Well we’ve been round and round on this one.
You pretend to speak for the animals and I speak for mankind. It has nothing to do with conceptualization. I understand your point (and respect it), I simply disagree.
Killing animals (as your PETA friends would agree) is not ‘being kind’ to animals. Not that I really care, but that is my point. Since you like to project, answer this question. Would you rather be tortured and live, or be killed swiftly?
Animate/Inanimate is immaterial. Having the state say, you can kill this way but not this way, is overstepping their authority. Because it is MY property not the state’s.
First, I do not speak for animals, I am speaking for the morality of man (Pr.12:7).
Second, I have nothing to do with PETA, which approaches animals from a secular world view, not a Biblical one.
As for your question, I guess it would depend on the torture and the amount of pain and damage done-now wouldn't it.
Moreover, the animal would have no concept that he has at least survived since he has no concept of death.
The animal lives only in the moment.
Animate/Inanimate is immaterial. Having the state say, you can kill this way but not this way, is overstepping their authority. Because it is MY property not the state’s.
And why do you say that it overstepping their authority?
The notion that you have the freedom to do anything you want with your 'property' without any concern to the type of property (animate or inanimate) and those around you (society), is simply Libertarian rationalization taken to the extreme.
You do not live in a vacuum, you live in a society, that has laws and responsibilities, which is what gives you the ability to own private property in peace, and not live in anarchy.
A cruel people are a wicked people and a wicked people do not long keep neither their freedom or property. (Pr.14:34)