# How can people abuse dogs?

Gold Member
I have ample evidence that my dog Duke was abused by former owners. Why? He is such a sweet, smart dog and he is eager to please.

Dogs are hard-wired (by evolution and later development) to be our friends, and they want to help us and please us. They don't ask for anything more than a kind word, a hug, a neck-rub, etc. How can people violate this confidence and make dogs fight one another or make them so mean that they are set against all other humans?

I won't join Tucker Carlson in saying that Michael Vick should have been executed, but I think Vick got off easy, with a too-short sentence, and should never ever be allowed to own a dog ever again. I love dogs, and I can't stand to see their rights be shattered in favor of the favoritism lavished on a millionaire sports figure. Dogs are better people than football players.

Maybe not everyone shares the same compassion for dogs, posseses the same moral standards as you do and have the same cultural view of dogs as you do.

Where I come from dogs stay outside, not in the house, and are primarily for security. Hence, the more vicious they are towards strangers the better. Often, training dogs to be aggressive involves abuse.

Secondly, people have different moral and ideas of what is disgusting and simply wrong. A popular saying comes to mind " one mans food is another mans poison".

Some people eat dogs in their culture ( in some parts of my country of birth this is acceptable; I personally find it appalling) and to them dogs and not more "special" than chicken.

How do you view chicken fighting done is parts of south america ? Is it worse than dog fighting? If you answer yes I could answer no.

I personally am not a canine lover, if I see a football player and a dog drowing and I could only save one of them I would save him/her rather than the dog. :-\

╔(σ_σ)╝ is right, North American dogs are primarily domesticated so our perspective on them is extremely different than other countries, but that isn't the point. We are talking about North America so therefore actions of abuse towards any living thing is inhumane. Everything that is alive shouldn't be valued by it's materialistic worth but it's qualities of dignity and respect. Dogs that are abusive are put down or treated differently then those that are more "civilized".

╔(σ_σ)╝ is right, North American dogs are primarily domesticated so our perspective on them is extremely different than other countries, but that isn't the point. We are talking about North America so therefore actions of abuse towards any living thing is inhumane. Everything that is alive shouldn't be valued by it's materialistic worth but it's qualities of dignity and respect. Dogs that are abusive are put down or treated differently then those that are more "civilized".
Correct! But some people tend to have more compassion for dogs than they have for humans which I think is a mistake.

Dogs are abused well so are women and children. Is there a difference? From my point of view,not really.

If people can abuse fellow humans why not animals which are "worth less" than humans?

Correct! But some people tend to have more compassion for dogs than they have for humans which I think is a mistake.

Dogs are abused well so are women and children. Is there a difference? From my point of view,not really.

If people can abuse fellow humans why not animals which are "worth less" than humans?

People who get pleasure out of abusing animals are sociopaths who may become child molesters and/or serial killers.

Borek
Mentor
How can people abuse people?

Because some people are better than other people.

How can people violate this confidence and make dogs fight one another or make them so mean that they are set against all other humans?

I am someone who loves dogs, and not violence. We have to note that some dogs are historically bred to pit fight. This is evidence that that "type of people" has always been around. Considering the time scales over which such custom breeding has taken place, it was probably seen as an improvement over entertainment where people, instead of dogs, were the gladiators. Blood sports have a long history, and are still legal in some parts of the world with different animals.

As for being mean to other humans, that is just the duty of a guard dog, which were more useful before there were surveillance cameras etc.

BobG
Homework Helper
I won't join Tucker Carlson in saying that Michael Vick should have been executed, but I think Vick got off easy, with a too-short sentence, and should never ever be allowed to own a dog ever again. I love dogs, and I can't stand to see their rights be shattered in favor of the favoritism lavished on a millionaire sports figure. Dogs are better people than football players.

Vick served a 23 month sentence, 21 months in prison and 2 months home confinement. Additionally, he lost about $25 million per year in salary and endorsement income, plus had to reimburse the Falcons$20 million of his signing bonus.

Even with his reinstatement, his first year salary dropped to $1.5 million and his subsequent salary and endorsement income is still much lower. It's tough to say how much money his actions cost him, but it was at least$70 million.

I'm not sure those types of penalties could really be considered favoritism.

My view on this subject is the same, whether applied to humans or animals.

Unless it is in self defence, violence towards either is unacceptable.

I also don't like people injuring/killing insects and other such creatures. The amount of time I've spent catching flies / wasps to put outside is ridiculous.

People who get pleasure out of abusing animals are sociopaths who may become child molesters and/or serial killers.

Some people treat actual child molesters and/or serial killers with less contempt than a dog-abuser.

Homework Helper
How can people abuse people?

Good point, and it follows logically how they can abuse animals then.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Intentional cruelty towards animals, i.e, taking pleasure in inflicting <i>pain</i> (which is a non-cultural phenomenon), is to prove your own evil.

Intentional cruelty towards animals, i.e, taking pleasure in inflicting <i>pain</i> (which is a non-cultural phenomenon), is to prove your own evil.

