Pyro Paul said:
And that was just light revisions.
None of which were actually errors.
Pyro Paul said:
Point 1-
Not being copable does not remove intent.
Animals are in a constant conflict in an attempt to become more dominate then the other species it exists with on a planet. This conflict that animals participate in is through their own physical design and a product of their individual evolution. It is in this that animals fully intend to cause malicious harm to humans, another animal apart of their ecosystem. Case in point, the immunity to certain illnesses that are deadly to other species or the need to gnaw on something because of constantly growing teeth are evolutionary attributes of varmints which have lead to the malicious harm multiple species by varmints.
Do you even know what "intent to cause malicious harm is"? Stuff that, let's cut to the chase here... do you even know what "malicious" means?!
To cause malicious harm would mean to consciously plan an action, where in advance, you know the consequences would be terrible for the target. Do you honestly think a rat knows that it has transmittable diseases? Thinks "ohh, look, a human, I'm going to poop in their kitchen because I want to make them sick"? Being malicious with intent requires a mind equivalent to that of a human being. Are you honestly
this stupid?
Pyro Paul said:
Point 2-
By not subjecting myself to the possibility of infection.
This point has been addressed in another post.
Certainly has been addressed, by me. What a load of utter BS - by handling the trap itself, you are subjecting yourself to the possibility regardless so that excuse is void. You chose to throw it in the trash because you're an inhumane prick of a person, not because of any health concerns.
Pyro Paul said:
Point 3-
Welcome to the human race.
Humans have been mistreating each other ever since we have stood upright. I am actually some what interested; what Utopia do you live in now?
How other humans act is no justification for certain actions.
Pyro Paul said:
Point 4-
Welcome to comprehension 101.
Notice i stated: 'your social values'
the word 'your' denotes ownership, such as the values you hold.
In such a sentence, I did not postulate nor present my own personal values only that they differ from yours.
Your personal values are quite clearly lacking, based on your arguments. There is a difference between "social" and "personal" values anyway.
Pyro Paul said:
Point 5-
You are correct, just because you value your loved ones doesn't necessarily give you the right to impale dogs with pitch forks. But when presented with a threat in which the choice comes down to the safety of your loved ones or the life of a dog...
I presented the same thing. However, for a Rodent, a 'viable threat' i perceive is the possible illness I may obtain through the handling. Knowing of the effects and having first hand experience has further cemented my belief that the threat is tangible.
There is a *major* difference between defending yourself, and deliberate wanton cruelty to an animal. The difference comes to play with your comments on this thread - don't give me this bullcrap about "health" reasons, I've already shown you why they are irrelevant when it comes to disposing of an animal on a glue trap.
Pyro Paul said:
Point 8-
I have mentioned many a time that good health and survival have everything to do with it. I have even linked the CDC warning page on the possible illnesses communicable through rodents to humans. I have provided facts and statistics on how diseases are a viable risk to consider when handling wild mice and rodents. Why you disregard such information is beyond me and i can only assume that it is because you are adopting a 'holier-then-thou' stance on the matter to present yourself as some one that is 'morally right' compared to me.
I'm disregarding this information because it has nothing to do with the issue we are talking about. It has nothing to do with health and survival, and everything to do with you being an unnecessary inhumane ass. You post information from the CDC website as reasons, yet they do not recommend glue traps [http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/prevent_infestations/trap_up.html] because, and I quote:
These traps can scare mice that are caught live and cause them to urinate. Since their urine may contain germs, this may increase your risk of being exposed to diseases.
This renders your entire "health and survival" argument invalid because you are using glue traps and have to handle them anyway. This is why "health and survival" is totally and utterly irrelevant when it comes to deciding between killing an animal on a glue trap humanely and with minimal pain, and throwing it into the bin for it to rip itself apart some more and starve to death. There is still a level of exposure regardless of the method you choose, so all this bullcrap about "survival" and such is just that - utter bullcrap. Not to mention the distant possibility of the animal escaping the glue trap or making a further mess in your bin, leaving more poop everywhere and exposing you to diseases even more. And that is even assuming it has any transmittable disease in the first place! So essentially your very own argument is contradictory, lacking common sense and thus is destroyed by its own ridiculousness.
I'm still waiting for a valid moral defence for killing an animal like that, especially since you could have just killed it there and then without any difference at all to your "health and survival". This suggests to me there are other reasons in play - malicious ones, perhaps you wanted it to suffer because you hate it so much and as an act of "revenge". Making cop-out excuses for your lack of humanity. Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe you.