• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

Animal Cruelty

curiousnathan

Starry-eyed
7,753
Posts
14
Years
Spoiler:

Relatively disturbing image.

After seeing some abhorrent stuff littered across Facebook regarding the cruelty toward animals, the curiosity of wanting to know what you guys thought about it suddenly occurred me.

More importantly, what's your opinions on animal cruelty? In your state/country what punishments (if any) are put in place to bring justice to those who abuse animals? Do you think it's strict enough? Too strict?

For me, animal cruelty is one of the worst crimes one can commit, alongside that of murder and sexual abuse of children. In my eyes, all who mistreat, whether physically or emotionally, and torment animals need to be punished swiftly and severely. In Victoria a maximum 2 years jail can be issued as well as fines ranging from $29,000 to $146,000.

I find this punishement a little too easy. I'd be more than elated to see animal abusers spend a good 5+ years in jail. Accompanied by relatively similar fines, and at least some form of community work.

What's your stance? Discuss!
 
Last edited:
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Animal abusers scare me more than almost any other kind of bad people because of how easily they can ignore suffering. I think it's true that it's a warning sign of a future serial killer.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
I hate hate hate it. People should not abuse animals. Animals can't often help their behaviors it's just how they are. I think if people dont like animals enough to abuse/neglect one, then let someone else who can care for the animal take them. It really disturbs me how people can harm a helpless animal and just not care what they are doing to the animal.It often makes them very fearful of people as well. Unfortunately, I dont think the laws are very strict and people often get a slap on the wrist for this sort of thing. I wish people would get steeper punishments for animal abuse, because I think it's wrong to abuse animals that can't even defend themselves. I understand some people just dont like animals, but I think there is no justification for animal abuse.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
Animal abusers scare me more than almost any other kind of bad people because of how easily they can ignore suffering. I think it's true that it's a warning sign of a future serial killer.

But it could also be that some people abuse animals as a means to vent out their frustration / stress. So rather than attacking other people they harm animals instead. You can think of it as a solution where one tries to quit smoking cigarettes by smoking cigars.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Doesn't stop them from having an empathy disorder in the first place. If I had my way, these people would be removed from society. I know, lack of empathy from myself, but these people are diseased and unfixable to begin with, so society might as well cut our losses.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
But it could also be that some people abuse animals as a means to vent out their frustration / stress. So rather than attacking other people they harm animals instead. You can think of it as a solution where one tries to quit smoking cigarettes by smoking cigars.

That still is no excuse. It's still abuse and harming a creature that can't defend itself. They dont understand why they are being hurt and certainly do not deserve to be harmed just because some person is stressed or frustrated. There are ways to do that without harming living creatures.
 

Sydian

fake your death.
33,379
Posts
16
Years
I think it's absolutely sickening, especially when it's someone's own pet. That's a part of your family. Why did you even get it if you're going to just beat it up? That translates to me as buying your own torture victim.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
That still is no excuse. It's still abuse and harming a creature that can't defend itself. They dont understand why they are being hurt and certainly do not deserve to be harmed just because some person is stressed or frustrated. There are ways to do that without harming living creatures.

I agree with what you say but that's probably just how some people think.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
Granted that I tend to play wrestle with my dog, because he enjoys it, and a darker side of my brain wants to me to fight feral cats and dogs to the death, but I will always fight that feeling out of my mind, because I really don't want to kill an animal with my barehands. Animal cruelty in general makes me wonder why do these people want pets in the first place.
 

Her

11,466
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Mar 14, 2024
They're disgusting people, pure and simple. Convict them, give them five years minimum, that's it. People who can do that to animals need to be punished a whole lot more by the law than what they are currently being subject to, they're animals who don't understand why they're being tortured in the first place and that itself is just pure evil. Five years minimum.
 

