• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

18-year old charged in Florida cat mutilations

I prefer meat that lived a good life. I do believe in a good kill vs bad kill dichotomy when it comes even to food. Some things I would never eat; like veal.
 
talloulou said:
There is, among some, a legitimate concern over factory farms which is why many go out of their way and wallets to eat meat that lived a good life vs eating meat that was stressed, medicated, and lived a torturous existence prior to consumption.
Click to expand...

I buy all my red meat from a ranch in Colorado. The guy who owns it is a family friend and he sends me the cuts I want, charges me by the pound, and even ages it for me if I want. I buy from him, on average, three times a year. Usually after I get an email from him informing that beef is either aged now or about to be slaughtered.

And yes, you can taste a difference in meat that is free range grass fed versus meat you buy in the grocery store. It's worth the extra dollar or two per pound.
 
talloulou said:
I prefer meat that lived a good life. I do believe in a good kill vs bad kill dichotomy when it comes even to food. Some things I would never eat; like veal.
Click to expand...

I won't eat veal either. We raised one veal calf when I was growing up and it was the one time in my life I saw my dad shed a tear over a farm animal.
 
talloulou said:
I prefer meat that lived a good life. I do believe in a good kill vs bad kill dichotomy when it comes even to food. Some things I would never eat; like veal.
Click to expand...

I don't think veal is tasty so I am against the way they are killed.
 
jallman said:
And yes, you can taste a difference in meat that is free range grass fed versus meat you buy in the grocery store. It's worth the extra dollar or two per pound.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the grass they are fed and the breed of cow. Some grass fed beef is terrible, some is fantastic.
 
jallman said:
How they are killed doesn't bother me in the least. It's how they are raised that makes me nauseaus.
Click to expand...

Good point on that one. It's pretty cruel.

(And I've been mostly joking. I don't eat meat that has been treated cruelly myself. I only eat free-range chickens and such.)
 
I eat meat.

The beef and pork I eat comes from a farm thats good husbandry( or tuckering) it is a regulated Freedom Farm, the abattoir is six miles away(no long stressful trip) it is relatively small so the animal is killed in a short time(they dont smell the blood of there mates) I am prepared to pay more for two reasons one is the husbandry the other is the quality.
 
The silenced majority said:
If that kid did that to one of my cats he would never get the chance to develop in to a functioning serial killer as I would brake every single bone in his body, kick every one of his teeth out and would repeat those steps again & again every time I got out of jail for doing it.
Click to expand...



You own cats!!! You could clearly not do any of those things!! We all know that all cat owners are women, or ******s!! :2razz:
 
I'm not coming down on anyone because I have indulged it myself...but I have no clue how a discussion about a disturbed young man became a discussion of the merits of free range beef versus factory farm beef.
 
jallman said:
I'm not coming down on anyone because I have indulged it myself...but I have no clue how a discussion about a disturbed young man became a discussion of the merits of free range beef versus factory farm beef.
Click to expand...

Because, silly, everyone knows young men who prefer factory farm beef all become serial killers!
 
Tucker Case said:
Because, silly, everyone knows young men who prefer factory farm beef all become serial killers!
Click to expand...

Really? Because looking back on it, I see the point of derailment being some drivel about how a singular young man with emotional disturbances mutilating the neighborhood's cats is somehow comparable to consumption of meat by society at large. :doh
 
jallman said:
Really? Because looking back on it, I see the point of derailment being some drivel about how a singular young man with emotional disturbances mutilating the neighborhood's cats is somehow comparable to consumption of meat by society at large. :doh
Click to expand...

Well, there happens to be a certain Peter Singer acolyte on the forum who buys that stuff.
 
Tucker Case said:
If these were his own cats, I'd see nothing wrong with it. Conversely, if he did the same thing to other people's livestock, I'd have a problem.
Click to expand...

Is this one of the things you were joking about? *I* can't tell. :doh

jallman said:
No, you do not see argumentum ad populum emerging again. Your pseudo intellectual posturing blinds you.
Click to expand...

