Miami Police Arrest Teen in Brutal Cat Killings

[Retro4Life]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/AmazingAnimals/comments?type=story&id=7836149

Sorry to buzzkill anyone's Sunday, but I just saw this and felt like posting it here. I just posted that I don't "hate" very often, but I HATE this kid, and all like him.

I'm not precisely sure what should be done to him, but I know it should be something appropriately terrible. :mad:

[catlover79]

GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!!! PUT THE CHAIR INSIDE THE GAS CHAMBER!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Retro4Life]

GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!!! PUT THE CHAIR INSIDE THE GAS CHAMBER!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Or perhaps dump fish oil on him and throw into the lion cage at the local zoo and see how that works out for him...:mad: :mad:

[catlover79]

Or perhaps dump fish oil on him and throw into the lion cage at the local zoo and see how that works out for him...:mad: :mad:
That's even better!!

[OH Nuts!]

Sadly, someone like this will probably get a few yrs jail time, clearly not enough. Studies have found that wanton animal cruelty like this is often a precursor to like forms of violence against humans. Laws need to be changed - double digit jail time at the very least. What do I feel in my gut would be a just punishment? 2-3 minutes in a hungry tiger's den (a lion, bear or 15 yr old chimp would also do - remember Travis?)

[catlover79]

^ EXACTLY.

[Retro4Life]

I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but that photo of the suspect was his MUG SHOT...really shows you how seriously he is taking the whole thing, smirking like that at such a time.

I guess this is going to sound a bit "out there" but even though I honestly don't support the death penalty, I think something like this makes me come very, very close. A lot of people have told me it's wrong to "value" the lives of animals more than humans, but I think my reasoning is that animals (particularly pets!) are totally innocent and are supposed to be under our sheperdship. Killing them is like a true blasphemy, it's something I can't get my head around at all. I mean, obviously, I'm not in favor of anyone murdering a person either but at least with the great majority of those cases you can understand some remote (though unjustified) reason for the act (jealousy, theft, covering up something else, rage, etc.) but something like this case strikes me as absolutely, 100 percent EVIL; violence for violence's sake, and probably for the suffering of the victim.

I've got to stop thinking about this, it's burning a hole in my soul.

[InspectorExstead]

...That is ****ing disgusting. I don't understand how people can take joy in hurting defenseless animals like that, but then again, I don't know how people can hurt other humans as well. Either way, that is so sad about the cats and the way they were killed. =( I hate when people are cruel to animals. I feel sorry for the owners of the cats that were killed by this sicko creep.

[ABlairican Pie]

I would love to pound the living crap out of that punk's slimy smirk. No freaking mercy for this worthless pile of subhuman filth.

I love kitties too much to let this scumbag ever walk the streets alive again.

[OH Nuts!]

I would love to pound the living crap out of that punk's slimy smirk. No freaking mercy for this worthless pile of subhuman filth.

I love kitties to much to let this scumbag ever walk the streets alive again.

I hear you. I just hope he gets a tough judge whose an animal lover so this piece of garbage will go to jail for as long as legally possible. After a while in jail, that smirk will disappear.

[JT]

I don't get this whole animal cruelty thing, and I'm sure someone will explain it to me, but how is torturing and killing cats something that can be punishable by law, but torturing and killing...idk...frogs, mosquitos, cockroaches, rats, snakes, etc, isn't?

[Schmoopie]

Oh that is just HORRIBLE! OMG, I am a huge animal lover and sadly, I'm surprised that they even arrested him! I'm only saying that because usually, jackasses like this only get fined or some community service. The thing that gets me is that if these were humans that he was doing this to, you know that the consequences would be severe; probably the death penalty. No way are they going to give him the death penalty, although he needs it. This is a sick individual. I didn't see the "mug shot", but I'm sure he feels no remorse for what he has done.

I personally think that the penalty for killing animals should be WORSE than killing humans. Now, obviously most humans that are killed in horrible circumstances can't defend themselves, even if they cry for help, but animals can't defend themselves in situations like this at all. I hope that statement makes sense, because it sounds bad, the way I've worded it. I don't get why people think that killing animals just for fun is acceptable. People get charged all the time with murder of other people. There should be a charge for murdering animals as well. Sadly, the outcome of murder is still the same, whether it be a person or an animal.