Yusshin

♪ Yggdrasil ♪
2,414
Posts
14
Years
Here's a reply to my online Philosophy 12U teacher (when I was doing the course online from September 2012-January 2013):

I believe that fundamentally, animals were created in order to serve human purposes; however, from my comprehension of Genesis 1:26, we have a responsibility to care for those animals and to treat them well lest commit an immoral act. Though I do not believe that animals are conscious of their own being (as I've expressed before and as is argued by Buddhists and Descartes), I do believe that we have a level of moral obligation towards them as they remain living, feeling beings. Furthermore, similar to the animal inferiority argument, I feel that we are superior to animals in that we are more intelligent, abstract, developed, and have more elaborate talents and characteristics than what our animal companions appear to possess. This only further supports my belief that as we are more mentally capable than animals, we are required to take care of them and treat them with dignity and respect as fellow creations.
Simply put, we owe them kindness and consideration because we have the capability to treat them that way. In order to prove our superiority to ourselves, we must first overcome the egotism of being thought as superior in the first place, regardless evidence that supports it. This can be said of other things as well, such as in the case of Bill Gates who dresses middle-class and treats everyone with respect regardless civil stature. Although he is rich, he does not use it as an excuse to flaunt his wealth or waste money; rather, he funds global operations such as the Red Cross and AIDS Research in order to help the less fortunate. The same can be said for humans in relation to animals in that though we are of superior intellect, that does not mean we owe animals any less consideration than we would give our own species.
Kant best explains my perception of animals. Lacking a conscious, they are creations based on instincts rather than rationalism. They lack the capability to understand the consequences of an action as well as the ability to understand what is socially acceptable and what is not. Because they lack the ability to rationalize their behaviour, the actions of an animal cannot be considered bad or good, moral or immoral. Animals simply act as nature intended, whether it is killing other animals, attacking one another, etc. I do believe, however, that animals have souls (contrary to Buddhist beliefs), and I do believe that animals are capable of acting, unintentionally or intentionally, in good faith whether they understand their actions or not. For example, an animal that appears to be comforting another animal or a human, or an animal that "adopts" a baby animal of the same or another species. There's an interesting video on YouTube of a lion that adopts and protects a baby sheep; though the lion might not understand that this act is "good" (in human perspective, anyway), it behaves this way outside of instinctual norms. Animals are then not restricted by instincts at all given moments and may be able to understand some ideas.
What I find interesting is that once an animal infringes on a human's right or property, they suddenly become part of the moral society in limited terms. A pack of wolves that kills and eats a farmer's cow in order to stay alive during winter is suddenly prone to being "punished" by either being trapped or displaced, or by being poisoned by the farmer himself. They become subjected to the human concept of punishment and consequence regardless the animals' inability to understand that what they did was considered "bad" or "stealing" in human society. Is this not then a double-standard where animals can be punished for acting "immorally" as per human standards, but do not have the right to be treated morally or with consideration in general? Though the animal's behaviour was both natural and instinctual, humans refuse to consider this once their own property has been violated in some way. Is that not wrong of us, to hold animals to our moral standards but not include them in our moral community in all circumstances? In our own societies, double-standards are discouraged i.e. the use of the "N" word between black individuals is OK but it is wrong for other ethnicities to address them as such – so why would it be acceptable to propose a double-standard on animals?
In conclusion, it is in my belief that yes, animals may be used to serve human purposes as long as they are treated properly and do not suffer unduly in the process; however, this is based on a combination of a softened version of the Divine Command Theory, Kantian Ethics, and the idea that to behave cruelly to animals is, in itself, an immoral act that is thus ethically unacceptable. I also agree that in some cases, as with an infestation of rats which may cause illness amongst humans, it is morally acceptable to kill animals of any sort, as per Peter Singer's utilitarian hierarchy concept. I do not believe, as per the Buddhist's, that animals lack a soul, or that our intellectual superiority denies moral rights to animals, as per the Animal Inferiority theory. We have an obligation to treat animals with a respect; it is our duty to care for them and to not improperly benefit from their existence. All measures must be taken in order to assure that the welfare of the animals which are used or will be used for human purposes will be taken into consideration as to not cause unneeded suffering. Whether they have a conscious or method of reason is irrelevant; they ultimately feel, and that is the deciding factor in whether or not they deserve to be treated well.

I feel Canada needs harsher punishments for the mistreatment of animals. It's one of the first signs of a serial killer, of someone who has a power complex and who needs to take it out on defenseless beings who are caged or trapped in a confined space (i.e. a room). The government needs to take it more seriously, because although at first it's "just" animals, it can quickly escalate into human victims. Regardless even that, the government should be worrking harder to protect animals in the first place, even if it may not escalate that far.

That doggy pic is so sad.
 