Actually, your response was a perfect definition of an argumentum ad populum. You defended the moral status of a practice simply because of majority approval of it, as far as I could tell. If you meant to convey a different sentiment, please share it with us.

talloulou said:
There is, among some, a legitimate concern over factory farms which is why many go out of their way and wallets to eat meat that lived a good life vs eating meat that was stressed, medicated, and lived a torturous existence prior to consumption.
Click to expand...

I'm glad there is; I'm certainly aware of it. I'm merely questioning why there's a strong condemnation of this individual even among those who are relatively apathetic to similar suffering (because of similar or greater sensory capacities), that livestock undergo during preparation for human consumption. The answer is because there's an emotional detachment that exists between people and such animals, while none exists between the same people and domesticated pets. However, that's not a rational defense, of course.

Tucker Case said:
Well, there happens to be a certain Peter Singer acolyte on the forum who buys that stuff.
Click to expand...

Jeremy Bentham, actually. Peter Singer's portrayed as the demon at the center of the storm because he's the most famous applied ethicist and possibly the most famous philosopher in the world and his Animal Liberation played a significant role in that movement, but his role is exaggerated somewhat. That said, I'll agree with him on some things, but as an Australian, he is of course to be appropriately mocked. :)
 
Agnapostate said:
Actually, your response was a perfect definition of an argumentum ad populum. You defended the moral status of a practice simply because of majority approval of it, as far as I could tell. If you meant to convey a different sentiment, please share it with us.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. That's what you desperately want to portray it as.
 
jallman said:
No, it is not. That's what you desperately want to portray it as.
Click to expand...

Did you not defend the broad act of slaughter on the grounds that it was an accepted human cultural institution, while the violent mutilation of cats was not? That's a precise example of an argumentum ad populum; you defended the ethical status of a behavior on the grounds of its relative popularity.
 
Agnapostate said:
Did you not defend the broad act of slaughter on the grounds that it was an accepted human cultural institution, while the violent mutilation of cats was not? That's a precise example of an argumentum ad populum; you defended the ethical status of a behavior on the grounds of its relative popularity.
Click to expand...

No. I didn't argue against your irrelevant point of slaughterhouses and this disturbed child being comparable at all.

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.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'm glad there is; I'm certainly aware of it. I'm merely questioning why there's a strong condemnation of this individual even among those who are relatively apathetic to similar suffering (because of similar or greater sensory capacities), that livestock undergo during preparation for human consumption. The answer is because there's an emotional detachment that exists between people and such animals, while none exists between the same people and domesticated pets. However, that's not a rational defense, of course.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the grocery store has largely detached folks from the process of hunting and respecting the meat that they eat. The horror of many factory farms is not on the radar while strolling thru Safeway. Plus there's tons of ignorance, avoidance, laziness, and denial involved on a large scale.

However that issue is completely different from a deranged 18 year old molesting and killing random neighborhood pets.
 
Agnapostate said:
Is this one of the things you were joking about? *I* can't tell. :doh
Click to expand...

that's the way I like it! :2razz:

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:
jallman said:
[drivel]

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.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that I keep asking, you continue to fail to offer a morally relevant distinction between the two. The factor of widespread societal approval of the former is not an especially relevant one; if it was a traditional cultural practice to mutilate cats for sport, and that was adopted and practiced on a wide scale, that would not affect its ethical status.

talloulou said:
You are correct that the grocery store has largely detached folks from the process of hunting and respecting the meat that they eat. The horror of many factory farms is not on the radar while strolling thru Safeway. Plus there's tons of ignorance, avoidance, laziness, and denial involved on a large scale.

However that issue is completely different from a deranged 18 year old molesting and killing random neighborhood pets.
Click to expand...

It's completely different only in the sense that you maintain the same emotional detachment. There is no morally relevant difference where it counts; there is a similar or greater level of pain and suffering endured by many animals that undergo the process of factory farming or similar forms of slaughter. You attempt to draw a morally relevant difference based on different motivations; in the case of cat mutilation, you refer to a mental derangement on the part of the suspect, whereas you infer that there's a distinction that exists because of a conscious effort to prepare animals for human consumption on a wide scale, one that has undergone government approval and regulation.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom