Wednesday, July 26, 2006

*Warning* Graphic Photo

You may want to skip this post if you think it is going to upset you. It contains a photo of an abused kitten.

I am going to leave a buffer zone of empty space here so you don't see the photo when the page uploads.




















Kitten dismembered Sims Dr. July 2006
Originally uploaded by dawnkua.

Thanks to the SPCA and Deirdre for letting me post this photo. This is the kitten from Sims Drive this morning - poor kitten was really butchered.

75 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh dear.. the poor little baby... ;o( I hope they catch the b***d who did this. V disturbing pic but it drives home the message on how tough life is for stray cats. Make sure you go home and hug your little darlings.

26/7/06 10:12 PM  
Blogger vegancat said...

We need to see the reality to remove the apathy in our heart and shout out..this won't do!! This has to stop and that we have to speak for this kitten and the many more kittens and cats that will be similarly butchered if we remain apathetic!

26/7/06 10:47 PM  
Blogger TrainRider said...

A thoroughly SAVAGE act!
Let us pray for this kitten and that its murderer is caught/never repeats the act!

26/7/06 11:10 PM  
Blogger clodya said...

So So sad. I do hope karma exists. I hope that the person and others like s/he will be caught and punished. I pray for this little darling and others.

Om Mani Padme Hum
Clodya

26/7/06 11:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could it not have been hit by a car? Sims Dr. is a big road.......before we start accusing people of butchering a cat (not that these things don't happen).

26/7/06 11:32 PM  
Anonymous jason said...

That is just unforgivable. People abuse weak innocent creatures because that's the only way they can feel powerful. What an insignificant life that must be. Let's hope they're caught and punished for this atrocity.

27/7/06 12:05 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Anonymous - even if it was hit by a car, someone took the time to cut it up which is quite disturbing. If you look at the photo carefully you can see it was cut. I heard that the cuts were done with a very sharp object.

27/7/06 12:06 AM  
Anonymous laurie said...

Unconscionable. Intolerable. Is there anything we can do? (I lit a candle for the precious soul at the site www.gratefulness.org, lk singapore) Sometimes I am ashamed to be human.

27/7/06 12:26 AM  
Blogger Kev said...

I was just at Sims Dr this afternoon...

Damn, that was terrible and a sick act of cruelty.

I hope some kind souls living near Sims Dr will keep a lookout for abuser(s)

27/7/06 12:37 AM  
Blogger auntie p said...

May I know how were the kitten's remains discovered? Was it left in the open? And where at?

27/7/06 9:06 AM  
Blogger KXBC said...

The govt is sweeping this animal cruelty thing under the carpet and the relevant authorities are not clamping down hard enough on the offenders.

Would you/CWS be able, together with SPCA, to get this story and photo published in the daily newspaper? It will definitely cause an uproar and deter would-be offenders from committing such a crime, abeit not because he/she feels for the animal, but at least from fear of being arrested and punished.

Personally I would chop up his fingers joint by joint everyday to let him/her know the pain the kitten was feeling when it was carved up. But of course we shouldn't do that since we are living in a civilised society (or is it what we think it to be?).

27/7/06 9:29 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Auntie P - I was told they were found near a coffeeshop in the area.

KXBC - unfortunately I don't think the newspapers will print this. In the past when we've had abuse cases, the papers will not print the more gory photos (sadly this isn't the first dismemberment case either). They have said the readers will write in and complain - and if you have seen the response to some photos that have been printed, you can see that they're right.

27/7/06 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with kxbc that the govt is not prioritising protection of animals sufficiently.

publishing the pic in a mainstream paper will certainly drive home a point, but as usual, animal lovers will be up in arms demanding change and justice and the govt will do nothg but turn a blind eye.

i really hope that someone with compassion as well as passion for animals will step up soon in the govt ranks and take decisive steps to make some headway in this matter. without political will, the efforts of volunteer welfare groups and concerned citizens can only go so far. time and time again these animal abuse cases have shown up the largeness of the gap that exists between what the citizens want and what the authorities are prepared to do.

27/7/06 9:48 AM  
Blogger vegancat said...

Gory photos are only found in newspaper like the lianhe wanbao. Yesterday I saw a photo of a lady (before and after with the after showing her face and upper body totally bloody-crusted.)

27/7/06 9:58 AM  
Blogger KXBC said...

Dawn, I understand your pain points. If SPCA, as the leading animal welfare group in Singapore, can try, maybe the photo and story will stand a chance of being published.

