Poll: Animal abuse vs Human abuse

[CrimsonBlaze]

The way I see it, the courts tend to deal with abuse in this sense:

Victims (from most heinous to least heinous) | Sentencing (minor abuse/constant-mild abuse/abuse that leads to death)

Elderly (65+ years old) | 3-15 years/15 years to Life/Life without parole or Death

Adult (18 - 64 years old) | 3-5 years/5-15 years to life/25 years to Life

Any animal | 3 months to a year/1-3 years/3-15 years

Minor (17- years old) | 3-6 months/6 months to 1.5 years/3-5 years

Again, these are just my own predictions, based on several cases that I've seen/heard over that years. So no matter if your are an adult or an animal, the courts feel that they are more important than the life of a child. Also, you can kill as many animals as you want and it still won't amount to a single human life.

I mean, look at Michael Vick; he forced dogs to kill each other, went to jail, and the NFL still brought him back. One of the few reasons I'm not into football.

 

[knight steel]

snip

Your lucky you didn't see [I assume as other wise the poll result's wouldn't shock you] The do you save a stranger or your pet thread [can't find it,most likely deleted,it turned ugly fast] in which the majority of people said that they would save their pet and let a stranger drown to death instead of doing the opposite.

 

[47_Ronin]

I'd be curious to know why people think one worse then the other. The potential for defense would not really matter in this situation, since the original question is a hypothetical about actual abuse, not really the situation before the abuse.

 

[knight steel]

Both are despicable, but I tend to rank Animal abuse slightly higher, because Humans (Should be) are smart enough to fend for themselves a little better, leave an abusive partner, report a parent ect.

Even against creatures like a bear/giant squid.......one would think they would have the advantage >_<

I have yet to hear of a bear that can stand up to a 20 round drum carrying semi automatic shotgun, and giant squid... psht the Japanese hunt the critters that hunt them, putting us one step up on the food chain from them!

Edit: sure an animal can bite ya, but humans excel in their cruelty, and we can out pace how bad they can bite with how we can bite back

But in all seriousness are you saying that animal abuse is worse because us as humans have guns to defend our selves,because not all people have/know how to use one.

No I am saying animal abuse is worse because animals have no way to report what is being done to them. While the majority of humans do have the ability to report and get help. Animals lack this capability.

The gun example was in response to your saying a bear can defend itself, which it really cant if a human puts their mind to work on the problem.

But.......but.......lassie could go and get help........surly other animals could follow her example and run to the nearest police station [clutching at straws]

 

[knight steel]

Both are despicable, but I tend to rank Animal abuse slightly higher, because Humans (Should be) are smart enough to fend for themselves a little better, leave an abusive partner, report a parent ect.

Even against creatures like a bear/giant squid.......one would think they would have the advantage >_<

snip

But in all seriousness are you saying that animal abuse is worse because us as humans have guns to defend our selves,because not all people have/know how to use one.

snip

But.......but.......lassie could go and get help........surly other animals could follow her example and run to the nearest police station [clutching at straws]

Those animals know the humanocentric police would do nothing for them, their best bet would be to find Bat Cat.

But I think we all know how elusive he is..

Damn useless cops ,your right they have to go to the super hero animals,but bat cat is hard to find,instead they should go to super cat!

 

[PeterMerkin69]

I'd save my pet before I'd save any of you unless the social response would be so extreme as to deprive me of more pleasure than the animal itself would provide, in which case I would be forced to save the person instead. So, let's hope the opportunity presents itself in private.

How would you feel if the situation was reversed and some one let you die in agony because they wanted to save their pet rock?.......just curious no malice in my question.

I suppose I'd feel agony. I'm not sure there'd be much use in, or much time for feeling anything else.

If you found yourself in the position to make this choice, would you choose not to help the stranger knowing that it could turn out to be me or someone like me? Or would you still help them? Would you help them even if you knew they were a hypocrite?

 

[Risingblade]

I'll just drop this here...

"Animals" doesn't only means puppies, kitties, birdies and pandas.

It also means ticks, mosquitoes, locusts, tapeworms, jellyfish and slugs.

Which is why genocide is ok. Death to the mosquito race!

 

[DEAD34345]

I can think of many situations in which I might be driven to hate a person so much that I want to hurt them, as people have the power and (sometimes) the inclination to do extremely horrible things. Animals on the other hand are generally powerless against people, and when they do horrible things it's usually out of a need to survive rather than malice. I think that's why people often have a worse reaction to animal abuse than human abuse, there's just no real excuse for harming something that is completely powerless against you, the same way harming children seems so much worse than harming adults.

