Top 10 ways to justify cruelty to animals

In light of the "cat in the wheelie-bin" incident, my many observations of people's attitudes IRL and on the internet (trolls excluded because we don't quite know their opinion), and being in a ranting mood due to lack of sleep and boredom, I would like to discuss the issue of animal cruelty. Or rather, people's weak justifications to inflict it.

First of all, let me be clear that sometimes cruelty can't really be avoided. Whether it is for food, testing or for pest control, there is no surefire way to eliminate it altogether. In such situations it is completely unintentional. However, I do believe we have an obligation to minimise cruelty to animals where it is possible. So before I continue on to my point, I would like to admit these things:

1) I eat meat.

2) I agree with testing on animals PROVIDED:

- it will give clear medical benefits that will save lives or improve those with serious, debilitating illnesses (eg. Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, etc).

- the experiment is done with respect and the animal treated with dignity.

3) I don't disagree with killing animals when they become a nuisance, providing the method is humane.

Some of you might not agree with testing, but until we have reliable computer models and tissue cultures continue to be successful as an alternative, I am afraid that using animals is unavoidable short of using human subjects instead. I am going to be talking the about the excuses people use for malicious cruelty, and also cruelty caused by indifference. I am also going to talk about the deflections that people use when they see someone complain about cruelty, only because they don't give a damn so they have to demean people for it (obvious trolls don't fall in this category). So without further ado, here are the top ten reasons people use to justify cruelty to animals:

10) "<insert anything to do with PETA here>"

Thanks PETA, you bunch of fuckwits. When someone complains about a REAL case of animal cruelty, there will inevitably be idiots who carry out the PETA line. "You're a PETAite", "Go hug a bunny, you damn PETA card carrying member" etc. PETA has almost single-handedly destroyed the credibility of an animal cruelty complaint in a public forum. However, the people who use PETA as a reason to condone acts of cruelty to animals are as stupid as them. Some seem to be so sick of PETA that they will abuse an animal/not give a damn if they're being cruel to it just to spite them.

9) "Doesn't matter if you're cruel to the animal, it is not intelligent enough"

Sorry, but intelligence isn't a prerequisite to the capacity to feel pain. This is used mainly to justify cruelty to "dumb" animals. If morons are going to use this line of thinking, they'd might as well use it for infants, and the mentally handicapped. What, it works doesn't it? If you're not intelligent, you don't "suffer", right? And before anyone interjects with saying that this is equating animals with our species, no, it is not. I am simply using the same principle/logic of this reasoning to show you why it doesn't work, and why it is stupid.

8) "Save your compassion for something else"

I didn't know compassion was a finite currency, you fuckwit.

7) "My children and my health come first!"

Cue Mrs "won't somebody think of the children" Lovejoy. To expand on this point, I will tell you a brief story. One day someone caught a mouse, on the most hideous and inhumane trap in existence - the glue trap. They work by sticking any passing animals in place with industrial strength super glue, the kind of stuff you would use for sticking wood and ceramic together. The glue meshes to the animal's skin, and in its desperate struggle, will pull off its skin, break its limbs and even chew body parts off to escape. That is not the worst bit though - the trapper then proceeds to chuck the trap, mouse and all, into the rubbish bin. While the mouse is still alive. The excuse? Their children's safety comes first.

Think about this for a minute, and then ask yourself "what does their children have anything to do with the decision of disposing of an animal?"

Done? Well, if you thought that it doesn't, you'd be right. The animal is trapped, helpless and presents no danger to anyone anymore. It is at the mercy of the person. Opting to starve an animal to death in a trash bin isn't making anything safer except karma. It's malicious, unthinking and ultimately wrong - clearly a disgusting thing to do, killing the animal humanely isn't going to put their child in mortal danger. This is the kind of incredibly stupid ignorance I had seen a couple of times... of course, I'd be blunt and say my feelings instead of sugar-coating it. The person deserves it, very funny to when they point to themselves as the victim. Hah? And what about the poor animal you willingly starved to death? It's the kind of mentality that wants me to smack some sense into people, but I'll refrain because I won't stoop to their level.

6) "You're putting humans before non-human animals/Animals do not have human rights/You should care more about people"

Biggest strawman argument for people who are either being cruel to animals, or ones who support such things and try to rationalise it. Someone kicks a dog for example and a person complains? A couple of total nimrods jump in and tell you not to give them human rights. Or imply that you're treating them on the same level as human beings. I fail to see how being opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals is putting them on a human pedestal. For one, it is called having empathy for another's misfortune/suffering. Secondly, criticising cruelty doesn't mean you are giving the animal a social security number or a bank account, you are simply showing sympathy. You know, a common human reaction to someone or something in pain. It seems that for some unknown reason, caring about non-human animals and humans are mutually exclusive. Those who continue to pander this sort of bullshit reasoning should not be taken seriously, and should be laughed at and called a moron.