If I have your permission, I will blog about this, picture, links and all, in my blog tonight and hopefully, readers will also pick it up and spread the word. Hopefully, the politicians' ears will not be "deaf".

Can all our cat bloggers help to spread the word? Our dog/hamster/guinea pig/rabbit bloggers can help too.

27/7/06 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to have tougher laws to punish all the animal abusers, heavier fines, longer jail sentences and canning as well, and I hope the CWS together with the SPCA can somehow maybe do a joint petition, I will definitely sign up!! and then submit to the Govt

This is by far the most cruel and inhuman act I have ever seen, and yes, I strongly believe in Karma, and it will get back to this person who did this... absolutely sick to the bones!! I am just wondering was it a very sick cruel child prank, or was it done by a sick psyco adult...??

Maybe one way is to approach our local MP, and try convincing them to re-look at the animal abuse/cruelty laws etc?? Of course maybe their priorities lie in HDB/Lift Upgrading, or how to win more votes in the next election...

Cheers

27/7/06 11:46 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

KXBC - I am sure they probably have as the ST picked up the story. However I do know that when we asked the writers about it once for some abuse case, they said that they get letters from parents especially complaining when they have gory photos.

It's fine to link to my blog but the photo is from the SPCA, so you should check with them if you can use it :)

Anonymous - somehow doubt it was a child. The cuts look quite clean.

27/7/06 11:51 AM  
Blogger KXBC said...

Parents want their children to live in this fantasy world where all meals are free and always piping hot, all Singaporeans do not have to worry about cost of living and live in immaculately clean flats, that cruelty to animals do not happen, that we are a civilised bunch (I think most of us are), and that there is no blood and gory in the world etc.

I say to that: "please wake up and let your children see the real picture". See, experience and learn from mistakes. I do not know nor have I experienced everything, so I am still learning everyday. Like everyone else.

27/7/06 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i can't understand why laws for animal abuse is so slack here. I would be very afraid if the person beside me right now is an animal abuser because I have no idea what a person who is capable of this can and might do

27/7/06 1:50 PM  
Blogger Shaz said...

It breaks my heart to see the poor baby dying this way...I was really upset seeing that. =(

I wish the SPCA could be given a police-like status like what you see on Animal Planet and exercise the right to fine or arrest people for misdemeanours like cruelty to animals etc.

I hope we can catch this bugger soon cuz if he / she can do this to cats, he / she can do it to humans even. Seems like we've got a sadist on our hands cuz the act shows no remorse...

27/7/06 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another thg that is worrying is that this b@st*rd obviously cut the kitten up in private and then put the body in a public place, knowing it will be found and that it will probably make the news because of its cruelty. he cld easily have disposed of it quietly.

its like he's asking, so what can u do abt it?

27/7/06 3:01 PM  
Anonymous x VEGAN x THUG x said...

In the name of God,how can anyone done this barbaric murder? I have spread the message in my journal as well,also towards the net. Together,Animal cruelty must be STOP NOW!

27/7/06 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

who's that satan or devil who did this. I cursed that person who murdered and dismembered this kitten. How could he/she did such a thing to a poor baby who is so young, innocent and helpless. It's too cruel. That poor kitten must hv suffered tremendous pain. He must be in agony.

What is the government doing?? And why is the government not doing anything yet? why can't they implement some tough laws to stop people from abusing animals, especially the young ones. There are already so many cases of animal abuse. I am sure the government is aware of it.

We must stop animal cruelty NOW.
We must create awareness to the public and teach them how to properly treat and respect these animals.

I am very very angry and upset. Who is that barbarian? Is he/she is a pervert?

Let's pray for this kitten. And I hope someone (the authorities) will do something abt it.

27/7/06 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pray for the little one. Sobs..

This totally babaric!! I agree we should have some kind of an animal police... And catch all those heartless freaking animal abusers and send them behind bars!
WAKE UP SINGAPORE!! If the govt dun do something about this right now then I really PITY our young.. Whats the point of teaching "be kind to animals" and all that moral education stuff when OUR own govt is not doing much to help the animals.

27/7/06 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel this case should be reported in the Newspapers. Let the whole nation know about it. Let's stand out and speak for the dead kitten. Justice must be done.

What had the kitten done? I guess, the kitten is a bit playful and it's natural to be playful because it is young and innocent. Why must he be dismembered? Only a beast will do it. A normal person will not do this.

