What caused me discomfort far more acute - because it was mental, not bodily - were the illustrations of the bestiality, the futility, the insanity of war and of the system that produced war as surely as land uncultivated produces noxious weeds: these were now forced on my notice every day.


The first cart of dead that I saw, legs sticking out stiffly, heads lolling on shoulders, all the poor bodies shovelled into a pit and covered with quicklime, made me wonder what the owners had been doing when they were called up, crammed into uniforms, and told to kill, maim, mutilate other men like themselves, with whom they had no quarrel. All of them had left behind many who would be grieved, perhaps beggared, by their taking off. And all to no purpose, for nothing.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWstretcher.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jfyfe.htm

some things are always go hand in hand, like rich and being better off. who wants to give that up...

>> ^longde:

@Gallowflak, so where do you place sport hunting/sport fishing? Where the utility in that?


Its actual utility is questionable, but I still think there's a clear gulf between that and, to put it one way, inflicting suffering pointlessly.

It really depends on the intentions of the person. I don't think that most hunters are out to cause suffering; they're out to indulge themselves in their activity. Inflicting cruelty isn't the objective, then, and it's a very different psychological process.

The question is: what are the origins of this behaviour? What does it mean? How does it reflect on the person acting in that way?

And my argument is that those who act to cause pain and suffering (esp. on a sentient entity) and are capable of doing this without remorse, and without empathy, are dangerous, disgusting and obscene.

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I hate animal abuse, and suspect more people would readily shoot a human in the act of beating a dog or cat than beating another human.

If it had been a story about a conservative's cat killed by a seemingly liberal fiend,

1) You wouldn't have seen it. Ever. Perhaps on Fox.

2) Of if you did see it on CNN or in the NYT the slant would be, 'Mean rich conservative kept cat outdoors and vulnerable.'

Don't deny this.

And enough downvoting of longde's comments, already. His argument may not be popular, but it's logical.

The slaughter of animals for human consumption and products is tragic 'from a certain point of view', but in many of those processes the animals are killed as humanely as possible.

A random a-hole assaulting living creatures without purpose should appreciate the karmic receipt for such violence, especially from club-wielding bystanders.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

That's not fair. I would be surprised if he wasn't as disgusted by this as the rest of us.
(Please don't surprise me, qm) >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.
Just saving him the trouble.

The Boston Bruins goalie. The Bruins met with Obama that day so he could congratulate them on winning the Stanley Cup, but Thomas refused to go citing 'political differences' with the president. Now we know how he spent his time.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Who is that? >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It was probably Tim Thomas on his day off.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

>> ^longde:

I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.



What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.

A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

Who is that? >> ^Drachen_Jager:

It was probably Tim Thomas on his day off.

That's not fair. I would be surprised if he wasn't as disgusted by this as the rest of us.

(Please don't surprise me, qm) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.
Just saving him the trouble.

Don't forget that the liberal deserved it because liberals are terrible people ethically and morally. Otherwise, spot on.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.
Just saving him the trouble.

>> ^longde:

I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.



Animal abuse is actually pretty highly correlated with other violent crime towards humans, to the extent that a quick Googling to verify my faulty memory found the assertion that a study found that *100%* of studied sexual homicides found that they all practiced torturing animals first.

Of course, human-violence => animal-violence != animal-violence => human-violence, but still.

I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.

>> ^Jinx:

Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.

>> Quantummushroom said: What the liberal cat-owning taxocrats fail to realise is that leftists have a long history of cat mutilation, as shown by their cat-hater-in-chief, Odumba.

Just saving him the trouble.

I do not often feel the urge to state my admiration for a comment, but this time, I think, I must. Nice one.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Brothers and sisters.

As an atheist, and a fairly outspoken one at that, I don't feel like Hedges trying to mischaracterize myself or my atheism. I feel like he is trying to challenge me, to keep me from being hypocritical and to make sure that my anger is turned only towards those who do harm, regardless of faith.

I think his criticism of Harris and Hitch have more to do with American attitudes on the middle east than atheists attitudes. Most Americans, myself included, know very little about that region, and what little I/we do know is all negative - sexism, genital mutilation, death threats against cartoonists, jihad, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. I assume a more realistic picture of the middle east would more closely resemble people of any country. I assume they love their friends and family, that they wish for a better life and a better world for their kids, that they enjoy art and music, that they have skills and hobbies and struggle to make ends meet, that they laugh and joke and mock and criticize the extremists of their country the way we do in ours, that they are frustrated with politics and the power the privileged few lord over them... but portraying humanity of the people in the middle east is something that is simply not done in American media.

I believe that we atheists, who value tolerance, should be making these arguments ourselves, and not trying to brush it under the rug when one of our public figures gets called out. I'm sure if you go through my comments over the years, I've probably made countless fruitless, unproductive and spiteful things about religion. I'm going to make an effort to do and say things differently in the future.

I'm down for coexisting with good people of all walks of life. We all have a common enemy in the powerful individuals who have seized control of our country. I don't want to fight with well intentioned Christians anymore; I want to fight along side them. I want to embrace the social justice that has long been a tradition of both liberalism and Catholicism - among other religions. I want to embrace throwing the money changers out of our democratic temples. I want a society that can be judged on how it treats the least among us. I want to live in a tighter knit, more connected and stronger society; not a selfish, paranoid and weaker one.

I think Hedges sees the problems of our time with remarkable clarity. I'm not threatened by him.

Dude, that Ron Paul commercial kicked ass! RON PAUL, THE THIRST MUTILATOR!