-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Puppy drowning girl Walks.
- Thread starter Ninahaza
- Start date
humans get imprisoned when they drown another human. humans are animals.
have a nice day.
edit: i let my stupid emotions get in the way when i posted this. did you mean to call that girl an animal? if so, disregard my response.
This. They. Are. Fucking. Dogs. Why would you ever put any need of any animal over a human?
You can throw all the emotive bullshit at me all you want - it should not be against the law to harm animals, period. Especially since animal cruelty laws are wildly inconsistent (i.e. they only protect animals which humans like, not ones that humans dislike such as insects of amphibians).
If we start from the principle that laws should protect humans and cater to their welfare and well-being, it is natural to extend this protection, precisely, to beings which humans like. If eating dogs horrify human beings in some cultural setting, whereas eating cattle leaves them unfazed, then by all means, the former should be illegal, and the latter legal.
Which animals humans care about, which ones they don't care about, or what humans can or cannot empathize with, all of that is mostly inconsistent. Insofar that laws are meant to cater to humans, it is to be expected that they mirror that inconsistency.
If you want the law not to protect animals, the first step is to re-engineer society in such a way that people at large do not care about them, and the laws will follow.
lmitchell0012
Wi-Fi Blacklisted
Everything about this is SO FUCKED UP!!! And I can't believe some people are saying "it's just a dog".
...but what about beings that a given majority of humans don't like? Like, say, Jews in the Großdeutsche Reich? Yes, fuck Godwin's Law, I went there, because if the validity of a law is ultimately dependent on the cultural setting of the people living there, then genocide of x ethnic group is okay as long as the cultural setting says genocide is okay.
There's nothing actually wrong with that argument. The broader cultural setting says genocide of ethnic groups isn't okay. That's how international governance works.
Sorry Mr. Indigo, but I don't like that last point you made. After all, that would indicate that whatever the "broader cultural setting" of international opinion says is right would be right. That's something I'm not really happy to agree with. After all, that same "broader cultural setting" might criminalize Filipinos for eating dog or Japanese for eating dolphins. Would that be right?
Culture is something I think is very important to consider-- at some times, it's best for different cultures to agree to disagree. Other times (like the Nazis), you have to ignore that "forgiveness for different culture." It's hard to draw a line.
Culture is something I think is very important to consider-- at some times, it's best for different cultures to agree to disagree. Other times (like the Nazis), you have to ignore that "forgiveness for different culture." It's hard to draw a line.
Well, currently the world considers it wrong for the Japanese to continue their whaling of endangered species in non-Japanese waters, then lying about it and saying it's for scientific research... so yeah.
Basically, I'm a cultural relativist and a positivist, but in a world as internationally connected as today, it's important to be aware that just because a small localised community believes something, doesn't mean that it will go ignored by the rest of the world.
Criticising people for cultural beliefs is something that I am perfectly happy to have happen. As for actual criminalisation, that's a matter of enforcement. If the rest of the world unites and makes it economically or otherwise unsavoury for Filipino or Vietnamese to eat dogs, then I'm cool with that too. That's the basis that law works on.
As a neuroscientist, I take issue with this reasoning.
Insects don't really have brains per se; each of the insect's segments has its own nerve center, called a ganglion, which is connected by a pair of nerves to the ganglia of the adjacent segments. The only thing that could be perceived as a "higher" part of the brain involved in association, learning, and memory would be the mushroom bodies, but those probably aren't well-developed enough for higher-order emotions such as fear and suffering; the most they are probably capable of is programmed reactions to certain aversive stimuli. Therefore, they should not be valued as highly as humans or dogs. That being said, the fact that they react to aversive stimuli so could suggest that they still might be able to feel pain, so torturing them is still wrong. I personally don't kill insects either, but I still think it's worse to kill a mammal than an insect.
A dog has an extremely well-developed brain with an extensive neocortex devoted to higher functions such as learning, memory, and emotions. They have nocioceptors to sense pain and a mesolimbic system for emotional processing just like humans do. If you've ever seen a dog whimper in pain, this should be obvious. If you've ever seen a dog become distressed due to separation from its owner, this should be even more obvious. Sure, their encephalization quotient (arguably the most effective way to measure the intelligence of a species- it compares brain mass to relative body size) large as that of humans (1.17 vs 7.44), but that is still above average. They can certainly suffer and feel pain, and this alone should warrant them some protection under the law against outright cruelty.
