Tossing dog off balcony gets man 3 years in jail

[WmAx]

Good post Gasman.

These kinds of studies exist for numerous species. Biologists have known of unique and highly intelligent and sentient actions involving elephants for nearly a century.

Even animals with negligible sentient abilities show higher intelligence ratings than young humans. Dogs and cats, for example, can carry out complex tasks that rival a normal 4 year old human. Shoot, even a crow can be shown to build and use tools to root out food. (Love those bugs. )

What exactly, do you consider substantially intelligent? After what I imagine took years of 'learning', at some point, some chimpanzees will wrap a sort of 'hat' of leaves on their heads when it rains. Some will 'sharpen' a stick to use as a tool. The most intelligent chimps, if you show them a picture or an action a few hundred times and a hand sign along with it, they may eventually learn the reference, and as a result, repeat the sign or signs themselves. You can find social structures in virtually all levels of the animal kingdom. Prairie dogs have a somewhat interesting social system, and a neat defense system when a predator such as a coyote shows up, that they use calls to each other to signal which one should duck into it's hole, and when it's safe to come back out, etc. What actions (that took years to learn) by these 'intelligent' animals are of such a level as to be worthy of being classified anywhere near the class of a human? You can find 4 year olds that can draw, count, create music and do numerous other things that if an animal could do, it would probably be considered some sort of freak of nature - the most intelligent animal to ever exist. That's just ability of a human 4 year old. The average mature human has thought, awareness, intelligence and creativity that is so far above the 2nd most intelligent species, that again, it's not fair to make a comparison, nor would I know how to make such a comparison accurately. In history, no other species has shown such ability. Such ability, however, is required to understand the basic 'moral' concept that you have often invoked As far as awareness level -- realize -- the requirement for 'self awareness' by researchers can be as simple as an animal recognizing a foreign mark on itself in a mirror after such mark was applied during sleep. Or similar levels of 'awareness' acts. Not exactly on the same level as a human. It's hard to compare such trivial signs of intelligence/cognitive ability to that of a human, that can think for itself, reason, understand concepts/morals and right from wrong and create technology.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

But Chris, my suggestion to you about not using that particular definition is most specifically tied to the socio-political issue of just who makes the VALUE decision on where the cutoff line is?! Using your preferred definition, tell me who qualifies as sentient....a person with an IQ of 80? ... of 60? ... of 40? Who makes the VALUE decision of who is or who is not capable of caring for themselves? Who establishes the criteria for "caring for oneself'? Is this a job for behavioral scientists? Legislators? This is dangerous and illogical territory.

You have good points. For those socio-political issues, I think it would be safe to classify humans as a species, as automatic inclusion as sentient. An extremely small percentage of the population is disabled to the point where they have 'animal level' intelligence - so in order to keep everyone in better spirits, it's seems safe to include this tiny population. As for animals, well, for the most part, people do not believe they have any unique rights to life - not from what I can observe. Otherwise, most of the population would not be eating meat and using leather products. Something like a 'pet' animal as the original subject of this thread included, tends to evoke personal emotions that otherwise would not be present.

-Chris

 

[Sheep]

You have good points. For those socio-political issues, I think it would be safe to classify humans as a species, as automatic inclusion as sentient. An extremely small percentage of the population is disabled to the point where they have 'animal level' intelligence - so in order to keep everyone in better spirits, it's seems safe to include this tiny population. As for animals, well, for the most part, people do not believe they have any unique rights to life - not from what I can observe. Otherwise, most of the population would not be eating meat and using leather products. Something like a 'pet' animal as the original subject of this thread included, tends to evoke personal emotions that otherwise would not be present.

-Chris

I said it earlier, and I'll say it again. The Cow's purpose on this planet is to BE eaten. A dog can be trained to HELP humans (seeing eye dog, dogs used in the police force). A dog can even save YOUR life.

Have you ever owned a pet?

