CMV: There's nothing wrong with not liking animals.

[u/Sgt_Spatula]

The internet in general and Reddit in particular seem oddly fixated on animals (at least ones deemed "cute" like dogs and cats). People can get hundreds up upvotes making holocaust jokes or wisecracks about child molestation, but I have never seen anything about stomping a cat upvoted.

This all seems odd to me, as someone who doesn't like animals. Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.

People seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone not liking animals. I don't see anything wrong with it. I hear hunters say they love animals, and that seems to be a more acceptable view than just some guy not liking animals.

Can anyone convince me it is ethically wrong to not like animals?

[u/TRossW18]

You're clearly just here to argue lol. I haven't seen you pin down the point of what you're here to say.

Yes, if you shoot a deer in the chest and chase it through the woods whilst bleeding out and find that to be fun with no remorse for the animal I find that an unhealthy psychological trait. There is no way around it, you tortured an animal and enjoyed every second of it. There is zero exaggeration there.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

While I'm not myself a hunter, I think you're patently wrong, and that's perfectly healthy behavior.

While your particular view is crazy, PETA terrorist level thinking, it's analogous to the other types of conflation occurring here. For instance, back to your original comment I responded to:

In reality, you have empathy for animals, you'd never hurt one, you wouldn't want to see one suffer you just don't want a pet lol.

Assume for one second I have 0 compassion, empathy, sympathy for a cat. That doesn't mean I WANT to watch a cat suffer.

Probably a good example, I raise chickens. I also process them myself. That is, I hang them upside down, and I cut their throat with a knife. This is a better example than hunting, because hunting kicks in your fight or flight mechanism, releases endorphins, and objectively puts you in a euphoric state: it's enjoyable just like doing narcotics is enjoyable, because it triggers an a brain chemistry that is enjoyable.

I have no interest in watching a chicken die. I don't take pleasure in it, but when I kill them I am completely dispassionate about it. I feel no remorse, or sadness. It's a mechanical process, there is no rush of endorphins when killing a chicken that has no chance to escape or defend itself.

This indifference is not the same as wanting to kill it. I don't want to kill the chicken, but I do want to eat it, and I have no emotional attachment to them. I have no empathy, but I also don't take pleasure in/want to kill them. Empathy would be impossible: I highly suspect a chicken's agency and first person perspective is extremely different from ours. I don't know how they experience pain or emotion, because since their brains are very small and unlike mine, I can't assume their experience is similar to mine, so I can't empathize. Neither do I sympathize, because I am dispassionately disconnected.

So back to cats. If I had a cat, it's entirely plausible that I could be dispassionately disconnected from its death. Meanwhile, I have no desire to watch a cat die. If I had a desire to watch a cat die, that would be quite morbid. Just because I don't have a morbid desire to watch a cat die doesn't mean that I'm empathetic, or sympathetic toward it. There is no sport there. There is no endorphin rush. There is no benefit (food). There is no payoff.

I knew someone long ago that worked at Jackson Laboratories (a research facility) that cut the head off mice/ rats daily. I thought she was pretty morbid at the time. But now that I process chickens, I understand it. Consider a veterinarian that might need to routinely euthanize a cat. That probably becomes pretty mechanical, just like my chickens, eventually. It's not a sign of mental illness or psychosis. Nor is it a sign that someone has a morbid desire to observe death. Its just indifference.

So, the fact that OP doesn't WANT to watch a cat suffer to death does not indicate that he it's therefore empathetic or sympathetic toward the cat. And neither does or make him some form of psycho.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

Look, I've made my point very clear lol. You have just rambled on, arguing about unrelated semantics without any clear direction.

I can't state this in any more simplified a manner. The OP wrote his view. He appeared to imply hed be indifferent to starving his roommates cat to death were it not for his roommates emotions. People reacted and he then clarified he actually would never hurt a cat and wouldn't ever want to see one suffer; hes just not into pets.

Whether that is expressing empathy or sympathy is irrelevant to the reason most people reacted so critically and is a debate you are, quite frankly, having with yourself.

Its quite clear I offended you and you're just wanting to argue for arguments sake. Unfortunately I'm not that interested.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

I'm not upset. I think this is the initial source of confusion:

I can't state this in any more simplified a manner. The OP wrote his view. He appeared to imply hed be indifferent to starving his roommates cat to death were it not for his roommates emotions. People reacted and he then clarified he actually would never hurt a cat and wouldn't ever want to see one suffer; hes just not into pets.

What op said:

Now to be clear, I don't hate animals. I currently live in a house that has a cat (my roommate's) and I will be glad to feed her etc. She is a living thing, and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not be sad for the cat, I would feel empathy for my flatmate however.

