Is it right for people to get a shorter sentence for animal murder?

[The Raven's Epitaph]

Animal cruelty is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly popular. Many a time I see stories about animal abusers killing animals either for sick sport or just for disgusting and bone chilling fun.

My question to you is this:

Is it right for people to get a shorter prison sentence for animal murder, rather than human murder/man-slaughter?

Animals have homes and families too. More importantly, they have feelings, and they're living creatures in a world shared by many different species, and while I understand there is an animal hierachy in the world, why should we humans tarnish the lives of animals worldwide? They aren't doing anything wrong, and in my honest opinion, shouldn't be harmed. Wild or not.

I strongly believe that just because somebody murders an animal/pet then they should recieve the same punishment as somebody that murders a human. Both for justice, and safety. I mean, what's stopping said abuser to murder a human next? They obviously have evil and malicious thoughts on their mind to want to go and murder animals for fun. Why not humans? So, why not the same sentence?

Discuss.

 

[ScruffDog]

Ok. So I’m going to start by saying I love animal, and anyone who kills animals for fun, is a fucked up, coward, disturbing scumbag. I do feel that the punishment for animal cruelty isn’t harsh enough, but to make it as harsh as murder is going to far.

I do know that the majority of serial killers did start off by killing animals when they were kids. You can use this for your argument, but all kids that kill animals don’t turn out to be serial killers; and if a boy kills a dog, you really think it’s the same as if he killed another boy? Tell me truthfully, who would you hate more, the person who killed your pet, or the person that killed your kid? You would probably hate both, but you would really hate the person that murdered you child, so much so you would probably forget you even had a pet. Animals may have feeling, and be loved by there owners, and aren’t doing anything wrong, but to think they have the same impact on out lives as other humans do, is just wrong, unless you’re Tarzan and hell even he had Jane.

The punishment can’t be the same, would you have sent Michele Vick to death? And what about all the farmers who raise cows and chickens, or the fishermen, what is there punishment? What happens if I’m driving home late and night and accidently hit a dog is that vehicular man-slaughter?

I understand were you’re coming for, really I do, but to say that the punishment for killing an animal and killing a person should be the same is just wrong. Humans are not the same as animals, we are the dominate species and until my cats start paying me rent, that’s not going to change.

 

[UltimateHitman]

I agree with RE. I think that you are still killing a living, feeling creature and that kind of mentality should not be tolerated no matter what it is. They feel pain, they even cry out in pain, and as such it should not be blown off so easily. This could very well mean they just like more helpless victims, and who's to say it wouldn't transfer over to humans that they feel superior to?

I wouldn't just stop at murder, though. I would enforce stricter laws for neglect, abuse, and torture too. Just because they're animals does not mean they do not share the earth with us or that they do not have as much as a right as we do to inhabit it.

I remember reading in the local paper about a guy that beat a cat that was outside in his yard, first throwing a small weight at it, hitting it in the head with that, grabbing a pole, beating it with that, and then throwing it into the local river. Well, the cat actually endured all of that, swam to something in the river to get out of the water, and somebody actually reported the guy. He got fined about 50,000 dollars. I cheered and thought fuck him. Slap him in prison for a while, too.

I've always thought that people who beat animals are lower than pig shit. Ever since high school I've had the opinion that people who drive animals in the middle of nowhere and drop them off should be blindfolded, stripped naked, and taken into the woods about 50 miles or more from civilization and dumped, and told "ok, you find food and shelter, asshole" to see how they'd like it.

I totally agree that they should be held as accountable, or damn near as close as accountable as they can get, to a human murder. Just because we're -supposedly- more advanced than animals doesn't mean we should get away with disrespecting other forms of life. In fact, we should have the intellect and sense to know better and avoid doing so.

 

[Davi323]

Umm...of course you should get a shorter sentence. Animals are not people. Period. That doesn't mean its okay to torture them, not advocating animal cruelty, but they are not human. If we are going to equate animal life with human life, should we put Lions on trial every time they attack a human? Should we sue the bumblebee for stinging us? Of course not, because its fucking bullshit. You simply cannot equate human life with animal life.