SheepStar

 

[Tomorrow]

What exactly, do you consider substantially intelligent? After what I imagine took years of 'learning', at some point, some chimpanzees will wrap a sort of 'hat' of leaves on their heads when it rains. Some will 'sharpen' a stick to use as a tool. The most intelligent chimps, if you show them a picture or an action a few hundred times and a hand sign along with it, they may eventually learn the reference, and as a result, repeat the sign or signs themselves. You can find social structures in virtually all levels of the animal kingdom. Prairie dogs have a somewhat interesting social system, and a neat defense system when a predator such as a coyote shows up, that they use calls to each other to signal which one should duck into it's hole, and when it's safe to come back out, etc. What actions (that took years to learn) by these 'intelligent' animals are of such a level as to be worthy of being classified anywhere near the class of a human? You can find 4 year olds that can draw, count, create music and do numerous other things that if an animal could do, it would probably be considered some sort of freak of nature - the most intelligent animal to ever exist. That's just ability of a human 4 year old. The average mature human has thought, awareness, intelligence and creativity that is so far above the 2nd most intelligent species, that again, it's not fair to make a comparison, nor would I know how to make such a comparison accurately. In history, no other species has shown such ability. Such ability, however, is required to understand the basic 'moral' concept that you have often invoked As far as awareness level -- realize -- the requirement for 'self awareness' by researchers can be as simple as an animal recognizing a foreign mark on itself in a mirror after such mark was applied during sleep. Or similar levels of 'awareness' acts. Not exactly on the same level as a human. It's hard to compare such trivial signs of intelligence/cognitive ability to that of a human, that can think for itself, reason, understand concepts/morals and right from wrong and create technology.

-Chris

Chris,

I have not generally been arguing this case you discuss above. I merely corrected you when you said that humans were the only sentient species on earth. Humans are the most intelligent species...of course.

In trying to get you to see the ramifications of your suggested approach, I used a discussion of (somewhat) intelligent and sentient animals as a case to establish the question...When, why, or how does a species/individual attain some value-driven, desired levels of those qualities you mentioned (intelligence, self-providing, problem solving) to be considered sentient? I'm glad you thought that out a bit, and now have changed your definition to not be one of sentience or intelligence...just human-ness.

My entire point to you was that everything you and the others are talking about is based upon values, not logic. You still have not addressed the issue of the law(s) that began the thread and the reason for this discussion. You stated that you think logic should prevail in a discussion about a thing which is value-driven by its very nature...a law. Yet you also use value-laden terms and value judgments to describe why you think things ought to be a certain and different way. ("Animals are stupid", basically, therefore deserve no legal protection.) These other guys here have just as adequate a solution for you. They state that these animals should be protected because they give us solace and friendship, protection and service, food and clothing.

Neither is a logical choice. It's one of emotion. And I fall on the "animals need protection because they're good for us" side.

 

[majorloser]

I love my pets. But I also love a Porterhouse smothered with sauteed onions and mushrooms.

Both need protection from the law. They can get their own!

 

[Tomorrow]

I love my pets. But I also love a Porterhouse smothered with sauteed onions and mushrooms.

Both need protection from the law. They can get their own!

...and the porterhouse began screaming...."NO!! Not the onions again!! They'll smother me. H E L P ! ! !"

 

[Adam]

But this is beside the point. The issue here is the non-existence of evidence showing a credible positive that animals meet the conditions that I stated previously, as to be classified as sentient beings. You gave an example of a simple observation that for all intents and purposes, shows that most probably, the sun does not revolve around the Earth. So, how exactly, does this apply to your side of the subject at hand(cognitive abilities of animals)?

Chris, it's hard for me to believe that you're even paying attention when you make remarks like this. You're basing your argument of the value of life on a parameter (intelligence) that you think is observational understood. Human understanding and beliefs evolve, such as the previously common belief that the Earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth. Both have been shown to be probabilistically incorrect. I am saying that just because you and other humans think that non-humans are less intelligent does not make it the case.

Based on what has been revealed, I can think of three immediate possible reasons for your sequence of statements:

(1) You value a good tasting plate of food over your own life -- as you will not cause the death of animals to save your life -- but you will in order to get a certain taste.

(2) You don't have any solid values established, and you are replying in this thread with whatever looks good in type, without regard to reality. Perhaps a debate with no point or true conviction -- besides entertaining you.