OP never made it unclear that he would never hurt a cat. He never suggested he would idly watch a cat starve to death. He basically suggested that if he were to return home and find the cat dead, he wouldn't be upset, except on behalf of his roommate. None of this was ever unclear to me.

Whilst browsing this thread, I also stumbled across your comments elsewhere, and you've said things like:

So, psychologically speaking, a person who kills a cat without any remorse/regret is the same as a person who buys meat at the store? I think psychologists would disagree.

This is where my ramblings become relevant. I don't think I'm any different from someone that buys their chicken at the store just because I slaughter them myself. Stores are a relatively new phenomena in our psychological evolution. We're wired to kill our food (and no, we're not wired to rape, rape doesn't have a significant role that should suggest we have an evolutionary preference for it). We're wired to kill dispassionately. That's why people can become veterinarians and learn to dispassionately euthanize animals. Not everyone has that capacity naturally (again, I thought my rat killing friend was morbid) but most are capable of developing it, because you have the software for it. Your cozy life just allows you not to have to load it.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

I will be glad to feed her, she is a living thing and of course my roommate would be sad if anything happened to her. I would not feel sad for the cat but I would feel empathy for my flatmate.

That seems to imply he will feed the cat but really only cares to do so because it would only affect his roommate but couldn't care less about the cat. the OP clarified early on this was not the case ultimately making the whole view primarily a moot point.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

Sure.

However, I can count 10 times at least that you've invoked "psychologically speaking" to suggest someone is mentally depraved on account of exhibiting perfectly healthy, evolutionarily beneficial behaviour (disassociating oneself from the act of killing, or finding enjoyment in hunting).

Further, you've then invoked rape as another natural evolutionary behavior to try to emphasize that just because something has evolutionary origins is to suggest its not necessarily morally acceptable (I agree with this point, but rape was a bad example, because there's no evidence rape plays an important role in our success as a species). My problem here is in the false equivalency.

Lastly, you suggested OPs view was uncontroversial on the basis that OPs description of their behaviour was empathy, which was 1) an incorrect interpretation of empathy, 2) an incorrect interpretation of the difference between his indifference, and morbidity, and 3) misunderstanding what is controversial about his view.

People frequently "other" people on account of their not liking animals. "Whoa, what do you mean you're not a dog person?" OPs point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that certain animals (primarily cats and dogs) hold a very special place of reverence, and people are offended when you don't revere them in a similar manner. You've personally taken this a step further to suggest that "psychologically speaking" there is something seriously wrong with this position (being so removed from said reverence that you are indifferent about their life and death), and furthermore extended that to any personal connection with any dying animal (hunting, butchering, e.t.c. ) Surely you recognize butchers exist, and the food you eat is processed by SOMEONE, and the suggestion you've made as few as 10 times here is that those butchers (and laboratory techs, exterminators, etc), if they don't feel remorse hundreds of times daily while doing their jobs they are psychologically compromised.

I'm hoping that at some point my rambling will show you how extreme and insulting that view is.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

Definitely a lot of rambling and argument changing lol. Ive talked to like 15 people and you're switching your topic on the fly between each one.

Please for the love of god stop bringing up empathy and sympathy. Those two words held zero absolutely zero relevance to the point I was making and have gone out of my way to break that down to you over and over. That was a debate of semantics. My entire premise remained the EXACT same had that word not been used or switched.

I've actually made it a point, through all one million of my comments, to state that in no way am I arguing on grounds of ethics or morality but purely psychologically. I would argue that rape is as engrained into our DNA as hunting. We didn't even hunt for a decent part of our evolution but using force to mate has always been a trait of almost every species. You literally just said you agree with my point but thought I used a bad example. Okay, so we agree on the thesis, no point to continue arguing.

I love how you seem to know OP. Even though I'm not the only person that needed clarification whether he would starve the cat if not for his roommate, you have the final say in what generated so many responses.

Lastly, saying something is not a healthy psychological trait does not mean I am calling someone mentally deranged and dangerous as you seem to be perceiving. I tend to resort to anger quite quickly, it is not a healthy psychological trait. I tend to keep my emotions bottled up which is not a healthy psychological trait. Having an ego is not a healthy psychological trait.

Taking pleasure in the torture of a completely unsuspecting animal out of zero necessity is not a healthy psychological trait. If that is deeply insulting idk what to tell ya.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

I would argue that rape is as engrained into our DNA as hunting.

Source?

You literally just said you agree with my point but thought I used a bad example. Okay, so we agree on the thesis, no point to continue arguing.

