Posted on 06/15/2010 9:12:54 AM PDT by Salvation
ROFL!!!!!
Sorry. See:
http://www.noahide.org/index.asp?Level=90&Parent=0
“I dispute that labeling something cruel without evaluating the intent is in error.”
We have to be careful about the end justifying the means.
“Do you think that trapping is cruel? “
Not if the trap is a humane one. For instance, steel jaw type traps can be cruel and in many states they are illegal.
The CONCEPT of trapping animals for their food and fur is no in itself cruel. Some of the MEANS of doing so CAN be.
“I say no, the intent is what is important. The intent is to harvest not to torture the animal.”
Intent is important but again, the ends do not always justify the means.
“The leftest have penetrated the Catholic Dictionary.”
True, but they have invaded everything.
On the other hand, people who think animals have rights, have souls, and should not be mistreated are not by definition leftists.
I like guns and hunting but don’t approve of animal cruelty.
I’m far from a leftist. Check my posts.
I really doubt if many people on this form, including hunters, approve of Michael Vick or bullfighting.
Congrat’s.
I see Joe’s point here.
“Person” ality. I stand corrected.
I also agree that it is folly to place human traits onto animals and expect a meaningful interpretation. I never got the dead animal gift thing myself.
That was my point in the first place. To say they don't have "personality" is meaningless if all one means to say is that they aren't people. If they think we owe animals nothing because they aren't people, say that.
Most people understand the word personality differently. And why did they qualify it as "individual personality"? Could an animal have collective personality? What is that even supposed to mean?
It is clear when they say "individual personality", they mean individual traits of character, behavoir, likes/dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. It's pure bunk, and I stated at the outset.
Had they meant to say we owe animals nothing because they are not people, they'd have said that.
Yes, it is wrong to anthropomorphize animals. It is neither fair to them nor to us. And if it comes to a point of choosing them or us, we should choose us.
But to allege that they are things with nobody inside is also absurd.
‘Pure buncombe.’
No kidding...because they have no independent personalities? What kind of ‘excuse’ or reasoning is that?
I am with you there....all my animals, each of my 4 horses and two donkeys and even my chickens, not to mention my 2 cats and dog....they have distinct and independent personalities.
All my animals are like that. Even guinea pigs. Hell, just yesterday I encountered a particularly brave chickadee.
Lordy....my menagerie certainly has unique qualities of individual traits....if not person-hood.
My Rosie (horse) is a rule maker, Sammy (horse)doesn’t trust easily, Bandid (horse), loves everyone, Jack (horse)is playful and energetic. Homer (donkey) is like a grumpy old man but has a soft heart, Jenny (donkey) is like a spoiled whinny child. I have one chicken that loves humans. I had a pet goose for 15 years who was as faithful, dedicated and as loving as any dog. I love them all.
Amen.
“It is the Prudent man that careth for his beasts,
But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel”
Proverbs 12:10
The Father considers kindness to animals to be wisdom, and cruelty to be WICKEDNESS.
When we are Followers of Jesus, and Children of God, we are also called to be Good Stewards of His Creation.
This is from a dictonary compiled by Fr. John Hardon, who was no leftist.
Soooo....just because they aren’t persons/humans we don’t owe them consideration in an act of cruelty as we must focus only on the human perpetrator?
We need to define cruelty.....random acts of senseless cruelty which causes needless pain or death for NO reason at all other than the pleasure the tormentor feels....
That is nowhere in the same category as hunting and killing deer for food, or killing a chicken to put it on the table for dinner.
Torture of Animals for Entertainment is included in what I said.
I think my definition is better.
Just because you have a state that bans steel grasping traps doesn’t mean it is cruel.
God’s Law is timeless, Are you saying we are more religious today than we were 50 years ago? They didn’t think it was a violation of God’s Law back then, and it shouldn’t have changed now.
The Government reflects the norms of sociality and not God. If you are saying that this definition changed with time, that is a function of politics and not God. God doesn’t change, he is timeless.
This is the basis in which I say it is leftist. For only a evil leftist thinks God’s Law should bend to the will of man based on their current society. Only a evil leftist would attempt to bend God’s Law to his will to control others.
This is an aberration of God and is evil.
Even those that are well regarded holy men have been influenced by evil. Even the best written book contains errors or transcribe the errors of others within.
Just where did I even remotely suggest that?
I am sure he didn’t mean to write this in a way that allowed it to be distorted. What he wrote and what he likely was thinking are two different things.