(3) You are a hypocrite per webster.com's definition no. 2.

Which one is the right answer?

None of those are correct. You seem to be just trying to attack me instead of addressing the points. I have acknowledged that humans are omnivores and eat meat. The consumption of meat for a more individually-efficient energy source is common to this planet, and humans are just one of many species that engage in that activity. It is part of our instinctual nature to do so. However, killing another animal for food is different than performing experiments on them in the hopes of obtaining knowledge that might extend my life.

Do my actions perfectly reflect my values? No, for I am not perfect. I doubt that I will ever claim to be. I can only strive to improve and try to better act out my values.

If you want to consider a dog (or your mother, for that matter) at the same level of worth as a rock, that's obviously your choice. It's not my place to judge you on your beliefs. However, your explanation for why you have assigned worth doesn't hold up, IMO - namely, you seem to believe that non-humans are inherenly unintelligent based on human studies, even though human studies have proven to be biased and incorrect over the span of our historical records. Also, you still haven't (perhaps I missed it) addressed the issue of intelligence not being related to worth.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

If that 22yr old was a convicted serial child rapist, he might have got off with probation.

 

[MDS]

Why does it matter what might have been had the crime been different?

What I have a hard time with is those that believe the punishment was too harsh and justify their beliefs by saying that a dog has no 'worth' because it is not intelligent or is not a sentient being (which is debateable).

Couch the issue in different terms: What if the guy had thrown a little old lady off the balcony and that lady had never gone to college and worked her whole life in a coffe shop. Is her life 'worth' less than say a Ph.D that was working on a cure for cancer and therefore the killer should get a light sentence because she had less worth than someone that might have changed the world? Great...I can see the prosecutor agruing that the world won't miss her so the killer should get a light sentence. That is total B.S.

The pet owners feel the way I do. A domesticated animal is FAR different from the animals that are used for medical research or make their way to the dinner plate. This guy showed a wanton disregard for life and should be punished accordingly.

 

[10010011]

If that 22yr old was a convicted serial child rapist, he might have got off with probation.

I am agreeing with Buckeye_Nut

Three years for killing a dog is a little much when far worse criminals get off with probation for real crimes against real people.

 

[Adam]

If that 22yr old was a convicted serial child rapist, he might have got off with probation.

Three years for killing a dog is a little much when far worse criminals get off with probation for real crimes against real people.

Why does it matter what might have been had the crime been different?

I agree with MDS (and I believe the point was made earlier). IMO, BN's comment is akin to saying that someone should at the most get probation for their first child rape because a serial child rapist might just get probation.

Our justice system is far from perfect, and we can read about sentences that (at least appear) to be far out of whack when compared to others. Two people can (and do) get dramatically different sentences for the same crime. I'm not going to defend that.

For the record for those that might take things too seriously, I don't honestly think that this guy should be shredded into chum for a PPV event. I do, however, completely agree that he should be punished for what he did. Unless he is an utter moron, I believe that he knew exactly what he was doing and knew the consequences to the dog prior to throwing it off of the balcony. I believe that he wanted to inflict pain and suffering to the dog in an attempt to have that translate to mental suffering of his girlfriend because of the argument. As others have mentioned, and to me this is outside of what value you place on non-humans, such actions towards non-humans has been correlated to future similar actions against humans. So, ideally he will be counseled in prison to reduce the risk of future events.

 

[Tomorrow]

I am agreeing with Buckeye_Nut

Three years for killing a dog is a little much when far worse criminals get off with probation for real crimes against real people.

No...the crimes against people are a little light. As Adam says...our legal system is FAR from perfect.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Three years for killing a dog is a little much when far worse criminals get off with probation for real crimes against real people.

It was a real crime. (And most pet owners consider their pets to be family members, with the same status as people.)

 

[highfihoney]

I personally put more value on an animal than i do most people i run across on a daily basis.

Animals are blindly loyal,people are not.

Animals give unconditional love,people do not.

My families best friend.

Aryan the Bulldog.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I personally put more value on an animal than i do most people i run across on a daily basis.

