Encouraging acts like this - is it immoral?

[Alyrium Denryle]

by the way, is releasing a rat snake indoors actually a viable plan? I considered doing that at one point, but I was worried about the snake getting lost or stuck somewhere and finding it months later as a dessicated ribbon ;_;

Speaking from an agricultural point of view, any farmer who asked to introduce a new predator species to his property as a form of pest control would be, besides in violation of several environmental and food safety laws, a loon.

It almost does not matter where you are, there is usually some species of feisty but otherwise inoffensive rodent eating colubrid commonly known as a rat snake native to that area. You may find exceptions in extremely northern or extremely southern latitudes and ireland, but pretty much everywhere else they are present. Snakes have already been found to save farmers a lot of money every year. People are just afraid of them and thus find ways to keep them out.

[Flight Recorder]

My traps get checked at least once a month

That's pretty atrocious.

I hate to say it but the pest control industry is about as inhumane as one can get.

Doesn't have to be as bad as you seem to make it out to be. I know that in the UK, and here, pest controllers have to inspect glue traps daily and kill any live animals on it humanely or they are actually breaking the Animal Welfare Act. Part of it states that trapped live animals are deemed the responsibility of the trapper, and unnecessary suffering should be prevented. Don't you have a similar law in your state? Here it is:

The legal framework relating to the release of captured rodents includes both (i) animal welfare and (ii) species conservation elements. The latter addresses the potential risks to UK wildlife and biodiversity of releasing species that are not considered to be ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK.

(i) The welfare of captured rodents is covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en ... 60045_en_1), which puts in place a duty of care for the welfare of all animals under human control (even on a temporary basis). The implications of this to the release or killing of captured rodents is unclear but the capture, release or killing of rodents in circumstances that compromised or might compromise their welfare may be open to challenge if the animals needs are not met as far as is reasonable in the circumstances. If suffering is caused which is deemed to be unnecessary then this will constitute an offence under this Act. Whether the suffering is unnecessary requires the consideration of a number of factors such as whether the suffering could have reasonably been avoided or reduced, whether the control operation was for a legitimate purpose and whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the control operation concerned.

(ii) Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/abou ... lation.htm) prohibits the release into the wild any animal which is 1) of a kind that is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to GB in a wild state or 2) is included in Part 1 of Schedule 9. Currently (June 2008), the black rat (Rattus rattus), the fat/edible dormouse (Glis glis), the grey squirrel (Sciureus carolinensis) and the Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) are listed on Part 1 of Schedule 9 and therefore cannot be released, except under licence.

Under the WCA there is no prohibition on the release of other species of rats or mice which are ordinarily resident in GB. For example, the view of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is that the release of brown/common rats (Rattus norvegicus) into the wild is not unlawful under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because, despite their non-native origins, they could be classed as 'ordinarily resident' in Great Britain as they are now well-established. However, this is not to say that it is acceptable or permissible to release them on other people’s property.

Bearing in mind the exceptions above, although the law does not prevent the release of captured target animals (brown rats or mice), it is often likely to be an unwise thing to do either because it is counterproductive to control and/or because it may have adverse welfare consequences for the animal (see text). Release near the point of capture is unlikely to solve the problem as the animals are likely to return unless the premises have been effectively proofed. Release in an unfamiliar environment may have adverse welfare consequences as animals may have trouble finding food and shelter. Also if the area contains suitable habitat it is likely to already be occupied by other members of their species and may not support additional animals.

[Flight Recorder]

If you put a live mammal trap outside and only check it once a month there is no point in even saying that you release non-target species. You might as well kill them too.

I'm very much surprised that he said a month. As a professional, I would have assumed he was less irresponsible?

TBH, I think it's an excuse for the minimal convenience one gets. It's starving an animal to death because they are too lazy to make the effort to monitor the trap. I am very surprised doing so is not a felony in the US (although it could be in some states).

