What is wrong with some people?

[Debater Slayer]

My comment was in the specific cases of animal cruelty. I always want to think the best of people in general and the reminders that humans often fall short of it, and fall back on tradition. Tradition is hard to change.

My previous post touches on this; I don't think we can reliably attribute the abuse in the video to an entire culture's or country's tradition either. Either way, though, if we go that route, then this is something that could also apply to basically every country in the world where meat is produced en masse and widely eaten, given the abuse usually involved in such mass production. That includes my country and yours. It seems to me that such issues are too complicated to be explained by or merely attributed to tradition, though.

 

[Watchmen]

That explains why humans were designed to be prey for large cats and bears. And why we don’t eat them. We are lower in the hierarchy of the food chain.

Humans aren’t natural prey for large cats and bears. That would be highly unusual.

 

[Watchmen]

I can’t watch videos that show any animal torture. I once saw a video of a Chinese street kitchen where the “chef” was tossing live kittens into boiling water, and within seconds pulling them out and skinning them for food. It was the first confirmation of what I had heard about Asian attitudes towards animals. I am still sick to my stomach.

You’re right. The entire Asian race has no problem torturing animals.




I’m being sarcastic.

 

[Nimos]

I don't know whether it could be said to be a cultural thing, since that typically implies a countrywide attitude.

I think I would call it cultural, even if some people mind. Because it has to be seen as a generally/majority-accepted thing.

And I assume that the country from where the video is from doesn't have any laws regarding treating animals like this. That is an expression of the culture in that country, because if people cared they would make laws about it and would punish people for it, equally people on the street would react to it if it was considered wrong. I would dare anyone to tape up a dog like in the video and walk down the street in Denmark with it, I don't think they would be able to walk very far before someone would have a go at them or call the police.

You are correct that industrial treatment of animals are not good, but I would make the argument that animals in Denmark are in general better treated than animals are in a country like in that video, simply because the Danes won't allow it, so laws will be implemented that makes sure that this happens.

The closest you get to something like this in Denmark is the Faroe Islands, which are killing whales in huge numbers each year during a day or two or something due to stupid tradition, in what can most be described as a blood bath.

The practice of dolphin hunting in the Faroe Islands has come under scrutiny after more than 1,400 of the mammals were killed in what was believed to be a record catch.

But given they have self-independence the Danish government won't interfere, but in general, I think all Danes would vote to do something to force them to stop it, they rely on Denmark to function.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think I would call it cultural, even if some people mind. Because it has to be seen as a generally/majority-accepted thing.

And I assume that the country from where the video is from doesn't have any laws regarding treating animals like this. That is an expression of the culture in that country, because if people cared they would make laws about it and would punish people for it, equally people on the street would react to it if it was considered wrong. I would dare anyone to tape up a dog like in the video and walk down the street in Denmark with it, I don't think they would be able to walk very far before someone would have a go at them or call the police.

Average citizens typically don't get to demand or freely vote for the laws they want in a dictatorship, and we know what the CCP is like. The governments in dictatorial states rarely represent the will and values of their people, and that's even more pronounced when the government can indefinitely detain or even kill people for being too vocal in demands for change. For us to say that this sort of animal abuse is a cultural or majority-accepted phenomenon, I think we need much more evidence than one video that may or may not even represent most people in the country.

There are also laws against eating dogs and cats in some parts of China, but laws aren't always respected by everyone. The socioeconomic and political situations of Denmark and most Asian countries are so different that I don't think a direct comparison on this one issue is realistic, nor does it account for the numerous factors influencing a country's laws.

If it were up to me, my country would have more laws to protect animal welfare, but I have no say in the law. I would hope that no one who witnessed the actions of some of the animal abusers where I lived would try to extrapolate my own attitude or a generalization about the entire culture or country from those actions.

You are correct that industrial treatment of animals are not good, but I would make the argument that animals in Denmark are in general better treated than animals are in a country like in that video, simply because the Danes won't allow it, so laws will be implemented that makes sure that this happens.

The closest you get to something like this in Denmark is the Faroe Islands, which are killing whales in huge numbers each year during a day or two or something due to stupid tradition, in what can most be described as a blood bath.

