Eating Cats - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 02-18-2012, 06:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4everaspirit View Post

I agree with the OP actually. I think you made a valid point. He should not have been charged.

Why would a vegan (except a health vegan) want to argue that even more types of animals should be slaughtered? I'd think most vegans would want to protect cats, not offer them up as another taste preference.

Most vegans are trying to extend protections to animals (Great Ape Project), hoping to include all animals within the scope of protection, not offer up more of them for brutalization.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 02-18-2012, 08:09 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Why would a vegan (except a health vegan) want to argue that even more types of animals should be slaughtered? I'd think most vegans would want to protect cats, not offer them up as another taste preference.

Most vegans are trying to extend protections to animals (Great Ape Project), hoping to include all animals within the scope of protection, not offer up more of them for brutalization.

If you decry the fact the people kill chickens but don't kill cats, accusing them of speciesism, then if you yourself engage in speciesism, by strongly disapproving of it when people kill cats, and wanting to punish them, but not wanting to punish people who kill chickens, then it is hypocritical. Non-veg*ns who have moral and ethical values see the hypocracy, and this makes them less likely to want to be perceived as veg*n, or to go veg*n. Those of you who say "I'd like to punish chicken-killers too, but I am unable to," and are married to non-veg*ns — you either have sadists for spouses or you are full of baloney.
soilman is offline  
#63 Old 02-18-2012, 08:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

If you decry the fact the people kill chickens but don't kill cats, accusing them of speciesism, then if you yourself engage in speciesism, by strongly disapproving of it when people kill cats, and wanting to punish them, but not wanting to punish people who kill chickens, then it is hypocritical. Non-veg*ns who have moral and ethical values see the hypocracy, and this makes them less likely to want to be perceived as veg*n, or to go veg*n. Those of you who say "I'd like to punish chicken-killers too, but I am unable to," and are married to non-veg*ns — you either have sadists for spouses or you are full of baloney.

I think people who hurt chickens should be punished too, and I am not married to a nonvegan.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 02-18-2012, 09:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
AlixJ18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,196
First of all a sociopath would not favor an animal over a human, they have feelings for neither, remember generally sociopathic killers start with torturing and killing animals then move on to humans. And is anyone actually surprised by this? He has posted tons of posts that are anti animal and pro omnivore, honestly i'm not really sure how he's here, i guess if you say one pro veg*n thing, then an anti animal thing they cancel each other out? Or maybe he just skates by because he stays vague idk.
AlixJ18 is offline  
#65 Old 02-18-2012, 10:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlixJ18 View Post

First of all a sociopath would not favor an animal over a human, they have feelings for neither, remember generally sociopathic killers start with torturing and killing animals then move on to humans. And is anyone actually surprised by this? He has posted tons of posts that are anti animal and pro omnivore, honestly i'm not really sure how he's here, i guess if you say one pro veg*n thing, then an anti animal thing they cancel each other out? Or maybe he just skates by because he stays vague idk.

From the forum rules, to register or post at veggieboards, "You must be a vegetarian or have a sincere interest in going vegetarian ." And "This is not just a vegetarian forum, this is a forum for vegetarians."

I don't see anything in the the rules that say you have to care about the wellbeing of animals, or that you may not kill them, only that you may not eat them. So, indeed, if you eat cats, you should not be posting at veggieboards. However I have not seen any posts at all here from the man in Bakersfield California who was convicted of eating cats. Much less "tons of posts."

"Sociopathology" is just a general term used to describe people whose behavior is contrary to the rules of society, to the point that it hurts either people in society, or the sociopath, or both. There are many ways to exhibit sociopathology. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with killing. People who make a practice of stealing from other people, are also considered to have sociopathology, especially if they don't need to steal in order to survive. People who vandalize property are sociopathic. Sociopathic killers are people who kill without any need to, in contravention with ordinary social conventions of what it is ok to kill, and what it is not ok to kill. Thus people who slaughter animals in slaughterhouses, or in their backyard, for food — which is normal behavior in most parts of the world — are not sociopathic killers. They are normal killers. They are numerous and vegan non-killers, a very small minority, are surrounded by them. Sociopathic killers may or may not care about the well being of living things. It is possible to care deeply about a person you kill, but kill them anyway, and be an example of a sociopathic killer. For example this describes Jeffery Dahmer.