 

[knight steel]

I'd save my pet before I'd save any of you unless the social response would be so extreme as to deprive me of more pleasure than the animal itself would provide, in which case I would be forced to save the person instead. So, let's hope the opportunity presents itself in private.

How would you feel if the situation was reversed and some one let you die in agony because they wanted to save their pet rock?.......just curious no malice in my question.

I suppose I'd feel agony. I'm not sure there'd be much use in, or much time for feeling anything else.

If you found yourself in the position to make this choice, would you choose not to help the stranger knowing that it could turn out to be me or someone like me? Or would you still help them? Would you help them even if you knew they were a hypocrite?

No I would let you die GWHAHAHAHA
Joking,I'm joking,relax I'm joking.
Yes of course I would save you if I could save anyone I [hope I} would do the right thing and save anyone regardless of who they are ^_^

 

[verdant monkai]

They are the same.

A dog has as much right to be happy/not punched as a person does.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Animal abuse is worse to me because people are generally shit so I have little to no sympathy for them.

 

[Mr F.]

*Snip*

*SNIP*

It seems kind of backwards for you to claim that it is subjective one moment, then act shocked that anyone would come to that conclusion. You don't have to agree with me but it's clear you don't actually see it as subjective at all. I think the OP just wasn't very specific on the actual question that was being asked. That and it almost seems like he's less interested in discussion and more interested in confirming his own beliefs.

You misinterpreted me. Probably not deliberately.

The opinion is subjective not objective. There is no right answer. Whether or not humans are worth more, or less, then others is open to interpretation.

The fact that people hold the belief that humans are worth less then animals, that abusing a child is not as bad as abusing a dog, shocks me. It scares me. I do not hold that my opinion is the "Right" opinion, just that people who hold an opinion other then my own "Shock" me. This distinction needs to be made. My ethical values and others ethical values differ, neither of us is right.

I am making this distinction because a lot of people simply refuse to accept that their opinion is not "right". Do you understand?

In some places, a thief loses a hand for his/her crime. Within those places, it is held to be right that this is done. I believe this is wrong. Is it objectively wrong? No, there is simply a difference in ethical codes. Does the fact that this is practiced shock me? Yes. It terrifies me. But I am not objectively right because I believe in the British Criminal Justice System, nor are they objectively wrong for believing in Sharia law (I was referring to Saudi). You see the distinction?

I am not right, nor am I wrong, there is no absolute, I am still shocked that people hold the differing opinion though, because that opinion scares me.

snip

Your lucky you didn't see [I assume as other wise the poll result's wouldn't shock you] The do you save a stranger or your pet thread [can't find it,most likely deleted,it turned ugly fast] in which the majority of people said that they would save their pet and let a stranger drown to death instead of doing the opposite.

Oh, I know that is the usual response. Thing is, I hope I understand humanity to some degree.

In abstract most people would say that. As a thought experiment. Come the push, come the moment when you are trying to save someones life, you will do anything. The gears shift in your brain. You stop caring about the little things.

People might love their pets and people might hate most humans. But humans will fight to protect each other. If a man walked into your house with a bound and gagged stranger, pointed a gun at his head and made you choose between your beloved pet and watching a man get executed before your very eyes the vast majority, and I mean the VAST majority, would choose to watch their pet die.

Those that would choose the reverse would be mentally ill. End of.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

Just plain abuse is wrong. In all forms, to all forms.

If you solve the human problem, however, all abuse will cease. If there's one thing I try to emulate, it's to be more like nature. Nature is cruel, but humans are cruel AND perverse.

Excuse me, male cats have a barbed penis so the female can't escape during intercourse and chimpanzee have a tendency of hunting and ripping smaller monkeys apart to enhance the team spirit in their group, talk about abuse. Nature is as freaky, perverse and weird as it can get away.

 

[knight steel]

snip

Your lucky you didn't see [I assume as other wise the poll result's wouldn't shock you] The do you save a stranger or your pet thread [can't find it,most likely deleted,it turned ugly fast] in which the majority of people said that they would save their pet and let a stranger drown to death instead of doing the opposite.

Oh, I know that is the usual response. Thing is, I hope I understand humanity to some degree.

In abstract most people would say that. As a thought experiment. Come the push, come the moment when you are trying to save someones life, you will do anything. The gears shift in your brain. You stop caring about the little things.

People might love their pets and people might hate most humans. But humans will fight to protect each other. If a man walked into your house with a bound and gagged stranger, pointed a gun at his head and made you choose between your beloved pet and watching a man get executed before your very eyes the vast majority, and I mean the VAST majority, would choose to watch their pet die.