Captain Gizmo

Monkey King
4,843
Posts
11
Years
I find people that harms helpless animals pretty sick. They can either be disturbed people who can't take out their anger on the people harming them, people that enjoys seeing animals getting tortured or the worst case, future serial killers since most of them starts off by killing animals. People that steals from stores can get a bigger sentence than people that abuse animals, which I think is not right.

If I see someone abusing a helpless animal I would probably send them close to their deathbed just because killing those persons would be illegal. I really hate animal cruelty.
 

BraveNewWorld

The Breaker
230
Posts
10
Years
You know there's a problem when animals raised to be eaten live better lives. Why even own an animal if you're not going to take care of it?
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.
 
5
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen May 11, 2013
I hate it, with an utter passion. You know what is also complete BS, BSL Breed Specific Legislation. Meaning if they choose to ban a breed of dog they can. I own an American PitBull Terrier, and when people see me with my dog I'm treated as if I'm a monster....I'm a F$&%ing pokemon nerd....This ties in because a very BRUTAL form of animal abuse has such a light punishment. Dog fighting, I've seen documentaries on it and its....words can't describe it, they would kill the dogs in most brutal forms for loosing or let them bleed out in the pit alone, simply for losing a fight that its "owner" told him to do, the dog wants to please his "owner" and dies a brutal death by the hands of the "owner". The bonds these dogs some how have with these scum of the earth is amazing, I've seen a dog wag his tail and jump around and beg for his "owners" attention before a fight. The dog loses and his hooked up to wires and then shocked to death.I'm sorry but this may come off as extreme but if you're willing to do that to animals you shouldn't be free and I don't want to pay to keep you alive.
 
2,138
Posts
11
Years
My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.

I like where this is going.

I agree with the bulk of this post, but it does raise some valid questions in regards to domesticated category of animal protection. If these animals are purely chattel, what legal basis would prevent me from kicking my dog, given that my dog is restrained from other humans, let's say kept in a basement, so it's change in temperament would not affect other humans. Further, if I starve a dog, it will likely be weak, posing little threat to other humans. If I have a treasured Picasso painting that I own, I am allowed to poke holes in it or burn it as long as it doesn't harm other humans. So, it is a tough distinction to make if we treat domesticated animals and other forms of chattel and I am not sure that sentimentality is enough. As explained, a Picasso painting is more revered than any given animal; am I allowed to burn it, despite the sentimental pain it would cause others? I would hope I would have the right.

So, perhaps, all animals should be treated as publicly-owned resources. The laws by which distinguish which type of resources one can control but not as private property. Therefore, the dog I "own" would actually be the property of the society and its rules, I am merely a designated authority to the animal as any principal is to a public school or police chief is to a state police office, they don't own it, but exercise authority over it. I am responsible for carrying out the duties of protecting it, an article of public property, and therefore, other people do not have authoritative rights over my animal, I do, though, the state has the ability whether to afford or terminate those authoritative rights as deemed necessary. If the state decides that bodily harm or inadequate attention to sustenance is causation for a termination of my authority to supervise the article of public property in addition to legal retribution for breaching my duty to protect public property, then I would obviously be deterred to do so.
 
2,377
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Aug 25, 2015
My belief is that there are two categories under which animals should be afforded protections under the law. The first are wild animals, which should be treated as resources. The second are pets, which should be treated as property. Neither should be abused without justification because the former have some degree of economic or environmental value and the latter have sentimental value. I do believe it is acceptable to harm a wild animal for reasons such as (but not limited to) defense of human life, research, or better quality of life, as these outweigh the justifications for not harming them. However, I believe it is only acceptable to harm a pet to protect human life.

With regards to the animal rights movement, take a look at this. This happened today. This is what many animal rights activists believe: that it is perfectly acceptable to "liberate" animals at whatever cost. This sort of action is outright evil. These types cause significant harm to people and hold back scientific progress (medical progress, no less) out of some misguided sense of justice. The idea that animals deserve the same protections as humans is, at best, flawed and not particularly helpful. However, the way these radicals understand it is outright malignant. Their actions cause real and permanent harm to people everywhere. Those who espouse this belief in this way are either naive and have failed to recognize the consequences of it, in which case they should be made to understand those consequences, or are aware of the consequences, in which case they should be scorned for knowingly advocating or perpetuating human suffering. These so-called "activists" jeopardize scientific progress and human well-being and it is our duty to challenge them and their faulty ideals whenever and wherever they surface.
Sorry but I do not agree with this. I do not view animals as "property" or "resources". They are not just bags of bones, they are living things like we are. I dont agree with them being cast aside as things people own or tools to use. I dont really believe I own my cat. I prefer to think of myself more as a guardian to her, a caretaker and companion. She is not just another thing I own. She's a living creature with a personality, maybe not like a person's but she has one and is unique. I also dont agree with harming them senselessly. Viewing them as property encourages this treatment of them in my opinion. I think that' wrong.
 

