I've no interest in explaining to you the difference between apples and hubcaps.
The closest I came to sincerely addressing your irrelevance was in stating that I was concerned for this child's lack of empathy and his distance from social norms.
Now from here on, you are talking to yourself if you intend to address drivel such as our diets, human consumption of animal products, etc in relation to a disturbed young man mutilating neighborhood pets.
However that issue is completely different from a deranged 18 year old molesting and killing random neighborhood pets.
Honestly though, I was 1/2 joking, 1/2 serious.
If he killed his own cats humanely and ate them I wouldn't have a problem. If he killed other people's livestock without permission in any fashion, I'd be bothered.
It's not simply a matter of killing his own cats, as the humane way of doing it is a real factor, albeit not the only one or even the main one.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-16-09 at 05:52 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
However, this distinction does not affect the morally relevant factor of the animals' suffering. There is greater suffering endured by livestock subject to the process of factory farming than an elk felled by a single shot of a man who hunts for sport. Now, the former is based on a wide-scale and government-approved effort to prepare animals for human consumption, while the latter is based on a single individual's enjoyment of killing animals. The latter might seem motivated by a more dubious desire, but the reality is that greater suffering is undergone by animals in the former example. The psychological condition of the killers is thus not so pertinent as the suffering undergone by the animals; the latter is the morally relevant factor.