The practice of dolphin hunting in the Faroe Islands has come under scrutiny after more than 1,400 of the mammals were killed in what was believed to be a record catch.

But given they have self-independence the Danish government won't interfere, but in general, I think all Danes would vote to do something to force them to stop it, they rely on Denmark to function.

I have no doubt that Denmark is doing better than probably most of the world in terms of animal welfare, although I also think it's important to consider that against the bigger picture of socioeconomics and politics, as I said above—areas in which Denmark is also faring better than most of the world. Countries that have robust animal welfare laws and foster respectful attitudes toward animals also tend to have high standards of living and high levels of freedom relative to global standards. To me, looking at animal welfare in isolation of these other factors is like looking at one missing piece of the puzzle when half of the puzzle is also missing and would need years or decades to put together properly.

A subpar status quo in terms of economic and political conditions is often tied to increased crime rates, fewer legal protections for human and animal rights, poorer enforcement of existent laws, and more incidents of human and animal rights violations that go unchecked regardless of how many average citizens may object to them. I try to think of issues like animal rights in a given country within that larger context rather in isolation of it.

Another issue is the frequency of certain abusive practices even if many or most people may object to them. If you passed by people whipping their mules, horses, donkeys, etc., on the street or by an unsanitary, cruel wet market every day on your way to work, how often would you approach the people committing the abuse and try to rebuke or talk to them about it? How often would you do it before deciding that the problem was far bigger than talking could solve by itself? Sometimes talking could help, of course, but in many cases, it would change little to nothing, especially in the absence of laws against the abuse or enforcement thereof. Would you be complicit in the abuse for coming to such a realization while still trying to help as much as you could and talking to people committing abuse in cases where you believed that talking could help?

This sort of conflict between one's conscience and what they may frequently see around them is not uncommon in many third-world and developing countries, and expats I have known who have lived in such countries have all experienced it in one situation or another. From seeing homeless children and child labor to seeing whipping of animals pulling carts, there are issues that have deep-rooted systemic causes beyond what an individual can solve, although I do believe that one should do what they can to help in any way possible.

 

[Nimos]

Average citizens typically don't get to demand or freely vote for the laws they want in a dictatorship, and we know what the CCP is like. The governments in dictatorial states rarely represent the will and values of their people, and that's even more pronounced when the government can indefinitely detain or even kill people for being too vocal in demands for change. For us to say that this sort of animal abuse is a cultural or majority-accepted phenomenon, I think we need much more evidence than one video that may or may not even represent most people in the country.

There are also laws against eating dogs and cats in some parts of China, but laws aren't always respected by everyone. The socioeconomic and political situations of Denmark and most Asian countries are so different that I don't think a direct comparison on this one issue is realistic, nor does it account for the numerous factors influencing a country's laws.

If it were up to me, my country would have more laws to protect animal welfare, but I have no say in the law. I would hope that no one who witnessed the actions of some of the animal abusers where I lived would try to extrapolate my own attitude or a generalization about the entire culture or country from those actions.



I have no doubt that Denmark is doing better than probably most of the world in terms of animal welfare, although I also think it's important to consider that against the bigger picture of socioeconomics and politics, as I said above—areas in which Denmark is also faring better than most of the world. Countries that have robust animal welfare laws and foster respectful attitudes toward animals also tend to have high standards of living and high levels of freedom relative to global standards. To me, looking at animal welfare in isolation of these other factors is like looking at one missing piece of the puzzle when half of the puzzle is also missing and would need years or decades to put together properly.

A subpar status quo in terms of economic and political conditions is often tied to increased crime rates, fewer legal protections for human and animal rights, poorer enforcement of existent laws, and more incidents of human and animal rights violations that go unchecked regardless of how many average citizens may object to them. I try to think of issues like animal rights in a given country within that larger context rather in isolation of it.