Yes, many sociopathic killers begin killing animals before they kill humans. No-one is surprised by that. What many of us are surprised at is that you think the Bakersfield cat-consumer is posting messages on veggieboards.
soilman is offline  
#66 Old 02-18-2012, 10:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Sociopathic killers may or may not care about the well being of living things. It is possible to care deeply about a person you kill, but kill them anyway, and be an example of a sociopathic killer. For example this describes Jeffery Dahmer.

Nope, sociopaths lack a conscience - that's part of what defines sociopathy - despite Dahmer's claims of really caring about those he tortured, killed, and ate.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#67 Old 02-18-2012, 11:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
AlixJ18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

From the forum rules, to register or post at veggieboards, "You must be a vegetarian or have a sincere interest in going vegetarian ." And "This is not just a vegetarian forum, this is a forum for vegetarians."

I don't see anything in the the rules that say you have to care about the wellbeing of animals, or that you may not kill them, only that you may not eat them. So, indeed, if you eat cats, you should not be posting at veggieboards. However I have not seen any posts at all here from the man in Bakersfield California who was convicted of eating cats. Much less "tons of posts."

"Sociopathology" is just a general term used to describe people whose behavior is contrary to the rules of society, to the point that it hurts either people in society, or the sociopath, or both. There are many ways to exhibit sociopathology. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with killing. People who make a practice of stealing from other people, are also considered to have sociopathology, especially if they don't need to steal in order to survive. People who vandalize property are sociopathic. Sociopathic killers are people who kill without any need to, in contravention with ordinary social conventions of what it is ok to kill, and what it is not ok to kill. Thus people who slaughter animals in slaughterhouses, or in their backyard, for food — which is normal behavior in most parts of the world — are not sociopathic killers. They are normal killers. They are numerous and vegan non-killers, a very small minority, are surrounded by them. Sociopathic killers may or may not care about the well being of living things. It is possible to care deeply about a person you kill, but kill them anyway, and be an example of a sociopathic killer. For example this describes Jeffery Dahmer.

Yes, many sociopathic killers begin killing animals before they kill humans. No-one is surprised by that. What many of us are surprised at is that you think the Bakersfield cat-consumer is posting messages on veggieboards.

Not sure where you re getting your definitions from, perhaps just making them up in your head? Because you are completely off base. It has nothing to do with 'rules of society' it's a psychological disorder where you completely lack empathy and don't care if you hurt others at all, you can actually hurt others but end up with remorse, that's where the difference is. And notice how i said sociopathic killers, not just sociopaths, i know the difference, yet you seem to not even understand the definition of sociopath. And i was obviously referring to you and your pro killing animal stance you seem to have sometimes but you get away with as i said, by being vague.
AlixJ18 is offline  
#68 Old 02-18-2012, 11:29 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
While "lacking a conscience" is often proposed as a probable explanation for sociopathic behavior, it is not necessary to lack a conscience in order to be properly identified as being a sociopath.

AlixJ18 said
Quote:
"remember generally sociopathic killers start with torturing and killing animals then move on to humans. And is anyone actually surprised by this? He has posted tons of posts that are anti animal and pro omnivore."

Since we were talking about the bakersfield cat-consumer, who was reported, by a Bakersfield newspaper, to have been torturing and killing animals, and since you said "sociopathic killers start with torturing and kiling animals," I assumed that the Bakersfield cat-consumer was who you were talking about when in the next sentence, you said "he posted..." There is no reason for me to think you were talking about me, since I have not been torturing and killing animals. I have been an ethical and esthetic vegan for over 40 years.

