Animal Suffering and Human Suffering

[Erunáme]

I find some of this nit picking and pulling apart everyone's comments type of atmosphere FAR worse than what I have found at other places, including both TORC's Manwë and even B77.

That really surprises me as I don't really see it. TORC's Manwë seems tons worse to me.

[anthriel]

Some people just were born without some snippet of DNA somewhere, and that abnormality makes their social interaction bizarre.

There is the double-Y chromosome which has been shown to be present in a large number of violent criminals.

Jn

I LOVE teh Jn!!!



I actually was thinking about this very thing when I wrote that, Jn... the condition of XYY is highly disproportionately represented in prison systems.

You just make me --->

[The Watcher]

I find some of this nit picking and pulling apart everyone's comments type of atmosphere FAR worse than what I have found at other places, including both TORC's Manwë and even B77.

That really surprises me as I don't really see it. TORC's Manwë seems tons worse to me.

Maybe it was the perception of this board being totally prepared for what I would like to term "civil discussions welcoming everyone's viewpoints in a friendly manner."

I stumbled onto theGospel of Judas thread, and was frankly astonished by what I found posted there, and now this is my second foray into HOF in less than a day (after not being here at all for months) and I find much the same thing. I am not complaining, I just find it ......odd. Disturbing, like even with the rules, the bickering still continues. At places like Manwë and B77 I expect it. I am not saying I do not like a good argument, but, it seems that what transpires here is niggling over nuance and context/content, and not valid arguing for the most part. In other words, bogging down threads over perceived slights and not the merits of the words or thoughts being posted.


anyhoo, this is not the place to discuss such things. I will now bow out.

I am but a stranger here and my comments are probably over the line.

[vison]

I think monsters are born among us, yes.

But I think more monsters are made than born.

I also know people who survived horrible abuse and grew up to be caring and loving people.

And I'm not surprised that caring for or being with animals creates empathy. First, maybe, the child learns to love something that gives back unconditional love? Or, if not love, at least gentleness. There is something especially magical about horses and dogs, I think. With horses, you have this great beast, many times the size of a child, and yet the child can touch it, and see the soft big liquid eyes, and that must be very empowering to a child, to be the friend of a horse. To learn to understand that you are responsible for a dog, to feed it and make sure it is warm and has water to drink and that it will ALWAYS want to be with you and will never hurt you? That the dog will never turn on you and strike you or call you horrible names or threaten to leave you alone?

Children who are abused are so often abused by someone they love, and that is the worst of it. Love and pain and fear become so inextricably mixed up. It is impossible for a child to separate them.

I have always lived on a farm. Our animals are our living, our livelihood. And yet my husband is the most humane man. I can't explain the difficulty there is in trying to get people to understand that caring for our animals is not just economics, that he really loves them and likes being with them.

He is a man who would save the dog, and not George Bush.

(I know it's an artificial moral dilemma, but it sparks an interesting discussion, sometimes.)

As for the grandmother convicted of murdering her grandson, I am clear in my own mind that whatever happened to her does not excuse what she did. But I can have some compassion for what her life might have been. Perhaps she was an abused child. At what point does that abused child have to set that aside and become "normal" and how can that happen? Is it possible her life was as bad as Jeffrey's only she didn't die? She's dead in one way, obviously, dead to ordinary humanity.

These are terrible questions. I certainly don't know the answers. But I hate some of the simplistic ideas I've heard on the radio and read in the newspapers lately, to do with this case. Nothing so awful can be simple, and it seems wrong to me to try to make it simple. Maybe we all feel a sense of responsibility and by coming up with cheap and easy answers we think we are going to shift that responsibility back onto "the guilty one" alone. That's what I meant by "getting us off the hook".

eta: I don't think that I'm more "moral" because I think I would save Mr. Bush ahead of a pet. I just think that's what I'd do.

But Jnyusa is right, it is a false moral dilemma and perhaps it's a way of avoiding "real" moral dilemmas?

re: chromosome abnormalities: "Early studies of XYY syndrome done in European prisons initially led to the erroneous conclusion that these men were genetically predisposed to antisocial, aggressive behavior, below average intelligence, and homosexuality. Contributing to the early view that XYY syndrome men have serious personality disorders was the case of Richard Speck. In 1966, he coldly murdered 8 nurses in a Chicago dormitory. At his trial, his lawyer claimed that he was innocent due to uncontrollable urges caused by his XYY genotype. This novel appeal was akin to claiming insanity or severely diminished mental competence. The jury was not convinced and found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison where he eventually died. In fact, Richard Speck did not have an XYY genotype. However, some researchers suggest that the high testosterone levels of XYY men can make them somewhat more prone to violence and that this may cause higher rates of wife beating."

