[RobRoy]

What animals "feel" is not what I would interpret as "suffering" in the human sense.

I admit this guy does have issues though. He may only be dangerous to his own pets, of course, but if this kitten belonged to someone else, he did cause suffering on the part of the animals owner and should suffer consequences.

I ran over a dog once and felt nothing for the dog. The owner was devastated, however. It was as if she had lost her husband. I did feel bad for her - I felt REALLY bad for her. I didn't do it on purpose, but I still felt bad. But ALL of my bad feelings were for the HUMAN owner, not the soulless walking meat.

[sinkspur]

But ALL of my bad feelings were for the HUMAN owner, not the soulless walking meat.

You know a lot about being "soulless," it seems.

[Shooter 2.5]

"What animals "feel" is not what I would interpret as "suffering" in the human sense."

It's pretty easy to say you're wrong about that. Animals suffer when they get hurt and when they're lonely. I have also noticed a negative reaction when they don't like something. Cats and dogs will shake their heads "no" when they don't want to co-operate.

[Bogey78O]

But these people did so for the enjoyment of watching it suffer. That is wrong no matter how you cut it.

[gitmo]

Accidently running over an animal is very different from torturing one for pleasure. Some of the kids in my wife's class got into driving at night and running over as many dogs & cats as possible. I told them if anything happened to any of my animals, I'd be coming after them.

I don't believe in animal rights, and I do believe in hunting, and harvesting farm animals. But torturing or killing an animal for pleasure is indefensable. Anyone who has worked around animals know they do suffer when injured.

I suspect someone recently poisoned my kids' cat. That person better pray I never find out who did it.

[Hot Tabasco]

What animals "feel" is not what I would interpret as "suffering" in the human sense.

Not sure what your stupid ass statement was supposed to mean but animals, any animal for that matter feels the same excruciating pain as you and I.

Suffering is merely the prolonged endurement of such pain. For any person to do what they did to that creature is inexcusable.

I don't give a rats ass of if it was a squirrel, skunk, opossum or whatever.

No creature on this earth should be subjected to torture, especially the excruciating pain of being deliberately burned to death......

[Conservative til I die]

We must have a libertarian here! Can't wait to read the rest of the thread and find out for sure.

[GovernmentShrinker]

How do you know what animals do or don't feel -- were you an animal in one of your previous lives? Obviously, the ability of animals to suffer both psychologically and physically varies a great deal depending on the type of animal (a point which seems to be completely lost on the PETA types), but animals which are capable of showing affection and trust for particular humans with whom they've bonded (and in the case of dogs, often willing to risk their own lives to try to save one of their human family) are certainly capable of some pretty serious suffering too. What makes you think they could have the good feelings, but somehow magically lack the bad ones? That just doesn't make scientific sense.

[dixie sass]

How do you know that GOD didn't give that animal a soul? You are ill. If I were with PETA or one of those organizations, I could debate that issue with you. All I know is what I have seen. I have seen animals grieve themselves to death over the death or loss of a beloved human. I have seen dogs in pain with tears coming from their eyes. I have seen the way an animal looks at the person it cares about, much the same way that a baby or small child looks at it parents.

[fortheDeclaration]

What animals "feel" is not what I would interpret as "suffering" in the human sense. I admit this guy does have issues though. He may only be dangerous to his own pets, of course, but if this kitten belonged to someone else, he did cause suffering on the part of the animals owner and should suffer consequences. I ran over a dog once and felt nothing for the dog. The owner was devastated, however. It was as if she had lost her husband. I did feel bad for her - I felt REALLY bad for her. I didn't do it on purpose, but I still felt bad. But ALL of my bad feelings were for the HUMAN owner, not the soulless walking meat.

It was when Christianity was still vibrant(19th century) that people took concern for animals, knowing that they were God's creatures.

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel (Pr.12:10)

[Calico Cat]

What's wrong with you, RobRoy? Oh--you're a 'creationism apologist'. Riiiiighht...

[the-ironically-named-proverbs2]

"not the soulless walking meat"

FYI, here's a little Bible lesson for you. The Hebrew word translated "soul" is nephesh (strongs #5315). This same Hebrew word is translated "creature" many times and applies to animals.

Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh, 5315).

Gen 1:24
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature (nephesh, 5315) after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The Biblical concept of soul applies to animals in the same way as humans. (And by the way I ate 2 hamburgers, sausage, eggs and a hot dog yesterday)

[AspidistraFlying]

But ALL of my bad feelings were for the HUMAN owner, not the soulless walking meat.

First, I'm appalled, but others have told you that already.

Second, although I'm not religious, it seems you are Christian. You'll forgive me if I paraphrase, but it reminds me of a story from the Bible, and I can't find the passage. But essentially, it says, "Look at these birds, they don't want for food or shelter, God provides for them. Why then do you suppose he will not provide for you?"

Now I'm no theological scholar, but it seems to me that if your God cares for their welfare, perhaps you might too.

[SupplySider]

You don't have to think animals are on the same level as humans to respect their lives. This is not an animal rights wacko point-of-view, either, as most hunters and meat eaters respect animals.

[steve-b]

What animals "feel" is not what I would interpret as "suffering" in the human sense.

OK, since I found you of all people lurking here, I just gotta ask:

1. Are you offended, amused, or serenely indifferent to names like "Clowntoon", "Billzebubba", etc?

2. Is your wife planning to run for President in 2004?

3. Are you going to have any of the stuff from the White House installed in your liebrary, or keep it all at home?

[steve-b]

I ran over a dog once and felt nothing for the dog. The owner was devastated, however. It was as if she had lost her husband. I did feel bad for her - I felt REALLY bad for her. I didn't do it on purpose, but I still felt bad. But ALL of my bad feelings were for the HUMAN owner, not the soulless walking meat.

The phrase "ran over" is normally associated with driving, not walking.