Another issue is the frequency of certain abusive practices even if many or most people may object to them. If you passed by people whipping their mules, horses, donkeys, etc., on the street or by an unsanitary, cruel wet market every day on your way to work, how often would you approach the people committing the abuse and try to rebuke or talk to them about it? How often would you do it before deciding that the problem was far bigger than talking could solve by itself? Sometimes talking could help, of course, but in many cases, it would change little to nothing, especially in the absence of laws against the abuse or enforcement thereof. Would you be complicit in the abuse for coming to such a realization while still trying to help as much as you could and talking to people committing abuse in cases where you believed that talking could help?

This sort of conflict between one's conscience and what they may frequently see around them is not uncommon in many third-world and developing countries, and expats I have known who have lived in such countries have all experienced it in one situation or another. From seeing homeless children and child labor to seeing whipping of animals pulling carts, there are issues that have deep-rooted systemic causes beyond what an individual can solve, although I do believe that one should do what they can to help in any way possible.

That is correct animal welfare costs money and these countries are probably thinking more about the big industries than some animals living decently. But still, the population could still express their concerns about it (maybe they do to some degree), that is basically how things are changed when people go on the street and complain.

But still, I think one could say that it is a cultural thing because people might simply have given up trying to deal with these things because they are so common and they have become more or less immune to it. At least from the video and how she is driving around with them, I would assume that this is pretty common and she has done it many times.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is correct animal welfare costs money and these countries are probably thinking more about the big industries than some animals living decently. But still, the population could still express their concerns about it (maybe they do to some degree), that is basically how things are changed when people go on the street and complain.

I don't know enough about how or whether any groups express concerns about animal welfare in the country where the video was shot to comment on this, but I do know that publicly expressing such concerns and demanding legal change, for example, can be life-threatening in some countries whose governments crack down on any demands for legal reform. It's also difficult to organize protests when people know that the outcome will typically be either violent crackdown on the protests or detention of the people trying to spearhead such calls for change in the first place.

I believe that people should do what they can to improve the situation, though, even if on an individual level (e.g., by talking to others in their social circle if they witness animal abuse and know that talking could spread awareness).

But still, I think one could say that it is a cultural thing because people might simply have given up trying to deal with these things because they are so common and they have become more or less immune to it. At least from the video and how she is driving around with them, I would assume that this is pretty common and she has done it many times.

I find this issue to be sort of a "chicken or egg?" question: is the lack of action by most a result of culture, or is the cultural attitude—if it has indeed become cultural—a result of the economic and political factors that have led to this point, where it is common enough to see such abusive practices that some people either do nothing or believe that they couldn't change it anyway even if they did something as average individuals with little to no power?

I don't know that there's a definitive answer to that, but considering that Asia has a long and rich history of religious and philosophical worldviews that promote non-violence and preservation of all conscious lifeforms, I lean toward the view that the situation regarding animal rights in some Asian countries could be very different under different economic and political circumstances. This applies to everywhere in the world, really, since I believe that cultures and prevalent attitudes don't arise or change in a vacuum.

Whatever the case may be, the one thing I can take away from such a video and know that I can control is that I should personally strive to behave ethically toward animals and do what I can to help when I have the ability to do so. It's the same reason I don't litter even though avoiding that is actually quite difficult in many places where I live (especially since there are few baskets on most streets) and I would get away with it if I did it; I just believe in doing what aligns with one's conscience and values even if one's environment makes that more difficult or most people act differently. I'm mainly responsible for myself, after all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This has been a very stimulating and thought-provoking conversation, by the way. Thanks, @Nimos.

 

[Nimos]

I find this issue to be sort of a "chicken or egg?" question: is the lack of action by most a result of culture, or is the cultural attitude

In general, in Denmark people are raised to not hurt animals, it's part of raising children I would say. So I think that could be said to be a cultural thing because it is obviously something that has been taught through generations. And this will then be reflected in society and then the laws.

So I found this:
Denmark's Animal Welfare Act of 2013 requires anyone keeping animals to ensure adequate housing, feeding, watering, and care with regard for physiological, ethological, and health needs in agreement with established practical and scientific knowledge. The act therefore prohibits both direct abuse and neglect.

if the Danes didn't care, these laws wouldn't be there as they wouldn't be highly reflected in society as being a big issue. And even if you have a poor country it doesn't naturally follow that you ought to treat animals badly.

