Regression of one's humanity - is it applicable in this instance?

I feel that some people go too far when wanting to kill animals, especially driven by a fear inducing hysteria that defies all logic. Here is an example of what I mean.

To me, the issue is not that she wants to kill the animals. That is understandable. What discomforts me though is the person's hypocritical attitude and the method of which she employs. So I have a question to ask you people: is it really necessary to chuck an animal into the bin for it to starve to death when wanting to get rid of it?

People who do this sort of **** to animals are barely human, in my view. What separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is the ability to show empathy, mercy and compassion. We can afford to do this because it is a split second decision, especially in such circumstances above (eg. killing the suffering animal instead of prolonging its agony). So I believe that whenever people fail to exhibit said qualities when the situation arises, then they lose a bit of their humanity. It is a regression of us as a species. Yes, we are the dominant species - but this also means that we have the reponsibility to minimise suffering. To do so otherwise, I believe, is a flaw, and can possibly lead to more serious things.

My word, that blogger is horrible! Now, I'm not a fan of mice and bugs either, but I could never bring myself to let them suffer like that! I would feel awful if I knew I had allowed something to die tortuously like that. Just because she doesn't like the animals doesn't mean she has any right to let them die slowly and miserably. I agree with one of the comments on the blog - I hope she gets what karma has in store for her.

She seems a little bit off her rocker. I for one keep a pellet rifle that takes care of any rats/mice that dare show up in my house. Quicker than a mousetrap and loads more fun.

You're right. There is no logical reason to be exessively cruel to animals. IT serves no greater benefit for anyone or anything.

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?

The "glue trap sandwich" one is excessive. I mean... it is satanic.

The "glue trap sandwich" one is excessive. I mean... it is satanic.

GavinB84

Satanic? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?

my_mortal_coil

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.my_mortal_coil

Bubonic plague? Rofl. Since when is that a problem in the developed world? There are like 10 cases of it a year in the US alone, and from other animal vectors I might add.

Yes, urine and faeces can kill you - if you're silly enough to ingest them AND not seek the proper medical attention for when you get sick. The flu could kill you as well, and it is a common disease which we spread around. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than to die from a rodent-related illness these days. And interestingly enough, leaving a mouse alive on a glue trap will just make it pee and **** more from it - that is a greater health concern. Because if you just leave it there, and attend to the trap - you will be breathing in whatever it has excreted. And it will do so A LOT, out of fear.

Of course, that makes it entirely appropiate to torture something to death!

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.my_mortal_coil

Are you **** kidding me? Really, is this you being serious here?!

Of course she's being cruel. She is starving it to death, allowing it to further rip itself to pieces (yes, leaving them on there to struggle IS cruel).

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?my_mortal_coil

I don't know, but it's a reason why glue traps shouldn't be used. You're SUPPOSED to kill them, otherwise, they just suffer unnecessarily. You've just shown EXACTLY why it's a great case of one's regression of humanity.

Satanic? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

icy06

She places the free glue trap on top of the mouse, it is still alive.

Then chucks it into the bin.

Want me to draw you a diagram?

[QUOTE="my_mortal_coil"]

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.GavinB84

Bubonic plague? Rofl. Since when is that a problem in the developed world? There are like 10 cases of it a year in the US alone, and from other animal vectors I might add.

Yes, urine and faeces can kill you - if you're silly enough to ingest them AND not seek the proper medical attention for when you get sick. The flu could kill you as well, and it is a common disease which we spread around. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than to die from a rodent-related illness these days. And interestingly enough, leaving a mouse alive on a glue trap will just make it pee and **** more from it - that is a greater health concern. Because if you just leave it there, and attend to the trap - you will be breathing in whatever it has excreted. And it will do so A LOT, out of fear.

Of course, that makes it entirely appropiate to torture something to death!

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.my_mortal_coil

Are you **** kidding me? Really, is this you being serious here?!

Of course she's being cruel. She is starving it to death, allowing it to further rip itself to pieces (yes, leaving them on there to struggle IS cruel).

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?my_mortal_coil

I don't know, but it's a reason why glue traps shouldn't be used. You're SUPPOSED to kill them, otherwise, they just suffer unnecessarily. You've just shown EXACTLY why it's a great case of one's regression of humanity.