That and to show their power / dominance.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Some people treat actual child molesters and/or serial killers with less contempt than a dog-abuser.
Few child molesters happen to be cruel, i.e, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, that is meant as pain.

Their acts are most definitely reprehensible, and generally very painful and traumitizing for the kids they prey on. That is why they are dangerous criminals, but it doesn't follow that they are cruel (the vast majority of premeditating murderers aren't cruel, either). They are fantasizers who delude themselves into thinking the kids really want these acts to happen, even if the kid cries and begs them to stop.

To make a judgment restricted along the specific moral dimensional of cruelty, child molesters are less so than an abuser of animals.

But, degree/existence of cruelty is not the only moral parameter around, and probably not the most important, either.

The difficulty is to make the correct "multi-dimensional" morality, in which you could compare the graveness along one axis (dimension) against another.

Most of us make a muddle out of this, switching inconsistently all the time between what is more heinous than something else.

Last edited:
Well I've read a number of definitions for 'cruel' and it doesn't follow what you post arildno.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel
1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cruel
2. Causing suffering; painful.

I'd say any child molester comes under those definitions.

There are a number of definitions for cruel and yes, one does include enjoying the pain, but there are others, such as the one above, that do not.

To inflict pain / distress on another is cruel.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Well I've read a number of definitions for 'cruel' and it doesn't follow what you post arildno.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cruel

I'd say any child molester comes under that definition.

There are a number of definitions for cruel and yes, one does include enjoying the pain, but there are others, such as the one above, that do not.

To inflict pain / distress on another is cruel.

Well, then we could speak about sub-concepts cruel(a), cruel(b), cruel(c) and whatnot, and I'll happily restrict my argument to whichever sub-concept that applies, and not to the others.

As for your definition, "knowingly" is the crucial term here, and I'm not at all sure that within the fog of self-justifying fantasy&self-pity that term has much relevance to many child molesters.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Your dictionary is also hopelessly PC.

To knowingly inflict pain isn't necessarily "cruel", or even immoral.

At the very least, it should be qualified as "knowingly causing needless pain".

Even then, callousness might in many cases be a better word to use than cruelty.

Your dictionary is also hopelessly PC.

A sad fact that follows most things these days.
To knowingly inflict pain isn't necessarily "cruel", or even immoral.

At the very least, it should be qualified as "knowingly causing needless pain".

Even then, callousness might in many cases be a better word to use than cruelty.

Agreed.

For me, the definition of cruel is along the lines of: any person who intentionally causes unnecessary pain.

To what, is irrelevant.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
A sad fact that follows most things these days.

Agreed.

For me, the definition of cruel is along the lines of: any person who intentionally causes unnecessary pain.

To what, is irrelevant.

Hmm..is it, cruel of a factory owner to skimp on, say, heat shielding work clothes just to make a few more bucks, thereby knowingly causing more physical distress/pain to his workers?

Personally, I'd call this callous indifference to the well-being of others, rather than an act of cruelty.

But then again, it depends on which definition is used/felt to be most "proper" to use.

On the other hand, your definition might well also exclude this as an act of cruelty, since it cannot be said the employer had as his intention to cause pain, but dismissed that as an unimportant side effect to institute a more financially profitable company

Last edited:
Hmm..is it, cruel of a factory owner to skimp on, say, heat shielding work clothes just to make a few more bucks, thereby knowingly causing more physical distress/pain to his workers?

Yes, I consider that cruel.

Plus it fits the definition of cruel. You can subdivide it all you like based on sub-definitions. But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. I don't see how you can just pick and choose when a definition applies.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Have I said I consider callousness less morally reprehensible than cruelty?

"But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. "

I hereby DEFINE cruel(a.b.1): "Taking pleasure in eating a green apple".

Munching contentedly a green apple is most certainly cruel(a.b.1), but not necessarily cruel(a) or cruel(c).

Have I said I consider callousness less morally reprehensible than cruelty?

I never said you did (or implied it as far as I can tell).
"But it only has to fit one of the sub-definitions for it to be considered cruel. "

I hereby DEFINE cruel(a.b.1): "Taking pleasure in eating a green apple".

Munching contentedly a green apple is most certainly cruel(a.b.1), but not necessarily cruel(a) or cruel(c).

What? I'm talking about the real definitions of cruel, as per the official dictionary entries. I specifically noted what I considered cruel, but in so far as actually deciding what is cruel it comes down to the official definitions.

arildno
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
I never said you did (or implied it as far as I can tell).

What? I'm talking about the real definitions of cruel, as per the official dictionary entries. I specifically noted what I considered cruel, but in so far as actually deciding what is cruel it comes down to the official definitions.
Not really.

It boils down to develop clear-cut, explicit (sub/alternate-)definitions of the primary concept (that doesn't have any preordained "meaning"), and then show how these applies, or not.

Whether these definitions are to be found in official dictionaries are largely irrelevant, but dictionaries are very handy in giving each of us a clue about what an other person might mean by a word he uses.

Borek
Mentor