but “Can animals fake suffering?” I offer an event from a summer of 2003 bicycle ride for your consideration. Most summers I go on a bicycle tour. My dog Cyclops would go with me. I pull a trailer behind the bicycle and Cyclops (dog’s weight was 55 pounds) would ride on the trailer. That is except uphills. I mean come on 55 lbs is 55 lbs. Cyclops, a black and white springer/lab/pitbull, had to run uphills (only made one exception to this rule, but that is another story). Cape Sebastian is 3 miles of torture on a hot summer day on the southern Oregon coast. About halfway up Cyclops starts limping. I stopped to check the dog’s paw for thorns - nothing there. Continuing on I see Cyclops again limping. Another stop and I thought perhaps with the heat a tar ball from the road was stuck to a paw. This time I checked all four paws. Now, if I remember right Cyclops’ ‘lameness’ disappeared at the top of Cape Sebastian where the road leveled out. It is my firm belief that my dog was angling for a ride up the cape by faking a limp.

I have more thoughts to add, but I promised my mom I would help her with her taxes today.

God bless

 

[limerick]

I am not sure who Jeremy Bantham is. I would ask not “Can they suffer?”, but “Can animals fake suffering?” I offer an event from a summer of 2003 bicycle ride for your consideration. Most summers I go on a bicycle tour. My dog Cyclops would go with me. I pull a trailer behind the bicycle and Cyclops (dog’s weight was 55 pounds) would ride on the trailer. That is except uphills. I mean come on 55 lbs is 55 lbs. Cyclops, a black and white springer/lab/pitbull, had to run uphills (only made one exception to this rule, but that is another story). Cape Sebastian is 3 miles of torture on a hot summer day on the southern Oregon coast. About halfway up Cyclops starts limping. I stopped to check the dog’s paw for thorns - nothing there. Continuing on I see Cyclops again limping. Another stop and I thought perhaps with the heat a tar ball from the road was stuck to a paw. This time I checked all four paws. Now, if I remember right Cyclops’ ‘lameness’ disappeared at the top of Cape Sebastian where the road leveled out. It is my firm belief that my dog was angling for a ride up the cape by faking a limp.

Dogs have a natural instinct to hide pain. Most are exceptionally stoic when experiencing extreme pain, such as broken limbs, bone tumors and other types of cancers. They are hard wired to act as if they are unbroken or without pain due to pack mentality: the weak members of any wolf pack, coyote pack, dog pack will be cast aside and shunned by the other members of the pack. This partially explains why it may appear that dogs and other domestic animals do not experience pain as human beings do. A great sacrifice might be made if vulnerability were shown.

Limerick

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Next thought - WSP has mentioned robots (Roombas in particular) and has suggested that animals are equivalent to those robots. There is one obvious difference. Of all the animals I have owned not one has had a “On/Off” switch.

thats funny, i have a remote, universal, on and off switch, for animals, in my gun safe, works real good on deer, pheasant, turkey, opossums, razorback hogs, and assorted other yummies.

and yes im being a little mean

 

[Sair]

**“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

NOT “Do unto other human beings as you would have them do unto you.”

Limerick**

Couldn’t have said it better myself

With that in mind, and in light of the various issues raised in this thread, I’d like to post a summary of my own thoughts on this subject.

One of the biggest problems with adopting a black-and-white approach to morality is that one can seldom deal with complex, real-world issues by assuming they have but two opposing aspects.

I believe the OP has grossly oversimplified the issue of contributions to animal charities by representing it as a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Giving to animals does not preclude giving to humans, nor vice versa - the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as I pointed out, some international animal charities actually do help people, so that they will be in a better position to care for their animals and not mistreat them.

When people choose to give to a charity, they respond to the issues that personally move them - they sympathise with those in trouble and exercise the golden rule. Judging their charitable choices as immoral is an act of reprehensible pride on the part of the one who judges. If intention counts towards the moral worth of an action, the accuser will surely be damned before the giver.

It has been argued that humans are entitled to treat other animals however we wish, as we are the superior species. Again, this is a simplistic view. We treat our own kind with compassion, even those who are unable to respond to us with anything like rationality - such as infants, those with severe mental disabilities or dementia - and there is no defensible reason for not treating animals with comparable compassion. The assumption animals don’t suffer when they are mistreated is, I feel, nothing more than an arrogant presumption on the part of those who wish to go on mistreating them; it is a failure of observation and empathy.