Well, I didn't know that we were talking just about USA. Don't be so introverted. Diseases that we have cured off or innoculated against still kills millions of people around the world. The fact still remains that mice and rats carry a number of parasites, bacteria and viruses that can devastate humans. They are a pest.

Yes, we all know you're SUPPOSED to kill them, but I like how you deflected my assertion that almost nobody kills the mouse after it's caught on a glue trap. WHY? Well, the glue trap makes it nice and easy for you to use em; set em down, catch mouse, and THROW AWAY. It's disposable for a reason. I guess you could say millions of people are less than humane for using them, but so is the maker for making them. If we didn't have them available we would go with the messy business of a snap-trap.

And when you debate, please don't act so silly, it makes your words useless. Murdering a human DOES NOT equal throwing away a glue trap. People for time immemorial have been killing things out of fear and ignorance. I am not justifying it, but you know it to be true. THIS IS HUMANITY. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE. Get it? How are we regressing? I say we are just being human ...

Well, I didn't know that we were talking just about USA. Don't be so introverted. Diseases that we have cured off or innoculated against still kills millions of people around the world. The fact still remains that mice and rats carry a number of parasites, bacteria and viruses that can devastate humans. They are a pest.my_mortal_coil

Just because animals carry disease does not mean you have to torture them to death. We also carry a lot of diseases that can devastate humans. So do most wild animals. Do you think a stray dog that lives off garbage is any better? Or a raccoon? Foxes carry Weils disease too, carry rabies and a host of other diseases. Yes, mice and rats do carry them - but not all of them do, they are not inherently disease prone animals. The ones that visit your home, you do not know what they are carrying for sure... they are dirty by virtue of their environment. Then again, the risk is the reason why you must get rid of them.

Although that is not the point here. It is about showing respect to your fellow living creature - making it suffer when you can kill it quickly is a LACK of respect. This is not about the necessity of killing, I do not know why people like you seem to bring it up when it is an issue of cruelty pertaining to some of the methods employed.

Yes, we all know you're SUPPOSED to kill them, but I like how you deflected my assertion that almost nobody kills the mouse after it's caught on a glue trap.my_mortal_coil

I didn't deflect it at all. I said "I don't know". And neither do you, you're just pulling those statistics from your anus. But a reasonable person would not let the creature suffer unduly.

WHY? Well, the glue trap makes it nice and easy for you to use em; set em down, catch mouse, and THROW AWAY. It's disposable for a reason.my_mortal_coil

That's just being lazy and inhumane. Why let the animal suffer when it doesn't have to? Catching it and throwing it away is MISUSE and IRRESPONSIBLE. If you're going to kill something, it shouldn't have to drag on, agonisingly. That is common decency. Common sense dictates that you KILL the animal before you "dispose" of the trap. For three major reasons:

1) To cease any suffering. If you chuck a live animal into the bin, this is just abuse. It will either starve to death or die from ripping itself to pieces.

2) To prevent disease transmission. It is stupid to leave an animal living on a trap because it will **** and pee all over it, and as we all know, concentrated amounts WILL be a significant health risk. Moreso than if it is dispersed.

3) To prevent the animal from escaping. Sometimes animals can wriggle free out of glue traps, sometimes chewing their own limbs off so you're left with a rat foot or two. A quick kill will ensure that there's no escape.

Of course, common sense seems to elude you here. Not only are you being a cruel person but you're putting yourself at greater risk.

I guess you could say millions of people are less than humane for using them, but so is the maker for making them. If we didn't have them available we would go with the messy business of a snap-trap.my_mortal_coil

They're both cruel, how is that? But the actual person who inflicts said suffering by misuing the trap is the one to blame. They are buying it in the first place, if there is demand for such things then they will keep selling. It isn't the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure you're doing the right thing, that is the user's responsibility. Yes, the manufactuers are evil because they only care about the money, but the person who is actively using them (or considering to buy them) has a choice here.

You are deluding yourself if you think a snap trap is messier. Usually the animal dies instantaenously, the majority of the time, but on a glue trap, it squeals, skins itself and chews its limbs off. All while ****ting and peeing on the trap because it is so frightened.