I don't think it is anti-animal to question whether, if the cats were going to be killed no matter what, it was better to let meat eaters eat them than to let their tissues go to waste. Every time the cat-consumer eats a feral cat, that is one less chicken that needs to be kille to feed him. I was being pro-animal, hoping to save the lives of chickens. It occured to me that the cats were likely going to die no matter what. If the Bakersfield cat-consumer didn't eat them, they would likely be killed in the local animal shelter. So why not save some chickens? That is hardly anti-animal. I suppose you like to twist people's words around to suit some bitter, cynical view of the world that you have? Or do you have another explanation for twisting my words around?
soilman is offline  
#69 Old 02-18-2012, 11:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
AlixJ18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,196
Oh yes applauding a man for killing and eating cats is so pro animal
AlixJ18 is offline  
#70 Old 02-18-2012, 11:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
AlixJ18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

While "lacking a conscience" is often proposed as a probable explanation for sociopathic behavior, it is not necessary to lack a conscience in order to be properly identified as being a sociopath.

And that is where you are totally wrong, as with all diagnoses there are criteria that must be met, stating what you did is like saying a depressed person does not have to be sad to have depression. I could and have hurt my sister for being an idiot, i'm definitely not a sociopath or i wouldn't have stopped eating animals, and i would feel nothing when i hear sad stories about people and animals.
AlixJ18 is offline  
#71 Old 02-18-2012, 11:59 PM
Veggie Regular
 
delicioso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlixJ18 View Post

Oh yes applauding a man for killing and eating cats is so pro animal

The 'pro animal' part is that the same number of cats die and fewer chickens die.
delicioso is offline  
#72 Old 02-19-2012, 12:16 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

The 'pro animal' part is that the same number of cats die and fewer chickens die.

I'd have to see evidence that the cat torturer was replacing the chickens he ate with cats. I mean, did Dahmer eat fewer chickens because he ate humans instead? (And if so, should he have been able to eat injured people who were going to die anyway, so they didn't go to waste?)

I think the psychology that does what these people did involves something beyond just nourishment, so who knows how they fit those calories into their diets and what they replaced.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#73 Old 02-19-2012, 01:00 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

The 'pro animal' part is that the same number of cats die and fewer chickens die.

Exactly.
soilman is offline  
#74 Old 02-19-2012, 01:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
If you don't see cats as a being worthy of protection, does it mean that you're a psychopath if you kill & eat them? After all, many people kill farm animals and wild animals for food. It doesn't mean they lack empathy, they just (falsely) see those creatures as being not worthy of protection.
das_nut is offline  
#75 Old 02-19-2012, 01:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

If you don't see cats as a being worthy of protection, does it mean that you're a psychopath if you kill & eat them? After all, many people kill farm animals and wild animals for food. It doesn't mean they lack empathy, they just (falsely) see those creatures as being not worthy of protection.

In this scenario am I skinning them alive first? And possibly eating neighbors' cats?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#76 Old 02-19-2012, 01:50 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
If you don't see humans as a being worthy of protection, does it mean that you're a psychopath if you kill & eat them (perhaps torturing them first)? If you do, does it mean you lack empathy?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#77 Old 02-19-2012, 01:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

If you don't see humans as a being worthy of protection, does it mean that you're a psychopath if you kill & eat them (perhaps torturing them first)? If you do, does it mean you lack empathy?

I thought we covered this in that hypothetical runaway train discussion awhile back.
das_nut is offline  
#78 Old 02-19-2012, 02:01 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
It may be that the answer depends on the mores of your culture?

In this case, the mores of the culture are not to torture and kill cats.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#79 Old 02-19-2012, 02:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

The 'pro animal' part is that the same number of cats die and fewer chickens die.