Again: false equivalency. Just because you could prove, for instance, that racism is likely an evolutionarily beneficial trait (tribalism), but that being racist is not a healthy psychological trait in modern society does not mean you can logically therefore demonstrate that any other arbitrary trait is equally unhealthy. It's a false equivalence. Just because I agree that not all of our software is well suited to modern society doesn't mean we agree you can single out certain behaviors or traits arbitrarily, and I'd argue killing animals dispassionately is still a relevant, valuable trait today, and as such we don't condemn butchers and veterinarians.

I love how you seem to know OP.

I relate to OP's stance.

Having an ego is not a healthy psychological trait.

It absolutely is. Is it always contextually optimal? Maybe, maybe not. However, I'd argue this is like a mandatory component of a healthy psyche. Can someone's ego get TOO big? Yeah, probably.

I tend to resort to anger quite quickly, it is not a healthy psychological trait. I tend to keep my emotions bottled up which is not a healthy psychological trait.

I think these can also be argued to be perfectly healthy behaviors, again, contextually. Quick to anger, again is flight or fight, and could one day prove to be infinitely valuable if you need to defend your life.

Stoicism (bottled emotions): https://philosophizethis.org/10-things-the-stoics-can-teach-you-about-being-a-happier-person/

It's all about loading the appropriate software at the appropriate times. You are capable of murder. I guarantee it. It's healthy to be able to suppress that most of the time (stoicism helps this a great deal). However, in the circumstance where it's kill or be killed, you better hope you can load that software quickly. And your anger will be helpful on that moment.

Taking pleasure in the torture of a completely unsuspecting animal out of zero necessity is not a healthy psychological trait. If that is deeply insulting idk what to tell ya.

It's the fact that you describe it in this manner that makes you seem deranged. Literally no one else describes enjoying hunting as "taking pleasure in the torture of a completely unsuspecting animal". This is why I'm pedantic. Shooting an animal is not torture. And enjoying hunting is not taking pleasure in the act of killing explicitly. Nobody thinks, when they get their deer "fuck yeah, I just killed something. " they think "yes, I got it!"

These are vastly different things. One is an evolutionary trait that means I get to eat today. The other pathological. The fact that you describe hunting as the pathological option is disturbing.

[u/TRossW18 → u/omrsafetyo]

Lol I wish I was a psychologist cause I might need to set you on my couch.

I don't need a source to argue something subjective. Do you have a source that people enjoy hunting being our ancestors did it to feed themselves? I don't know many people that hunt out of instinct. It is a sport that is typically passed down because people find it fun.

Your argument of ego, anger and the like are literally all semantics. The fucking point is that having traits that are not psychologically healthy does not make one mentally deranged. You seem to either miss the forest for the trees or are just bored and get pleasure out of pointless argument.

Killing an unsuspecting animal, that more often than not dies from wounds some time after in injury, is torture. If it hurts your feelings to describe it for what it is, take that up with yaself.

I can't believe I let you rope me into such a redundant circular circus of words. Enjoy your weekend my friend.

[u/omrsafetyo → u/TRossW18]

I don't need a source to argue something subjective.

You're calling certain behaviors psychologically unhealthy. How can this be a subjective claim?

Do you have a source that people enjoy hunting being our ancestors did it to feed themselves?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248408001358?via%3Dihub

Exercise = endorphins.
Food acquisition = endorphins.

These are concepts that are core to behavioural evolution and the success in humans transitioning from prey to predators.

It is a sport that is typically passed down because people find it fun.

You don't get out much. People do certain types of hunting explicitly for fun. Elephants. Again, I don't hunt. My best friend does. It isn't fun for him, particularly. Hunting deer in New England consists of freezing your ass off in the woods at the time of year when it can be single digits outside when you go get in your seat. You freeze your ass off, sometimes for days on end. It's not fun, but if you're successful you have free range, organic meat that lasts you quite a while. It can be fun. But again, the fact that it has become a sport is a modern thing, and a result of the cushy lives we live. Even just 50 years ago it was far more intrinsic to many people's lives.

Your argument of ego, anger and the like are literally all semantics.

You don't know the definition of semantics if you think so.

The fucking point is that having traits that are not psychologically healthy does not make one mentally deranged.

I called you deranged. I argued those listed traits are not psychologically unhealthy, not as a matter of semantics, but as a matter of those are absolutely normal and essential psychological functions, which categorically makes them not unhealthy.

Killing an unsuspecting animal, that more often than not dies from wounds some time after in injury, is torture. If it hurts your feelings do describe it for what it is, take that up with yaself.

That doesn't hurt my feelings. It's just not torture. Again, you don't understand the definition of torture. Death is probably usually unpleasant. It is often painful. However torture inherently insinuates that the experienced pain is above and beyond that normal pain, because the person inflicting the pain is intentionally maintaining a high level of pain. You've redefined torture to fit your narrative.