And when you debate, please don't act so silly, it makes your words useless. Murdering a human DOES NOT equal throwing away a glue trap. People for time immemorial have been killing things out of fear and ignorance. I am not justifying it, but you know it to be true. THIS IS HUMANITY. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE. Get it? How are we regressing? I say we are just being human ...

my_mortal_coil

Don't you tell me how to debate when you're using a strawman argument. I never equalled a human death with throwing away a glue trap. Your point about it being humanity is invalid - as a species we have the capacity to improve, and we have been. I bet you my bottom dollar this "not change" BS was said hundreds of years ago in regards to slavery. How are we regressing? Read the OP. If we have no show of empathy or mercy in said situations, we are no better than the rest of the animal kingdom, thus, regress.

[QUOTE="icy06"]

Satanic? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

GavinB84

She places the free glue trap on top of the mouse, it is still alive.

Then chucks it into the bin.

Want me to draw you a diagram?

She seems a little bit off her rocker. I for one keep a pellet rifle that takes care of any rats/mice that dare show up in my house. Quicker than a mousetrap and loads more fun.

Penguinchow

this is how serial killers start out

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

She seems a little bit off her rocker. I for one keep a pellet rifle that takes care of any rats/mice that dare show up in my house. Quicker than a mousetrap and loads more fun.

Anarchy4hire82

this is how serial killers start out

[QUOTE="GavinB84"]

[QUOTE="my_mortal_coil"]

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.my_mortal_coil

Bubonic plague? Rofl. Since when is that a problem in the developed world? There are like 10 cases of it a year in the US alone, and from other animal vectors I might add.

Yes, urine and faeces can kill you - if you're silly enough to ingest them AND not seek the proper medical attention for when you get sick. The flu could kill you as well, and it is a common disease which we spread around. You are more likely to get struck by lightning than to die from a rodent-related illness these days. And interestingly enough, leaving a mouse alive on a glue trap will just make it pee and **** more from it - that is a greater health concern. Because if you just leave it there, and attend to the trap - you will be breathing in whatever it has excreted. And it will do so A LOT, out of fear.

Of course, that makes it entirely appropiate to torture something to death!

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.my_mortal_coil

Are you **** kidding me? Really, is this you being serious here?!

Of course she's being cruel. She is starving it to death, allowing it to further rip itself to pieces (yes, leaving them on there to struggle IS cruel).

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?my_mortal_coil

I don't know, but it's a reason why glue traps shouldn't be used. You're SUPPOSED to kill them, otherwise, they just suffer unnecessarily. You've just shown EXACTLY why it's a great case of one's regression of humanity.

Well, I didn't know that we were talking just about USA. Don't be so introverted. Diseases that we have cured off or innoculated against still kills millions of people around the world. The fact still remains that mice and rats carry a number of parasites, bacteria and viruses that can devastate humans. They are a pest.

Yes, we all know you're SUPPOSED to kill them, but I like how you deflected my assertion that almost nobody kills the mouse after it's caught on a glue trap. WHY? Well, the glue trap makes it nice and easy for you to use em; set em down, catch mouse, and THROW AWAY. It's disposable for a reason. I guess you could say millions of people are less than humane for using them, but so is the maker for making them. If we didn't have them available we would go with the messy business of a snap-trap.

And when you debate, please don't act so silly, it makes your words useless. Murdering a human DOES NOT equal throwing away a glue trap. People for time immemorial have been killing things out of fear and ignorance. I am not justifying it, but you know it to be true. THIS IS HUMANITY. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE. Get it? How are we regressing? I say we are just being human ...

Define human...

Humans are seposed to be an advaced species on this planet. We arent seposed to resort to barbaric acts such as torture and killing, we should find better ways of solving the issues.

This is not being human, this is being animal...

I guess phobias are a excuse for not trying to touch her. But this woman has a few screws loose (actualy all of em...)
She names the mice she kills, she actualy seems to enjoy the act of torturing a animal...

And nobody is forcing you to buy a glue trap. You could get a resetable snap trap thing.
But seriusly, cant you just catch the poor things and just set them off somewhere realy far away. I personaly have issues killing a fly (seriusly, i actualy regret killling a fly...)

Neither is saying that bubonic plague kills millions in 3rd world countries. Its true, but is the USA a 3rd world country? No it isnt so bubonic plague isnt a problem. Rats are about as "filthy germ farms" as your pet cat or dog...