Did any one see this incident?. If yes, pl stand out and speak out. Do not remain silent. All the kittens' lives are at stake now. Any time, any moment, they will be dismembered by this wicked fellow.

27/7/06 9:58 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Anonymous, the SPCA did submit this to the papers - but as you can see from the cutting a bit lower, it was just a small paragraph.

Do pass the message on so that people know about this incident.

28/7/06 12:02 AM  
Anonymous lilien said...

oh.my.goodness!!!

teh cat-killer better be mentally unsound if not i'd suggest a good beating!!! sigh. its really sad when poor hapless little creatures get tortured for some sick person's pleasure. down with animal cruelty!

28/7/06 1:47 PM  
Blogger Spluch said...

This is inhumane. Whoever done this must have lots lots lots....... of screws coming loose in his/her brain. Unforgiveable.

28/7/06 2:44 PM  
Blogger 'Lil Miss Freckles said...

this is unforgivable! how can any human being perform such cruel acts to an innocent animal? it hurts to imagine how the poor baby had suffered before it finally departed this cruel world!

i'm going to link this to my blog. and i hope you all will too. we need to get this message out to the public. if the local newspapers won't, we will!

28/7/06 3:18 PM  
Blogger dawndie said...

My heart broke when I saw the kitten. I'll spread the word on my blog, Dawn.

I hope the rotten f***er burns in hell. And a hundred times more.

28/7/06 3:29 PM  
Blogger iso said...

i do agree with many that this is really quite a horrific act of cruelty.

this alone isn't basis for catching the sadistic b*****d. there have been reports that an animal abuser today, is a potential murderer (yes, of fellow humans) tomorrow.

if the fella is caught, what kind of criminal charges does he face? any one know?

28/7/06 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Mizz said...

That act makes me so angry! No respect for animals at all!

This reminds me of an email I once got. Pictures of a Japanese-looking lady stepping and crushing a little kitten, barely a month old-looking, to death.

28/7/06 4:52 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Thanks to everyone for linking! I'm not sure if the newspapers will not publish THIS photo - but I heard from SPCA they did send this to the papers and it was not published. I also know that the papers did tell us previously that they do have parents complain. I can understand their reluctance. Fortunately that's why we have blogs :)

Iso - the fine is $10000 and/or a year's jail sentence for animal abuse.

28/7/06 6:54 PM  
Anonymous fendi said...

this time i hope they could lay a heavier punishment for animal abusers rather than fined these suckers.

these laws for animal abuser should be review. it's just too light for these suckers.

28/7/06 6:56 PM  
Anonymous reversebungee said...

what comes around, goes around. which sick B**t**d wld do this?

28/7/06 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Mizz said...

Shut up lah all of u!
Knn so noisy!

28/7/06 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One word for the person who did this.....B**T**D!!!!! You will suffer in your next F**KING LIFE!!!!

28/7/06 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

attn: pple who eat chicken / pork / beef / fish,

if you think someone who cuts up a cat is cruel etc, try to have some perspective.

meat eating is the norm in SG, so most people forget that it is a choice.
you CHOOSE to support the cruel practices in factory farming.

do you think cute animals like dogs and cats are different from pigs or cows in terms of the amount of suffering they experience?

-iEatMeatToo

28/7/06 11:25 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

I Eat Meat too - first of all, full disclosure - I am vegetarian. Having said that however, abuse is different from eating meat. People may eat meat, but certainly the vast majority people don't condone torturing the chicken before it's killed.

Abuse is an act of violence.

29/7/06 1:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawn, I'd say most meateaters don't *consciously* condone animal torture. Because we eat meat without thinking about what each chicken/pig/cow endured.

It is not clear that the cat must have suffered more than the typical pork pig. The typical pig endures years of confinement in horrific conditions. The cat may have been free to roam, and if death came quickly by decapitation, then it is a relatively quick death. Then there isnt much suffering compared to the typical farm animal.

I'm not saying the abuse of "cute" animals shouldn't be discouraged.
I am saying it is morally inconsistent to be jailing/caning people for abusing cats and dogs while at the same time, it is perfectly acceptable to be eating chickens/pork/beef that are factory-farmed.

We cannot have animal-abuse policies that treat species's differently depending on whether they are "cute".

If we were concerned abt animal suffering, it is more important to increase awareness of factory farming, taper off our meat consumption.

Kudos to those who are already veg*.
As for us meat-eaters, it might be hypocritical for us to be asking for him to be caned/jailed etc.