Those that would choose the reverse would be mentally ill. End of.

I'm glad to hear that ^_^
Now how to put it to the test.......

 

[KaZuYa]

*Snip*

*SNIP*

It seems kind of backwards for you to claim that it is subjective one moment, then act shocked that anyone would come to that conclusion. You don't have to agree with me but it's clear you don't actually see it as subjective at all. I think the OP just wasn't very specific on the actual question that was being asked. That and it almost seems like he's less interested in discussion and more interested in confirming his own beliefs.

You misinterpreted me. Probably not deliberately.

The opinion is subjective not objective. There is no right answer. Whether or not humans are worth more, or less, then others is open to interpretation.

The fact that people hold the belief that humans are worth less then animals, that abusing a child is not as bad as abusing a dog, shocks me. It scares me. I do not hold that my opinion is the "Right" opinion, just that people who hold an opinion other then my own "Shock" me. This distinction needs to be made. My ethical values and others ethical values differ, neither of us is right.

I am making this distinction because a lot of people simply refuse to accept that their opinion is not "right". Do you understand?

In some places, a thief loses a hand for his/her crime. Within those places, it is held to be right that this is done. I believe this is wrong. Is it objectively wrong? No, there is simply a difference in ethical codes. Does the fact that this is practiced shock me? Yes. It terrifies me. But I am not objectively right because I believe in the British Criminal Justice System, nor are they objectively wrong for believing in Sharia law (I was referring to Saudi). You see the distinction?

I am not right, nor am I wrong, there is no absolute, I am still shocked that people hold the differing opinion though, because that opinion scares me.

snip

Your lucky you didn't see [I assume as other wise the poll result's wouldn't shock you] The do you save a stranger or your pet thread [can't find it,most likely deleted,it turned ugly fast] in which the majority of people said that they would save their pet and let a stranger drown to death instead of doing the opposite.

Oh, I know that is the usual response. Thing is, I hope I understand humanity to some degree.

In abstract most people would say that. As a thought experiment. Come the push, come the moment when you are trying to save someones life, you will do anything. The gears shift in your brain. You stop caring about the little things.

People might love their pets and people might hate most humans. But humans will fight to protect each other. If a man walked into your house with a bound and gagged stranger, pointed a gun at his head and made you choose between your beloved pet and watching a man get executed before your very eyes the vast majority, and I mean the VAST majority, would choose to watch their pet die.

Those that would choose the reverse would be mentally ill. End of.

If you look at what Humans have proved they are capable of then maybe not, Animals work on instinct and everything they do has a logical reason. Humans are the first species on this planet who gained sentient status, we are fully aware of what we do and yet we seem only to excel in insanity. We murder and commit genocide on our species and others, we even fight for the rights to give people the means to do so. There are vastly more human beings in forced servitude today than there ever was during the period we see as the dark days of the slave trade and yet it's ignored. We destroy our environment and hold no interest in the future of our species.

We murder, enslave, impoverish and starve our own people purely for the sake of pointless pieces of metal and paper, so maybe asking the above question is sick rather than answering it because you can't get much worse than being human.

 

[Ingjald]

I'll just drop this here...

"Animals" doesn't only means puppies, kitties, birdies and pandas.

It also means ticks, mosquitoes, locusts, tapeworms, jellyfish and slugs.

Very true, but killing is not the same as abuse or cruelty. I'll squash a mosquito if it tries to suck my blood, but I won't pull its wings off and laugh at it. For instance, hunters are, for the most part, great lovers of animals and nature, and abhor suffering caused to and cruelty directed at animals, as we say on the internet: "with the fury of a thousand suns". However, they recognize that A: game meat is a great natural resource, and B: Hunting is more often than not beneficial to the population of the animal being hunted, especially where predatorial pressure is too low to keep the population healthy.

As for the topic at hand, I'm a bit divided: most animal abusers are abusing their pets or their cattle, both of which means they're striking from a position of power and dependency, not unlike an abusive parent. A cow kept for milk or meat can't just stroll outside and graze if the farmer fails to feed her, and a beaten dog will think it's being punished for doing something wrong, endlessly trying to correct it until it snaps, one way or another.

Abuse from one human to another is abhorrent as well, that's not even a question. But cruelty is a human thing, and a human can recognize cruelty for what it is. An abused child can grow up to recognize it, an abused spouse can get fed up with it and take action (I'm talking get help and/or leave them, not stab them in their sleep). This whole argument has a similar feel to the argument about whether rape or murder is the worse crime.