[QUOTE="Anarchy4hire82"]

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

She seems a little bit off her rocker. I for one keep a pellet rifle that takes care of any rats/mice that dare show up in my house. Quicker than a mousetrap and loads more fun.

Penguinchow

this is how serial killers start out

you said it's loads more fun to shoot an animal dead with a pellet gun

I'd say your overreacting. It's a mouse. Not a person. Calling it Satanic is a bit over-kill don't you think? Penguinchow

Why am I overreacting? Does it have to be done to a person to say that it is cruel/wrong to do? No, of course not. Mice can still feel pain, all mammals share that trait.

Starving an animal to death is a very cruel, painful and slow process. If you have to option just to kill the animal outright, it should be taken. Otherwise you're just deliberately inflicting suffering. If somebody burned a mouse alive on a trap, would that not be satanic too? Ironically, starvation is worse than that. Being satanic is defined as doing something evil.

If it were done to a dog instead, would that not be satanic too? It doesn't matter what species, really. Dog, cat, rat... human. It's an awful thing to do. Doing it with intent and with no remorse is most definitely satanic, to any species capable of feeling pain.

Or are you just being selective here?

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="Anarchy4hire82"]

this is how serial killers start out

Anarchy4hire82

you said it's loads more fun to shoot an animal dead with a pellet gun

[QUOTE="Anarchy4hire82"]

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"] I dare say that a pellet is a much quicker kill than most accepted methods. So how, oh brilliant one, is that how serial killers start out?Penguinchow

you said it's loads more fun to shoot an animal dead with a pellet gun

More like animal... That what animals do too.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

I'd say your overreacting. It's a mouse. Not a person. Calling it Satanic is a bit over-kill don't you think? GavinB84

Why am I overreacting? Does it have to be done to a person to say that it is cruel/wrong to do? No, of course not. Mice can still feel pain, all mammals share that trait.

Starving an animal to death is a very cruel, painful and slow process. If you have to option just to kill the animal outright, it should be taken. Otherwise you're just deliberately inflicting suffering. If somebody burned a mouse alive on a trap, would that not be satanic too? Ironically, starvation is worse than that. Being satanic is defined as doing something evil.

If it were done to a dog instead, would that not be satanic too? It doesn't matter what species, really. Dog, cat, rat... human. It's an awful thing to do. Doing it with intent and with no remorse is most definitely satanic, to any species capable of feeling pain.

Or are you just being selective here?

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="Anarchy4hire82"]

you said it's loads more fun to shoot an animal dead with a pellet gun

chaplainDMK

More like animal... That what animals do too.

[QUOTE="GavinB84"]

[QUOTE="icy06"]

Satanic? Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?

Penguinchow

She places the free glue trap on top of the mouse, it is still alive.

Then chucks it into the bin.

Want me to draw you a diagram?

I for one kill the mice before they ever make it too the trashcan. I agree that starving it is quite un-necessary. But satanic? That's a strong word. Cruel maybe. Satanic? Most definitely not. Penguinchow

Let's get a dictionary out for you:

sa·tan·ic

adj.

1. Relating to or suggestive of Satan or evil.
2. Profoundly cruel or evil; fiendish.

To starve something to death is definitely profoundly cruel, especially if it is stuck on super glue. Imagine it, all frightened and pulling away for its life, but it cannot. They suffer some nasty injuries on them, so it is really no better than mutilation. If the INTENT to cause so much suffering is there, that makes it even moreso. Mice possess identical nervous systems to dogs, cats, rabbits... and humans. To say that it isn't satanic based on the fact that it's a mouse is the height of absurdity.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="GavinB84"]

She places the free glue trap on top of the mouse, it is still alive.

Then chucks it into the bin.

Want me to draw you a diagram?

Akroan

True. But do a mouse and a human life have the same intrinsic value? Comparing the killing of a mouse with the killing of a human being is ridiculous.

uhh, I don't find catching mice bad at all really.

We both do it. You are entitled to your opinion. But unless you're a vegetarian, humans are meant to hunt. The fact that it's done for us nowadays is non-sequitar, it is basic human instinct.Penguinchow

It may be a basic human instinct to hunt, but deriving enjoyment from the actual killing is optional.