What are the limits? Are farmers murderers? They kill pigs, cows, and deer for meat. Should hunters be prosecuted now?

Are kids guilty of murder if they step on an ant? Are you guilty if you swallow a spider in your sleep, and the gastric acids from your stomach kill it?

What is the difference between killing a cow for meat and animal-murder?

Let me guess. You are a radical vegan who thinks that all meat consumption is evil.

Sorry, but this thread is entirely ridiculous.

 

[RockFan89]

Is it right for people to get a shorter prison sentence for animal murder, rather than human murder/man-slaughter?

Human beings are worth more than animals. There. I said it. And let's be honest, most of you reading this agree with me.

Animal abuse/murder should not receive the same punishment as human abuse/murder. (But I wouldn't be opposed to increased punishment for animal abuse)

And may I ask something in return: would you classify farmers who kill chickens, pigs, and cows for food as murderers? Would all meat eaters be classified as accomplices to murder for facilitating it?

Animals have homes and families too. More importantly, they have feelings, and they're living creatures in a world shared by many different species, and while I understand there is an animal hierachy in the world, why should we humans tarnish the lives of animals worldwide? They aren't doing anything wrong, and in my honest opinion, shouldn't be harmed. Wild or not.

So you think anything with a home, a family, and/or feelings should be granted rights? So a homeless guy with no family who is in a coma should not have rights? (I know it's a ridiculous example, but you get my point.)

I strongly believe that just because somebody murders an animal/pet then they should recieve the same punishment as somebody that murders a human. Both for justice, and safety. I mean, what's stopping said abuser to murder a human next? They obviously have evil and malicious thoughts on their mind to want to go and murder animals for fun. Why not humans? So, why not the same sentence?

So should we hold animals to that standard as well? If we find a cheetah that kills a Gazelle should we punish the animal for killing another living thing?

That's one of the issues I take with animal rights activists. Not even animals are for animal rights. They have no problem killing, some even their own children.

And what about population control? If we didn't have hunters controlling the population levels of some animals, they would be overpopulating areas and that may be even more dangerous for both animals and humans (and yes I differentiate the two).

I agree that those who abuse there pets should be punished and killing just for the sport of it (not for food, clothing or population control) does make me feel a little sick (and I'm a fairly conservative person), but your standards go way to far in my opinion.

 

[Tequila Dave]

I'm guessing your statement just encompasses domesticated animals, right? Or do you believe that killing a cow or chicken for meat (which mankind has done since it's creation) should be met with a stern prison sentance also? If so, should everyone become a vegetarian? Or should we just punish people when they kill cats and dogs, because they're the animals people don't (usually) eat? If so, you're arguement falls apart. If you believe there's a difference between cows and cats, then surely you must realise there is is a difference between cats and human beings. And if you're advocating for everyone to become a vegeterian, well, that's a tad nit extreme.

 

[UltimateHitman]

I think what he's getting at is killing/torturing animals for fun's sake. Let's be reasonable here, not everybody who hunts or uses animals for food is a twisted sadist. That's just a convenient excuse. The native americans respected the animals they killed to survive and didn't just run around the woods laughing and bashing any animal in sight.

And I don't think he was talking simply domesticated animals either. Sure, domesticated animals are a large part of it, but I don't think a harbor seal is a "domesticated animal". That being said, I think I would want some moron severely punished for seeing it from the boardwalk, grabbing a club, and proceeding to run out and beat the fuck out of it.

Using an animal for sustenance (or other animals using them for sustenance) is a different aspect than somebody who beats the crap out of a dog or cat or what have you for simple pleasure. Could there be more humane treatment even in the case of animals used for food? Of course there could. I would prefer that to happen as well. But there's a difference between me eating a burger or a strip of beef jerkey and me going out with a fireplace poker and stabbing, torturing, and killing every innocent creature I see, especially the ones that come up to me for affection because that's what they have been raised to know.

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

Just to clarify, while I should have said this in my opening post; my main focus was on animal cruelty. Not domestic animal killing. That's just life and that's what some people do for a living. I'm not saying just because farmer's kill domesticated animals that they should be thrown straight in prison; the point I was making was towards animal cruelty, a completely different subject.