That is not to say I am putting animal welfare over human health, not at all. But I don't think glue traps should be allowed to be used like that. Once the animal is caught, and the issue of disposing it is in question, it stops becoming an issue of pest control. It is, simply put, a form of animal abuse/neglect, to allow it to starve to death.

[eyexist]

If you put a live mammal trap outside and only check it once a month there is no point in even saying that you release non-target species. You might as well kill them too.

I'm very much surprised that he said a month. As a professional, I would have assumed he was less irresponsible?

...That's pretty atrocious.

I see you failed to read the complete sentence. I'll take the liberty to repost it in bold letters this time:

My traps get checked at least once a month, or sooner if a client calls about a mouse getting caught.

Clients pay top dollar for my service and when they find a caught rodent you bet your ass they want me out there ASAP to remove it. In fact, today I spent seven hours in addition to my mandatory four hour shift for rodent retrieval.

Doesn't have to be as bad as you seem to make it out to be. I know that in the UK, and here, pest controllers have to inspect glue traps daily and kill any live animals on it humanely or they are actually breaking the Animal Welfare Act. Part of it states that trapped live animals are deemed the responsibility of the trapper, and unnecessary suffering should be prevented.

Throwing a still-alive rodent trapped on a glue board or snap-trap in the trash, only to die of suffocation or hypothermia is unnecessary suffering. Placing a tin cat in an area where there is little to no shade, only to have the trapped rodents die of dehydration or heat exhaustion is unnecessary suffering. Receiving a call from a client you serviced yesterday about a caught rodent, taking it back to your truck and quickly killing it with a hammer is not unnecessary suffering. As I've mentioned before I give my catch a swift, merciful death.

Don't you have a similar law in your state?

It is against the law to use a regulated pest control product in a manner inconsistent with it's labeling. Traps and glue boards are not regulated.

Snip irrelevant quote for the release of captured rodents

I'm not sure why you quoted that, as I've already stated that I kill what I catch. Setting it free from a tin cat will only allow it to be re-caught, enter a house, or cause "unnecessary suffering" if it hurt itself trying to escape.

That is not to say I am putting animal welfare over human health, not at all. But I don't think glue traps should be allowed to be used like that. Once the animal is caught, and the issue of disposing it is in question, it stops becoming an issue of pest control. It is, simply put, a form of animal abuse/neglect, to allow it to starve to death.

The same can be said for snap-traps.

[Flight Recorder]

I see you failed to read the complete sentence. I'll take the liberty to repost it in bold letters this time:

My traps get checked at least once a month, or sooner if a client calls about a mouse getting caught.

I did not fail to read anything. You said you check your traps at least once a month, that is the bare standard set by you assuming no one bothers to call you in.

Throwing a still-alive rodent trapped on a glue board or snap-trap in the trash, only to die of suffocation or hypothermia is unnecessary suffering. Placing a tin cat in an area where there is little to no shade, only to have the trapped rodents die of dehydration or heat exhaustion is unnecessary suffering.

Catching these animals and just leaving them to expire without frequent checking is unnecessary suffering too. Yet it seems a pretty common thing to do... well, at least where you work anyway. And I am saying that it's a pretty unethical thing to do, to kill something like that when it can be minimised/avoided. Perhaps I am speaking from emotion because I absolutely despise those things and what they represent, but there ya go.

Receiving a call from a client you serviced yesterday about a caught rodent, taking it back to your truck and quickly killing it with a hammer is not unnecessary suffering. As I've mentioned before I give my catch a swift, merciful death.

Well, at least you did the right thing there. Kudos to you.

Traps and glue boards are not regulated.

They should be, because they're open to abuse - as the video I linked showed. If they aren't regulated, do you not have some kind of code of conduct about these things?

I'm not sure why you quoted that, as I've already stated that I kill what I catch. Setting it free from a tin cat will only allow it to be re-caught, enter a house, or cause "unnecessary suffering" if it hurt itself trying to escape.