-iEatMeatToo

29/7/06 4:47 AM  
Anonymous hypo said...

and what is so different between being a vegan or vegetarian, and a "meat-eater"? are plants not living things as well?

29/7/06 5:29 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

I think we're getting a little off topic here. I agree IeatMeattoo that more should be done about cruel farming methods. The question may be one of awareness.

However, in this particular case someone chopped up a cat. I'd like to think - and I'm quite sure people would agree - that if we found a dead chicken also chopped up placed there that there would be similar unhappiness.

The worry here is that someone saw a kitten running around and decided that they would abuse it. It was an act of deliberation and violence. There was no 'reason' if you like to kill this cat other than a desire to hurt another creature, and that in itself is extremely worrying.

29/7/06 7:32 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

The worrying thing is the motivation behind the killing. People who kill animals for work do it because they're paid to do it and people do plenty of things they'd rather not do because they need to make a living - if for example, a butcher decided it was fun to just chop up chickens or cows outside of work, I would be equally worried.

At the end of the day, do you want to live next to the person who did this? Who knows what sparked him or her off that made him or her so angry that he or she decided to mutilate this kitten? And who knows what will spark him or her off again? Another animal that cannot speak and is a lot smaller and more vulnerable, or the human being who can voice opinions - and who can probably irritate him or her a lot more easily?

29/7/06 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that wicked fellow who dismembered the kitten will get his/her retribution. He is a sadist and a wild beast.

I hope the killer will be caught soon. I really hate this murderer.

Next time, he/she will be dismembered, like the way he/she dismembered the kitten. This is cause and effect. And I believe there is retribution.

30/7/06 12:15 AM  
Anonymous hypo said...

an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. soon, everyone will be blind and toothless.

30/7/06 2:03 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Putting aside all questions of retribution and what goes around, comes around, a violent crime was committed. It isn't like the person littered. The person may need help and/or jail time - but I certainly don't think they should get away with this.

We don't have to look far - look at David Hooi and how soon he committed another crime when he was let out and the string of non-animal related crimes he committed. Look at the studies that link to violence in animals to violence against people. It's time to stop saying that it's 'just' an animal and look at the bigger picture - violence is violence.

30/7/06 2:19 AM  
Anonymous hypo said...

an act is only a crime if there is a law against it.

acts are just that - acts. there is nothing inherently good or bad, or right or wrong about them. such judgements only come with the ethical and social baggage that people attach to them.

30/7/06 3:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawn,

> "if we found a dead chicken also chopped up placed there that there would be similar unhappiness."

Agreed. However, distinguish between emotional responses and moral judgements that should be supported by reason.

I meant to point out that many of the comments of condemnation are driven by emotion rather than moral reasoning. Or they are intended to be moral judgements by people who are naively unaware of the treatment of farm animals.

RE: Animal farmers / abattoir workers etc, agreed, they are generally exempt from moral responsibility, the responsibility lies on meat consumers. Presently, this is a large (majority?) fraction of regular citizens. We *choose* to eat meat, we support the breeding, confinement, and slaughter of sentient beings solely for our own purpose.
And this is now perfectly normal in SG.
Because of the above, it is morally inconsistent to support very severe punishment for cat/dog-abusers.
I know this is an unpopular point of view. We may even have to question the existing laws regarding cat/dog abuse. Are they reasonable given that meat-eating and factory farming are the norm?

> "At the end of the day, do you want to live next to the person who did this? ... who knows what will spark him or her off again?"
> "Look at the studies that link to violence in animals to violence against people."

Now this is a different angle, might be a plausible justification for punishing cat/dog abusers in our meat-eating-tolerant society.

Sure, no one wants such people around.
But I don't know if it is reasonable to punish him with jail/cane though.
I don't think SG is such a police state yet as to punish people for their *projected* *potential* to do harm in the *future*.
There's the question of the purpose of punishment, but that's a long story, that I think experts still disagree about.
Aside from that, it might open up too many degrees of freedom in deciding sentences. It would be a mess, many people end up unfairly sentenced etc.

Hypo,

>"are plants not living things as well?"

Sure. So?
Your common-sense that it is more important to protect a cat from suffering, than say a bee, than say a plant, roughly corresponds with a heirarchy based on how developed their nervous systems are.

> "acts are just that - acts. there is nothing inherently good or bad, or right or wrong about them. such judgements only come with the ethical and social baggage that people attach to them."

Perhaps you intend the above to justify the double standards we have for "cute" animals versus farm animals.