Andrea

Oh my... I just had a peek at the article and if that picture is the guy's mug shot, I'd like to kill him myself! And the worst thing about that article is the picture of the poor kitty. I just don't see how he lives with himself. If he is so "happy" to be doing this, then what would stop him from doing it to a human?

I think the government should seriously make killing cats and other animals a crime as stiff as if it were a person who was killed.

[JamesG]

I don't get this whole animal cruelty thing, and I'm sure someone will explain it to me, but how is torturing and killing cats something that can be punishable by law, but torturing and killing...idk...frogs, mosquitos, cockroaches, rats, snakes, etc, isn't?

You bring up a very interesting point. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unfamiliar with how this works but here is my guess...

I guess it depends on a couple of things. The main thing is the issue of property ownership. Pets are the property of people and nobody has the right to "destroy your property". That would be burglary and vandalism.

If it were strays killed I don't know if it would make a difference. Granted it's horrible and inexcusable to kill any animal without reason, pet or not, but I am interested to see how it might be different if the cats killed were strays and not owned by anyone.



I am aware of animal cruelty laws but I don't know how it applies to animals that are not pets and what is/isn't considered to be cruelty.

I used to have mouse traps in my house when we had a mice problem. The spring trap is a quick, sudden death whereas the glueboard is slow and torture according to my opinion. I've heard it happen where people forget about the trap and the mouse starved to death stuck there or it literally chewed at its limbs to get out of it and it bled to death. Glueboards are legal and that is considered "cruel" and unnecessary to me so I don't use them; but they are allowed.



The other issue is dealing with hunting and endangered species. You can't hunt any animal anytime and anywhere you want. There are designated hunting zones with licenses and all of that. Also, animals that are officially listed as endangered species it's against the law to hunt down without the proper reasoning and credentials issued by the government.


I really don't know much about this but those are what I can think of that deal with the killing of animals.

[ABlairican Pie]

I don't get this whole animal cruelty thing, and I'm sure someone will explain it to me, but how is torturing and killing cats something that can be punishable by law, but torturing and killing...idk...frogs, mosquitos, cockroaches, rats, snakes, etc, isn't?
I think it's because people consider creatures such as bugs and rodents as pests which bring disease and ruin crops, etc., while dogs and cats are more emotionally tied in to people's lives. I think with most people, though, with animals such as frogs and reptiles that many have a few qualms about hurting them, but probably not as much as higher mammals.

[JT]

I think it's because people consider creatures such as bugs and rodents as pests which bring disease and ruin crops, etc., while dogs and cats are more emotionally tied in to people's lives. I think with most people, though, with animals such as frogs and reptiles that many have a few qualms about hurting them, but probably not as much as higher mammals.
That's messed up then, IMO. I am by no means an animal lover at all...I won't go around killing them just for kicks, mind you, but I've never owned a pet and never plan to. It's just never been my thing at all. I consider cats and dogs to be MAJOR pests (but again, I wouldn't kill or torture them for fun...that's just pointless), and I'm far from emotionally tied to them, so I don't see how it's fair that some animals fall under "cruelty to animals" and others don't.

Even using JamesG's reasoning about property, legally, I don't think that would be considered "cruelty to animals" any more than it would just be "destruction of property" or whatever the legal term for that is.

[Ohio8]

Sadly, someone like this will probably get a few yrs jail time, clearly not enough. Studies have found that wanton animal cruelty like this is often a precursor to like forms of violence against humans. Laws need to be changed - double digit jail time at the very least. What do I feel in my gut would be a just punishment? 2-3 minutes in a hungry tiger's den (a lion, bear or 15 yr old chimp would also do - remember Travis?)

EXAMPLE: Jeffrey Dahmer.

[Retro4Life]

I don't see how it's fair that some animals fall under "cruelty to animals" and others don't.



As far as I'm concerned, there's a VERY strong argument to be made that human beings are animals in and of themselves.

What's the difference between us, really? Cats and dogs (and all mammals, to which I'll confine this comparison to) need shelter, water, food and air to live. They have a breeding instinct, they form social communities. They are loyal, capable of learning and form emotional attachments (you may argue that point, but it's something I'm hardly alone in thinking).

Why are "we" so often deemed "better" than animals? Sure, we've brought art and "civilization" to the world (whatever that means, ultimately) but we've also brought war, discrimination, environmental destruction and a whole host of other evils.