China:
There are currently no nationwide laws in China that explicitly prohibit the mistreatment of animals, except for a more generic law protecting wildlife.

Bangladesh:
Unnecessary cruelty is also prohibited, according to the Act, and penalized with a fine for up to BDT 200 (~ USD 2.33), or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. Section 7 provides that a person shall not kill an animal in an unnecessarily cruel manner.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In general, in Denmark people are raised to not hurt animals, it's part of raising children I would say. So I think that could be said to be a cultural thing because it is obviously something that has been taught through generations. And this will then be reflected in society and then the laws.

So I found this:
Denmark's Animal Welfare Act of 2013 requires anyone keeping animals to ensure adequate housing, feeding, watering, and care with regard for physiological, ethological, and health needs in agreement with established practical and scientific knowledge. The act therefore prohibits both direct abuse and neglect.

if the Danes didn't care, these laws wouldn't be there as they wouldn't be highly reflected in society as being a big issue. And even if you have a poor country it doesn't naturally follow that you ought to treat animals badly.

China:
There are currently no nationwide laws in China that explicitly prohibit the mistreatment of animals, except for a more generic law protecting wildlife.

Bangladesh:
Unnecessary cruelty is also prohibited, according to the Act, and penalized with a fine for up to BDT 200 (~ USD 2.33), or imprisonment for up to 6 months, or both. Section 7 provides that a person shall not kill an animal in an unnecessarily cruel manner.

I'm pressed for time this week, so I'll have to summarize my points as much as I can.

I agree that culture has a role in how a society treats animals, of course, but my point is that culture is also influenced and shaped by other factors, and vice versa. Consider how some ethnic minorities in some countries have above-average rates of crime, incarceration, violence, etc. Someone could look at that situation and say, "Their culture is awful! That's why they have these issues." Another could look at the same situation and analyze why it has become that way by considering the different factors—such as socioeconomic, historical, and political issues—that have contributed to it and how to address those.

I'm not saying that poverty naturally leads to animal abuse; that would be an extreme overgeneralization. I'm only saying that economic problems are sometimes among numerous other factors that contribute to overall deterioration in human and animal rights in some countries. Also, there's vast variation in individual behavior toward animals even in societies that one could generally perceive to have a culture of accepting or enabling animal abuse, so would it be fair to paint the entire culture or country with the negative brush when many positive examples also existed?

The gray and more complicated areas of human behavior tend to interest me a lot, as do the different ways in which one could analyze them. So, for example, it would probably be easy for an animal abuser to get away with their actions in a country with lax animal welfare laws and relatively widespread normalization of said abuse, and it would probably be easy for someone to vocally object to animal abuse in a country with robust animal welfare laws and relatively widespread rejection thereof.

But now, similarly to my earlier hypothetical, imagine a Dane who had to live in a country with a lack of laws protecting animals and relative normalization of cruel wet markets, mistreatment of stray animals, etc. Further, imagine that this Dane had to pass by such a wet market every day on the way to work, or by people beating their mules, donkeys, horses, etc., with a stick or whipping them.

What, if anything, would this Dane be able to do in that situation to prevent or minimize the frequent abuse? Would he be able to talk to every single person who committed it, or would he have to live with a realization that this wouldn't always work or help? And if he did talk to them every single time, how much change would that lead to as opposed to merely getting in trouble with many people, possibly without causing any change?

This is the kind of conflicting, gray, and nuanced situation that many people have to face, which is a major part of why I'm not comfortable asserting that every single person in such a situation is necessarily accepting of abuse or being apathetic to it. It's usually also difficult to know whether they have talked to abusers when they have thought that doing so would lead to a helpful outcome. I know for a fact that many people's conscience is at odds with what they see but that they also know they sometimes can't change certain things on their own, and such people include friends from other countries who lived in my country for years and experienced situations similar to the hypothetical I detailed above.