5) "There are more important things to worry about/rather than concern yourself over that do this/but people are DYING"

A common retort used by people who simply do not give a shit. Protest against an act of cruelty to an animal, and a few always pop up saying this. In principle, they are right, there ARE more important things to worry about than random cruelty to an animal. For example, my mum is more important than that cat in a bin. However, this is quite a moot point because such a distinction is IRRELEVANT. People are so stupid failing to see that it is not the topic of contention. And funnily enough... the same people are posting hundreds of posts in a "three word story game" thread, or writing about how they didn't get a good hair cut. Yet the people complaining about cruelty aren't going to those threads, telling them to clothe a homeless man, or feed a starving child in Africa. In most cases, the same people don't really give a damn about these "more important issues", they are just saying that because they don't give a fuck about the cruelty topic so feel the need to make it look as insignificant as possible. Trolls do this intentionally, and with good results - but there are actually people out there who seriously believe in this shit.

This excuse is also pretty funny because it assumes that people who are bitching about animal cruelty don't give a damn about anything else. It amazes me that people think that. I will spend my time caring about what I want thanks, that and just because I care about cruelty, doesn't mean I don't care about anything else. I do have other causes I am passionate about, some of them not as vocal but in actually getting more busy about. It IS possible to care about more than one issue simultaneously, you realise?

4) "Animals don't feel pain/can't suffer"

These people must have a time machine, because this kind of thinking was dead (or on life support) 200 or so years ago. To defend this claim, they say "it is only instinctual". Bullshit. Anyone who knows half a shit about animals know that they can feel pain, and can even suffer psychologically. I had a rat that died once, his cage mate was clearly depressed. He just stared at the side of his cage, eating and drinking very little and had no interest in interacting with me for about a week. Even when he got "over" it, he wasn't the same. Compare this to BEFORE the cagemate died - he was bouncy, happy, wanted attention, would come up to me to lick my hand, enjoy being petted, etc. If that's not a MENTAL indication of emotional pain, then I don't know what is. Of course, the dingbats who think animals as so simple will cry out "instinct" despite being disproved by scientific literature (eg. psychological experiments, tests involving anti-depressants, etc) and plenty of anecdotal evidence. But yes, let's listen to these idiots over qualified people who know what they're talking about.

3) "Who cares, it's only a pest/vermin/<insert animal here>"

It appears that the word "pest" has some magical property to it that turns sensible people into mindless savages. This is quite a common excuse for people to use to absolve themselves of guilt, assuming they have any. Normally people have the principle that unnecessary harm to animals is a bad thing, but for some reason their principles vanish when it comes to pests. What they seem to overlook or ignore is that a lot of "pest" species are animals that are well-capable enough of feeling pain and distress. There is absolutely no reason to drag out its pain just because it is an animal that people may not like. They feel the same thing as a dog or cat would, so if one were to be against pain to a dog or cat, then why not a pest animal? Are these people concerned about the issue of cruelty, or are they concerned about the issue of what kind of species it is? I call this "the cute fluffy wuffly principle". It's logically inconsistent. People also seem to do this when an animal is deemed inferior to them.

2) "It doesn't matter if it's cruel, it's going to die anyway"

Brain-dead reasoning for idiots who obviously can't see common sense when it smacks them right in the face (nihilists?). Why should death only be taken into consideration, isn't the way we get there just as important? I've seen too many people justify being a deliberate cruel arsehole because of this reasoning - brain-dead crap ranging from "but when it dies, it's not going to affect anyone" to "it won't remember the pain, because it will be dead". Well you fucking morons, it will certainly remember and feel it AT THE TIME. That suddenly just doesn't go away from the timeline, not to mention it would probably fuck the person in the head doing it. The action was still there. Geez, consider such a fucked up reasoning at its core: the amount of pain experienced prior to death does not matter. Well then, think about terminally ill patients, very sick pets with no hope of curing them - this philosophy would not take pain into account at all. That's pretty sick isn't it? To make it ironic though, these same shitbags seem to have a problem applying this philosophy to themselves. They'd WISH to have a relatively humane death when their time comes, and if they say so themselves, that mindset is completely eliminated. But of course, as with all illogical stupidity, they pick and choose when to use it and when not to. Kinda makes it redundant, huh?


1) "We're on top of the food chain, we can do whatever we want! We are the superior species!"

This is probably the most common reason to justify cruelty to animals. Shockingly enough too, it just might be the most valid one - because yes, we can do whatever we want. Even if it means it breaks the law, moral codes, reason, logic, etc. Is it justifiable though? How we are "superior" depends on what attribute we're talking about, really. We are self-proclaimed masters, and any such title bears a lot of responsibility. One of them is taking care of those "below us"... abuse or misuse that, are we really fit to be "masters" when we are slowly destroying that what we master? Ultimately the reason animal cruelty is so frowned upon is because it has the potential to manifest into something worse - cruelty to each other. The animal suffering in itself is secondary to that, or so it seems to some people - but because we now have a greater understanding of pain/suffering, we're putting a greater emphasis on the animal. And so we should. They are not mindless drones, show some fucking respect once in a while.

But I will close on this point by saying that how someone kills an animal is a reflection of their character. If someone was sticking needles in a dog, would you trust them around your kids? How about a person who is savagely cruel to something like a rat by killing it with boiling water because it ate their vegetable patch? It indicates psychosis, lack of empathy/indifference to suffering and a very violent nature. We are ALL capable of doing very bad things, but people who have actually carried it out on animals have a bigger chance to do more.

So to the people who abuse animals, or condone it by using any of these justifications - fuck you, you pathetic sacks of human excrement. Have a good day.