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

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...

chaplainDMK

I once had a mouse. Had a genetic issue or was a injury, but one eye was pure solid white. Very easy to notice. I caught it, took it about 200 yards from the house into the field, and set it loose. It came back. I caught it once again, and once again,

I took it out even further and almost to the barn. Once again, it came back. Third time i caught it, and mind you it was with the glur trap everytime "you can get the feet off the glue if your careful not to break the feet".

Third time, I picked up the trap, walked out my door to the 8 or so field cats all meowing, and threw it out glue trap and all. Even we humans have the three strikes your out.

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

Your logic about the makers of glue traps being guilty is stupid: if I shoot someone, then it's the company who made the guns' fault?

Mouse traps are fine... they kill the mouse instantly, so the squeamish don't have to kill it themselves. Glue traps, and othe similar traps, are not acceptable and exhibit animal cruelty.

[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?

Yes, I am fully aware of the definition of humane.icy06

Apprently not. You seem to have thought it only applied to humans.

Killed instantly? Not quite, they are stunned first, then have their throats cut.icy06

They are stunned first for a reason...

If its halal the stunning is simply left out of the equation.icy06

I do not eat halal, but their tradition states also to minimise suffering. The slitting of the throat causes massive blood loss, you weaken and then you fall into a sleep that you do not come out of. The only sensation is the actual cut, but then again, I don't find it as humane as stunning but I do not eat halal meat so your point is moot.

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?icy06

So are you telling me that you can get a bird from the pet store, and mutilate it in front of the staff, and you can't get in trouble for it? I call BS on that. If what you're saying is true, then it says a lot about your laws.

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?icy06

There is no special evolutionary benefit, other than that you have the quality of empathy in the first place - that alone does have benefit because without it, we would still be back in the stone ages. To turn that point around on you, there is no evolutionary benefit to torture things and make them suffer either. There is also no "darwinian benefit" to preserving the life of the old, or the terminally ill, etc. Your survival of the fittest crap would also imply that you accept the extermination of "genetically inferior" people, like people with Down's Syndrome, who are no more "intelligent" or "useful" than some animals "lower on the food chain" than us.

But of course, we know better.

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.icy06

Uh huh, suuuree you are. After you said you didn't give a damn that someone would torture a mouse to death. Don't forget that you are an animal too. So are your friends and family. If someone was being cruel to them or to you, you'd be singing a different tune. But I guess it doesn't matter if "lower" animals are being mistreated just because it is not you or someone you know, and that, is the height of selfishness. One aspect of our society that creates more problems that it solves. If you are telling the truth, then you would not question the moral logic that cruelty to animals is wrong. Do not kid yourself, it is. But in some instances, it is necessary for survival so it is the lesser of two evils. But that does not mean we should not minimise said cruelty, because in those cases, that is the best we can do!

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.

icy06

Are you repenting here? Because I thought you said you didn't give a damn whether the mouse suffers or not. Now from this, it seems that you do. So you were either lying from the onset or have backpeddled faster than Charlie Chaplin on a monocycle.

If you throw it in the trash it will die by being crushed. Being in something as big as two glue traps, it's not likely to make it through the garbage truck ride in one piece.guynamedbilly

Rubbish (no pun intended).

If it is thrown in the rubbish bin, it will just sit there until it naturally expires. If it gets crushed, it will be lucky. The object(s) has to be heavy enough, and you have to take into account the time it will take from putting it in there to the next bin trip. It may as well take a few trips to have enough force, glue boards are quite sturdy. That might be several hours, a day, a few days. It's too long and for someone to concieve that barely deserve the status of human.

A person who throws the animal into the bin, alive, crushing doesn't come into consideration. They just leave it there to suffer and don't give it a second thought. If you want to crush it, then do it as soon as you catch it so it doesn't suffer.

It appears to me that a couple of people on this thread have regressed already. Well done guys, you're doing humanity proud.