Yeah, but my point was inspecting them more than one freakin' month, and whether there are any laws covering that. Plonking down these traps and not bothering to check them? Seems the kind of cruelty that can be avoided I would have thought.

The same can be said for snap-traps.

[/quote]

Hmm, is that so? Snap traps aren't near as inherently cruel as glue traps. At least their design facilitates a swift death, and even if it doesn't work all the time, the rate in which it kills is a lot better than what a glue trap usually does. What would you say the strike rate for a snap trap was? Then compare it to how long something is stuck on a glue trap until it is dead. I'd also like to see your opinion of what this pestie has to say about them.

[Ford Prefect]

Lol, really? Suing over that? Would it not be their fault for stupidly putting their fingers in the trap? Unless they were barefoot, I don't really see the danger of hurting toes.

I'm not totally sure how negligence works in America compared to Australia, but I can tell you that this wouldn't fly as a defense argument here. In fact, I can actually see a plaintiff actually raising glue boards as an example of what a pest control company could have done to more reasonably exercise their duty of care.

[DudeGuyMan]

I remember I was making a delivery to an office around closing time and there was only one girl left in the building. She made me come over to where there was a mouse laying in a glue trap and just screeeeeeaming it's little head off.

I was going to cover it with something and then whack it with something heavy so as to finish it off quickly, but then the girl started freaking out. I'm thinking WTF does she want me to do with it? Anyway then she managed to find a janitor and I left because it wasn't my problem. Hopefully the janitor took it out of her sight and then did the same thing.

[Flight Recorder]

I'm not totally sure how negligence works in America compared to Australia, but I can tell you that this wouldn't fly as a defense argument here. In fact, I can actually see a plaintiff actually raising glue boards as an example of what a pest control company could have done to more reasonably exercise their duty of care.

Why wouldn't it?

If the pest control operator sets up snap traps, the owner is aware of this and is aware of where they are - then where is the problem? If the person is stupid enough to play around with the trap (eg sticking his fingers in it) how exactly is the company liable for the idiocy of someone else? Especially when precautions are taken anyway? Can't the pest control argue that they are not responsible for someone's stupidity?

You know, this reminds me of the kind of idiots who sue restaurants because they spilled coffee on themselves. Duty of care my arse. But considering the amount of ridiculous lawsuits coming from such things from the US, can't say I'm surprised. People who are dumb enough to hurt themselves when it could have been easily avoided had proper precautions and plain common sense taken place, they do not deserve a cent.

[JointStrikeFighter]

You know, this reminds me of the kind of idiots who sue restaurants because they spilled coffee on themselves. Duty of care my arse. But considering the amount of ridiculous lawsuits coming from such things from the US, can't say I'm surprised. People who are dumb enough to hurt themselves when it could have been easily avoided had proper precautions and plain common sense taken place, they do not deserve a cent.

Except in that case McDonalds WERE being criminally negligent by selling coffee at nearly 100 degrees Celsius because it was felt burns payouts would cost less than complaints that the coffee was cold. In the landmark case it was found that the coffee was so hot that had a customer drank the coffee they would have been fucking killed!

[Flight Recorder]

Except in that case McDonalds WERE being criminally negligent by selling coffee at nearly 100 degrees Celsius because it was felt burns payouts would cost less than complaints that the coffee was cold.

I didn't mention McDonalds exclusively, but I'll read up on that specific case. From what I do remember though, the coffee was waay too hot in the first place and it should have not been that hot.

But that said - who the hell would drink 100 C coffee anyway? Do you realise how much it would take to kill someone like that? By the time it reaches your tongue, you are certainly not going to force yourself to gulp down something that hot. And if you choose to, why is it the fault of the people who served you that coffee, and not yours? How hot is your average cup of coffee anyway, the moment you get it?

In the landmark case it was found that the coffee was so hot that had a customer drank the coffee they would have been fucking killed!