Speculation, speculation. He could just be replacing a bag of rice, or some potatoes, or whatever, instead of flesh from other animals. Or he could be replacing nothing, and he tortures animals just for fun.

On top of that, due to the negligible effect a single consumer has on production, even if he ate less chicken as a result, the breeding and slaughter of chickens might remain exactly the same, but he would have made a horrible difference to that cat's life.

(If a single consumer has a negligible impact, why am I vegan then? Because 1. I still have an impact as part of a group 2. Veganism has a much deeper significance than consumer boycott -- it's a political statement at the same time.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#80 Old 02-19-2012, 02:09 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

It may be that the answer depends on the mores of your culture?

So are those who reject the mores of their culture necessarily wrong?

(And no, I'm not defending this guy, I just like debating the philosophy.)
das_nut is offline  
#81 Old 02-19-2012, 02:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

If you don't see cats as a being worthy of protection, does it mean that you're a psychopath if you kill & eat them? After all, many people kill farm animals and wild animals for food. It doesn't mean they lack empathy, they just (falsely) see those creatures as being not worthy of protection.

To do something which is not merely completely lacking in empathy in itself (and yes, the attitude of not seeing someone worthy of concern to that extent is lacking empathy, clearly), but which also harms his standing in his community (his fellow humans will think he's ****ed up), and on top of that can get him in trouble with the law -- is pathological. It is acting in an abnormal and irrational way which hinders his own life. And without any obvious benefit or reason for the action.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#82 Old 02-19-2012, 02:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

So are those who reject the mores of their culture necessarily wrong?

No, of course I didn't say that. I am referring to this specific situation, of torturing, killing, and eating cats, possibly even ones who belong to the neighbors. It's very outlying behavior. If everyone were doing it, then there might be some argument to be made for unconsciousness or familiarity, but not in this case.

Like, Dahmer's actions reveal a very different personality than if someone were a cannibal in a cannibalistic society.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#83 Old 02-19-2012, 02:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

It's very outlying behavior. If everyone were doing it, then there might be some argument to be made for unconsciousness or familiarity, but not in this case.

So is outlying behavior necessarily wrong then? (Crap, how popular is veganism again?)
das_nut is offline  
#84 Old 02-19-2012, 02:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

So is outlying behavior necessarily wrong then? (Crap, how popular is veganism again?)

Huh? I already answered that in the previous post when you asked if those who reject the mores of their culture are necessarily wrong and I said of course not. Why are you asking/presuming it again? Going against the mores of society = outlying, in case that wasn't clear.

You're trying really hard to force what I'm saying into a really simplistic argument here - so read what I'm actually saying rather than the argument you want to make.

Very outlying behavior does mean something, but it is not necessarily bad or wrong, obviously.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#85 Old 02-19-2012, 05:12 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

So are those who reject the mores of their culture necessarily wrong?

The 'mores' of "we may kill this but you may not kill that" are, once all the BS is parsed away, hypocracy.

If a culture holds hypocracy to be wrong, but has mores that are hypocritical, then that culture is wrong by own its standards.

Somewhat amusingly the thing that is infuriating the meat eating hypocrits is simply this guys "I dont give a f*ck, I want to eat it" honesty.
Clueless Git is offline  
#86 Old 02-19-2012, 08:02 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,587
this thread hurts my head
luvourmother is offline  
#87 Old 02-19-2012, 08:02 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

From the forum rules, to register or post at veggieboards, "You must be a vegetarian or have a sincere interest in going vegetarian ." And "This is not just a vegetarian forum, this is a forum for vegetarians."

I don't see anything in the the rules that say you have to care about the wellbeing of animals, or that you may not kill them, only that you may not eat them. So, indeed, if you eat cats, you should not be posting at veggieboards. However I have not seen any posts at all here from the man in Bakersfield California who was convicted of eating cats. Much less "tons of posts."

