Woman burns Rabbit Alive

So a hyena doesn't willfully kill the lion cub. Willfull, as in not by accident.

Please show me the definition of cruelty that says it's limited to only humans.

willfull as in having choice and intent to inflict pain.

Cruelty is having reasoning and understanding of the suffering that will be caused and still choosing to do so.

Please show me the definition cruelty that says that.

You are still making up your own definitions.

Nope, show me the definition of cruelty where it says 'act of an animal' Show me the definition that includes specifically acts by animals.

You are atrributing human emotions/concepts to them, the human intent to be willfully cruel, this is your fantasy.

No, cruely is inflicting pain and suffering, no dictionairy says it's limited to humans that can grasp what they're doing, you're making it up.

no dictionary says its applicable to animals, semantics works both ways.

Show me a single example of an animal being willfully cruel and prove the animal is capable of human level rationale about it , is aware its behaviour is considered cruel by humans, and is choosing to do so explicitlyto be cruel, and ill conceed.

I did, and I don't have to prove an animal is capable of human level rational, because it's not needed to be cruel.

You didnt, and It is. You deliberately attribute malicious intent where there is none. The intent is to eat, nothing more.

According to the definition it's causing pain and suffering on purpose, wich is what animals do.

Its not what animals Do and you know it. You interperate it as 'on purpous' for your own purpous. You understand full well it implies 'for the sake of causing pain and suffering'

Ah, semantics.

Yes, your play on definition IS semantics.

How would you call a hyena killing a defenseless lion cub?

Nice? Sweet? Loving?

Cruel is a perfectly good word to describe it.

To you. Its subjective. I call it nature. survival. Opportunistic. and instinctive behaviour without awareness of the suffering of the cub.

Again, 'cruelty' is a human concept, and by its very nature as such, not applicable to animals, no matter how much you argue.

Thankyou for a lively discussion.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

That's very sad. No innocent being deserves that. She should be punishedby law to the fullest extent. That with a court order of psychological counseling and or behavioral health stay. People that hurt animals, often end up hurting people too. Case in point a, developing serial killer, that starts to kill animals as a child. I work in the Veterinary field and on a rabbitry and have delt with children abusing animals. They need help ASAP.

This shouldn't be ignored, her case should be made into an example that burning an animal to death is very wrong, punishable and help should be sought or she doesn 't need to be on the streets.

To the people who say....it was 'just a rabbit'..how about 'it was just a dog'...or 'just your child' next? No matter the animal, companion animal, exotic, farm animal or wildlife, the matter of the fact it's not right.

Why should these people be left to walk the earth? I mean honestly.

Sure, in a civilized society I suppose an eye for an eye is not necessarily a fitting punishment, but in my utopian world, society would add balance to the world by showing her the same treatment.

Don't worry, we'll throw some water on her before she's completely burnt to death.

At what point do we say that jail is too good for some people? At what point is a person beyond rehabilitation? I say save the tax dollars by buying her a bullet instead of 3 square meals a day.

I just don't understand people.

The women should probably be committed to the state for mental evaluation, she exhibits the signs that can later lead to the injury and killing of actual humans as most of the truly sick in this world get their start with small helpless animals.

reply to post by dreamingawake


Thank you for your reply, I'm glad that when you work close to animals and see them on regular bases..you know how bad the situation is. Please carry on the good work.

I dont know if Im more offended by the poor singed bunny, or that womans brown hair/blonde fringe thing she's got going on.

Originally posted by Helig
The women should probably be committed to the state for mental evaluation, she exhibits the signs that can later lead to the injury and killing of actual humans as most of the truly sick in this world get their start with small helpless animals.

Completely agree!

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I can't say I really like this semantics discussion, but whatever.

willfull as in having choice and intent to inflict pain.

All the definitions of willful I get is- intentional-, nothing about having a choice.

You keep adding stuff, making stuff up tp fit your argument.

Nope, show me the definition of cruelty where it says 'act of an animal' Show me the definition that includes specifically acts by animals.

That's smart.

I don't have to, I'm not claiming it specifically includes animals, or excludes humans.

You are the one saying it specifically includes humans, sofar you haven't showed any definition of the word cruel that excludes animals.

no dictionary says its applicable to animals, semantics works both ways.

Again, no dictionairy says it is limited to humans or animals, so there is no reason to think the word isn't applicable to both.

You didnt, and It is. You deliberately attribute malicious intent where there is none. The intent is to eat, nothing more.

See, you are completely off. The hyena's don't eat the lion cubs, they just kill them to eliminate future competition.

Seems like a willful choice for own gain. Not a direct survival instinct.

The hyena doesn't know the concept of cruelty, but it is a perfect word to describe the behavior, and a prime example of animals not playing "nice".

Wich is why I replied to the poster that said that animals are not cruel, as opposed to humans.

Its not what animals Do and you know it. You interperate it as 'on purpous' for your own purpous. You understand full well it implies 'for the sake of causing pain and suffering'.