Suppose I agree with that, I assert that there is such a thing moral progress. i.e. awareness that there is room for improvement in existing moral norms. I think internal inconsistencies may be the worst class of problems with moral codes.

-iEatMeatToo

30/7/06 4:53 AM  
Anonymous hypo said...

iEatMeatToo,

perhaps you have misunderstood, but my intent was not to justify anything, much less the double standards being shown towards "cute" animals.

and no, i do not believe that protecting a cat is of greater importance than protecting other entities, especially not because of differences in nervous systems.

by the way, excellent point about moral inconsistencies. it was roughly the point i was trying to make, except between vegetarianism/veganism and "meat-eating".

30/7/06 11:44 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

IeatMeat too - I don't think this is about projected harm in the future. This is about something that the abuser has ALREADY done. True, people may condone factory farming or what not, but people don't go up and chop animals up THEMSELVES for absolutely no reason. This is not to mention that should a butcher or someone working in an abbatoir kill any animal in an inhumane fashion, they too can be found guilty for abuse.

This is about the violence that was done to this cat for no reason. Let's think about what this 3 week old kitten could possibly have done to this person to justify this kind of reaction. Now think about whether a person would be more or less likely to set a person like this off.

I can tell you from my previous experience that the reason why witnesses in earlier cases would not come forward in cases of abuse is that they were frightened of the abusers. They told us that they were violent people and were frightened lest the abuser come after them when they were out of jail. Others left little 'messages' for feeders with the carcass of the body - which reminds me of this case. The body was laid out so someone would see it.

30/7/06 11:49 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30/7/06 11:56 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Hypo - I think that IEatMeatToo was the one who thought that there was an inconsistency, I think that everyone, meat eater or vegetarian, should worry about abuse.

Also as a society certainly we legislate acts that we consider to be anti-social if you like. Of course laws do reflect what society thinks is important or not important - it's part of the social contact of living in society in the first place. Every civilisation has codified moral codes of conduct. If we feel that there is no judgment that attaches to anything, then people would feel free to murder, pillage or rape.

30/7/06 12:03 PM  
Anonymous hypo said...

dawn,

how do you even know that whoever did that did not have a reason for doing it?

i don't remember saying acts should not be judged. but, who is to say that one judgement should be right, and others wrong?

also, how do you know that if acts were not judged, people would commit acts like murder, pillaging and rape, as and when they want? have you lived in a such an environment before? even in situations when acts are judged, people can still do whatever they want. all that matters is whether they have the desire to do it.

and, if like you said, society decides what is important and what isn't. with its overt indifference to animal abuse, this society obviously deems it to be unimportant. yet, you also said that "everyone, meat-eater or vegetarian, should worry about abuse". how are you an accurate representation of this society then?

there is an inconsistency because it is morally acceptable for our food sources (be it plants or animals) to be subjected to abusive treatment, yet ethically repugnant to subject other living things (cats or strays in this case) to similarly abusive treatment.

30/7/06 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dawn

> "I don't think this is about projected harm in the future. This is about something that the abuser has ALREADY done."

OK, then the sentence would be in proportion to the deed alone. And I think the deed should be viewed in perspective with the norm of meateating+factoryfarming.

> "True, people may condone factory farming or what not, but people don't go up and chop animals up THEMSELVES for absolutely no reason."

And *why* do people condone factory farming? It's mostly merely because we *like* eating meat! We wouldn't starve to death if we didn't have meat. For this reason, the cruelty continues in factory farms, on a scale many orders of magnitude greater than the abuse of cats/dogs by weirdos. How is liking the taste of meat definitely a better reason for cruelty, than a cat-abusers' reasons, which we can only speculate. (pathalogical pent-up anger?) In any case, the number of individual animals affected is much greater farming.

> "They told us that they were violent people and were frightened lest the abuser come after them when they were out of jail."

I think this situation happens in any number of other crimes. Even in non-violent crimes, as long as the perp is a vengeful sort of person. I suppose there are standard measures to protect testifiers.

Hypo,

> "there is an inconsistency because it is morally acceptable for our food sources (be it plants or animals) to be subjected to abusive treatment, yet ethically repugnant to subject other living things (cats or strays in this case) to similarly abusive treatment."

Hypo is talking about a different source of inconsistency from me.
I think we have reason to treat higher animals differently from plants. Cruelty has to do with causing suffering, so it has to do with whether the recipient of abuse has the capacity to experience suffering. Roughly, Higher animals more so than invertebrates, and invertebrates more so than plants.

