How is this any less cruel? Just because the killing and freezing is done by someone else doesn't change the fact that your pet's food is a critter that someone else would consider a pet in its own right.
That's an exellent question. I'm not a philosopher and I don't think it's necessarily less cruel. However, I think this guy was into the gladiator aspect of this "pet" he owns. Not just feeding it.
He could feed it any meat to keep it alive. He's getting his kicks by watching a small cute animal suffer at the hands of his bad-ass pet. I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
He could feed it any meat to keep it alive. He's getting his kicks by watching a small cute animal suffer at the hands of his bad-ass pet. I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
This. That's the part that bothers me. I mean, it would still be weird if he could go buy pre-dead, frozen kittens, because I think of cats as "pets" and cow as "food." But it's the idea of making the kittens suffer like that -- that's what really bothers me.
(FTR, I feel the same way about rats being fed to snakes. Pre-deadified, fine. Live? No way.)
t edit
Though this made me laugh and laugh and laugh:
Now now -- maybe the alligator won them fair and square in a poker game.
I think his intent goes a long way to determine what is "cruel" and what is "humane".
I completely disagree. Whether or not I'd want to share a cab with this guy shouldn't have a legal bearing on what he can feed to his pet alligator.
Pet cats toy with the mice they catch before killing them. Pet snakes swallow them whole. Is the former less cruel simply because no human intervention was required?
Excellent Sarah Vowell editorial in the NYT.
ION, Sarah Vowell is my girlfriend.
Whether or not I'd want to share a cab with this guy shouldn't have a legal bearing on what he can feed to his pet alligator.
FWIW, my first instinct would be to use intent to distinguish cruelty to animals from, say, what I saw a couple weeks ago at the National Zoo, which appeared to be baby cheetahs feasting on rabbit. Considering intent is often used to determine criminal acts. However, I suspect it has to do with intentionally causing an animal an undue amount of pain.
Pet cats toy with the mice they catch before killing them.
Yeah, and I don't like it any more. My cats get purina, nine lives and science diet. And, YES, Devi captures the occasional random mouse that makes it into my apartment. Sigh. And drops it in my bed.
The difference to me is whether the, um, food, is for the benefit of the pet or the petkeeper. I had a friend whose ball python would eat nothing but live prey. OK, can deal. Oook, but can deal. It'd starve otherwise. But really, gators? Eat butchered flesh or marshmallows or whatever ALL THE TIME. Hell, I fed them. Kittens? That's for the fucking fuckness of the owner. You domesticate a creature, you make up new rules, sorry, not going to give you a pass.
You wanna pass? Go make yourself lunch. Or leave the critter be. Cat? Domesticated. Gator? Yeah, just try me.
Domesticated animals and pets aren't wild animals. They're not (usually) going to starve if they don't get live prey. It's not even going to hurt them mentally or emotionally if they don't get live prey.
Giving a pet a live animal to eat is more of a thrill for the pet owner than for the pet and it's sick no matter how I look at it. It doesn't matter if it's a rat, a bunny or a bird.
But that's just me.
And yeah, if I were raised in another culture (like wherever it is that cats=good stew meat), I'd likely have another tack. But in this culture? Not Acceptable. There are alternatives. Ones that don't involve potential pets.( and I realize there is a dearth of potential cat homes. Hell, I've payed for kitty abortions. Doesn't make them food any more to me.)
ION, Sarah Vowell is my girlfriend.
Does she know about the Mars thing?
Nope.
I'll have to work my way up to that....