***
That being said, I don't think throwing this girl in jail is the answer to the problem at hand. As has been said earlier ITT, torturing animals is an early symptom of antisocial personality disorder. Therefore, she need cognitive-behavioral therapy where she is rewarded for prosocial behaviors so that the disorder doesn't progress. If she is thrown in prison, her disorder will only get worse, and she will be more likely to do more things like it in the future. Punishment is only as useful as its ability to deter future offenses, and in this case, it would be counterproductive.
That is ridiculous. Puppies are not very strong swimmers, and they would be helpless against the strong currents in some rivers. Throwing them in would make them have to struggle, hyperventilate, and gasp for air as they got more and more oxygen-deprived. As water entered their airways, they would try to cough up the water or swallow it, which would paradoxically cause the involuntary inhalation of even more water. They would undergo laryngospasm, which is when their larynges would constrict and prevent further entry of water to the airways, which also prevents oxygen from entering, as well. And oxygen deprivation can be painful, too-- try holding your breath for a few minutes, and you'll see what I mean. Eventually, they'll go unconscious, but until then, drowning would definitely cause them large amounts of distress.
Think about it-- how would you feel if you were drowning? Probably panicked and afraid for your life, and you'd also feel some pain after a while. Sounds like torture to me.
If simulated drowning is considered torture, then actual drowning definitely is. It's not exactly pleasant.
i get what you are trying to say but 2 points about this
1: you know animals are not as useless as you are making them out to be. if you take a closer look at the roles animals play on this fine tuned machine we call earth you will get what i mean, if you want something a little closer to home then how about food among many other things that humans depend on animals for. taking care of a few needs for them should not be a problem especially seeing as almost at every turn humans are the beneficiaries [yes even the balance animals help keep on this dieing planet]
2: no we do have our priorities straight, the resources/donations and funds for human welfare dwarfs those for animal welfare. setting a little aside to help animals does more good than bad
Well, then I'm curious as to how you measure morality. I'm not calling you out at all; I'm just genuinely curious. Do you believe that it is OK to torture animals? On what basis?Originally Posted by Fat Chou Toshio
I love how people always go to simple sensory reception and use a sensation like pain as a measure for morality.
I've always been against anything that causes unnecessary suffering to living beings, and pain is probably the most basic form of suffering. This is not the only thing I use to measure morality, but if something causes pain, it definitely weighs in on my judgment.
I will say that defining what makes something ethical/non-ethical is extremely difficult, considering ethics itself is near impossible to define from a philosophical stand point. :/ This is why we talk about "moral compass" instead of any definable understanding of morality.
Perhaps it's better if I put it this way: If you're talking about painful/tortuous processes to animals, they're happening all the time. The way meat is produced, the way animal testing is conducted. Everyday animals are put through much more painful procedures that would be better described as torture than this. The fact that there is "reason" for animal testing or the meat industry's practices, to me seems rather trivial. The point is that those "tortures" are acceptable both by society and to myself as an individual.
To me, the method of killing here also seems pretty trivial assuming we're accepting "culling" the litter as acceptable. They're going to die anyway-- the amount of "pain" involved here seems like a minor note here.
Living is suffering as they say. To live in this world is a struggle to survive, and I dare say there are many people to in this world who experience more pain on a daily basis than what those puppies must have gone through. Also "pain" as a measurable quantity or degree is also somewhat . . . laughable . . . which trivializes it even more.
It's just a sensation. Especially physical pain sensory, which you have evolved in order to better your odds of protecting yourself and surviving. Being able to feel pain is a good thing. Using such a sensation as a measure for something as ultimate as ethics seems . . . misplaced to me somehow.
It's hard to say exactly but then ethics is hard to talk about (exactly)
Perhaps it's better if I put it this way: If you're talking about painful/tortuous processes to animals, they're happening all the time. The way meat is produced, the way animal testing is conducted. Everyday animals are put through much more painful procedures that would be better described as torture than this. The fact that there is "reason" for animal testing or the meat industry's practices, to me seems rather trivial. The point is that those "tortures" are acceptable both by society and to myself as an individual.