The double-standards that I point out is the different treatment of higher-animals.
pigs/cows getting worse treatment than cats/dogs.

30/7/06 4:33 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30/7/06 5:29 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

IEatMeatToo, let's carry your argument to the logical extreme. Most Singaporeans support the death penalty (and this was recently shown in a study). Putting aside all questions of how you personally feel about the death penalty (because your argument relates to the majority of Singaporeans), does this therefore mean that if I go out and deliberately kill someone tomorrow that society has no right to punish me? Certainly I must have had a reason to do it too - maybe I was angry with them - but this does not excuse me in the eyes of the law. By your argument, society condones killing (ie the death penalty) and therefore they cannot condemn me if I go out and kill.

You made an argument about whether a perpetrator is a vengeful sort of person or not. I think the question is this - someone shoplifts, and your report them. They may or may not be vengeful. They might spit at you in the lift. They may scrawl on your door.

Someone however who has abused a kitten has ALREADY shown a potential for violence. This is someone who decided to chop a kitten up in an act of violence. What standard measures are there to protect people when you know the abuser is going to move back home and live next door to you again (as happened in one case)? There are none.

In addition, you are talking about cruelty in factory farming because the animals are kept in bad conditions. This is not about turning a blind eye to bad conditions. This is about someone going out and deliberately abusing a kitten himself or herself. I don't think they are the same at all. One is an act of perhaps wilful ignorance, one is an act where you go out, grab a cat, hold it down, dismember it purposely and leave it out in the open for people to find.

The act is similar I think to one where you see a person drowning. Do you have a moral impetus to save them? Perhaps. Do you have a legal impetus? No you do not. However you cannot hold someone under the water till they drown. That would be murder.

30/7/06 5:44 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

IEatMeatToo - one other thing, you mention that someone may abuse a kitten out of 'pathological pent up anger'. Do you think that someone who has already exhibited signs of pathological pent up anger should be running around in society? They're not going to say, oh this is one kitten and I must stop here. I must not go on and hurt other animals or other people - it's pathological. They aren't able to rein in their anger because it ISN'T logical.

Pathological anger also isn't 'because' of something - often it has nothing to do with the person or object of animal in question. It's an outer manifestaion of a internal problem.

30/7/06 6:21 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Hypo - everyone has their reasons for doing something of course, but let's take your example to an extreme. let's say I don't like my neighbour. Is this a good enough reason for me to kill him?

As for your question of whether people would murder, rape or pillage if there was no law, it would depend on whether you think that people behave as they do because of an innate moral code or because there are laws to guide us. If you look at countries at war, or where society has broken down due though - riots, natural disasters, etc - you DO see that people tend to do these things. Note that in almost every situation of this sort, martial law is imposed BECAUSE people are murdering, raping and pillaging. I don't have to live in a society like that to know it happens - I just have to look at what happens in the rest of the world.

You may think that society does not think abuse is important - but it is in the statutes. Studies also point to animal abuse as the first sign of esclating violence. For example, the RSPCA now works with a children's society in the UK because they have found that the abuse of an animal is the first sign that the abuse will turn towards a family memers. So society does have to pay attention to abuse.

My earlier point was that this is an act of violence - whether it be against an animal, a child or another person, I would be worried.

You'll note also that I never said that our food sources should be subject to abuse - I did say clearly earlier on that if someone was a butcher and said abused an animal, that they would also be subject to the law. I think you may be confusing the actus reus (the act, ie the killing) and the mens rea (the intention behind the killing).

30/7/06 6:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> "By your argument, society condones killing (ie the death penalty) and therefore they cannot condemn me if I go out and kill."

Sure, you would show that there is a problem with my argument if my argument does imply the above absurdity.
But I can distinguish mine as follows:
Capital punishment has serious arguments for/against it that we don't need to discuss here.
Whereas the meat-eating norm isn't backed by any serious reasoning, it is backed by mere taste preference and habit. A flippant reason for the suffering of millions of animals every day.

> "I did say clearly earlier on that if someone was a butcher and said abused an animal, that they would also be subject to the law."

Yes I understood you the first time.

> "I think you may be confusing the actus reus (the act, ie the killing) and the mens rea (the intention behind the killing)."

I am quite clear with that distinction.
I agree that if the butcher tortures an animal for fun, then he is responsible for the animals' suffering.
A slaughterhouse worker in performing his normal duties is not responsible for the animals' suffering, it is us meat-consumers who are responsible. Sure, there is no violent intent on our part...