Me too! (In fact, I hope I never catch anyone hurting a pet, because what I would do to them would probably land me in prison!)

 

[yettitheman]

You know what we need to bring back to the prison system?
Physical Labor. Busting rocks and **** like that. Nobody wants to ever be in prison knowing you are going to work your *** off. Oh wait, the whole point of jail is punishment...instead, nowadays they get 3 free meals, excersise programs, (sometimes shower sex, whether or not you want it )... seems like a good deal to some. IF they brought back rock breaking or something like that, I think it would help.
Officer:"How many years you in here for?"
Inmate:"uh...10 or so?.."
Officer:"Yeah. Your going to break rocks for 12 hours then... along with your new chained friends...."

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

......................the way our liberal justice system is today:

hurt an animal/go to jail:::: Rape a child several times/no jail: maybe therapy.

It's a sad state of affairs when our society will sentence serious jail time for animal cruelty........but only probation for raping our societies children.

 

[Gasman]

......................the way our justice system is today:

I don't think ANYONE is saying the legal system is correct.
But people are saying this guy deserved the punishment.

However, when our justice system fails us, we ALL want to complain.

Think O.J.

So whether or not a person gets probation for (alleged rape/rape) is a moot point, unless we know all the particulars.
Think of it this way, I almost got charged with it.
Why?
My girlfriend was 3 years younger than me. No big deal, right. (heck there are people even on these forums in a relationship of 20 years difference (I'm sure)

At that time (many years ago) I was 21, she 18. (however, we had already been dating for 5 years)
(if charged and convicted, it would have been a 15 year sentence)

 

[highfihoney]

Me too! (In fact, I hope I never catch anyone hurting a pet, because what I would do to them would probably land me in prison!)

I haven't had the good fortune to bash somebody yet for hurting a pet but i did get to bash a few sissy's when i was young over teasing crippled kids,the junior hi school i went too had a section for special needs kids,always made me sick to watch the watch the kids get teased.Nothing i hate more than a bully/sissy picking on defensless people or animals.

I wish that guy had tried to throw my dog off the balcony,she'd of tore his a$$ up real good

 

[Gasman]

Unrelated/but still on topic of pets.

Sadly, 2 of my birds died today/last night.

Here is the story.

I've had a slight problem with rats on the back patio.
They were eating the dropped food from the birds (outside of cages)
(patio is covered and screened in)
(cages are on a bar)

So, I set out rat traps, that became a hassle.
So I set out rat poison, was more effective in the overall problem.

However, a few days ago, my puppy (LOL, 2 year old puppy, he is not the smarter of my 2 dogs, she the Border Collie is extremely intelligent, and would have never done this;
He thought one of the pieces dropped (from the bar) was either a toy/or a piece of food (it looks like a piece of greenie treat)
So 500.00 later, he is fine, thank God, as he is the sweetest dog=VERY playful, just not smart.
(the poison was the cerebral type, not the anticoagulant type)

So I've stopped putting out the rat poison, now to the birds.
I had 4 birds, 2 lovebirds (both died were about 2 years old), 1 cockatiel (about 12 years old, 1/7th of the average life ATM), and 1 parrot (about 5 years old)

But that night, I went out to smoke a cig, and saw 2 mice IN THE CAGE of the 2 lovebirds (rats were to big to get in the cages).
I killed one (mouse), but other got away. I was glad that rats had slowed, and it was just mice (I was wrong).

The next morining (this morning), I went out to feed the birds, the 2 lovebirds were sadly dead. I am assuming that the mice chose the smaller birds to attack for the crumbs in the cage, the other 2 birds are 2 to 3 times the size of the lovebirds.

Mad and sad, I went on a major cleaning rage, and just shy of scrubbing the whole patio (although it was completely rinsed).

Birds are my least favorite of the pets I have had, but I chose to take care of them.
So I will for the rest of their life, hopefully it will be longer for the other 2.

I am mad at my mistake, I should have ...........
(honestly, I don't know what I could have done as they have been fine, well fed, cleaned after, for years, I guess, I am just sad...)

Sorry for the rambling post.