Just to set some things straight that some of you aren't grasping; I'm against animal cruelty because it's pathetic and disgusting. I am not a vegan that thinks all meat consumption is evil, I actually eat meat alot and enjoy it; despite how it came about; which brings me back to my earlier point. My main focus was animal cruelty, not domestic animal killing.

While I respect everybodies opinions, alot of you took this very seriously and blew it wayyy out of proportion. It was a simple question, one that didn't need typical internet bullshittery involved.

 

[Xemmy]

Animal cruelty is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly popular. Many a time I see stories about animal abusers killing animals either for sick sport or just for disgusting and bone chilling fun.

My question to you is this:

Is it right for people to get a shorter prison sentence for animal murder, rather than human murder/man-slaughter?

Animals have homes and families too. More importantly, they have feelings, and they're living creatures in a world shared by many different species, and while I understand there is an animal hierachy in the world, why should we humans tarnish the lives of animals worldwide? They aren't doing anything wrong, and in my honest opinion, shouldn't be harmed. Wild or not.

I strongly believe that just because somebody murders an animal/pet then they should recieve the same punishment as somebody that murders a human. Both for justice, and safety. I mean, what's stopping said abuser to murder a human next? They obviously have evil and malicious thoughts on their mind to want to go and murder animals for fun. Why not humans? So, why not the same sentence?

Discuss.

Humans and Animals are not the same in the eyes of most people. While we love our pets, they don't have the same priority as our children. Animal cruelty is wrong, but we kill animals all the time for meat and sport. It's the circle of life. A lion kills it's prey. Cats play with mice and kill them. Sometimes they don't even eat them.

With all due respect- animals are stupid. While I consider it sick to be cruel to animals- paticularly those with a degree of intelligence (Dogs, Pigs, Dolphins, Elephants), animals are not people, and I would never give someone more than a couple of years for killing an animal in a method that was torterous, or if it belonged to someone else. People murder animals for fun all the time in sport, and they never harm people.

I'm sure you just meant guys like Michael Vick, and things like that, but I'm just covering every aspect.
All in all, you're just using the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I'm going to try ot keep this one short.

So, according to our human laws, if we kill somebody, we are going to pay the consequences of our acts, right? Because, "we are not god" and we can't play with life saying who should live or die. But following the same logic, why would it be "correct" to end an animals life? Because it's an animal and not a human being? Because animals don't have the same "intelligence" as we humans do? My REAL question is, why taking any kind of living form would be less or more important than another? After all, we are doing murder, we are ending the life of a living being. I bet that there has been people when they read the title of the thread they thought:"yes, because they aren't murdering humans". I insisit, why taking any kind of living form would be less or more important than another?

As another poster stated, we can't be hypocrites and say that we defend animals rights/life while we eat them. What kind of moral is that one? "Oh what a cruel son of a bitch" while you are eating KFC or Mcdos. Like someone said in another thread, if you are a "pro" life, if you defend life, then you should defend LIFE itself, not only human life.

 

[RockFan89]

So, according to our human laws, if we kill somebody, we are going to pay the consequences of our acts, right? Because, "we are not god" and we can't play with life saying who should live or die.

I wouldn't say killing people is wrong because "we are not God" but because everyone has a right not to have their life taken away from them from someone else, unless in self defense or after being given due process.

But following the same logic, why would it be "correct" to end an animals life? Because it's an animal and not a human being?

Yeah, exactly. Human Life >>> Animal Life

Because animals don't have the same "intelligence" as we humans do?

No, the value of life is not dependent on intelligence. Human life is worth more because we are human and we make the rules. (Unless you're appealing to God, but even in that case, most religions value human life over animal life.)

My REAL question is, why taking any kind of living form would be less or more important than another? After all, we are doing murder, we are ending the life of a living being. I bet that there has been people when they read the title of the thread they thought:"yes, because they aren't murdering humans". I insisit, why taking any kind of living form would be less or more important than another?