Moreover, it is not necessary for humans to abuse and exploit other animals in order to meet our own needs and to live in comfort. We can live in mutually beneficial harmony, or simply live and let live - it just takes a little more effort than many people are willing to apply. We ought not to do more than we need to live in the world - or, as some would have it, we must not abuse our mandate as stewards of the natural world and all its creatures. It should be considered wrong for humans to mistreat animals for the sake of our own mere pleasures and convenience. Anyone who takes pleasure in the suffering of an animal, or who is simply indifferent to it, is unlikely to treat fellow humans with compassion and understanding.

Animal abuse is arguably neither the worst nor the least of mankind’s evils, but it is certainly one of the most widespread. In aiding animals that have suffered at human hands, we are performing a manifestly good and life-affirming action. In closing, I would ask this - when you are conscious of wrong, is it right to rectify only part of it?

 

[Sair]

Yes, yes, but I asked specifically about you and how you determine these things. I asked so I could better understand your reasoning. The given answer tells of general humanity which does me no good. If you care to answer specifically about the basis you use in determing that humans are obliged to act in a positive manner that would be super, but if you chose to bypass answering - life will go on.

Oh, you were asking for my personal take on this - I do apologise. I got a little too caught up in the OP’s blustering insistence on objective evidence.

As for what I believe, the basis upon which I feel it is right for humans to treat other creatures (and each other) with at least a basic level of respect - I do find it a little hard to explain convincingly to others, because it seems so self-evident to me, but I shall do my best. I think that basic altruism is inbuilt in human nature. I know that sounds counterintuitive, particularly in the days of ‘neo-Darwinism’, where people have co-opted evolutionary theory to use as an excuse for selfishness, but if you look at it from the point of view of species survival and perpetuation of one’s genetic material, it makes sense to look after your family and kinship group and help them survive. From these primitive roots, the social evolution of humankind has grown to larger and larger societies, and I must admit that I think we reached our optimum population levels a long time ago, and beyond that, altruism begins to break down. But I digress - that is probably a subject best left for discussion on another thread.

From the earliest days of our existence as Homo sapiens, humans have needed to work within the natural world, and respect the natural rhythms and relationships of which we were a part. We started out as prey, and gradually evolved into predators, but still didn’t take more than we needed to survive. Respect for their environment was integral to the survival of early humans - they had to know which plants were safe to eat, which animals were too big and dangerous to hunt, they had to observe the turning of the seasons and move around to where they could find the best resources. Their relationships with other animals were an essential part of their survival. The domestication of the dog - which is thought to have happened quite early in human prehistory - represents, to my way of thinking, the ultimate in symbiotic relationships between humans and other animals. Both species are social hunters and scavengers, and the bond between humans and dogs remains strong to this day. It is my belief, therefore, that human-animal relationships are at their best when they are mutually beneficial.

I don’t believe in a might=right morality. Few if any things make me angrier than to see a strong person treating a weaker person - or animal - in a cruel or exploitative manner. I also believe there is a more-or-less direct correlation between the way a person treats animals and how they are disposed to treat their fellow humans. At the risk of employing the slippery-slope argument, I would say that mistreating animals can desensitise people to the suffering of other creatures - I have pointed out before that most serial killers start off by killing animals. If we are able to treat other animals with compassion, despite our greater powers, I believe that speaks highly of our humanity.

The other aspect that informs my own take on animal rights is the belief that “because we can” is never in itself a good enough reason to do something. We can exploit and abuse animals for our own pleasure and convenience, but that is not a reason we should.

I am not sure who Jeremy Bantham is. I would ask not “Can they suffer?”, but “Can animals fake suffering?” I offer an event from a summer of 2003 bicycle ride for your consideration. Most summers I go on a bicycle tour. My dog Cyclops would go with me. I pull a trailer behind the bicycle and Cyclops (dog’s weight was 55 pounds) would ride on the trailer. That is except uphills. I mean come on 55 lbs is 55 lbs. Cyclops, a black and white springer/lab/pitbull, had to run uphills (only made one exception to this rule, but that is another story). Cape Sebastian is 3 miles of torture on a hot summer day on the southern Oregon coast. About halfway up Cyclops starts limping. I stopped to check the dog’s paw for thorns - nothing there. Continuing on I see Cyclops again limping. Another stop and I thought perhaps with the heat a tar ball from the road was stuck to a paw. This time I checked all four paws. Now, if I remember right Cyclops’ ‘lameness’ disappeared at the top of Cape Sebastian where the road leveled out. It is my firm belief that my dog was angling for a ride up the cape by faking a limp.

For the record, Jeremy Bentham was an 18th-19th century English philosopher and social reformer. He was a major proponent of utilitarianism.