Overall, I'd say the abuses are roughly equal: a human has, I believe, greater capacity for suffering, but also has more options available to them. An animal has the options of lashing out and be put down, or to bear it and hope another human will discover the abuse and rectify the situation. Personally, I wish animal abusers would be more dedicated to what they do; not just abuse animals close at hand, but go out in the woods and punch a bear! Preferrably a cub. In full view of its mother.

 

[scorptatious]

I guess it depends on the situation. I can see why people would say that human abuse can be worse. I mean if one had to choose between a child getting beat on or a pet being beat on, I wouldn't blame them if they chose to help the kid.

Me personally though, I feel much more uncomfortable seeing an animal being abused than a human. Maybe it's because I have two dogs that lovingly greet me whenever I come home. Maybe it's because I feel like I can connect better to an animal than I can with a human. Maybe I'm just weird.

I don't know. But the point is, I just find animal abuse more uncomfortable to me than human abuse.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I say it depends on the situation.

Is the human Hitler? Is the dog an admitted pillow rapist?

Shades of grey, my friends. Shades of grey.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Animals and small children.
When they get abused, I get angry.
They represent innocence.

Adults, on the other hand, represent innocence lost.
They are aware of what they are doing, they recognize the ramifications of their actions.
I could figure out where somebody lives, then proceed to vandalize their house regularly and beat the shit out of them just because they've done me wrong in the past or I simply don't like them. All while knowing that what I'm doing is horrible.

Are animals capable of this calculated and wicked behavior?
No, they aren't. They operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to.
They don't question whether what they're doing is right or wrong on an ethical level.
They exist in a natural state on a planet where...

Humans are privileged dictators.
We are capable of changing the world for better or worse thanks to what differentiates us from all other life on the planet. There are good people worthy of praise (beneficial to the world), horrible people that bring us down and a large amount of people unimportant in the long run (lest they lead to the production of the good ones).

In the end, I suppose, it's only natural to empathize with the underdog/victim.
Be it a child, adult or animal, one would always feel inclined to side with those that appear to be at a disadvantage.
Abuse in it's entirety is wrong, but I think it's strictly a human practice to begin with due to us being sentient and aware of morality.

That would be my extended, set in stone, view on the matter.
I don't place humans over animals, nor do I the inverse, but I do recognize humanity as more of a threat by looking at our raw potential and the despicable actions that we can commit against the flora and fauna (which includes other humans) of this fine planet. That, and I've had the misfortune to know some particularly horrid people. I cannot say that I've known (or ever will) a horrid animal.

 

[knight steel]

Animals and small children.
When they get abused, I get angry.
They represent innocence.

Adults, on the other hand, represent innocence lost.
They are aware of what they are doing, they recognize the ramifications of their actions.
I could figure out where somebody lives, then proceed to vandalize their house regularly and beat the shit out of them just because they've done me wrong in the past or I simply don't like them. All while knowing that what I'm doing is horrible.

Are animals capable of this calculated and wicked behavior?
No, they aren't. They operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to.
They don't question whether what they're doing is right or wrong on an ethical level.
They exist in a natural state on a planet where...

Humans are privileged dictators.
We are capable of changing the world for better or worse thanks to what differentiates us from all other life on the planet. There are good people worthy of praise (beneficial to the world), horrible people that bring us down and a large amount of people unimportant in the long run (lest they lead to the production of the good ones).

In the end, I suppose, it's only natural to empathize with the underdog/victim.
Be it a child, adult or animal, one would always feel inclined to side with those that appear to be at a disadvantage.
Abuse in it's entirety is wrong, but I think it's strictly a human practice to begin with due to us being sentient and aware of morality.

That would be my extended, set in stone, view on the matter.
I don't place humans over animals, nor do I the inverse, but I do recognize humanity as more of a threat by looking at our raw potential and the despicable actions that we can commit against the flora and fauna (which includes other humans) of this fine planet. That, and I've had the misfortune to know some particularly horrid people. I cannot say that I've known (or ever will) a horrid animal.

One could argue that,their lack of intelligence/the fact that they run on instinct makes their abuse less horrifying as they that makes them less to us and as such there abuse less important also as they can't comprehend whats happening this lessen's the abuse compared to some one who knows what's happening and can understand it as they know the full scope of whats occurring!


One could also argue that humans also operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to, after all we have urges and emotions that come about and we can't choose to have combine that with someone who doesn't have the mental facilities to understand/care about right from wrong and you get crime does that make them more innocent and there abuse more horrible?