Ragetendo

The Angry Italian
23
Posts
10
Years
I find it to be a shame that people see animals as undeserving of respect for their lives, I'm not advocating for some hippie activism. All life should be given the same level of respect.

"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
 

Zeffy

g'day
6,402
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 27
  • Seen Feb 7, 2024
All life should be given the same level of respect.
True yet this also implies that plants (technically, they are alive) should be given the same respect as those to a human and, by extension, those who abuse, and I use the this term loosely, plants should be punished with the same degree of punishment as a human abuser would receive. That's not entirely plausible now, is it? But let's not delve into that as it is a different topic all in itself.

I agree with twocows, for the most part. I don't think that those animal rights activist jeopardize scientific advancement. Delay it, maybe, but not entirely jeopardize. However, it still poses a significant harm. The old proverb, "better late than never," does not help, either. Besides, even if they get what they want, animal abuse would never cease. Throughout the course of human history, what is lost is actually continued; one way or another. Now I'm not saying that there is no way to stop this, I'm sure there is. I think Fennekin's proposal is most promising and it only applies to house pets and farm animals at most, which should be sufficient. People should just leave wild animals alone, period.
 

EGKangaroo

Tail-bumps for all 'roolovers!
398
Posts
12
Years
"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
~Jeremy Bentham

I am staunchly against animal cruelty. People who commit such acts upon animals are repugnant individuals and vile to commit such an act on a living organism that is practically defenceless. It's sickening sadism and abuse of power against the powerless, and people who intentionally commit such acts, for no benefit, can only do so because of their own insecurity and lust for dominance. These kind of people are a menace to not only the animals they hurt, but to anyone in society is defenceless, and must be regarded as such. These people could not possibly be trusted with kids, with elderly, or anyone physically disabled. Willing cruelty towards animals is sickening and a cowardly form of terror on those who cannot fight back.

My stance on animal testing is simple. It's a necessary evil, because we haven't yet developed the means to do these same experiments without the need for living organisms, but we should invest in research to make that ideal reality. I would be inclined to disagree with the typical straw animal rights activist who'd go about his daily life breaking into laboratories to vandalise the place and free all the animals, but for cosmetic testing, I feel that some justice has been done. Medicinal experimentation is acceptable, cosmetic experimentation is unforgiveable, and akin to the thousands of factory farms. In most cases medicinal researchers who experiment on animals take great caution in ensuring the comfort of the animal. It is wrongful to think that the people who have to perform the experiments do so with the same kind of sadism as the abusive man who lets his dog starve. They might actually love the animal, even feel sorry for causing it harm, for they are not, like him, inherently malignant abusers of power.

We must recognise, as a human species that we share this planet with millions of other types of lifeforms, and each hold their own individual interests. We never lived in a world that was made to formfit to our needs and no animal is inherently made to serve our needs. We are a species that evolved through adaptation, in a world that did not adapt to us. And now, at our heighest point, we've come to discover that we -can- make the world adapt to us, and the consequences have been horrifying. Never before did man eat so much meat, more than even is necessary to live a healthy life. More animals than ever are driven out of their homes, and are forced to adapt to us, a species that has no wish to adapt itself. We have ourselves, and a select group of animals we've deemed acceptable to take into our lives, and all other animals are resources, or eye candy for our zoos. Animals close to 10 billion are slaughtered every year in the USA alone. Meat production in the USA is comparable in size to that of the entirity of Africa. It is neither necessary, nor explicitly healthy to consume meat every day and historically, people didn't eat it everyday. We humans are omnivores, and even as a vegetarian I recognise that, and that my full abstention from meat-eating is purely personal, and should stay that way. However, we devour it like carnivores. Our unsustainable consumption has led to the most unbearable conditions in which our animals are kept. Factory farms are the very essence of what is wrong with the contemporary views on animal rights.
 
Back
Top