You can write something that allows leftist parishioners to hijack a definition or you can write it precisely to what you mean.
I think if he was on this board and we could talk to him, he would confirm that he didn’t mean this interpretation.
Nope...only persons can have "person"-alities. It's you who are engaging in the circular argument. It's like me making a simple declaration of fact, "The sky is sky-blue" and you saying the argument is worthless. First of all, I'm not arguing; I'm simply making a declaration based on the the simple meaning and definition of the words.
For example, all gold neck chains have certain qualities that are unique to gold neckchains. They are made of gold and have a chain-like structure. That's not to say there aren't other items that may share some of the qualities...you might have a silver chain that shares the chain like structure, but it's made of another metal. you might have a "gold-colored" neck chain that appears virtually identical, but yet it lacks the innate characteristics that make a gold neck chain a gold neck chain...Personalities (or souls, if you will) are the unique defining characteristics of human persons. Other creatures may share, or appear to share certain attributes of them, but they are not, in their composite human.
"It is clear when they say "individual personality", they mean individual traits of character, behavoir, likes/dislikes, feelings, emotions, etc. It's pure bunk, and I stated at the outset."
Well...if you want to say that a painting or a car have personalities, you're free to misuse the word all you wish...As long as you're going to invent definitions for words to please yourself, it's pointless discussing anything with you.
If you want to call it their own “animality” that’s fine. I think you know what I am meaning here when I used “pesonality” to describe individual, uniqueness of a particular animal.
I just want to be clear many people use the distinction they aren’t people as the REASON they can be mean or treat them poorly and “reserve” better treatment for people. Angels are not created in the image of God, yet they are stronger than us, and at the current time, are HIGHER than us. Do they sit around and believe because we are lower (and currently have sin natures some of us are fighting) we ought to be treated lesser than they are because they are in a higher position? The only ones who treat us badly and encourage us to treat other people and animals badly are being tempted by the evil, fallen angels, appealing to the weaknesses and pain of people. Which ought to tell you why this line of thinking isn’t what God had in mind, to treat the non-human creatures He’s created, poorly because “they aren’t people”. Slippery slope. Treating animals well doesn’t mean you’re treating people worse or somehow neglecting them, or elevating them to people status, it’s not a zero-sum situation.
Scripture says you can find out a lot about a person in how they treat their animals. Because it translates over into how he treats people, especially those he believes are in a lesser station than he is.
The problem is, that's not the way the author of the thread used it...and that's simply the point I'm trying to clarify here since so many felt free to pile on without taking that into consideration.
"I just want to be clear many people use the distinction they aren’t people as the REASON they can be mean or treat them poorly and “reserve” better treatment for people."
I suspect that few if any animal abusers make such subtly nuanced philosophical distinctions or invoke such justification. Cruelty is cruelty and rarely is there a whole lot of thought behind it.
I think one reason why we should consider respecting the animals (and I can tell you do) is that the fallen world they are living (living hard in) and often dying in harshly, is not their fault. It’s our fault. Man brought sin and death into the world, and the entire universe was cursed. The ground was cursed. The animals are having to live in a bad situation they didn’t cause. Their innocence in it I think is one reason we ought to consider doing everything to prevent cruelty and punishing it.
We know that God will come back and make everything right, and animals will not have to go through their trials and pain of today for nothing (Romans 8 explains they are waiting - not in vain - for things to be made right), but that doesn’t mean we just let bad things happen to them unabated, especially when Scripture does tell us in multiple places not to be cruel towards animals (God’s animals).
Think about it this way. What kind of treatment can we expect, if we as the higher creature, are intentionally cruel to lesser creatures among us, yet we expect God, who is much higher than us, to be merciful to us? Will we have really learned about grace and mercy if we are cruel towards the lesser/weaker among us, both human and animal? How can we be regarded as understanding mercy and kindness if we treat animals like garbage and treat lesser people poorly and are “nice” only to who we think are equals or better than us?
Well, I don’t know about the author but animal stewardship is about animal WELFARE, not animal RIGHTS. They can’t have legal rights because they can’t understand legal rights. We grant them legal protections under the law in order to prevent cruelty and such from occurring, and if and when it does we can punish the people involved. Domestic animals are owned and generally do better being owned by someone. Domestic animals generally live longer and get better care under an owner than living wild. As owners we not only have rights to protect our animal but we have responsibilities to provide for that animal’s needs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.