And what is a human being? Oops, you can't answer that question scientifically, you just declared science to be immoral. Now all you need is a creation fairy tale of some sort, and you'll have yourself a religion.
If you think that decrying the gratuitous torture of an animal is the same thing as saying that science is immoral, then I don't think we can have a rational conversation. I don't know any scientists who torture animals for fun, or who would endorse such a thing. Nor do I know any scientists who think that if non-human animals do something, that means it's okay for us to do it. That confusion is well known to evolutionary psychologists, however, and is referred to as the naturalistic fallacy.
Rillion, I'm right there with you, believe me, but we eat mutilated animals daily - or, atleast, I do. These pictures are just another product - a sick twisted product, but still. I love cats and dogs and cute furry things but they don't have the same rights as you and I.
I gotta go, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this Rillion. Is there a case for defending animals from this kind of mistreatment?
I think the problem is that you're playing fast and loose with the idea of "mutilating" animals, and the notion of rights. I don't think that killing an animal and mutilating it are necessarily the same thing. The term "mutilation" implies that you're destroying something for the sake of destroying it. If you're killing an animal for food, however, it's not about destroying it-- it's about eating it. Truly "mutilated" animals would be unfit to eat, I imagine. If a hunter wants venison for dinner, he shoots a deer. He does not take the deer home and torture it for kicks until it eventually dies.
Also-- you can be opposed to torturing animals without believing that they have the same rights that we do. Isn't the fact that torture causes suffering enough to oppose it? Being human means having a greater capacity for suffering-- since we know all about death, and we have the ability to fear it-- but it doesn't mean that no other animal can suffer as well. It's easier to feel compassion for cute and fluffy animals, true, but I try to be as consistent as possible. When there's a conversation about someone abusing their pet and the talk turns to how long that person should be in prison, I'm the first one to come riding in with comments about how animals in factory farms do suffer as well, and our double standards about what is okay to do to which animals based mainly on familiarity and cuteness. But that doesn't mean it's okay to do anything you want to an animal merely because it's not human.
The notion of an entity having rights without being able to respect the rights of others is a point of contention for libertarians-- it forces them into strange positions. I am of the position that it's possible for there to be "moral patients" as opposed to "moral actors." Moral patients would include small children, the severely mentally retarded, people in a vegetative state, and animals of a certain cognitive capacity. Torturing any of these beings is unethical, because it causes them to suffer. It doesn't matter if they are not able to afford the same consideration to others-- their capacity for suffering is what counts. Moral actors have a responsibility not to cause that suffering, even if they can't expect the same consideration to be given to them. That doesn't mean that the moral patients have all of the same rights as the moral actors-- it wouldn't make sense to give a cat (or a small child, or severely retarded person) property rights, or the freedom of speech. But it does mean that the basic right to a life free from sadistic attack should be preserved.
How to resolve this legally, as opposed to morally? Sorry, can't really help you there. Theoretically, I view pets as property. But realistically, I would beat the shit out of somebody who did this to a kitten, with no reservations whatsoever.