You are now expanding the topic to "any kind of living form." So you think we should also be concerned about the rights of plants and bacteria? Where do you draw the line? What is your definition of life that deserves rights?

As Xemnas pointed out, your stance has a slippery slope that leads to a whole bunch of contradictions.

Like someone said in another thread, if you are a "pro" life, if you defend life, then you should defend LIFE itself, not only human life.

Why? The life of a human is worth far more than the life of an animal.

You can't just pose the question, the burden of proof is on you. If you're going to take, in my estimation, such an extreme stance, you need to put forth a solid argument for why all living things should be given the same rights as humans.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Yeah, we are going to have a great debate here my friend .

I wouldn't say killing people is wrong because "we are not God" but because everyone has a right not to have their life taken away from them from someone else, unless in self defense or after being given due process.

First of all I was being sarcastic or/and exaggerating on my answer. Anyway, I don't agree at all at the last part. I do value human life, but there's no need to end someone's life under any circumstance. You should look the thread about death penalty, it has solid posts on it.

Yeah, exactly. Human Life >>> Animal Life

Yeah, but why? You are saying just because.

No, the value of life is not dependent on intelligence. Human life is worth more because we are human and we make the rules. (Unless you're appealing to God, but even in that case, most religions value human life over animal life.)

Like I said, I was exaggerating my arguments, of course you don't value life dependig on intelligence. Do you think I'm some kind of Nazi that think that handicapped people need to be dead? Of course not my man. I'm asking silly questions to prove my point.

You are now expanding the topic to "any kind of living form." So you think we should also be concerned about the rights of plants and bacteria? Where do you draw the line? What is your definition of life that deserves rights?

You just said it bro, where do you draw the line? When, where, how? But most importantly why? I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't be concerned. I mean if I want to live in this planet, you need to respect some natural order/cycle, dont' you (again I'm just asking you)? On the other hand, why would you need to wear an animal's skin? Or why it should be your pet? Look man, what I'm doing here is asking questions. Why you need to embrace some facts? My logic here is to question, I don't believe in morality imposed by someone or by society. I believe in taking a look around and saying why?

As Xemnas pointed out, your stance has a slippery slope that leads to a whole bunch of contradictions.

Totally agree, life is full of contradictions, why is t okay to murder an animal and not a human being? Think about it. I'm actually asking to YOU why? I know why I say these things, but I'm interested to see your answer.

Why? The life of a human is worth far more than the life of an animal.

Man, you are just saying "because". Okay if the life of a human is worth far more than the life of an animal you need to say why. I understand what you are saying. I understand that you don't agree with me (wich is completely cool btw, we are having a great debate) but you don't tell me why. How are we more important than animals? Because we are humans? That's not a reason. Give me a reason, a logical one, not "becasue we are humans" and period.

You can't just pose the question, the burden of proof is on you. If you're going to take, in my estimation, such an extreme stance, you need to put forth a solid argument for why all living things should be given the same rights as humans.

Of course I can pose the question.(Again) why should I take for granted what society says? Because we have laws? Laws that dont' condemn ending a life? But they do approve cigarrettes than can end someone's life? For me that has no sense, so I ask why. Idk about you, but when I don't understand something I ask why.I search, I think for myslf if something makes senes for me; I make my own conclusions. Always, and I mean always you need to ask "why".

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Just going to start off by saying, I love animals. I love animals more than I love humans, in general. I'm completely unable to watch the death of an animal, whether it be in person, or a video, but I'm able to watch gruesome human deaths on video (for the most part) or in a movie, with a poker face.

However, for the sake of being realistic, animals are not humans. Animals do not contribute to society. In fact, they probably contribute to society more in their death than they do in life, simply for the fact that we, as humans, are at the top of the food chain, and we're able to eat pretty much anything we kill. As a species of animals, I don't think humans should be punished for killing animals.

Now, it's different if you see a guy going off into the woods and torturing animals for fun. Those are the kinds of people who need psychological help, because that's a kind of problem that can become dangerous to the people around him.