[anthriel]

I am not saying I do not like a good argument, but, it seems that what transpires here is niggling over nuance and context/content, and not valid arguing for the most part. In other words, bogging down threads over perceived slights and not the merits of the words or thoughts being posted.

I think there may be something more to the art of an argument than I am able to discern. I always was upset after reading stuff in Manwë, back when I was a baby TORCer... everyone always seemed to say the most cutting things to each other! And yet there are people like you, and yov, and many others, who found friendships there, and bonded closely in that environment.

So I would trust you, Watcher, to understand the differences between a "good argument" and... well, what you see here.

Both are distressing to me.

anyhoo, this is not the place to discuss such things. I will now bow out.

I am but a stranger here and my comments are probably over the line.

You are hardly a stranger. Didya NOTICE the big scream and hug you got from me when I saw you here yesterday? I am glad you are here. Your comments are always welcome, at least to me. I learn a lot from you.

I think monsters are born among us, yes.

But I think more monsters are made than born.

Amen to that, vison, amen to that.

And I'm not surprised that caring for or being with animals creates empathy. First, maybe, the child learns to love something that gives back unconditional love? Or, if not love, at least gentleness.

I don't think I've sw00ned for you in a while, vison. I'm thinking it might be about time...

Maybe we all feel a sense of responsibility and by coming up with cheap and easy answers we think we are going to shift that responsibility back onto "the guilty one" alone. That's what I meant by "getting us off the hook".

I'm still not quite following this, but I am sure that's my fault, and not yours. We all feel a sense of responsibility? For... allowing her access to that child, maybe, when she had a record of abuse? For not following up on signs that all was not all right with Jeffrey? For failing him, as a community, for not protecting him from his grandmother's abuse?

Is that what you mean?

[MithLuin]

The Watcher, that is the goal. Making it a reality is something different. Not all the threads here are like the Judas one or the Hell one. Check out the "Losing My Religion" thread in Tol Eressëa for what sorts of conversations are supposed to happen there. Sometimes it is hard to be open and honest, but I'm sure we can learn.

But if people like you keep poking your head in here and calling us on our bickering, I'm sure that will help .

Sometimes it is just too much fun to stir pots that seem to want to boil....

But I've just been reading Feanorian fan-fiction, so I am much more inclined to heal feuds before they start, ugh!

Oh, and Voronwë, about the sig pics? I am one of those people who accepts change with bad grace. I didn't like when they added the shieds under the names on TORc (mainly because I had argued against it), and I didn't like when they added the sig-pics. I think I thought they contributed to spam, or something.... but it has been so long now, I almost forget my reasons . Like I said, I'm a Neanderthal...

(Though I will argue for their depiction in Chesterton's Everlasting Man rather than that of Crighton's Eaters of the Dead)

[yovargas]

I dislike artificial moral dilemmas. None of us will ever have to choose between our household pet and George Bush or Saddam Hussein.

The dilema is articifical but their purpose is perfectly valid - it's meant to examine our values and our priorities. I think that is happening in this thread.

And Beth, I see no "bickering" here, unless disagreeing is automatically bickering.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Watcher (Beth), I value hearing your thoughts. As I mentioned before, dissent is welcome here; it helps keeps us honest. But it is true that you stumbled on to two threads that are unusually divisive for this place. I would strongly encourage you to poke around some more, if you are interested. We have had some pretty astounding discussions on spiritual matters the likes of which I frankly have not seen anywhere else. But we are all human, as Mith the wise one pointed out.

I for one would be thrilled to see you here more often. But only if you are comfortable being here.

(Sorry for the osgiliation. I thought it was important.)

[Teremia]

Animal suffering doesn't trouble me more than human suffering, but it troubles me.

I do agree with those of you who said human beings are both "better" and "worse" than the rest of the animals: we are cruel beyond belief -- but we can also be kind, compassionate, and self-sacrificing.

I'm basically a pessimist, but I am moved by the human capacity for kindness.

[Cerin]

People CAN have normal levels of empathy suppressed or destroyed in their lives as a way of self-defence, of self-protection.