So are you telling me that you can get a bird from the pet store, and mutilate it in front of the staff, and you can't get in trouble for it? I call BS on that. If what you're saying is true, then it says a lot about your laws. GavinB84

No, birds aren't covered under the Humane Slaughter Act in the USA (I don't live in the USA, although I'm sure other countries have similar laws). Meaning that preferance is given to certain animals over others, how do you decide the criteria for this?

There is no special evolutionary benefit, other than that you have the quality of empathy in the first place - that alone does have benefit because without it, we would still be back in the stone ages. To turn that point around on you, there is no evolutionary benefit to torture things and make them suffer either. There is also no "darwinian benefit" to preserving the life of the old, or the terminally ill, etc. Your survival of the fittest crap would also imply that you accept the extermination of "genetically inferior" people, like people with Down's Syndrome, who are no more "intelligent" or "useful" than some animals "lower on the food chain" than us.GavinB84

Without empathy we would be back in the stone age? What does empathy have to do with anything at all? No, there is no benefit in making them suffer, but there is a benefit in killing them eg, food, materials, etc.

We as humans function as a whole, because we understand that it is better to our survival this way, its better than functioning alone. This is why the strong help the weak. When the strong themselves become weak, the next generation is there to look after them. So no, it does not mean killing old people or terminally ill at all. As for the whole extermination of genetically inferior people thing. So you are saying that because I take a darwanistic view of nature I support the murder of genetically inferior people? Wow, just wow. Evolution keeps the strongest genes with most benefit to the species and discards the weaker ones. This all happens every time we reproduce. No extermination needed I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.

Are you repenting here? Because I thought you said you didn't give a damn whether the mouse suffers or not. Now from this, it seems that you do. So you were either lying from the onset or have backpeddled faster than Charlie Chaplin on a monocycle.

GavinB84

No. I do not care about the mouse, no. Its a pest, people deal with it by setting traps. There is a difference between dealing with pests and harming random animals just because you feel like it. So do I have a problem with people killing mice because they are pests? No. Do I have a problem with people with people harming animals just for kicks (ie dog fighting)? Definitely.

I'm sure rodents everywere will be thanking you for embarking on your crusade to allowing them to die humanely. Who knows you may even be revered as a hero amongst the rodent world by now!

Anyhow, I think you need to get down from your high horse and stop shovelling your personal morality down other peoples throats.

No, birds aren't covered under the Humane Slaughter Act in the USA (I don't live in the USA).icy06

But there certainly would be several other smallers laws that would be relevant. If someone tortured a bird in a pet store, then they would be arrested.

Without empathy we would be back in the stone age? What does empathy have to do with anything at all? No, there is no benefit in making them suffer, but there is a benefit in killing them eg, food, materials, etc.icy06

It has to do with a lot of things. For one, helping out society - we would not have hospitals without empathy. Or medications. We would not have computers, comfortable living areas, phones, TVs - because no one gives a damn to improve other people's lives. If you want to improve the life of others, there has to be a sense of compassion otherwise there is no motivation. You could say money, but the idea in the first place comes from helping others.

This is also not really about killing, so your point is moot.

We as humans function as a whole, because we understand that it is better to our survival this way, its better than functioning alone. This is why the strong help the weak.icy06

The strong help the weak out of their own hearts. That is compassion. If it were entirely survival of the fittest, then they would only be concerned about themselves and let the weak fend for themselves. The strong would be together, unaccepting of the weak becasue it will weaken them. There really is no "evolutionary" benefit for things such as helping the mentally retarded, or anything that comforts people who are about to die.

But we do it because it is the right thing to do, and this, in the end, is what makes as better than non-human species. Arguably, this is what makes us human in the first place.

So no, it does not mean killing old people or terminally ill at all.icy06

Sure it does. There is no "darwinian benefit" to help the terminally ill, according to your logic.

As for the whole extermination of genetically inferior people thing. So you are saying that because I take a darwanistic view of nature I support the murder of genetically inferior people? Wow, just wow.icy06

No, I am suggesting your logic dictates that. But considering you said you were playing the devil's advocate, then you would have realised that did not imply anything. Opps, you weren't, were you?