It’s interesting what you say about your dog perhaps ‘faking’ suffering. It is quite true, as Limerick says, that dogs are naturally disposed to stoicism (cats too, I believe). In the wild, in a pack structure, it is dangerous to appear weak, and domestic dogs have inherited this aspect of their nature from wolves. I would suggest, however, that dogs can learn how to get sympathetic attention from their human ‘pack’ - the notion that they are able to fake injury or pain in order to do so speaks of more sophisticated social intelligence in dogs than some posters on this thread have been prepared to grant them!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I got a little too caught up in the OP’s blustering insistence on objective evidence.

if you cant comply with my “blustering insistence on evidence” then you must be wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Couldn’t have said it better myself

With that in mind, and in light of the various issues raised in this thread, I’d like to post a summary of my own thoughts on this subject.

One of the biggest problems with adopting a black-and-white approach to morality is that one can seldom deal with complex, real-world issues by assuming they have but two opposing aspects.

I believe the OP has grossly oversimplified the issue of contributions to animal charities by representing it as a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Giving to animals does not preclude giving to humans, nor vice versa - the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as I pointed out, some international animal charities actually do help people, so that they will be in a better position to care for their animals and not mistreat them.

but that is the definition of zero sum game. there are a finite amount of charitable dollars, those given to animals cannot be given to humans.

When people choose to give to a charity, they respond to the issues that personally move them - they sympathise with those in trouble and exercise the golden rule. Judging their charitable choices as immoral is an act of reprehensible pride on the part of the one who judges. If intention counts towards the moral worth of an action, the accuser will surely be damned before the giver.

yes, im bad for pointing out the immorality of violating the golden rule here.
you can try to in clude animals in it, but then why not my roomba, because you still cant prove animals are more than meatbots.

It has been argued that humans are entitled to treat other animals however we wish, as we are the superior species. Again, this is a simplistic view. We treat our own kind with compassion, even those who are unable to respond to us with anything like rationality - such as infants, those with severe mental disabilities or dementia - and there is no defensible reason for not treating animals with comparable compassion. The assumption animals don’t suffer when they are mistreated is, I feel, nothing more than an arrogant presumption on the part of those who wish to go on mistreating them; it is a failure of observation and empathy.

you cant seem to seperate being human from being animal as the reason for compassionate behavior. the infant, disabled, are humans.

animals are meatbots. unless you have some evidence that proves otherwise.

i noticed that you tried to take another parting shot, but this time from the refuge of addressing arguments meant for me, to another poster, thats even worse form the the last time you tried it.

why cant you admit you are wrong?, you dont have any evidence, your arguments have been shredded at every turn, and you’ve had to dance a mad jig, in order to avoid that admission.

giving strays food, while allowing people to starve is still obviously immoral. no matter what you say, a rational person cannot see it any other way.

but like i said long ago, rationality doesn’t seem to be the standard here. being right at any moral cost is the standard by which this subject is treated.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

thats funny, i have a remote, universal, on and off switch, for animals, in my gun safe, works real good on deer, pheasant, turkey, opossums, razorback hogs, and assorted other yummies.

and yes im being a little mean

And funny.In an aggravatingly, planet warming, meat eating,humans first way…
If all those critters we hunted are lined up at the end of the “rainbow bridge” when we pass on to the other world ,does that mean we get to eat them twice?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And funny.In an aggravatingly, planet warming, meat eating,humans first way…
If all those critters we hunted are lined up at the end of the “rainbow bridge” when we pass on to the other world ,does that mean we get to eat them twice?

what if they are lined up to eat us?

kinda scary…well maybe not, as i havent caught a fish yet this spring, there aint gonna be no sharks waiting on me

 

[Highwayhound]

Okay, a few more thoughts.

First to Sair - thank you for explaining your thoughts on how you decided humans should behave in a positive manner. Any deeper insights, I agree, would belong in a different thread.

Second, the soup throwing incident(I have forgotten who referenced it) at the homeless shelter makes me wonder if people have too much pride and not enough humility. I would be hard pressed to give those individuals more food until they showed a more humble approach to life.

Third, the idea that it is wrong to give money to animal causes when any human suffers has been mentioned. My question here is how big of a radius do I as an individual have to seek opportunitues to exercise charity? My community is small and everyone here is okay. No starvation, no plagues, etc. Life is good. So in my daily life I never see any hardship. Can I draw the line at my own community or do I need to take care of people on the other side of the world before donating to a secondary charitable cause such as animals? How big of a circle does a person need to consider?

