6 ms·

Animal cruelty is immoral.

card_zero 10mo ago
So is sanctimony, good job nobody around here is being cruel or sanctimonious.
mock-possum 10mo ago
> The vets successfully castrated 10 out of 10 hippos with their method, losing only one of the animals to postsurgery complications Yeah those are not good numbers.
- tass 10mo ago
  According to a related article: https://www.discovermagazine.com/why-its-nearly-impossible-to-castrate-a-hippo-4775 https://www.discovermagazine.com/why-its-nearly-impossible-t... The death was caused by an "unknown pre-existing condition" but doesn't elaborate further.
trhway 10mo ago
Vets castrating an animal under anesthesia pales in comparison to male calves castration by using tight rubber band (AMZN sells them too) to cut the blood supply to scrotum and thus causing necrosis and ultimately scrotum and testicles falling off. Without any anesthesia. A widespread, most popular, practice in US. The animal suffers tremendous pain for several weeks. The true cost of beef.
- verisimi 10mo ago
  > The true cost of beef. There's also the animal's death.
  - zdc1 10mo ago
    Personally, I'm more anti-suffering than anti-death.
    - skeledrew 10mo ago
      Does suffering matter if death follows eventually? The dead cares about nothing, because it remembers nothing, because... it no longer is (alive).
      - andsoitis 10mo ago
        > Does suffering matter if death follows eventually? The dead cares about nothing, because it remembers nothing Yes it matters. Causing suffering to a consciousness that can experience pain is inhumane. Now, reasonable people can disagree how far to extend our circle of empathy. Some would exclude animals or even other humans (eg criminals or someone of a different ethnicity), while other people would go so far as to include ants, plants, or rocks. I think both extremes are wrong. Perhaps more poignantly to you question, what if you ask yourself: - does your answer change considering humans are also animals? - regardless of target, what does it say to the character of a person who chooses to be cruel when they don’t have to
        cindyllm 10mo ago
        [dead]
        skeledrew 10mo ago
        So it's not at all about the target of the suffering. It's all about the one(s) causing it. Which suggests to me that the suffering really doesn't matter, objectively speaking. And as such it also doesn't matter how far/near the circle is extended. It ultimately boils down to the others considering and judging any given situation, not the one(s) caused to suffer (to which applicability of definition is highly questionable in the first place if it includes plants and rocks). Of course this changes greatly if the sufferer(s) survive the ordeal for a significant amount of time beyond, as there may be repercussions, depending on the degree of the effects caused and the capacity (physical, psychological, social, etc) of the sufferer(s).
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]

So is sanctimony, good job nobody around here is being cruel or sanctimonious.

> The vets successfully castrated 10 out of 10 hippos with their method, losing only one of the animals to postsurgery complications Yeah those are not good numbers.

tass 10mo ago
According to a related article: https://www.discovermagazine.com/why-its-nearly-impossible-to-castrate-a-hippo-4775 https://www.discovermagazine.com/why-its-nearly-impossible-t... The death was caused by an "unknown pre-existing condition" but doesn't elaborate further.

trhway 10mo ago

Vets castrating an animal under anesthesia pales in comparison to male calves castration by using tight rubber band (AMZN sells them too) to cut the blood supply to scrotum and thus causing necrosis and ultimately scrotum and testicles falling off. Without any anesthesia. A widespread, most popular, practice in US. The animal suffers tremendous pain for several weeks. The true cost of beef.

verisimi 10mo ago
> The true cost of beef. There's also the animal's death.
- zdc1 10mo ago
  Personally, I'm more anti-suffering than anti-death.
  - skeledrew 10mo ago
    Does suffering matter if death follows eventually? The dead cares about nothing, because it remembers nothing, because... it no longer is (alive).
    - andsoitis 10mo ago
      > Does suffering matter if death follows eventually? The dead cares about nothing, because it remembers nothing Yes it matters. Causing suffering to a consciousness that can experience pain is inhumane. Now, reasonable people can disagree how far to extend our circle of empathy. Some would exclude animals or even other humans (eg criminals or someone of a different ethnicity), while other people would go so far as to include ants, plants, or rocks. I think both extremes are wrong. Perhaps more poignantly to you question, what if you ask yourself: - does your answer change considering humans are also animals? - regardless of target, what does it say to the character of a person who chooses to be cruel when they don’t have to
      - cindyllm 10mo ago
        [dead]
      - skeledrew 10mo ago
        So it's not at all about the target of the suffering. It's all about the one(s) causing it. Which suggests to me that the suffering really doesn't matter, objectively speaking. And as such it also doesn't matter how far/near the circle is extended. It ultimately boils down to the others considering and judging any given situation, not the one(s) caused to suffer (to which applicability of definition is highly questionable in the first place if it includes plants and rocks). Of course this changes greatly if the sufferer(s) survive the ordeal for a significant amount of time beyond, as there may be repercussions, depending on the degree of the effects caused and the capacity (physical, psychological, social, etc) of the sufferer(s).
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]