"Sociopathology" is just a general term used to describe people whose behavior is contrary to the rules of society, to the point that it hurts either people in society, or the sociopath, or both. There are many ways to exhibit sociopathology. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with killing. People who make a practice of stealing from other people, are also considered to have sociopathology, especially if they don't need to steal in order to survive. People who vandalize property are sociopathic. Sociopathic killers are people who kill without any need to, in contravention with ordinary social conventions of what it is ok to kill, and what it is not ok to kill. Thus people who slaughter animals in slaughterhouses, or in their backyard, for food — which is normal behavior in most parts of the world — are not sociopathic killers. They are normal killers. They are numerous and vegan non-killers, a very small minority, are surrounded by them. Sociopathic killers may or may not care about the well being of living things. It is possible to care deeply about a person you kill, but kill them anyway, and be an example of a sociopathic killer. For example this describes Jeffery Dahmer.

Yes, many sociopathic killers begin killing animals before they kill humans. No-one is surprised by that. What many of us are surprised at is that you think the Bakersfield cat-consumer is posting messages on veggieboards.

You routinely mis-use the term "sociopathy". In the words on Inigo Montoya, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Sociopathy" is not a "general term". It refers SPECIFICALLY to the behavior of sociopaths. And sociopaths are not simply thieves or vandals. That's an over-simplification and you're applying a very specific diagnoses to a huge range of people, the vast majority of whom are NOT true sociopaths. Someone who steals despite not NEEDING to is not necessarily a sociopath. They might simply be selfish or shallow or impulsive. But that does not preclude them from being capable of empathy, love, or attachment to others (all things that true sociopaths are incapable of in any real sense). People who vandalize property are not automatically sociopathic, either. Not by a long shot. Those singular behaviors do not qualify someone to be considered sociopathic. If they steal or vandalize because they are narcissistic and self-aggrandizing and feel as though they are OWED what they stole/destroyed, have no concern as to the negative effects of their actions on others, feel NO remorse, shame, or guilt for their actions, even if they result in serious harm to others or they are caught/confronted with their actions, and see the people around them as merely ends to a means, then yes - they would most likely be sociopaths. But, say, a teenager who simply doesn't want to pay for the perfume she steals, or a man who is angry at his ex for cheating and vandalizes her car, would not be sociopaths. They would be people with poor impulse control, anger issues, or at MOST a milder personality disorder like borderline personality.

Sociopathic killers are not simply those who kill without purpose - they are those who kill without REMORSE, guilt, or shame at their actions. They kill without empathy for their victims, and in fact tend to feel contempt for others' pain and suffering as opposed to sympathy or understanding. They do not believe that there is anything wrong with them or their actions, and believe they are completely justified in their behavior regardless of what society's laws or norms say. They have a total disregard for the rights and feelings of others. It's not just that there is no particular reason for them killing in a given instance, they don't believe that there is ANY convincing reason for them not to kill if they decide it's warrented. You're over-simplifying the concept of sociopathy, and when you apply the term to VB posters, for instance, who expressed relief that a cat in a fictional video was not killed, you show a lack of understanding of what true sociopathy is. A sociopath would not feel relief that the cat was not harmed, regardless of what happened to the woman in the video, because they would be incapable of caring about the woman OR the cat, and would be incapable of possessing the empathy necessary for being disturbed by the concept of the cat being harmed. Because sociopathic killers, by definition, do NOT care about other living things. A true sociopath is incapable of "caring deeply" about anyone. The DSM describes antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy) in part as " a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others." If you look at Noble's subtypes of antisocial personality disorders, most sociopathic killers fall into the category of malevolent antisocial, who have sadistic and paranoid tendencies, often behave brutally towards others, and see tender emotions in others as no more than a cover for devious ploys against them. These people are incapable of real emotional connections because they do not believe that any emotion is genuine, and they are intensely distrusting, defensive, manipulative, and they anticipate betrayal and back-stabbing in ALL their relationships. Some sociopaths are excellent at MIMICKING emotion and emotional connections in order to manipulate others, but they do no actually invest emotionally in others on a level that could be accurately called love.