To me, the method of killing here also seems pretty trivial assuming we're accepting "culling" the litter as acceptable. They're going to die anyway-- the amount of "pain" involved here seems like a minor note here.
Living is suffering as they say. To live in this world is a struggle to survive, and I dare say there are many people to in this world who experience more pain on a daily basis than what those puppies must have gone through. Also "pain" as a measurable quantity or degree is also somewhat . . . laughable . . . which trivializes it even more.
It's just a sensation. Especially physical pain sensory, which you have evolved in order to better your odds of protecting yourself and surviving. Being able to feel pain is a good thing. Using such a sensation as a measure for something as ultimate as ethics seems . . . misplaced to me somehow.
It's hard to say exactly but then ethics is hard to talk about (exactly)
Simulated drowning goes on for a lot longer. It's not a painless way to die, but torture implies deliberate, protracted periods of infliction (physical or mental).
The world is unfair. Deal with it.
This scenario takes place in most developed countries.
Think of this. Your best friend killed you for whatever reason. He goes to jail. You lose your life. 20 years later, he's living his life happily with his family. Is it fair? No. Can we do something about it? No.
People get away with crimes. She's not the only one. One thing I do agree on is it's cruel and she deserves to be punished, but there's probably a lot more like her. But filming it was strange.
Look, here are the main arguments:
She's a child. Therefore she shouldn't get punished.
They are puppies. Therefore they aren't people and their lives don't matter.
Drowning isn't torturing. Therefore the girl isn't cruel and doesn't need to be punished.
She had to do it. Therefore she didn't have any fun intentions and she shouldn't be punished.
Agreeing to those statements is one side, disagreeing is another.
The main point me myself is the value of the puppies' lives.
You, the person reading this, is a person. You are able to think with a mind. You have a life, and you don't want to lose it. You can feel pain, but you don't want to.
Now imagine you are born as a puppy. But then some random girl tosses you into a river. You struggle. You experience pain. You drown. You die.
I'm never saying a puppy's life is worth more than human, but you kill them like that...
And by the way, if you bring up vegetarian arguments, I'm not going to say I am one; I'm a good deal younger than all of you, so I don't really have control over anything. If I refuse to eat meat, I probably won't stay healthy, while my parents continue to eat meat. While if I do eat meat, it's not like they are going to kill a extra cow for me, while I do stay healthy.
Animals are beings. They have life. They have the right to live a life.
This scenario takes place in most developed countries.
Think of this. Your best friend killed you for whatever reason. He goes to jail. You lose your life. 20 years later, he's living his life happily with his family. Is it fair? No. Can we do something about it? No.
People get away with crimes. She's not the only one. One thing I do agree on is it's cruel and she deserves to be punished, but there's probably a lot more like her. But filming it was strange.
Look, here are the main arguments:
She's a child. Therefore she shouldn't get punished.
They are puppies. Therefore they aren't people and their lives don't matter.
Drowning isn't torturing. Therefore the girl isn't cruel and doesn't need to be punished.
She had to do it. Therefore she didn't have any fun intentions and she shouldn't be punished.
Agreeing to those statements is one side, disagreeing is another.
The main point me myself is the value of the puppies' lives.
You, the person reading this, is a person. You are able to think with a mind. You have a life, and you don't want to lose it. You can feel pain, but you don't want to.
Now imagine you are born as a puppy. But then some random girl tosses you into a river. You struggle. You experience pain. You drown. You die.
I'm never saying a puppy's life is worth more than human, but you kill them like that...
And by the way, if you bring up vegetarian arguments, I'm not going to say I am one; I'm a good deal younger than all of you, so I don't really have control over anything. If I refuse to eat meat, I probably won't stay healthy, while my parents continue to eat meat. While if I do eat meat, it's not like they are going to kill a extra cow for me, while I do stay healthy.
Animals are beings. They have life. They have the right to live a life.
Aside from uses for humans as food, transport, etc they are useless. The Earth is not a machine, and it is certainly not dieing. And they do not dwarf them, at all.