Fourth, I would ask for some clarification on the quote below:

Do either of you foks believe those who spend money…*their hard earned dollars which aren’t really theirs’…*on tickets for football games…could run into some big dough there…or buy fancy cars…when a cheaper car will do…or who take lavish trips…when they could go to the nearby park…should instead send their money to the charities which are soley for the helping of other humans? If you feel they should be able to use THEIR money as THEY see fit…whats the big deal about how people like me spend our money? So…?

This reads to me as promotion of ENVY. Please clarify.

Fifth,

these arent the same things. nobody suffers if they dont have a fiat, or a honda.

Have you listened to any college students recently?

Sixth:

trying to stop, change, or alter the natural evolution of the biosphere or the planet in any way may well be disastrous.

so leave it alone, we are, an evolutionary pressure. no more right or wrong than any other.

I had to chuckle at this becuase of what I have seen happen in Oregon. At one point years back “The Chicken Littles” around here shouted, “We have to take the logs out of the streams!!” They were adamant about it. Out came the logs - Hurray! :extrahappy:

A decade or so later “The Chicken Littles” realized that they had blundered and that the removal of the logs had been bad for the fish. DUH! :doh2: For how long did they think logs have been falling into streams and fish have been living there? Maybe since trees first grew along streams…just maybe. Hindsight tells me most of these concerns are hogwash and manipulations.

Next:

Humanity and animals have their place so does the rest of the environment. Envisaging a hierarchy of humanity then animals has the danger of considering that what humans want (not what we need) is more important and we can do what we like to those who are seen as “inferior” rather than different.

Now think about this - I typed in a question to Sair and Sair responded from the other side of the world. Pretty neat trick :tiphat: Never seen a dolphin do that and dolphins have always been one of my favorite animals. So, until I read a post from Flipper I shall “cling” to the idea that humans are indeed superior.

… growing one’s own vegetables, planting trees, choosing organic and free-range produce, recycling as much as possible, …

What exactly is “free range produce”? I know my ducks are free range because I see them in the neighbors yard all the time. The neighbors joke about this calling the animals their “Security Ducks”. I have never heard of free range produce though.

…but look, i would fix my roomba when the error light goes on, which is the equivalent to a cat yowling.

still, there is no evidence that animals are any different than my roomba.

Since you mentioned ‘yowling’ - one type of yowling is done for a particular purpose in cats. Does your “Roomba” attempt to mate with your neighbor’s “Hoover”?

Think about it - all that money is spent on pet animals (food, toys, vet fees) shouldn’t that go to people?

Well, it does, does it not? It is called employment which allows people a standard of living which allows for donations to charities.

Okay, I really have to stop working so much I miss out on a lot…

God bless

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since you mentioned ‘yowling’ - one type of yowling is done for a particular purpose in cats. Does your “Roomba” attempt to mate with your neighbor’s “Hoover”?

no, but the cat finds the roomba* quite stimulating!

i think i should clarify here that i dont actually own a roomba, it was meant as an intellectual device.

 

[Sair]

• Originally Posted by Sair View Post
  … growing one’s own vegetables, planting trees, choosing organic and free-range produce, recycling as much as possible, …

HighwayHound: What exactly is “free range produce”? I know my ducks are free range because I see them in the neighbors yard all the time. The neighbors joke about this calling the animals their “Security Ducks”. I have never heard of free range produce though.*

I possibly suffered from conflation of terminology here. What I meant was things like free-range eggs and chickens, pigs, etc. I recently learned the difference between free-range and organically raised animals - free range is a step down from organic, in that yes, the animals (in this case, chickens) are allowed outside to forage and peck, as is their natural inclination, but they are still enclosed in sheds in fairly large numbers for the better part of their days. Organically-raised chickens are housed in smaller numbers in their sheds, allowed to come and go freely, so they may forage and peck during the day and have a safe roost at night, and they are also given significantly longer to reach slaughter weight than either free-range or intensively-farmed birds. Consequently it is more expensive for the consumer, but gradually more people are coming to see the benefits of more humane farming methods, and I think that as more people cotton onto it, the price will gradually fall. It’s fairly difficult to come by organic chickens in my local area, so I opt for free-range, which is still much more humane than factory farming.

As most people reading this thread will have gathered, I don’t share the OP’s belief that humans are ‘just another evolutionary pressure’ - first of all, this approach strikes me as just a mindless appeal to the might=right and because-we-can morality, which is really no kind of morality at all. Secondly, it confuses the issue - if we are just an evolutionary pressure, like other animals, then we are no more deserving of consideration. Somewhat self-defeating when you’re trying to argue for the immorality of giving to animal charities. And another thing - humans have been hell-bent on altering the course of natural evolution for most of our history. Once we stepped away from our total reliance on the natural environment, there was scarcely a change that we paused for thought before making, no matter how much it damaged the survival prospects of other species. We have arrested our own biological evolution by making it easier for ‘weaker’ memebers of the species to survive and reproduce. So it’s pointless to argue that we should not interfere with nature or natural evolution - we do it all the time.