I think the way we treat animals says leagues about the way we treat each other and how we see ourselves in the global scheme of things. We all share this planet and I think all species can learn from each other.

[JAlanRuss72]

As far as I'm concerned, there's a VERY strong argument to be made that human beings are animals in and of themselves.

What's the difference between us, really? Cats and dogs (and all mammals, to which I'll confine this comparison to) need shelter, water, food and air to live. They have a breeding instinct, they form social communities. They are loyal, capable of learning and form emotional attachments (you may argue that point, but it's something I'm hardly alone in thinking).

Why are "we" so often deemed "better" than animals? Sure, we've brought art and "civilization" to the world (whatever that means, ultimately) but we've also brought war, discrimination, environmental destruction and a whole of other evils.

I think the way we treat animals says leagues about the way we treat each other and how we see ourselves in the global scheme of things. We all share this planet and I think all species can learn from each other.

Well said!

[Retro4Life]

^:tiphat:

[Janice]

As far as I'm concerned, there's a VERY strong argument to be made that human beings are animals in and of themselves.

What's the difference between us, really? Cats and dogs (and all mammals, to which I'll confine this comparison to) need shelter, water, food and air to live. They have a breeding instinct, they form social communities. They are loyal, capable of learning and form emotional attachments (you may argue that point, but it's something I'm hardly alone in thinking).

Why are "we" so often deemed "better" than animals? Sure, we've brought art and "civilization" to the world (whatever that means, ultimately) but we've also brought war, discrimination, environmental destruction and a whole host of other evils.

I think the way we treat animals says leagues about the way we treat each other and how we see ourselves in the global scheme of things. We all share this planet and I think all species can learn from each other.
You couldn't find a bigger animal lover than me; however, we are superior. We're smarter, and that's just one reason. Find me an animal that can direct a play, research cancer, the list is endless. Sure, they are similarities, but an animal can't compete with a human. Take the animal you love most in this world, and the person you love most in this world. Now, one of them has to die. You'll always pick the animal. That says a lot.

[Retro4Life]

You couldn't find a bigger animal lover than me; however, we are superior. We're smarter, and that's just one reason. Find me an animal that can direct a play, research cancer, the list is endless. Sure, they are similarities, but an animal can't compete with a human. Take the animal you love most in this world, and the person you love most in this world. Now, one of them has to die. You'll always pick the animal. That says a lot.

"Superior" is a totally subjective term. Why is a play inherently more important than a skunk finding shelter for its young? Because WE think it is. When you assume that humans always set the terms for the argument, animals will always lose.

Of course the animal I love most would die before the person I love most. But place the question on its head; a dog would probably save its young before me. Is my judgment in the matter inherently more important or "better" than the dog's? No, it's just different.

Every species has its value; look deeper and you'll see that the interdependency of things is pretty impressive and unique on this planet. The earth existed for millions of years quite nicely without the accomplishments of Man. Who can really judge whether that influence has been for better or for worse?

Look, I'm no misanthrope. I understand the intellectual superiority of Man; but that's just one category to judge by. Harmony with the planet is another, and in that category, humans are going to lose, big time.

And yes, I eat meat. I think using the planet responsibly is fine, as long as we keep everything in perspective.

[so elektrikkxx]

"Superior" is a totally subjective term. Why is a play inherently more important than a skunk finding shelter for its young? Because WE think it is. When you assume that humans always set the terms for the argument, animals will always lose.

Of course the animal I love most would die before the person I love most. But place the question on its head; a dog would probably save its young before me. Is my judgment in the matter inherently more important or "better" than the dog's? No, it's just different.

Every species has its value; look deeper and you'll see that the interdependency of things is pretty impressive and unique on this planet. The earth existed for millions of years quite nicely without the accomplishments of Man. Who can really judge whether that influence has been for better or for worse?

Look, I'm no misanthrope. I understand the intellectual superiority of Man; but that's just one category to judge by. Harmony with the planet is another, and in that category, humans are going to lose, big time.

And yes, I eat meat. I think using the planet responsibly is fine, as long as we keep everything in perspective.

I was thinking the exact same thing, I just couldn't word it well. Humans being superior to animals is not a fact, it's not written in stone, it's a perspective that many people have, because they are judging what is superior based on man-made standards.