Another situation is animals being viewed as property. If I own a dog, and someone just walks up and kills my dog, then I do believe that person should be in jail, simply because he's destroyed my property. But the penalties should be steeper, because we're capable of having real sentimental feelings toward our pets, and it's not right to see it taken away from you because some asshole thinks he can get away with killing a pet, simply because he doesn't think he'd be punished for it.

In short, I don't think we should equate the murder of animals to the murder of humans.

 

[LitasRevenge79]

I'm going with Raven's clarification on here. It was about animal cruelty, like dogfighting, abusing animals, etc. A difference between using animals for the farming industry (provided the standards are up to par.) Anyways, being a huge animal lover, I get disgusted when I see the news that try to glamorize Michael Vick doing so well in the sports today, and being praised by our President. Should we have the president take a look at the pictures of the evidence recovered from the compound when the ASPCA workers rescued the dogs on his property, or the bodies from the dogs that couldn't be saved? Its disgusting. Even I have rescued a 4 week old kitten that was dropped on the side of the road in front of me in a garbage can. Its disgusting to think that these creatures who don't know the meaning of judgement, didn't ask for this cruel treatment, then get treated worse than some people in third world countries. I would challenge some people to watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet. Try to watch that without getting angry. Its sickening that people can get away with everything, I think they need major punishment. Not death sentence, but still need to get big time punishment.

 

[UltimateHitman]

Animals do not contribute to society.

I wanted to address this particular part directly. I wanted to make the point anyway, but this helps to give it some focus.

Animals can contribute greatly to society. Do you not see how beneficial a seeing eye dog can be? What about fire dogs? Police dogs? You even have the animals that they take to old folk's homes and to hospitals to lift the spirits of people in their time of need, when sometimes human beings don't even give two shits. I think that animals contribute to society a lot more than people give them credit for.

Other examples of this would be the dog that thwarts a burglar (and a possible homicide) or the animal that helps their owner or a child escape a burning building or the one that saves somebody from drowning, or any other "miracle animal" feel good stories out there. I would give these animals a significantly higher amount of credit to society than a career criminal that likes to beat people w/a blunt object for 30 bucks or their pair of sneakers or takes from society in any way, shape, or form such as that.

We like to think of animals as being "inferior" and their lives not worth much in relation to humans. I would beg to differ. If we, as an alleged more highly evolved, more intelligent species, can still perform atrocious acts even graced with the knowledge that we possess, how are we better than animals that do not possess said characteristics? Shouldn't we, as intelligent creatures, hold ourselves to a higher standard?

They kill because they have to eat or simply in defense of their homes or young. We kill for any number of insane reasons, one being simple pleasure. What's the worst of the two? I think that people need to be held more accountable for animal cruelty as well as torture, neglect, and pleasure killings. Like I said before, we can respect the animals that provide us sustenance, but we don't have to be disrespectful to nature in general.

 

[Alastor]

I think what the OP was going for was that animal cruelty deserves a heavier punishment and not that killing of animals is wrong. Maybe he just phrased the OP in such a flimsy way to attract attention to the discussion. In my opinion a better analogy would be to compare animal abuse cases with cases like human trafficking or forced prostitution, instead of using the murder comparison as that argument is too difficult to defend. If argument is that killing of domesticated farm animals for food is not murder, does that mean a cannibal killing a man for food is not committing murder?

I don't know how harsh the punishment for animal cruelty is everywhere, but I believe the courts around the world have more important thing to worry about than making sure animals are treated 'humanely'. The punishments could be harsher to deter more cases of animal abuse but going to the extreme of equating the charges with manslaughter/murder would be ridiculous. Think of it another way, you are saying a person's value is equal to that of a chicken or a dog.

 

[RockFan89]

First of all I was being sarcastic or/and exaggerating on my answer. Anyway, I don't agree at all at the last part. I do value human life, but there's no need to end someone's life under any circumstance. You should look the thread about death penalty, it has solid posts on it.

Being against the death penalty is one thing, but saying that there is no circumstance where killing someone is okay is a little naive. How would you have defeated the Nazi's or Japanese during WWII without killing anyone?