That said, humans were meant to hunt for food - not for the purposes of sport. You are not really "hunting" the mouse for food, you're doing it for a valid reason, sure, but having fun from killing itself is not what I'd call instinctual. Why? Because it serves no evolutionary purpose, and is not required for survival.

True. But do a mouse and a human life have the same intrinsic value? Comparing the killing of a mouse with the killing of a human being is ridiculous.

Penguinchow

From a human POV, yes. But then again, no one is suggesting that the killing of both is equal. It is still satanic either way, the definition of the word does not change whether it is a human or a mouse that is starving to death, stuck on a sheet of glue, in someone's garbage.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

We both do it. You are entitled to your opinion. But unless you're a vegetarian, humans are meant to hunt. The fact that it's done for us nowadays is non-sequitar, it is basic human instinct.GavinB84

It may be a basic human instinct to hunt, but deriving enjoyment from the actual killing is optional.

That said, humans were meant to hunt for food - not for the purposes of sport. You are not really "hunting" the mouse for food, you're doing it for a valid reason, sure, but having fun from killing itself is not what I'd call instinctual. Why? Because it serves no evolutionary purpose, and is not required for survival.

I never said the enjoyment was instinctual, nor that it is inherent in ever member of the human race. Neither is playing video games. But they're fun no? ;)

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

True. But do a mouse and a human life have the same intrinsic value? Comparing the killing of a mouse with the killing of a human being is ridiculous.

GavinB84

From a human POV, yes. But then again, no one is suggesting that the killing of both is equal. It is still satanic either way, the definition of the word does not change whether it is a human or a mouse that is starving to death, stuck on a sheet of glue, in someone's garbage.

I never said the enjoyment was instinctual, nor that it is inherent in ever member of the human race. Neither is playing video games. But they're fun no? ;)

Penguinchow

Video games are of pixelated characters; a fantasy. Not real. I don't think you can compare that with taking something's life for real. I think it is morally wrong to derive pleasure from killing.

By the second definition of Satanic I agree. I was merely questioning the choice of words. To many, myself included, Satanic has far more serious connotations than cruelty. Penguinchow

Such as?

Excessive cruelty would fall under that umbrella regardless.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

I never said the enjoyment was instinctual, nor that it is inherent in ever member of the human race. Neither is playing video games. But they're fun no? ;)

GavinB84

Video games are of pixelated characters; a fantasy. Not real. I don't think you can compare that with taking something's life for real. I think it is morally wrong to derive pleasure from killing.

The pleasure is not in the killing but in the hunt.. Killing is necessary. One must learn to differentiate between murder and killing. Murder is morally wrong. Murder is when you kill without justification. Killing is not morally wrong. Killing is when you kill the mouse that spreads disease in your house or kill the deer for food. Taking unwarranted enjoyment in the actual act of killing is slightly twisted. But the thrill and challenge that comes with the hunt is very enjoyable and in no way morally objectionable.

Ah, fair enough then. I agree with everything you've said there.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

By the second definition of Satanic I agree. I was merely questioning the choice of words. To many, myself included, Satanic has far more serious connotations than cruelty. GavinB84

Such as?

Excessive cruelty would fall under that umbrella regardless.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"] The pleasure is not in the killing but in the hunt.. Killing is necessary. One must learn to differentiate between murder and killing. Murder is morally wrong. Murder is when you kill without justification. Killing is not morally wrong. Killing is when you kill the mouse that spreads disease in your house or kill the deer for food. Taking unwarranted enjoyment in the actual act of killing is slightly twisted. But the thrill and challenge that comes with the hunt is very enjoyable and in no way morally objectionable. GavinB84

Ah, fair enough then. I agree with everything you've said there.

Glad we could talk it out :) . And i respect your opinion, you seem to be very intelligent.

Killing 6,000,000 Jews is Satanic. I just felt that negligent cruelty to a mouse does not deserve a word that strong. Penguinchow

I would say that's worse than satanic. Indescribable? Either way, it does have a wide definition. One could also argue that wiping out the entire human race with a bio weapon is satanic, and anything else below (eg. killing 6 million Jews) deserves a less empathic word. I still think that, based on its definition alone, that ANY act of excessive cruelty applies.