It's also an erroneous statement to say "people who slaughter animals in their back yards are not sociopathic killers." It's true that they are not sociopathic killers JUST because they slaughter animals in their back yards, but to suggest that NO ONE who slaughters animals in their back yard is a sociopathic killer is a mistake. If they slaughter animals in their back yards, AND are incapable of love, manipulative, have a grandiose sense of self, are pathological liars, lack the capacity for guilt or remorse, are narcissistic, or meet other qualifiers of sociopathy in addition to killing, then they would be a sociopathic killer regardless of how "logical" their killing of the animal might seem to an outside perspective.
RedLotus is offline  
#88 Old 02-19-2012, 08:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

While "lacking a conscience" is often proposed as a probable explanation for sociopathic behavior, it is not necessary to lack a conscience in order to be properly identified as being a sociopath.

AlixJ18 said Since we were talking about the bakersfield cat-consumer, who was reported, by a Bakersfield newspaper, to have been torturing and killing animals, and since you said "sociopathic killers start with torturing and kiling animals," I assumed that the Bakersfield cat-consumer was who you were talking about when in the next sentence, you said "he posted..." There is no reason for me to think you were talking about me, since I have not been torturing and killing animals. I have been an ethical and esthetic vegan for over 40 years.

I don't think it is anti-animal to question whether, if the cats were going to be killed no matter what, it was better to let meat eaters eat them than to let their tissues go to waste. Every time the cat-consumer eats a feral cat, that is one less chicken that needs to be kille to feed him. I was being pro-animal, hoping to save the lives of chickens. It occured to me that the cats were likely going to die no matter what. If the Bakersfield cat-consumer didn't eat them, they would likely be killed in the local animal shelter. So why not save some chickens? That is hardly anti-animal. I suppose you like to twist people's words around to suit some bitter, cynical view of the world that you have? Or do you have another explanation for twisting my words around?

Do you honestly believe that any chickens were saved by his actions? Do you think that a slaughterhouse somewhere decided NOT to kill a few chickens because ONE man supplemented his diet with cat meat a few times? Or is it much more likely that a few less chickens were SOLD, but his actions were so insignificant in teh grand scheme of the meat industry that they had zero impact on the number of chickens being slaughtered? You don't actually think that someone at the slaughterhouse decided to release some chickens to go live out their lives on a nice farm because one man in Bakersfield ate some cats, do you?
RedLotus is offline  
#89 Old 02-19-2012, 08:22 AM
Veggie Regular
 
delicioso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,945
If one eats no chicken because they are vegan or because they are eating cats, instead, it would have the same effect at the slaughter house. Less demand = less production.
delicioso is offline  
#90 Old 02-19-2012, 08:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

The 'mores' of "we may kill this but you may not kill that" are, once all the BS is parsed away, hypocracy.

If a culture holds hypocracy to be wrong, but has mores that are hypocritical, then that culture is wrong by own its standards.

Somewhat amusingly the thing that is infuriating the meat eating hypocrits is simply this guys "I dont give a f*ck, I want to eat it" honesty.

How do you know? It's rather presumptuous to assume that you know complete strangers' personal feelings and opinions, or what specifically is "infuriating" them. Granted it's hypocritical of them to decry eating one type of animal and then go home and devour another type, but their lack of concern for cows and chickens does not mean that they don't feel real concern for the cats. I know plenty of meat-eaters that genuinely love and adore their pets, and who would be appalled at the idea of them being eaten.

I don't think it's this guy's "honesty" (I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from, either - in what ways was he "honest", other than pleading no contest?) that people are upset about. I think it's the fact that he's torturing and eating animals that they consider to be companions or have personal attachments to, and that they think he's potentially dangerous given the fact that he tortures animals and sets fires (two out of three of MacDonald's Triad of sociopathic risk factors).
RedLotus is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off