You just said it bro, where do you draw the line? When, where, how? But most importantly why? I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't be concerned. I mean if I want to live in this planet, you need to respect some natural order/cycle, dont' you (again I'm just asking you)?

Humans are the rulers of the Earth. All other life is under us and we have a right to use it to meet our needs. Why do I have such a belief? I don't really know, probably a combination of personal experiences and my Christian faith. Not sure where else I would get my beliefs.

I can pose the same question to you : why? Why do we need to respect some natural order? Why should we respect other life?

Look man, what I'm doing here is asking questions. Why you need to embrace some facts? My logic here is to question, I don't believe in morality imposed by someone or by society. I believe in taking a look around and saying why?

Well then this isn't much of a debate if instead of making points you're just asking questions without providing answers.

How are we more important than animals? Because we are humans? That's not a reason. Give me a reason, a logical one, not "becasue we are humans" and period.

That is a reason. Humans rule the Earth and we make the rules. We are the caretakers of the Earth.

Of course I can pose the question.(Again) why should I take for granted what society says? Because we have laws? Laws that dont' condemn ending a life? But they do approve cigarrettes than can end someone's life? For me that has no sense,

Laws don't prevent you from hurting yourself, they prevent others from hurting you.

Idk about you, but when I don't understand something I ask why.I search, I think for myslf if something makes senes for me; I make my own conclusions. Always, and I mean always you need to ask "why".

I'm glad you ask why. We should never stop asking that question.

 

[Slyfox696]

First of all, you cannot "murder" an animal. Murder is a legal definition, which is specific only to the killing of a human being by another human being. So the thread topic is silly to begin with.

Second of all, why shouldn't there be a shorter sentence? The hypocrisy of people amaze me. The same people who get up in arms about animal rights, are the same people who will swat a mosquito without a second thought. They'll set poison traps for a mouse while they leave to go to their favorite steakhouse restaurant.

Either you're for animal rights or your not, but this notion that pets are somehow different than other animals is just stupid. We don't prosecute people for killing mice and rats, and yet, when scientists do testing they do it on mice and rats because they are the most like us in terms of anatomy. And we know they are thinking creatures, so how come it's okay to kill some animals but not others?

I'm not for torture, and don't like abuse, but the straight killing of an animal should not warrant any kind of penalty at all, as long as you kill it in a reasonably humane fashion.

 

[El Rev sXe]

Being against the death penalty is one thing, but saying that there is no circumstance where killing someone is okay is a little naive. How would you have defeated the Nazi's or Japanese during WWII without killing anyone?

Such an extreme example, anyway, what I'm saying even if we all knew that nazis were evil, killing someone doesn't make you better. I mean, that's the whole point of laws. Plus, WWII was approximately 60 years ago. We have made tons of progression, today I don't think we need to kill anyone. This is off topic so I'm not going to enter completely on my reflexion.

Humans are the rulers of the Earth. All other life is under us and we have a right to use it to meet our needs. Why do I have such a belief? I don't really know, probably a combination of personal experiences and my Christian faith. Not sure where else I would get my beliefs.

That's what I was expecting. I was almost sure that the "god rule" was going to appear. I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but it is so simple that way: "because god saids so". It's your belief and I respect it, but for me, that is another "just because" reason.

I can pose the same question to you : why? Why do we need to respect some natural order? Why should we respect other life?

Actually is pretty simple, Earth can live without us, not the other way around. Since we are the "rulers of the world" we, for example, killed whales for their oil. This way, we caused an endangered species and then altering the natural cycle. Another proof, glomal warming is a natural cycle, but us as "rulers of the world" accelerated the cycle putting in the danger not only us, but the rest of the world. It is a chain effect, you end mosquitos, you end with lizards, you end with lizards you end with their respective predator until the very extreme point where some predators don't have nothing to eat, their metabolism changes and see us as their food.

 

[RockFan89]

Such an extreme example, anyway, what I'm saying even if we all knew that nazis were evil, killing someone doesn't make you better.

I gave you an extreme example because you took an absolutist stance on the issue. And killing someone does make you better if that person was bent on exterminating the Jews and taking over Europe.