 

[Nimos]

But now, similarly to my earlier hypothetical, imagine a Dane who had to live in a country with a lack of laws protecting animals and relative normalization of cruel wet markets, mistreatment of stray animals, etc. Further, imagine that this Dane had to pass by such a wet market every day on the way to work, or by people beating their mules, donkeys, horses, etc., with a stick or whipping them.

What, if anything, would this Dane be able to do in that situation to prevent or minimize the frequent abuse?

Obviously not a lot, but I also don't think that is the issue. Because surely there are people in that country in the video that are just as much against these things as someone else.

But if you have a country let's just say China, that doesn't have any national rules for animal abuse, that to me says something about the general culture of that country, because the politicians ought to be just as upset as the general public about this. So no one should really have to protest all that much if it was considered an issue in general.

I agree that culture has a role in how a society treats animals, of course, but my point is that culture is also influenced and shaped by other factors, and vice versa. Consider how some ethnic minorities in some countries have above-average rates of crime, incarceration, violence, etc. Someone could look at that situation and say, "Their culture is awful! That's why they have these issues." Another could look at the same situation and analyze why it has become that way by considering the different factors—such as socioeconomic, historical, and political issues—that have contributed to it and how to address those.

I get that and agree with it being an issue in regard to certain things, but I also think one can't really compare these things directly. Because of how humans in general look at animals. Broadly speaking we look at animals as being neutral, we don't envy them, get jealous, or judge a crocodile for eating another animal. So we look at them as innocent beings, kind of in the same way as we don't go bananas at a 2-year-old who does something that they shouldn't.

Whereas in these cases you could say that ethnic minorities are assigned certain tendencies is often a result of something in society that has led to that as you said and is very complex.

But the well-being of animals doesn't really apply here due to the above, as we consider them innocent and are aware of their limitations. In regards to farming, I don't think the farmers prefer treating the animals poorly, but in many cases are doing so, because it is more cost-effective, makes things easier etc. And I assume this is exactly what this woman is thinking as well, when the dogs are tied up they are way easier to handle. But still, there is a long step from farming animals in some cases at least, to direct abuse of dogs like she does.

And then, there doesn't seem to be a general consensus from people around her that she is doing something wrong, and if this is from China, then she is obviously doing nothing wrong, legal-wise at least, which could explain why no one cares, because that is how they are used to seeing animals being treated. And that to me at least is a reflection of their culture.

 

[Audie]

Obviously not a lot, but I also don't think that is the issue. Because surely there are people in that country in the video that are just as much against these things as someone else.

But if you have a country let's just say China, that doesn't have any national rules for animal abuse, that to me says something about the general culture of that country, because the politicians ought to be just as upset as the general public about this. So no one should really have to protest all that much if it was considered an issue in general.


I get that and agree with it being an issue in regard to certain things, but I also think one can't really compare these things directly. Because of how humans in general look at animals. Broadly speaking we look at animals as being neutral, we don't envy them, get jealous, or judge a crocodile for eating another animal. So we look at them as innocent beings, kind of in the same way as we don't go bananas at a 2-year-old who does something that they shouldn't.

Whereas in these cases you could say that ethnic minorities are assigned certain tendencies is often a result of something in society that has led to that as you said and is very complex.

But the well-being of animals doesn't really apply here due to the above, as we consider them innocent and are aware of their limitations. In regards to farming, I don't think the farmers prefer treating the animals poorly, but in many cases are doing so, because it is more cost-effective, makes things easier etc. And I assume this is exactly what this woman is thinking as well, when the dogs are tied up they are way easier to handle. But still, there is a long step from farming animals in some cases at least, to direct abuse of dogs like she does.

And then, there doesn't seem to be a general consensus from people around her that she is doing something wrong, and if this is from China, then she is obviously doing nothing wrong, legal-wise at least, which could explain why no one cares, because that is how they are used to seeing animals being treated. And that to me at least is a reflection of their culture.

Criticize China for too much freedom from
govt control.
A change from criticizing for too much control.

 

[Nimos]

Criticize China for too much freedom from
govt control.
A change from criticizing for too much control.

I guess so

Yet its not so simple.

 

[Audie]

I guess so

Yet its not so simple.

China is confusing for those of us who
live here.