> "I don't think they are the same at all. One is an act of perhaps wilful ignorance, one is an act where you go out, grab a cat..."

Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree.
I like to view deliberate ignorance/inaction as *morally* equal to deliberate action. However, I must admit that I am uncomfortable with supporting legal punishment for inactions.

-iEatMeatToo

31/7/06 12:38 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31/7/06 1:10 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

>Capital punishment has serious >arguments for/against it that we >don't need to discuss here.
>Whereas the meat-eating norm isn't >backed by any serious reasoning, it >is backed by mere taste preference >and habit. A flippant reason for >the suffering of millions of >animals every day.

People are meat-eaters for many different reasons. I don't think that it's as easy as saying it is a mere taste preference and habit.

We weren't however talking about reasons for or against the situation. We were talking about your argument that people condone the situation (whatever the reasons for or against it are) - but rather your point that society condones something by its action. Your point was that society cannot denounce abuse and still condone the eating of meat. Both involve killing.

My point is that the same analogy applies to the death penalty and murder. I am sure you can find people with equally convincing arguments that the death penalty cannot be applied in one situation and still denounce murder - and they too can be backed up with statistics. One argument is that society it taking the easy way out by killing people when there is hardly any rehabilitative element in the death penalty. This is essentially the same argument you're making (ie people eat meat because of habit and taste not because of any 'benefit'). To sum up the argument on the death penalty in one sentence is as misleading as lumping all people who eat meat in another.

> "I did say clearly earlier on that if someone was a butcher and said abused an animal, that they would also be subject to the law."

This was more to address Hypo's point! :)


>I agree that if the butcher >tortures an animal for fun, then he >is responsible for the animals' >suffering.

Exactly - and he would be guilty of abuse.

>A slaughterhouse worker in >performing his normal duties is not >responsible for the animals' >suffering, it is us meat-consumers >who are responsible. Sure, there is >no violent intent on our part...

I think you're missing the point. The intent is on the part of the slaughterhouse worker. If the worker abuses the animal, it is not about whether meat eaters are responsible, the WORKER is responsible. Just because he or she may kill the animal does not mean he or she may kill the animal any way they like.

As another analogy, the public executioner is allowed to hang someone under the law - he or she is not allowed to torture, abuse of hurt the person while in the course of doing so.

Both the worker and the executioner would be subject to punishment if they overstepped what they are allowed to do.

>Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree.
>I like to view deliberate >ignorance/inaction as *morally* >equal to deliberate action. >However, I must admit that I am >uncomfortable with supporting legal >punishment for inactions.

Therein lies the contradiction. As you admit, you are torn between how you 'feel' (or as you call it your emotional response and moral judgment) and what should be legislated.

31/7/06 1:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> "I am sure you can find people with equally convincing arguments that the death penalty cannot be applied in one situation and still denounce murder...

Yes, there is serious debate either way with regards to death penalty. (I think the above argument, by itself is weak, nvm, this doesn't affect my point), I only need to establish that there is serious debate and difficult decisions behind the death penalty.

> "One argument is that society it taking the easy way out by killing people when there is hardly any rehabilitative element in the death penalty. This is essentially the same argument you're making (ie people eat meat because of habit and taste not because of any 'benefit')."

huh? I'm arguing that way?
i hope not... prolly too long to clarify.

I don't need to make a stand for/against death penalty for the purpose of my argument. I am acknowledging that capital punishment is a more complex issue to decide.
Contrast that with the meat-eating norm, which is not backed by that kind of philosophical arguments. It is the norm mostly by habit and taste, I assert. (You disagree with this? Why else is it the norm?)
Since there is no stronger reason for factoryfarming, I assert that meat-eaters are similarly accountable as animal abusers or if you prefer pet-neglecters. You might say there is no cruel intent in meat-eaters, sure, ok, but meat-eaters are affecting many more individual animals per day than the typical pet-neglecter. So they might balance out, which is why I think they are comparable.

When I refer to "strong reasons" for consuming meat, I mean for example, if someone would get sick if he didn't have a certain nutrient only available thru animals. Medical products, testing etc. In these cases animal use might be reasonable. But for meat-eaters in general, if it is only taste preference and habit, then I think it is comparable to pet-neglect.

> "If the worker abuses the animal, it is not about whether meat eaters are responsible, the WORKER is responsible."