If you apply this darwanistic logic of nature to humanity, you are saying that we should eat our own young too, and not help those who cannot contribute to make us stronger because they are incapacitated. You can't pick and choose what suits your argument, you have to take the whole approach, or not at all. All you are showing me is that your argument is flimsy, inconsistent and illogical.

Evolution keeps the strongest genes with most benefit to the species and discards the weaker ones. This all happens every time we reproduce. No extermination needed I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.icy06

Discarding the weaker ones would be exactly that. Not helping them out, leaving them to their own devices. Do you even understand anything about genetics? There WILL be mutations, and disorderly genes passed down from generation to generation. What happens if you reproduce a baby with Down's Syndrome? By your logic, you should not give that child a fruitful life, let alone a life, because he/she is not "fit" because he/she does not "strengthen" humanity.

No. I do not care about the mouse, no. Its a pest, people deal with it by setting traps. There is a difference between dealing with pests and harming random animals just because you feel like it. So do I have a problem with people killing mice because they are pests? No. Do I have a problem with people with people harming animals just for kicks (ie dog fighting)? Definitely.icy06

What difference?

It's the same thing. Someone torturing a mouse to death via starvation, is no different than dog fighting. They're both acts of cruelty, they're both unnecessary, both require ill intent. The only difference is that it's another animal. The act and intention is what's most important here. You are using the guise of pest control to justify an action that is essentially the same. Pest control via reasonable means like a snap trap or dispatching the critter humanely after it's caught is not what's in question here. It is, rather, the method of disposal and intent.

If you did not care about the mouse then you would have no reason to kill it quickly, or kill it before you throw it away. You'd have no reason to say that you do not condone the cruel treatment of animals. Killing a pest and harming random animals just for kicks is not mutually exclusive, because one could be doing the latter and using the former to justify it!

Again, you are completely missing the point. This is NOT about the killing of animals, this is more about the methods and intentions/attitudes behind it.

Anyhow, I think you need to get down from your high horse and stop shovelling your personal morality down other peoples throats.

icy06

Other people? Mainly you? From the amount of bollocks you've said in this thread, perhaps you needed some shovelling. It's better than shovelling manure, how's that going by the way?

I would most definitely say that I am a morally more sound human than someone who abuses animals by starving them to death, pest or not (like it really matters). If they can't sympathise with an animal suffering in front of them, what makes you think they'd give a **** about human problems apart from themselves (especially when it's out of sight, out of mind)? These sort of people are human excrement, and so are those who support/condone their actions.

I'm sure rodents everywere will be thanking you for embarking on your crusade to allowing them to die humanely. Who knows you may even be revered as a hero amongst the rodent world by now!

It seems like you've got something against allowing them to die humanely. I do not really understand why people like you are OPPOSED to the humane treatment of animals, and that includes killing them humanely when necessary. You're mocking said issue, yet you state that you do not condone the cruel treatment of animals. That makes completely no sense.

It appears to me that a couple of people on this thread have regressed already. Well done guys, you're doing humanity proud.

GavinB84

You should think about changing the subject of your original post. Maybe something like, "Regression of one's humanity - Let me show how you are wrong and I'm more humane than you." There is no discussion here so the question wasn't necessary.guynamedbilly

Perhaps if such stupid arguments weren't written out, things would be different in your view?

The question of other animal species not caring if we suffer as an excuse to inflict it upon them just takes the cake. Oh, and the idea that showing compassion to a mouse means that you are putting it on equal status as a human. Now come on!