Though it wasn't negligent, but intentional.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

Killing 6,000,000 Jews is Satanic. I just felt that negligent cruelty to a mouse does not deserve a word that strong. GavinB84

I would say that's worse than satanic. Indescribable? Either way, it does have a wide definition. One could also argue that wiping out the entire human race with a bio weapon is satanic, and anything else below (eg. killing 6 million Jews) deserves a less empathic word. I still think that, based on its definition alone, that ANY act of excessive cruelty applies.

Though it wasn't negligent, but intentional.

Guys its a mouse. Really who cares. Since when did animals start become equal to humans?

Frankly I couldn't give two craps whether a mouse is suffering or not. It has no value to me on a functional, emotional or moral level.

Barbaric? Maybe. But don't you think its a bit ironic that the meat in your burgers comes from cows which have suffered for it to be there. I don't see anyone kicking up a fuss about the halal method of slaughter.

Guys its a mouse. Really who cares. Since when did animals start become equal to humans?

Frankly I couldn't give two craps whether a mouse is suffering or not. It has no value to me on a functional, emotional or moral level.

Barbaric? Maybe. But don't you think its a bit ironic that the meat in your burgers comes from cows which have suffered for it to be there. I don't see anyone kicking up a fuss about the halal method of slaughter.

icy06

Heres a good link concerning PETA.

Guys its a mouse. Really who cares. Since when did animals start become equal to humans?icy06

So what?

Just because people have empathy for a mouse, or are disgusted by cruelty torwards one, DOES NOT MEAN they are putting them on an equal footing. It is the most stupid reasoning when it comes to humane treatment of an animal. It is also a strawman for people who don't give a damn.

The "it's just a mouse" excuse is a very thin one. Someone can take it up a notch and say "it's just a cat", "it's just a dog", "it's just a human". Using the animal's insignificance as an excuse to be a cruel jerk is very absurd.

Frankly I couldn't give two craps whether a mouse is suffering or not. It has no value to me on a functional, emotional or moral level.icy06

Is this sort of attitude really any better than a person who goes out of his way to inflict said suffering?

Barbaric? Maybe. But don't you think its a bit ironic that the meat in your burgers comes from cows which have suffered for it to be there. I don't see anyone kicking up a fuss about the halal method of slaughter.

icy06

No. Farm animals are covered by law, they are supposed to be slaughtered humanely. I do not eat halal, but for you to say no one kicks a fuss is wrong.

And there is a big difference humanely slaughtering a cow for food vs intentionally torturing a mouse to death for no reason.

I agree with you in a sense. Call me un-caring but it IS a mouse and I've got more important things to worry about.

Penguinchow

Please do not fall in that trap (pardon the pun). You are more intelligent than that.

Having more important things to worry about does not really change the factual basis that needless cruelty and suffering is not really the right thing to do. Cruelty to a mouse might pale in comparision to other things, but we're not talking about other things. We are talking about the cruelty to the mouse *at the moment*. It's quite simply a strawman people use as an excuse against the humane treatment of animals - they don't really care about it, so cite worse things happening, and they really don't care about that either.

You are not uncaring because you said your piece on the killing of a mouse. You care about the humane treatment of mice, but you have higher priorities. So do I. But it's not really an issue of priorities, firstly because they are irrelevant to the discussion and secondly, having priorities doesn't negate any caring factor as one can care about simultaneous issues. For example, if I had a friend dying in hospital I'd give a damn about that more than anything, but I will still give a damn about cruelty to an animal, even though it is much lower on the caring scale.

uhh, I don't find catching mice bad at all really.

dackchaar

Not the catching itself, rather the method of disposal.

No. Farm animals are covered by law, they are supposed to be slaughtered humanely. I do not eat halal, but for you to say no one kicks a fuss is wrong.

And there is a big difference humanely slaughtering a cow for food vs intentionally torturing a mouse to death for no reason.

GavinB84

That depends on your definition of 'humane' I suppose doesn't it? It still suffers when it is killed. You say that you are not putting animals on an equal footing yet you want to treat them HUMANely.

Do you think a mouse would care if it saw a human suffering? Does a lion or a bear care about your suffering when it is mauling you to death?

Let me ask you. Why do you think animals have the right to be treated in a humane way?

No, it is not applicable. This person sounds like she (was it a girl? I forget.) has a phobia. There is a real health concern with mice and rats. Their urine and feces CAN kill you and they can carried bubonic plague and parasitic worms in their gut and their fleas guts.