[JT]

"Superior" is a totally subjective term. Why is a play inherently more important than a skunk finding shelter for its young? Because WE think it is. When you assume that humans always set the terms for the argument, animals will always lose.

Of course the animal I love most would die before the person I love most. But place the question on its head; a dog would probably save its young before me. Is my judgment in the matter inherently more important or "better" than the dog's? No, it's just different.

Every species has its value; look deeper and you'll see that the interdependency of things is pretty impressive and unique on this planet. The earth existed for millions of years quite nicely without the accomplishments of Man. Who can really judge whether that influence has been for better or for worse?

Look, I'm no misanthrope. I understand the intellectual superiority of Man; but that's just one category to judge by. Harmony with the planet is another, and in that category, humans are going to lose, big time.

And yes, I eat meat. I think using the planet responsibly is fine, as long as we keep everything in perspective.
Very interesting post. Great points made.

[Janice]

Look, I'm no misanthrope. I understand the intellectual superiority of Man;
Then we're in agreement. Nobody's eating their friends for dinner.

[Family Ties Forever!]

Imo, we are smarter and superior to animals.

Years ago when I was in high school my English class was reading a book called Animal Farm. We got into a debate about whether people are better than animals. There was this one girl who was convinced that we were no better than animals. We are smarter than animals. We have complex thoughts and emotions that animals don't express or exhibit.

[clj2]

I hope this heartless sicko gets what's coming to him. He deserves it. I can't imagine laying a hand on my pets to injure them.

This is a mean, sick, messed up, heartless individual. Sorry, but this SOB deserves to be fried. WHAT HAVE THESE ANIMALS DONE TO HIM???? Sorry, but this makes me so MAD!!!!

[Janice]

Imo, we are smarter and superior to animals.

Years ago when I was in high school my English class was reading a book called Animal Farm. We got into a debate about whether people are better than animals. There was this one girl who was convinced that we were no better than animals. We are smarter than animals. We have complex thoughts and emotions that animals don't express or exhibit.
If my cats crack open that can of cat food tomorrow morning and feed themselves, then change the litter box, I might think differently. Until then, we're smarter than they are, lol.

[Stuck In The '70's]

Imo, we are smarter and superior to animals.

Years ago when I was in high school my English class was reading a book called Animal Farm. We got into a debate about whether people are better than animals. There was this one girl who was convinced that we were no better than animals. We are smarter than animals. We have complex thoughts and emotions that animals don't express or exhibit.
Very well said Jenny. It's common sense that we are superior to animals. One of the big differences is the fact that Humans can reason and animals can't. I'm a big animal lover. I can't stand it when people mistreat animals but that doesn't mean we aren't a superior species.

[Stuck In The '70's]

If my cats crack open that can of cat food tomorrow morning and feed themselves, then change the litter box, I might think differently. Until then, we're smarter than they are, lol.
If they do that, you should call the tabloids. You can make a lot of money. :lol:

[Retro4Life]

It's common sense that we are superior to animals.

Meh, I gave up 'common sense' in favor of intution years ago. ;)

[Retro4Life]

Then we're in agreement. Nobody's eating their friends for dinner.

Then again, animals don't kill for the sheer pleasure of killing, either.

[Janice]

Then again, animals don't kill for the sheer pleasure of killing, either.
So what's your point? That animals are nicer than humans. No argument there, but then again. I like my pets more than most of the people I know. It doesn't make them superior to us.

[Janice]

It's common sense that we are superior to animals.
And science.

[Fleet]

Imo, we are smarter and superior to animals.

Years ago when I was in high school my English class was reading a book called Animal Farm. We got into a debate about whether people are better than animals. There was this one girl who was convinced that we were no better than animals. We are smarter than animals. We have complex thoughts and emotions that animals don't express or exhibit.
I agree. As Janice said, if animals can do things like research cancer, I will consider them as intelligent as humans.
Or if animals can build a skyscraper, conduct scientific experiments, open up homeless shelters, provide welfare to those who need it, cure a serious disease, like polio which humans discovered a cure for, or can build a method of transportation which can allow one to travel 3,000 miles in less than 6 hours, then I will consider them equal as far as intelligence and superiority.

[so elektrikkxx]

We are smarter than animals. We have complex thoughts and emotions that animals don't express or exhibit.

We don't know for sure what thoughts and emotions animals feel...