It has to do with a lot of things. For one, helping out society - we would not have hospitals without empathy. Or medications. We would not have computers, comfortable living areas, phones, TVs - because no one gives a damn to improve other people's lives. If you want to improve the life of others, there has to be a sense of compassion otherwise there is no motivation. GavinB84

[QUOTE="icy06"]We as humans function as a whole, because we understand that it is better to our survival this way, its better than functioning alone. This is why the strong help the weak.GavinB84

The strong help the weak out of their own hearts. That is compassion. If it were entirely survival of the fittest, then they would only be concerned about themselves and let the weak fend for themselves. The strong would be together, unaccepting of the weak becasue it will weaken them. There really is no "evolutionary" benefit for things such as helping the mentally retarded, or anything that comforts people who are about to die.

But we do it because it is the right thing to do, and this, in the end, is what makes as better than non-human species. Arguably, this is what makes us human in the first place.

Yes, we have empathy, but only because it was evolutionary beneficial to have this emotion. Ironically you think that humans are superior to other species due to the fact humans have empathy.

"However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them."" -Wikipedia

[QUOTE="icy06"]So no, it does not mean killing old people or terminally ill at all.GavinB84

Sure it does. There is no "darwinian benefit" to help the terminally ill, according to your logic.

[QUOTE="icy06"]As for the whole extermination of genetically inferior people thing. So you are saying that because I take a darwanistic view of nature I support the murder of genetically inferior people? Wow, just wow.GavinB84

No, I am suggesting your logic dictates that. But considering you said you were playing the devil's advocate, then you would have realised that did not imply anything. Opps, you weren't, were you?

If you apply this darwanistic logic of nature to humanity, you are saying that we should eat our own young tooGavinB84

Am I? Nope, don't think so. Also... LOL.

and not help those who cannot contribute to make us stronger because they are incapacitated. You can't pick and choose what suits your argument, you have to take the whole approach, or not at all. All you are showing me is that your argument is flimsy, inconsistent and illogical.GavinB84

[QUOTE="icy06"]Evolution keeps the strongest genes with most benefit to the species and discards the weaker ones. This all happens every time we reproduce. No extermination needed I'm sure you'll be glad to hear.GavinB84

Discarding the weaker ones would be exactly that. Not helping them out, leaving them to their own devices. Do you even understand anything about genetics? There WILL be mutations, and disorderly genes passed down from generation to generation. What happens if you reproduce a baby with Down's Syndrome? By your logic, you should not give that child a fruitful life, let alone a life, because he/she is not "fit" because he/she does not "strengthen" humanity.

You have just one small, itsy, bitsy detail wrong. Humans do not actively go around, trying to remove 'bad genes', by not helping people with genetic disorders. It is nature that removes the bad genes through a magical process known as natural selection. Repeat after me, NATURE, ok?

Anyway, this has all strayed from the original point, just thought I would point out these inaccuracies.

Yes, we have empathy, but only because it was evolutionary beneficial to have this emotion. Ironically you think that humans are superior to other species due to the fact humans have empathy.

icy06

So in the end, I was actually correct. Having empathy has its uses. We have gone beyond our natural instincts... perhaps you should understand that humans have the ability to do good and potentially improve things. This comes from empathy. To improve our lives, and our species as a whole is exactly what makes us better than a mere house cat, for example.

And yes, it most certianly does, thanks to our intelligence - and that is what makes us superior to the rest in the first place.

Am I? Nope, don't think so. Also... LOL.icy06

You most certainly are. There is no "evolutionary benefit" to help the terminally ill or the mentally retarded. So if you believe in this approach then you believe in that too.

When you are helping someone in need, you're not doing it because you think it is evolutionary correct, you're doing it because you feel sympathy and feel is it right to do so.

You have just one small, itsy, bitsy detail wrong. Humans do not actively go around, trying to remove 'bad genes', by not helping people with genetic disorders. It is nature that removes the bad genes through a magical process known as natural selection. Repeat after me, NATURE, ok?icy06

You are completely tangling yourself in BS.

In the wild, animals will separate the extremely weak from their pack because it is holding them back. A lot of the time they will leave the injured behind. This is one great example of "natural selection" that you are purposely omitting because it does not suit your argument. They will eat their young if they are not fit enough. The only reason humans do not do this is because we have the intelligence to know better, we are more civilised. That humans don't actually do it is not relevant - because humans do not use your approach in the first place. Removing bad genes through natural selction takes many, many generations - it is not a fast process. And natural selection is a combination of things. Death from disease, leaving the stronger ones behind is one instance. So is using resources to protect oneself or the fittest rather than the weak, who will perish.