Yes, that's a good point. I was listening to a radio program recently (I don't remember the speaker). He was saying that after the age of three or four, a human being can no longer learn to trust. There are developmental windows. If people are deprived of the opportunities to develop normally, they will develop abnormally.

I am not saying I do not like a good argument, but, it seems that what transpires here is niggling over nuance and context/content, and not valid arguing for the most part.

Yes, I think different people have different preferences when it comes to the type of discussion they enjoy. There's no fault to be found in that, I think. Not everyone is going to find every discussion or even every messageboard to their liking.

[vison]

I'm still not quite following this, but I am sure that's my fault, and not yours. We all feel a sense of responsibility? For... allowing her access to that child, maybe, when she had a record of abuse? For not following up on signs that all was not all right with Jeffrey? For failing him, as a community, for not protecting him from his grandmother's abuse?

I guess that's what I mean. Every time one of these cases comes up, it turns out that the "child protection agency", whichever one it is, has failed to do the most elementary protective things, like checking criminal records of potential caregivers.

A little boy named Matthew Vaudreuil was murdered by his mother here in BC a few years ago. Matthew had been "in care" all his short awful little life, yet he always wound up back with his abusive mother. There was a long, long judicial hearing to try to learn what happened to Matthew, why it happened, and how it could be prevented. Promises were made. Mission statements were published. Everyone patted themselves on the back. Children were going to be safe!!!! The new programs were "in memory of Matthew".

As if. The government changed and the new government made massive cuts in the "social welfare" system, getting rid of social workers and children's aid workers and even basically eliminating autopsies on dead children!!!!!!!

Children in BC are still being abused and neglected by their parents, grandparents, foster parents, etc. A little girl named Sherry Charlie was kicked to death by her uncle: she was placed in his home by the Indian band she was born into, and no one "in authority" checked and no one found out that the uncle had a long history of violence. Even after he was charged with her murder, Sherry's brother was still in that home. "Everyone" knew this about the uncle, but a combination of turf-protection, accusations and fears of racism, and sheer bloody incompetence combined and so she was left there.

People knew Jeffrey and Matthew and Sherry were being abused. Some complained and their complaints were not followed up. Most people don't want to be involved. They don't want to interfere in someone else's family. Every time one of these atrocities happens it turns out that there was talk, gossip, complaints, certainties, filing errors, lack of follow-up. Social workers burn out fast and the new case worker doesn't know what's going on and the papers get lost or who knows what. There are too many agencies involved: private ones like the Catholic Childrens' Aid that messed up in Jeffrey's case, the First Nation ones that messed up in Sherry Charlie's case, the BC government one that messed up in Matthew's case. No sharing of information. Jealous protection of "turf".

There is not any real certainty about how many children are killed by their families or foster families. The odd case gets to court. The wretched killers are almost always victims of abuse themselves. When it comes to First Nations people, there are so many other factors that enter into it! And on and on it goes with no end in sight that I can see.

I guess this is an Osgiliation of the thread and I'm sorry.

Of course it is wrong to be cruel to an animal. I would be willing to bet that those who abuse children also would or do abuse animals. To take pleasure in another's pain is horrible and reveals an almost inconceivable state of mind. But what I want to know is: why do some victims become abusers themselves and some don't?

[Maria]

Animal cruelty bothers me as much as cruelty to humans, and has all my life. Animals are just souls the same as us who happen to be playing an animal role at the time. I fully believe that people who torture animals will get to spend some time in their next few incarnations as an animal that gets tortured- and the same goes for human torturers, too.

Cruelty is entirely different than a quick death, however. We can't live on this planet without killing something to eat and so cause death to plants and animals every day we live.

Could I go and hunt a deer or raise a chicken then kill it? No. Is that hypocritical? Unfortunately yes.

I've killed chickens and although it saddens me, I take some pride in the fact that their lives were much happier and their ends quicker and less painful than any factory raised bird. I don't hunt deer myself, as my husband is a better shot, and the thought of missing and injuring a deer instead of killing is just about unbearable to me. But I am pleased that 99% of the time, when my husband shoots at a deer grazing peacefully in a field, that most of the time they literally fall over dead with the first shot. No running, no panic- just swift death while doing what they love. A much nicer life and fate than cattle in feed lots, who endure filthy lives and scary long rides to slaughter and sometimes bungled killing.

[Nin]

I think I will shock everybody in here now and make mysef a few ennemies: often animal defense really makes me very angry and I tend to find it immoral too. Someone like Brigitte Bardot, defending animals and claiming racist and xenophobic ideas, is hateful for me.