[Retro4Life]

So what's your point? That animals are nicer than humans. No argument there, but then again. I like my pets more than most of the people I know. It doesn't make them superior to us.


My point, again, is that "superiority" is a totally subjective judgment, and that, despite our natural tendency to see everything that happens on this planet through our own very jaded lenses, there are is nothing inherently "better" (or for that matter, "worse") about our judgment simply because it is ours.

Also I never said that animals were "superior". I don't see the point of assigning such terms, nor do I feel compelled to agree with the standard definitions of "worth" used to compare the species.

[Janice]

My point, again, is that "superiority" is a totally subjective judgment, and that, despite our natural tendency to see everything that happens on this planet through our own very jaded lenses, there are is nothing inherently "better" (or for that matter, "worse") about our judgment simply because it is ours.

Also I never said that animals were "superior". I don't see the point of assigning such terms, nor do I feel compelled to agree with the standard definitions of "worth" used to compare the species.
Call it what you want. We're smarter than animals in every way, and that's not said via the prism of jaded lenses. Humans are smarter than animals, have better judgement and are, therefore, superior. You may not see the point in assigning such terms. I don't blame you. It's a losing argument. It's not subjective. It's a fact. If you need a triple bypass, I wouldn't count on your dog. Humans also don't end up on freezer shelves in grocery stores.

[Fleet]

My point, again, is that "superiority" is a totally subjective judgment, and that, despite our natural tendency to see everything that happens on this planet through our own very jaded lenses, there are is nothing inherently "better" (or for that matter, "worse") about our judgment simply because it is ours.

Also I never said that animals were "superior". I don't see the point of assigning such terms, nor do I feel compelled to agree with the standard definitions of "worth" used to compare the species.

You are contradicting yourself! First you say that humans being superior to animals is "subjective judgment," then you say that you never said the animals are superior!

Scientific research and data shows that humans are mentally superior to animals.

[Janice]

They do get along. This one just melts the heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcMqBqkrBMw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eanimalintelligence%2Eorg%2F&feature=player_embedded

[so elektrikkxx]

You are contradicting yourself! First you say that humans being superior to animals is "subjective judgment," then you say that you never said the animals are superior!

What you just said makes no sense. She said that humans being superior to animals is subjective, and she NEVER said that animals were superior. So what you just said has no relevance.

[Retro4Life]

Call it what you want. We're smarter than animals in every way, and that's not said via the prism of jaded lenses. Humans are smarter than animals, have better judgement and are, therefore, superior. You may not see the point in assigning such terms. I don't blame you. It's a losing argument. It's not subjective. It's a fact. If you need a triple bypass, I wouldn't count on your dog. Humans also don't end up on freezer shelves in grocery stores.

So because we can kill them we're superior? I guess that means in the ocean a shark is superior to you?

We can perform a triple bypass, so we're superior? Can you propel yourself through the ocean by using an organic hydro propulsion system as squids do? Can you mix and expel an explosive chemical discharge when threatened like the bombadier beetle does? No? So that means you're inferior to them?

Humans have better judgment? Really. Have animals brought the means to eliminate the entire planet?

Judgments aren't "facts" just because YOU say so, no matter how many times you repeat it. You don't have a monopoly on 'the truth' anymore than I do. I just have an open enough mind not to pronounce my species superiority based on terms that are, your protestations notwithstanding, extremely open to debate.

[Retro4Life]

You are contradicting yourself! First you say that humans being superior to animals is "subjective judgment," then you say that you never said the animals are superior!

Scientific research and data shows that humans are mentally superior to animals.


How is any of that a contradiction?

Intellect is only one way to measure "worth". There are many others, all of which have merit.

[Janice]

So because we can kill them we're superior? I guess that means in the ocean a shark is superior to you?

We can perform a triple bypass, so we're superior? Can you propel yourself through the ocean by using an organic hydro propulsion system as squids do? Can you mix and expel an explosive chemical discharge when threatened like the bombadier beetle does? No? So that means you're inferior to them?

Humans have better judgment? Really. Have animals brought the means to eliminate the entire planet?