Huh? I already said I fully agree with that.
And then the further point I intended was:
Who is accountable for the pig/cow's suffering, experienced in the normal course of his sad life? ("normal" as in he isn't additionally bullied by any farm workers)
Ans: us meat-eaters.

31/7/06 2:56 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31/7/06 8:38 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31/7/06 8:46 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31/7/06 8:47 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31/7/06 8:47 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

>I don't need to make a stand for/against death penalty for the purpose of my argument. I am acknowledging that capital punishment is a more complex issue to decide.
Contrast that with the meat-eating >norm, which is not backed by that >kind of philosophical arguments. It >is the norm mostly by habit and taste, I assert. (You disagree with >this? Why else is it the norm?)

There is no norm. People eat meat for many different reasons - just as people go vegetarian, or choose to do anything in life for many different reasons. You yourself pointed one out.

>Since there is no stronger reason for factoryfarming, I assert that meat-eaters are similarly accountable as animal abusers or if you prefer pet-neglecters. You might say there is no cruel intent in meat-eaters, sure, ok, but meat-eaters are affecting many more individual animals per day than the typical pet-neglecter. So they might balance out, which is why I think >they are comparable.

The intent IS the whole point. Let me put it this way. A kills B. Does A go to jail? The answer: it depends on A's intent. A may get off completely, A may get to go to jail for a shorter time (for diminished responsibility) or A may go to jail for the entire time.


I think you're still missing my point. The point is not the INTENT of the people EATING the meat (the ultimate intent if you will). The point I'm trying to make, and which you say you agree with is as follows:-


> "If the worker abuses the animal, it is not about whether meat eaters are responsible, the WORKER is responsible."

>Huh? I already said I fully agree >with that.

Exactly. So whether or not someone else is accountable eventually is not what we're talking about at all.

If you want to carry your argument again to the logical extreme, then we're all guilty of exploitation of children every time you buy clothes from a third world country from a sweat shop (and hence should not complain about abuse of children), of supporting whaling when you buy things from Japan (and hence have no locus standi to complain about whaling), etc (and arguments could be made for this similarly). The list goes on and on.

That's NOT what we're talking about here.What I am saying is this :- just because you can kill an animal for meat does not mean you can torture it, which you say you agree with.

So you agree that the torture of the animal is punishable, ergo you agree that abuse should be punished, no?

Sometimes it's easy to use what we view as other peoples' inaction as a reason not to do something - ie the world is polluted anyway, let me go buy an SUV, all people cheat anyway, so it's fine if I do.

If we behave on the basis that we are reflecting the worst of human behaviour then society will never get better. As you said, you believe in moral progress. Along the way, of course there will be inconsistencies, but if individuals do not set the route by asking for HIGHER moral standards in their own personal behaviour, then society will never reach there.

So in this case, instead of saying oh we should not punish this man because he abuses animals, because we eat animals, I am curious why you still eat meat? You obviously are very conversant with all the arguments of why factory farming is bad. Instead of excusing bad behaviour (abuse) by going to the lowest common denominator, why not punish that bad behaviour and take a stance in your daily life to correct what you call a moral inconsistency?

31/7/06 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh man.. who's that idiot who did this? the poor little kitten!

31/7/06 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Starry said...

So poor thing, the person who did this sure will get his/her retribution. Just hate such animal abuse man. I believe the animals deserve to live too!

31/7/06 2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That killer is a satan, a devil, a ghost, a beast, a pervert, he is not human. How could he be so cruel to kill an innocent cute kitten.

Tell him, GO TO HELL.

I hope the police arrest him quickly.

1/8/06 11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if i were to find the f***er i will torture him to death

27/1/07 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we let him go to jail he will only come out and kill more cats so i say torture the bloody asshole

27/1/07 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ieatmeatoo makes lots of sense. It is just that his ideas are taboo. Dawn, have u opened ur mind to his points? Mayb u reacted emotionally w/o considering ieatmeattoo's points?

-Ieatmeatoo
You must have some training in philosophy.

Hair-Tonic

8/8/07 9:02 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

hairtonic - this was so long ago I had to go read it again. I don't think that I didn't open my mind to his points. I know what he was trying to get at - but as I pointed out what he said wasn't logically consistent. There's a difference between something being taboo and something not making sense and I think I went into those reasons why quite clearly.

9/8/07 1:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am a animal abuser sadlt and i belive this kid has been seriously abused like i have he has been beaten to the point in where blood is really everywhere really he doesnt mean to but its just the way people would rather have a kitten to play with instead of minding of a what a human being has also

27/10/08 11:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home