> >Now you're arguing a seperate aspect of the law. Should cruelty to animals
> >be illegal? You can meditate on it while you're trying to stuff
> >puss'n'boots into the mason jar.
Yoshie Furuhashi:
> It seems to me that many Americans care more about non-human animals
> than human animals. Why not prohibit the standing army & weapons of
> mass destruction before prohibiting "cruelty to animals"? Are humans
> not animals also?
There doesn't seem to be any contradiction between prohibiting cruelty to animals (no quotes -- I think it is possible to be cruel to an animal) and prohibiting standing armies and weapons of mass destruction, and which one one did first could be selected on a basis of opportunity. So the question is completely vacuous.
As for Americans caring more about non-human animals than human animals, this seems like a matter of personal choice and disposition. If you think there's a moral issue involved, that is, that there's some general reason that Americans should care more about humans than non-humans, you might want to produce the theory. Most moral theories are about actions, not emotions.
Indeed, why _should_ humans care about other humans at all, or if they should, why should they not also care about non- humans?