She is not being cruel by throwing away a glue trap with a mouse, she is being squimish ... the MAKER of the glue trap is the cruel one.

How many people do you thing actually kill the mouse on the glue trap after it's caught? 10 -15% MAYBE?

my_mortal_coil

Then since these creatures are preyed upon by something else that can make you sick that makes it right to go over board?

This article isn't presented in the most professional way but they do post links to the CDC and actual credible sources....

http://www.cracked.com/article_17481_5-most-hated-creatures-on-planet-dont-deserve-it.html

That depends on your definition of 'humane' I suppose doesn't it? It still suffers when it is killed. You say that you are not putting animals on an equal footing yet you want to treat them HUMANely.icy06

When you kill something instantly, there is no pain.

*facepalm*

If you want to reason with me, you'd better bloody UNDERSTAND the words said to you. The word "humane" has nothing to do with the fact that it has "human" in it. Here is what humane means:

hu·mane

adj.

1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge.
2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns: a humane education.

Perhaps you can explain to me how showing compassion or mercy to an animal that is suffering is putting it on the same level as human beings? Do you realise how completely STUPID that sounds? FFS, if you had a human in that position - you'd call emergencey services and try to save their lives. A mouse? You just put it out of its misery, because it would be beyond saving.

Do you think a mouse would care if it saw a human suffering? Does a lion or a bear care about your suffering when it is mauling you to death?icy06

Oh good grief. Are you really this completely dense?

Are you a mouse? A lion? A bear?

Or are you a human being?

Animals have no concept of morality. They do no not comprehend what "torture" means, they do not understand how undue suffering is a bad thing when inflicting it upon other species, firstly because they don't have the intent to do so. A bear will see you as either a food item or a threat, how you feel when it mauls you does not concern it because it does not know any better. A mouse wouldn't even comprehend whether a human is suffering or not because it lacks the intelligence too.

However, humans DO know better and they DO understand that something they are hurting is, indeed suffering. That you would use the cruelty of nature as a moral standard for yourself is quite pathetic. Very shallow indeed.

Let me ask you. Why do you think animals have the right to be treated in a humane way?icy06

Because animals fall under our sphere of influence, therefore we have the responsibility to be humane to them. Humans should strive to minimise suffering where possible. We are the dominant species - animals do not deserve to be tortured to death just because some people are either lazy, or are just plain cruel bastards to begin with. What has any animal done to deserve it? They are innocent. Just eking out a living, doing what they do - there's no ill intent. Because they do not understand the concept of malice, whereas we do.

If you think animals do *not* deserve to be treated humanely just because they are "lower" than us, then you are no better than them.

My 2 Cents. I could not allow a Mouse or any animal to suffer in a trap.

Personally i would get a more effective and immediate way of dealing with the problem.

Well said GavinB84

Oh and icy06, you are getting off lightly here mate. Your argument is so completely stupid that I was going to viciously rip into you, but I would probably be banned for that, so I will refrain myself.

What you are basically telling me is that we should have free reign to make other animals suffer because they do not care if they make us suffer. Well in that case, you're no better than those animals. You are putting a human train of thought and applying it to animals, you are assuming that they can rationalise, philosophise about the ethics of suffering.

Well, they can't. Because they simply do not have the cognitive functions to do so. They are not intelligent enough.

But I suppose, if you want to be like them, I guess said cognitive functions and intelligence are clearly lacking with your line of thought.

..

GavinB84

Yes, I am fully aware of the definition of humane.

Killed instantly? Not quite, they are stunned first, then have their throats cut. If its halal the stunning is simply left out of the equation. But, I'm just being pedantic now aren't I? Also, birds aren't covered under the law in the US. So, its ok for some animals to be treated humanely (whatever your definition of that might be), but not others?

Your basic argument is this 'making animals suffer is bad because humans know better and I think its wrong'. What is the darwinian benefit of showing compassion to other species or treating them humanely, especially if we are at the top of the food chain?

Anyway, I'm just playing devils advocate here. I do not support or condone animal cruelty in any way (in fact I like animals, I have 2 dogs and a rabbit). I guess I am just questioning the philosophical / moral logic behind the view that cruelty to animals is wrong.

Edit: Oh and personally I would have just killed the mouse before disposing of it, or used a trap that kills the mouse there and then.