I recently stumbled upon a good example of the mutual benefit approach I mentioned earlier. There is a species of Australian bird called the brush turkey, native to the subtropical areas of Queensland and northern New South Wales. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, in Brisbane (capital city of Queensland), suburban houses mostly had backyards that were all manicured lawns and exotic, ornamental plants. Consequently, the habitat of the brush turkey had been significantly reduced, and their numbers reduced as a result. In the 1970s and 1980s, an initiative was undertaken to encourage people to plant native flora in their backyards, to create a more favourable habitat for brush turkeys. The benefits to the turkeys have been obvious, and their numbers have increased accordingly. I would also argue that humans have benefited from the change - native plants, being adapted to the local climate, are very low-maintenance, so having native flora in one’s backyard frees up time and resources to use on other needs and activities. See? Mutual benefit, and not at any great cost to the people involved. Sometimes we just need to use the mental powers with which we are endowed, and learn to think more creatively.

 

[stmary4u]

What do you have against animals?? They also feel pain, cold, hunger and there are a lot more animals in horrible situations than people. I feel sorry for you for being so “cold” when it comes to animals! Shame on YOU! My mother always said “never trust a person who doesn’t like animals”. I believe her.

 

[Sair]

To expand upon an earlier thought - claiming that humans are ‘just another evolutionary pressure’ is both a diminishment of human abilities, and dangerously close to claiming that we’re not really responsible for our actions.

Humans now have the power to direct our own development, and that of other species. That being the case, we have the choice to act in ways that are mutually beneficial to ourselves and other species, or in ways that benefit us at the expense of other species. I know which choice I believe to be better.

 

[Sair]

What do you have against animals?? They also feel pain, cold, hunger and there are a lot more animals in horrible situations than people. I feel sorry for you for being so “cold” when it comes to animals! Shame on YOU! My mother always said “never trust a person who doesn’t like animals”. I believe her.

I wholeheartedly agree. Your mother sounds like a very wise person.

My mother (who, incidentally, is the most devout lay Catholic I have ever met - she also supports several causes, including the Flying Doctors and the Guide Dog Association, runs fundraising barbecues with my Dad for local charities, and makes sets of rosary beads for sending overseas) once told me about an incident that highlights the attitude that I have inherited from her. She was walking our dog at the time (a beagle named Angus) and a young boy came up and kicked Angus for no apparent reason. Mum turned to the boy and said sternly, “If you kick my dog again, I’ll kick you right back.”

Needless to say, I approve

 

[Squishy]

I wholeheartedly agree. Your mother sounds like a very wise person.

My mother (who, incidentally, is the most devout lay Catholic I have ever met - she also supports several causes, including the Flying Doctors and the Guide Dog Association, runs fundraising barbecues with my Dad for local charities, and makes sets of rosary beads for sending overseas) once told me about an incident that highlights the attitude that I have inherited from her. She was walking our dog at the time (a beagle named Angus) and a young boy came up and kicked Angus for no apparent reason. Mum turned to the boy and said sternly, “If you kick my dog again, I’ll kick you right back.”

Needless to say, I approve

Your mum sounds like a far more forgiving person than me. If someone did that to my dog I would not give them a second chance or warning. I would make damn sure that they would think twice about doing such a thing in future.

 

[Sair]

Your mum sounds like a far more forgiving person than me. If someone did that to my dog I would not give them a second chance or warning. I would make damn sure that they would think twice about doing such a thing in future.

I have a feeling I’d be the same, if anyone tried to harm my dog. But my mum worked as an emergency nurse, so I think she had to cultivate near-superhuman tolerance!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As most people reading this thread will have gathered, I don’t share the OP’s belief that humans are ‘just another evolutionary pressure’ - first of all, this approach strikes me as just a mindless appeal to the might=right and because-we-can morality, which is really no kind of morality at all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What do you have against animals?? They also feel pain, cold, hunger and there are a lot more animals in horrible situations than people. I feel sorry for you for being so “cold” when it comes to animals! Shame on YOU! My mother always said “never trust a person who doesn’t like animals”. I believe her.

because im a bad, bad man.

i want those evil starving children in africa, apalachia, asia, india, etc to get all the yummies, that those good, noble, kindhearted, animals are getting.

feel the sarcasm yet?