Seems like quite an irrelevant distinction to make ... in fact, that point is ridiculous. If someone is willing to drink an entire cup of 100 C coffee despite the burning pain, and kill themselves because of it, then that's their fault ultimately.

But setting up a snap trap, and telling the owner that they are set and where they are, is not even in the same ballpark.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Especially because you would not put one in the middle of the floor or in a place that someone's toes will go. Rather, you put them under your bed, or in that bathroom cabinet where mice might have a nest nearby etc.

[Flight Recorder]

Yeah. If I am not mistaken, mice don't usually travel in open spaces, they tend to hug the wall because they don't have very good eyesight. It's not like you can't see something so obvious there anyway. I think a lawsuit for snap traps is absolutely ridiculous... besides, aren't there specially designed stations for such traps were only a mouse can fit through? That'd pretty much cut down the possibility of accidental injury. What I think it is, is the attitude "we don't care how much the animal suffers, it's easier and cheaper for us". Quite sad really. So I am assuming here it is a matter of convenience, rather than safety. I'm sorry, I don't buy the safety issue if someone can easily avoid getting snapped on after being told where the traps are, if the traps are not easily/not accessible - and if there are such things as trap stations.

[Ford Prefect]

Why wouldn't it?

If the pest control operator sets up snap traps, the owner is aware of this and is aware of where they are - then where is the problem? If the person is stupid enough to play around with the trap (eg sticking his fingers in it) how exactly is the company liable for the idiocy of someone else? Especially when precautions are taken anyway? Can't the pest control argue that they are not responsible for someone's stupidity?

I'm not about to sit down and write out every element of the tort of negligence to you, but honest to God, it's not about whether the plaintiff was 'stupid' (and your attempt to characterise every such accident as 'stupidity' is kind of amusing), and they may not have been 'playing around with the trap'. If the damage is reasonably foreseeable, then you have a duty of care towards that plaintiff, which includes doing what is reasonably necessary to prevent that damage from occurring. It is perfectly possible that the facts on the case will show that the pest control company did do everything reasonably necessary to meet their duty of care, but there is exactly zero chance their argument is going to run on 'yeah, well, the plaintiff was an idiot'.

Contributory negligence doesn't even come into it until damages are calculated, anyway.

[JointStrikeFighter]

A single swallow of that coffee would have proved fatal. Turns out 100C coffee = third degree burns.

Third-degree burns occur when the epidermis is lost with damage to the subcutaneous tissue. Burn victims will exhibit charring and extreme damage of the epidermis, and sometimes hard eschar will be present. Third-degree burns result in scarring and victims will also exhibit the loss of hair shafts and keratin. These burns may require grafting.

Having that happen in your mouth and esophagus= you are dead.

You know what? READ THIS

[Flight Recorder]

I'm not about to sit down and write out every element of the tort of negligence to you, but honest to God, it's not about whether the plaintiff was 'stupid' (and your attempt to characterise every such accident as 'stupidity' is kind of amusing), and they may not have been 'playing around with the trap'. If the damage is reasonably foreseeable, then you have a duty of care towards that plaintiff, which includes doing what is reasonably necessary to prevent that damage from occurring. It is perfectly possible that the facts on the case will show that the pest control company did do everything reasonably necessary to meet their duty of care, but there is exactly zero chance their argument is going to run on 'yeah, well, the plaintiff was an idiot'.

I'm asking when does the buck of responsibility pass to the plaintiff assuming such precautions were taken anyway? The company can't certainly be responsibly for every single action the owner takes, now can they?

And I'm certainly not categorising every accident as "stupid", but there will be ones done out of sheer stupidity despite every precaution being taken. It happens.

[Flight Recorder]

A single swallow of that coffee would have proved fatal. Turns out 100C coffee = third degree burns.

I've had boiling water spilled over my skin before and have never had 3rd degree burns from them. It depends on the amount of liquid and how long the surface has been exposed to such temperatures.