Again you are adding things and making stuff up.

Please show me a dictionairy definiton where it says "for the sake of causing pain and suffering".




[edit on 20-3-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by wayaboveitall

Again, 'cruelty' is a human concept, and by its very nature as such, not applicable to animals, no matter how much you argue.

So is "beauty", or "sweetness".

So by it's very nature, I can't describe an animal as beautiful, or I can't say what a sweet dog?

We always use human concepts to describe things non human, obviously.

edit to add:

Ever see cat playing with a mouse before it kills it. There's no survival need for it.

It enjoys mauling it's prey, it's playing. It may not understand the suffering it causes, but I can describe it as cruel.

Just like people that cause animal cruelty, they do it not so much to hurt the animal, but more to get a form of enjoyment for themselves it seems.

If I have a dog that is a great caring mother for her puppies, can't I say what a loving dog?

The poster I originally responded to, claimed that animals are better than humans, said so from a human standpoint, describing animals from a human concept, so when I respond back to him, I can't describe the other side of their behavior from a human standpoint?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Point of No Return]

edit to add again:

The dictionairy definition I posted also had an example of the word cruel:

-a cruel accident

Now did the accident have full reasoning of the pain and suffering it caused? Did the accident cause it willfully, with the pure intent of causing pain and suffering?

The discussion is over, it is clear that cruel is a perfectly good word to describe violent, brute things, behavior or situations without the need for conscious rational intent behind it.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Point of No Return]

I don't have to, I'm not claiming it specifically includes animals, or excludes humans.

Thats exactly what you claim. You said the hyena is cruel.

Again, no dictionairy says it is limited to humans or animals, so there is no reason to think the word isn't applicable to both.

Ive ex[plained multiple times why its not applicable. Its a human conncept.

See, you are completely off. The hyena's don't eat the lion cubs, they just kill them to eliminate future competition.

LMAO, no they dont my freind. wheres your source? Male lions kill other females existing cubs to ensure she will mate with him, and
to ensure the female devotes full care to his cubs, e.g milk supply/time, so that his genes survive.
Thats instinctive self preservation and again, the lion has no concept of cruelty.
No predator species kills the cubs of another predator species to limit competition.
This is false. Both lions and hyenas prey on the other species for food.

Seems like a willful choice for own gain. Not a direct survival instinct.

LMAO again. Isnt anything an animal does for its own gain, a survival mechanism for self preservation.?

The hyena doesn't know the concept of cruelty, but it is a perfect word to describe the behavior, and a prime example of animals not playing "nice".

This is my point, The hyena is not cruel, its your subjective human perception only.
Your projecting human perception onto natutre.

Again you are adding things and making stuff up.

No, I am not.

www.youtube.com...

Lion cubs are vulnerable to predators such as hyenas and leopards but the most significant threat comes from other lions. When a new male coalition takes over a pride it is often confronted by the cubs of the males they defeated. Males have no time to spare for protecting the offspring of their predecessors because their own time with a pride is limited. Females will not mate again until their cubs are at least 18 months of age; therefore, males kill all the young cubs in their new pride in order to bring the females back to reproductive readiness. Older cubs and sub-adults stand a chance, however, because they can often escape from infanticidal males. These cubs are evicted and must fend for themselves although occasionally their mothers will leave with them and remain apart from the pride until the cubs reach independence

www.cbs.umn.edu...

Ever see cat playing with a mouse before it kills it. There's no survival need for it.

Predictable. I was waiting for that. your wrong, there is. Its instinctive hunting behaviour. Only domesticates are more likely not to eat it, because they arnt hungry, but millions of years of instinct kick in, because in the wild they are opportunistic hunters.

It enjoys mauling it's prey, it's playing. It may not understand the suffering it causes, but I can describe it as cruel

Enjoyment is another human concept. No evidence there is any particular pleasure in it. And yes, you can describe it as cruel, your perogative, but it still isnt as far as the animal is concerned. You must be aware of cruelty to be capable of it. Cruelty by its nature is subjective.

The poster I originally responded to, claimed that animals are better than humans, said so from a human standpoint, describing animals from a human concept, so when I respond back to him, I can't describe the other side of their behavior from a human standpoint?

Again correct, you are both ascribing human concepts to them. They are neither better nor worse, they are what they are.

Better, or worse, is judgement by the observer, subjective measurement using human perceptions.

The dictionairy definition I posted also had an example of the word cruel:

-a cruel accident

Now did the accident have full reasoning of the pain and suffering it caused? Did the accident cause it willfully, with the pure intent of causing pain and suffering?

Correct, again, human labelling , an accident is an accident, an animal is an animal.

The discussion is over, it is clear that cruel is a perfectly good word to describe violent, brute things, behavior or situations without the need for conscious rational intent behind it.

So It seems. It was the other persons lack of rational intent, aka his subjective perception that you argued against.
I have merely offered a subjective rational perspective of my own, in response.

Again. Thankyou for your contribution.



[edit on 20-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 20-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]