That's what I was expecting. I was almost sure that the "god rule" was going to appear. I'm not trying to bash you or anything, but it is so simple that way: "because god saids so". It's your belief and I respect it, but for me, that is another "just because" reason.

I was hesitant on mentioning my religion because you may feel it as a justification for my position. I honestly believe if I were an atheist I would feel the same way. I just mentioned it because I form my opinions based on my experiences and my faith. But my faith is not what drives my opinion on this issue.

Actually is pretty simple, Earth can live without us, not the other way around. Since we are the "rulers of the world" we, for example, killed whales for their oil. This way, we caused an endangered species and then altering the natural cycle. Another proof, glomal warming is a natural cycle, but us as "rulers of the world" accelerated the cycle putting in the danger not only us, but the rest of the world. It is a chain effect, you end mosquitos, you end with lizards, you end with lizards you end with their respective predator until the very extreme point where some predators don't have nothing to eat, their metabolism changes and see us as their food.

Like 99.9% of all species have gone extinct and I think a couple dozen species go extinct everyday. Humans will be fine. We have found a way to live up to this point and if need be we will adapt to whatever circumstances change.

Global warming is only a problem because man has built things we value in places where they can be damaged. The world has been warmer before, it's just that we haven't had major cities on coastlines or millions of people living in already desert like climates.

And what animal out there can pose as a potential predator of humans? Nobody is worried that any animals are going to start attacking us for food, and even if they did, we can easily kill them. Humans do not need to worry.

So if your argument for why all living things should be given the same rights as humans is because the food chain/natural cycle is so delicate that any disruption can lead to catastrophe, then I think it fails from an empirical stand point.

 

[Burnout]

I have to say, I feel the same as Mozz up there. I love animals, and it breaks my heart watching animal deaths or cruelty in video's or movies, it makes me feel sick, yet seeing human's hurt or killed in movies, meh, it's not the same.

However, in real life, human death will always be more of a crime than killing an animal, considering the huge level of animal deaths going unoticed and uncared for by the people, newspapers and tv. I personally think that the sentance/fine for animal murder/cruelty should be increased alot, but still it is going to have to be shorter than human murder. And would it sound right, hearing that a man got say 10 years for killing a rabbit, and somone got 9 years for murder/manslaughter, improbable situation I know, but its just an example.
Human's are worth more to society than animals aswell, human's made the world what it is today, and for that, when someone murders a human, the price is going to be the most severe punishment will be handed out, while animal murder, will always be less of a crime in the eye's of the courts nad law, but dosent mean that animals don't mean anything, because they do in millions of people lives, but it's the way society runs than human's are worth more than animals to society.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

I honestly see no reason as to why there should be a longer sentence on those who kill animals. They are not human; nor are they considered humans to begin with. As Sly pointed out, the laws that we live by clearly states that murder is the killing of another human being – not an animal.

If killing an animal is to be considered morally wrong, than that would entice to ALL animals, regardless of whether they are pets or wild savages, to not endure any "murderous" harm inflicted upon them. But this is not so, now is it? Cows, pigs, chickens – they are all killed for food purposes; Bears, Lions, Tigers – often times they are killed because it is them that attack us; Lastly, rabbits, deers (etc) – these are killed for hunting purposes. The point is, saying that you are against animal killing requires you to be against ALL animals being killed – not just house pets. Yet, amazingly enough, many people that claim they are against the killing of animals would not hesitate to eat a hamburger while saying this. The mass idiocy and hypocrisy shows.

Let me dully note that there is the fact that animals wouldn’t even flinch an eye to kill another animal. So, really, if they wouldn’t bat an eye to kill their own, why should we give a fuck as to whether we’re killing them?

But as far as animal cruelty (i.e. torturing an animal – and I do stress torturing) goes, this is something that ties more into humans having mental illnesses (etc). It’s one thing to just blatantly kill an animal; it's another to torture it to no extent. When one spends his time trying to make the animal suffer as much as possible for mere pleasure – that is just plain, well, they need help – that’s as far as I’ll go.