You are acting as if we should base our decisions entirely on "darwinian benefit", which is a complete load of rubbish because it is not practical. It is certainly immoral. Don't be condescending to me about genetics when it is obvious that I seem to have a stronger grasp of it than you. Either that, or you are actually ignoring the full meaning of "darwinian benefit", and only using certain aspects of it to suit your argument.

Anyway, this has all strayed from the original point, just thought I would point out these inaccuracies.

icy06

Not inaccurate at all. You are using "darwinian benefit" as a reason not to show empathy for other species because it does not help us on a evolutionary scale. Well, neither does helping someone terminally ill. That is where your logic falls on your arse. If you're going to apply this absurd reasoning, then you are applying it to humans who do not benefit society simply because they are suffering from an aliment that would, in the wild, have their group leave them for dead.

When you reach old age, I hope for you sake someone will take care of you when you get ill or when you can't even take care of yourself. Because, after all, "darwinain benefit" would imply that helping an old animal that has not long to live has no evolutionary benefit.

What is incredibly funny though, is that our species is not even heavily reliant on natural selection. Not compared to something like a mouse for example. It is not even remotely moral to base our ethical choices on what "would" happen to individual people if we were a non-sentient species.

Look at our technology and skills for example, there really is no "survival of the fittest" for us anymore. Get cold? We put a coat on. No need for us to adapt over thousands of years, so... *gives the finger to nature*. Also note, that natural selection also means that positive, negative and neutral traits have equal chances of getting passed on. So much for your flushing of bad genes... if you knew anything about genetics you would understand that "bad" traits get passed down too, unless something extraordinary happens to wipe out such "bad" traits.

[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?

It is a living being that feels pain and fear.

If you're going to kill it, then by all means kill it. But HOW do you justify intentionally extending its suffering just because "it isn't a person"?

Does it feel pain and fear? Yes? Well then, that's all the reason you need.

I wonder if the problem here is largely that people do not kill enough. And in the process, people seem to lose a lot of sense of the REPERCUSSIONS of killing. I mean, a lot of the cruelest hypocrites I've known have turned their nose down on hunters and butchers for killing cute animals, while at the exact same time buy chicken nuggets and hamburger meat that very well may have come from an animal that lived in inhumane conditions. We have people who will think that you're a monster if you throw a mouse into a ziplock bag and then crush it with a brick, but those same people will see a LIVE mouse stuck to a glue trap, throw away a STILL-LIVING animal to to slowly and horribly, and then act like they are civilised because of it.

I don't know...maybe people just need to kill more. To become more PERSONALLY intimate with Death. Because I think a lot of the problem here isn't the death itself, but people thinking of LIFE as either a mere Product or as a mere Nuisance. As Gavin said, a lot of people seem to have lost a certain RESPECT for life. Regardless of whether or not they are willing to snuff that life out. And I think that loss of respect has a LOT to do with people just not being as ACTIVELY involved in the process of death.

It's like, I've never gotten into the hunting thing, but I've known several hunters. They all shot the hell out of deer, but for them, killing a deer was sort of a big thing. It's a weird thing looking into a beautiful wild animal's eyes, and then killing the hell out of it. I know people who raise their own poultry for food. I'm talking about quails, chickens, geese, ducks. They kill the hell out of their animals, and a lot of them say that they feel bad about it every single time. Thousands of animals they've killed, butchered, and then eaten. Often they've been with these animals since the moment of birth, and can point out the freaking PERSONALITIES of each animal. They still kill them though. They then rip the guts out of something that they may have once loved, and then eat that beast for dinner.