When I hear that millions of dollars every year are spent on food for pets while children die of hunger - even in the States - I am raging.

I often think that people humanise animals, because they don't dare to "go for" humans. A human being is difficult, takes time, will not love you forever whatever you do - a human being is a challenge. Many people are not ready to take this challenge.

I hate cruelty in all forms, so also towards animals, but I would without any doubt save GWB or Saddam Hussein rather than any animal in the world.

[Sassafras]

Maria wrote:

Animals are just souls the same as us who happen to be playing an animal role at the time.

Ah. And for me, this is the crux of the matter and a major reason why I find cruelty to animals so disturbing. Humans are not superior to other animals.
What we are is the dominant predator ..... which does not give us the inalienable right to either exploit, mistreat or disregard the sanctity of other life forms. We are not better than any other form of life on this planet ... all that we are is different.

One should, IMO, respect all forms of life equally.

Nin wrote:

I often think that people humanise animals, because they don't dare to "go for" humans.

Well, in a way you're right. I don't 'go' for humans because on the whole, I find human behaviour deplorable. In short, considered in the abstract, as a species, I don't like them very much. And I certainly think there are too many of us inhabiting this planet. To the great detriment of the remainder.

<I often wonder if the planet has sufficient sentience to finally doom us to extinction. I suspect that we will go extinct at some point in the future. We're too destructive not to.>

Whether or not I 'humanise' animals is open to interpretation. I most certainly do believe that they have the same emotional reactions as humans.

I see no dividing line as in .... only humans have souls .... either none do or we all do. For me to think otherwise is sheer unmitigated arrogance.

[vison]

Ah, Nin.

I understand what you're saying and I largely agree with it.

I know a research veterinarian who works for a large drug company. They have clients who pay $60,000 US a year for their dogs and cats to have dialysis. One woman got her dog a heart transplant. This is in New York City, where human children sometimes lack medical care. I can't quite get over that.

The Vet. I know does the work but is often uncomfortable. However, some of what is learned at this facility is useful in terms of human healthcare.

It isn't that I don't understand how much people love their pets. But I think you are right, that often it is so easy to love a pet and so hard to love a person. A dog will never home drunk and beat you up. A cat will never take your car without permission and wreck it.

As for Ms. Bardot, I think she is as big a phoney as, say, Paul Watson, the guy who founded the Sea Shepherd Society. I know Paul Watson personally and have to say he's about as phoney and hypocritical as it is possible for a man to be. He made bags of money in that little "charity", just like the people do who run PETA.

There are many people who are genuinely interested in animal welfare. But when I hear people say something like this: "A rat is a dog is a boy" they lose me. My life has been profoundly affected by the animal rights terrorists of the world and I put them in the same class as other terrorists.

[Erunáme]

...

[Nin]

Vison about love to pets... a pet won't buy you roses or call you on a rainy afternoon or read Shakespeare with you...

Well, I may seem presomptious, but I do place humans higher than animals - because humans are concious beings, knowing about their own death, able to be spiritual, searching for a higher sense in life. I also think that finally earth only exists in our conciousness for without a concious being to observe it, life is sterile. So for me human life has a value that other life does not have. Only, with this value should come a range of responsibilities and a behaviour worthy of the possibilities of humanity and humanity only. But nothing but the possibility to have this spiritual power, may he use it or not, puts for me every human being in a higher position than any animal.

[vison]

Humans are not superior to other life forms.

But we are children of Earth as much as a beetle or an amoeba or an elephant is, and we have as much right to live here.

I can see no reason to expect that humans will go extinct. Our lifestyles might indeed change and that change might be drastic. But extinction? Not unless the entire eco-system is absolutely destroyed and there is no life left on earth at all.

There are about 6 billion of us right now. I wonder which ones of us are to be viewed as "too many"?

[Nin]

Maybe I did not express myself very well - I don't think that humans have more right to live on this earth than other creatures. But I am human. So for me humans are closest to me, I value them more if I had to save someone, I would save a human being. Maybe if I was a cat, I'd save a cat - only if I was a cat, I would not even understand the concept of being saved... and this makes the difference for me. And it makes me responsible for the cat.

It's late and I should sleep.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are about 6 billion of us right now. I wonder which ones of us are to be viewed as "too many"?

I responded to this in a separate thread:

Over Population