I call bullshit - I've never heard of anyone dying from something like that. How big a swallow are we talking here? I've sipped incredibly hot coffee before and I'm still here. I think you underestimate how much it would actually take to kill someone from something like that. And that's assuming they'll further harm themselves by ignoring the obvious pain that comes from drinking something hot. It is not going to reach your throat first.

Having that happen in your mouth and esophagus= you are dead.

So would swallowing various forms of acids. And?

Have you ever drank something piping hot before? To even damage your throat you'd have to force yourself into doing it because drinking hot things hurt, especially your sensitive tongue.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm not about to sit down and write out every element of the tort of negligence to you, but honest to God, it's not about whether the plaintiff was 'stupid' (and your attempt to characterise every such accident as 'stupidity' is kind of amusing), and they may not have been 'playing around with the trap'. If the damage is reasonably foreseeable, then you have a duty of care towards that plaintiff, which includes doing what is reasonably necessary to prevent that damage from occurring. It is perfectly possible that the facts on the case will show that the pest control company did do everything reasonably necessary to meet their duty of care, but there is exactly zero chance their argument is going to run on 'yeah, well, the plaintiff was an idiot'.

I'm asking when does the buck of responsibility pass to the plaintiff assuming such precautions were taken anyway? The company can't certainly be responsibly for every single action the owner takes, now can they?

And I'm certainly not categorising every accident as "stupid", but there will be ones done out of sheer stupidity despite every precaution being taken. It happens.

Did you actually read my entire post? Protip: try the last sentence.

[Terralthra]

Having that happen in your mouth and esophagus= you are dead.

So would swallowing various forms of acids. And?

And if McDonald's sold acid as coffee, I'm pretty sure someone would've sued for that too...dumbass.

[Flight Recorder]

Having that happen in your mouth and esophagus= you are dead.

So would swallowing various forms of acids. And?

And if McDonald's sold acid as coffee, I'm pretty sure someone would've sued for that too...dumbass.

Great ad hominem, pal. I'm supposedly the dumbass here, yet you seem to miss the point and don't seem to comprehend why I used the example of acid in the first place...

Who the fuck would be stupid enough swallow something that hot enough for it to do serious damage? Even if coffee was at the right temperature (that is, still piping hot), forcibly drinking it would still cause damage and pain. Jesus, if someone did a stupid Jackass-like contest to see who could drink the most hot liquids in a short time, I suppose the restaurant is responsible too eh? What a load of rubbish.

Even a common kitchen utensil can be dangerous when misused. I suppose we should sue the manufacturer when someone decides to jam it up their butthole? Please.

[Flight Recorder]

Did you actually read my entire post? Protip: try the last sentence.

I did. And I don't see why a case cannot be thrown out of court as a waste of time if it is found that the accident was caused by pure negligence and carelessness of the owner.

Are you a lawyer?

[Flight Recorder]

In the landmark case it was found that the coffee was so hot that had a customer drank the coffee they would have been fucking killed!

I'm just going to quote this again for effect.

No shit coffee that hot would kill you if you drunk it. But so would many other things... see, that's why you don't gulp down something extremely hot. Or anything that could cause damage, like acid. It's such a pointless distinction to make. See, I agree with you that the restaurant should not have served coffee that hot, and that they are partially responsible. BUT, if you are going to force yourself into harm by scolding your throat drinking something 100C, then why do you deserve a big payout?

I mean, shit, do you not have any pain receptors in your mouth and tongue that would actually force you not to keep on drinking something this hot? You'd either go "OW, that's HOT" and not drink it any more (or spit it out)... or continue to scold your throat despite the agonising, burning pain. Yet *I'm* called a dumbass for pointing this out? Unbelievable. Perhaps you and Terralthra should read what I have said. Because it made perfect sense... seems like common sense is lacking in this thread.