Look, I have no problem with killing. No inherent problem with killing, anyway. But I think that one of the problems with animal suffering today has to do with the fact that it's so much easier to eliminate the GUILT. You know, that bad little feeling when you kill an animal. That feeling where even though you feel that you're justified in killing it, killing it still makes you feel SAD.

Killing today often tries to ELIMINATE that guilt. Which I think is actually a BAD thing. Glue traps (ESPECIALLY the covered ones that prevent you from having to look at a dead animal) are largely there to distance people from that guilt. The chickens and cows that we buy are often pre-cut so that when we eat them they often don't even look like they came from an actual animal. People say "why care about a mouse, it's not like it's a person?" But they'd care about a DOG. And most people I know would rather walk by an injured and dying rat that appears to be suffering from poison ingestion, than to just pick up a big rock and drop it on the animal's head.

Killing today allows us to kill while still allowing us the illusion of saying "hey, lay off my back, man. I didn't ACTUALLY kill it." And glue traps are a prime example of this, where you can drop a live and suffering animal into the garbage and say, "I didn't kill it, it was alive when I last saw it."

But it's a load of crap, I think. For example, I think that EVERYONE who eats processed chicken nuggets should be required to own one chicken. To raise one chicken from a freaking egg, up until it is a lively and lovable adult chicken. And to then grab that chicken, kill it while listening to it beg for mercy, and then to rip its guts out and fry that sucker's wings. Yeah, you'll feel bad. You'll feel bad if you're not a likely sociopath. You're SUPPOSED to feel bad when you see animals acting in fear and pain. That kind of thing is global, and transcends species. This is the same reason why people say "aww" anytime they see just about ANY baby mammal. Certain traits transcend species. Big heads in relation to body size indicate "cute", and "innocent", and therefore people express the same emotions when they see a rat baby or a squirrel baby as when they see a HUMAN baby.

But then that rat or squirrel grows up, and suddenly they stop giving a flying **** whether or not it suffers.

A lot of things are like this. Take screams or hisses. If any animal screams at you, you can bet your ass that it probably means much the same thing as if another human screamed at you.

If an animal hisses at you, you know EXACTLY what that means, regardless of which animal is doing it.

"Rats aren't Peaple?" Yeah...so? That's somehow supposed to mean anything when we unnecessarily make an animal suffer just to spare ourselves some guilt? If your pet CAT was living in pain, would you watch it suffer every day and say to yourself, "meh, it's a cat, not a person"? Or would you take it to the vet and have it put down? That is to say, would you freaking KILL IT because it needs to die rather than suffer in agonizing pain over something that's going to kill it anyway?

Any rational person would kill the cat. Because it's SUFFERING transcends its own species, and we are AWARE OF THAT. We see it suffer, we know that it is going to die anyway. So damnit, take the damn thing to get a lethal injection so that it doesn't suffer any more.

The EXACT same thing applies with anything else. Yeah, you'll feel BAD if you kill your cat. This is GOOD. This shows that you are still able to feel sympathy, and that you are not a total sociopath. But it's BETTER than the alternative, which is to let your cat die anyway, but in slow and agonizing pain.

But the "it's not a person, it's a rat" argument doesn't fly. Your cat or dog aint a person either. How would you feel watching your cat or dog suffer unnecesarily? Animals aren't "products", they are living thinking beings that feel pain and fear. If you've got to kill them, then ****ing get it over with and then DEAL with the guilt. Do not let an animal suffer more in order to obsolve ourselves from the guilt, despite the fact that letting the animal die slowly and more indirectly has actually made it suffer MORE, which is actually something that we SHOULD feel even MORE guilty about.

Great post.

Hopefully it is not lost on people.

As a species, we have a long way to go yet - but, I am telling myself that we are improving. Three hundred years ago slavery was seen as commonplace, and as far as animals went, they were seen as objects. I'd like to think that in 100 years time we will have no need for things like glue traps, a lot of it though has to do with growing up. Kids will not have all the prejudice and bias an adult displays, so they will share a natural link with animals. If you grow up to respect animals and humans alike, you will do a lot better in life.