[cake_crumb]

"They probably aren't a risk to humans since most people who do this sort of thing draw a line between human and animal - they don't respect animals as "human" as the animal rights people do."

Wrong. Serial killers draw no real distinction between animals and people whatsoever. Both bleed and both feel pain. Both are "walking meat" for the killer. Serial killers frequently start out their careers by practicing on animals first, before moving up the food chain toward the bigger, two legged "walking meat". In fact, serial killers frequently view both animals AND people as "walking meat".

[RobRoy]

I agree with post 61 except to say that it doesn't necessarily lead to cruelty to humans. That's all.

[Diamond]

... no real distinction between animals and people whatsoever. Both bleed and both feel pain. Both are "walking meat" for the killer. Serial killers frequently start out their careers by practicing on animals first, before moving up the food chain toward the bigger, two legged "walking meat". In fact, serial killers frequently view both animals AND people as "walking meat".

I'm just thinking out-loud here, but isn't that also how evolutionists view us? Not that evolutionists necessarily are serial killers, but philosophically, if they are correct that's all we are, isn't it; "walking meat"? From an 'evolutionary' point of view, what basis could purely physical forces provide for making any transcendent distinction between humans and animals, or for that matter, making any moral distinction between cruelty and kindness? Like Rush said one time - "look what animals do to each other."

How does evolution provide a basis for a moral condemnation of predation (supposedly an evolutionary development itself) whether of cats or serial killers?

Cordially,