Judgments aren't "facts" just because YOU say so, no matter how many times you repeat it. You don't have a monopoly on 'the truth' anymore than I do. I just have an open enough mind not to pronounce my species superiority based on terms that are, your protestations notwithstanding, extremely open to debate.
There comes a time when it feels as if you're debating whether the sky is blue or if the earth is round. This is one of those such times. This is just utter and complete nonsense, and any clear thinker can see that. I gotta go. Nice steak dinner to prepare. :happyface :wave:

[Stuck In The '70's]

There comes a time when it feels as if you're debating whether the sky is blue or if the earth is round. This is one of those such times. This is just utter and complete nonsense, and any clear thinker can see that. I gotta go. Nice steak dinner to prepare. :happyface :wave:
Sometimes it's just better to walk away. The whole conversation is funny. I didn't think there was any doubt that humans are a superior species to animals. You learn something new everyday. :lol:

[JT]

What you just said makes no sense. She said that humans being superior to animals is subjective, and she NEVER said that animals were superior. So what you just said has no relevance.
pretty much

[Fleet]

How is any of that a contradiction?

Intellect is only one way to measure "worth". There are many others, all of which have merit.
Read it again. It sure sounds like a contradiction to me!

But maybe you see it another way and I am not going to nitpick.

[Tweety]

As a great man once said, animals do not have "rights"

That's not the same as saying that humans have no moral obligation to protect animals when we can.

The concept of "rights" is very powerful in the American political lexicon.

Rights are either God-given or evolve out of the democratic process. Most rights are based on the ability of people to agree on a social contract, the ability to make and keep agreements. Animals can not possibly reach an agreement with other creatures. They can not respect anyone else's rights. Therefore, they can not be said to have rights.

It is only when humans intervene that animals have any protection at all.

Humans have a unique ability to make things. Yeah, bees make hives, birds make nests, and beavers make dams, but those productions are purely instinctive. Man's creations involve reason and free will. In making houses, bridges, or any other of our artifacts, men invent and select. They are truly artists, as animals are not.

Also, humans build machines which are themselves productive. Animals solve problems when they are confronted with a biological urgency of finding a way of getting what they need. But no animals sit down and ponder things and and think through problems as man does. Human thinking is is discursive and involves language. Animals make sounds and communicate, but they do not communicate thought. No animal ever utters a sentence which asserts something to be true or false. (Sorry to offend all of you porpoise and dolphin worshipers out there).

Man is also the only animal with a historical development. Men transmit ideas and institutions, a whole tradition of culture, from one generation to another, and it is this which accounts for the history of the human race. Who is it that writes books on the history and development of animals? Maybe there is dolphin literature in the depths of the ocean, but I'm not going to enroll in the Kennedy Scuba School to find out.

Animals do not have rights. They do not even have a "right" to "kindness". Look at what they do to each other. They tear each other limb from limb. Humans do that too, but it is not the accepted norm. Human beings accord themselves redress for such wrongs. Animals don't think about right and wrong. They exist in the anarchical state of nature: survival of the fittest.

Human beings are the primary species on this planet. Animals and everything else are subspecies whose position on the planet is subordinate to that of humans. Humans have a responsibility toward lower species and must treat them humanely (as opposed to treating them animally, which would mean killing them).

Animals often treat each other with no respect, and they have no redress, absent human intervention on their behalf.

Animals which mankind rases for its own benefit are not on any endangered species list. Are cows an endangered species here in the U.S? Species are all but guaranteed to be preserved IF humans have a stake in preserving them.

The best way to preserve animals is to make sure some human being OWNS them... On their own, animals have no chance to make it in this world.

btw, being a female dolphin is the dolphin equivalent of being Mike Tyson's girlfriend. Male dolphins beat the holy crap out of female dolphins...they slap them around with their fins, slam them with their bodies , and bite them.
They are also known to commit infanticide.

PDF - EVIDENCE FOR INFANTICIDE IN BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS OF THE
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC (http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/38/3/505.pdf)

Bottle-Nosed Dolphins' Aggressive Behavior (http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/bottle-nosed-dolphin-behavior-info.htm/printable)

Infanticide Reported in Dolphins (http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/7_18_98/fob1.htm)


Animals do not have rights, but are accorded protection by human beings. When we establish laws against cruelty to animals, some mistake the laws to be the same as rights. TBut they are not.

Human Beings > Other Animals


Aren't people who commit gruesome murders or child rapists sometimes referred to as "animals"? Is that meant to elevate their status, or to say that they're less than human?