[Ford Prefect]

I did. And I don't see why a case cannot be thrown out of court as a waste of time if it is found that the accident was caused by pure negligence and carelessness of the owner.

Because in an action for negligence, the subject of the action is the defendant, not the plaintiff. The questions are 'was a duty of care owed to a plaintiff' and 'was the damage caused reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the alleged negligence' and 'has the defendant failed to meet that duty of care'. Even situations where the plaintiff is at literally no fault at all, the defendant can still avoid having to pay damages if they've met their duty of care. There's literally no need to bring in 'stupidity'.

The simple fact of the matter is that even if the plaintiff was being a titanic imbecile, if the damage caused to the plaintiff was because of the negligent act or omission of another party, then they should be able to seek damages. If the plaintiff's acts or omissions were found to be contributory, then that will be reflected in the calculation of damages. Just because a plaintiff was stupid doesn't necessarily mean the defendant wasn't negligent.

[JointStrikeFighter]

[No shit coffee that hot would kill you if you drunk it. But so would many other things... see, that's why you don't gulp down something extremely hot. Or anything that could cause damage, like acid. It's such a pointless distinction to make. See, I agree with you that the restaurant should not have served coffee that hot, and that they are partially responsible. BUT, if you are going to force yourself into harm by scolding your throat drinking something 100C, then why do you deserve a big payout?

I mean, shit, do you not have any pain receptors in your mouth and tongue that would actually force you not to keep on drinking something this hot? You'd either go "OW, that's HOT" and not drink it any more (or spit it out)... or continue to scold your throat despite the agonising, burning pain. Yet *I'm* called a dumbass for pointing this out? Unbelievable. Perhaps you and Terralthra should read what I have said. Because it made perfect sense... seems like common sense is lacking in this thread.

And the real point is coffee that hot can and DID cause third degree burns to a sizeable portion of the woman's body. Harping on about "zomfg who would drink that" is just playing the chewbacca defence.

[Psawhn]

But that said - who the hell would drink 100 C coffee anyway? Do you realise how much it would take to kill someone like that? By the time it reaches your tongue, you are certainly not going to force yourself to gulp down something that hot.

You're not wrong in this. Unless someone is fresh from the dentist with a numb mouth they'd immediately react to the burns and pain to their lips or tip of the tongue. So, no, nobody is ever going to die from third degree burns to their throat by drinking hot coffee.

That's beside the point, though. What would your reaction be if you picked up coffee that hot and then absent-mindedly took a sip? I imagine I would have a violent reaction of surprise and I'd spill more coffee on myself (and remember that the woman sustained 3rd degree burns from the spill). So now I have 3rd degree burns on my body and lips, and the "most stupid" thing I've done was to assume that I could cautiously sip (cautiously because it's hot!) the coffee that I'd ordered.

The point is that it's not entirely every single customer's responsibility to ensure that the coffee won't give them 3rd degree burns. You're right in that it's reasonable to assume that nobody sane would chug down scalding hot coffee. However, it's also the company's responsibility to ensure that if an accident, such as a spill, happens (and accidents will happen) then they've done all they can to reduce injury to their customer. Serving coffee at such temperatures that will cause 3rd degree burns is not exercising their duty of care to their customer, no matter how many people complain that their coffee gets too cold while driving. (I believe that was the reason McDonalds had the coffee so hot in the first place)

My traps get checked at least once a month, or sooner if a client calls about a mouse getting caught.
Clients pay top dollar for my service and when they find a caught rodent you bet your ass they want me out there ASAP to remove it. In fact, today I spent seven hours in addition to my mandatory four hour shift for rodent retrieval.

It sounds as if eyexist pulled an 11-hour workday that day. From this, it seems as if it's impossible for him to check every trap every day without drastically reducing his number of clients. They already pay top dollar, by his words, so it might be impossible to even remain in business with fewer clients and higher rates to cover the cost.
"Business reasons" is no excuse at all for inhumane treatment, but it might be the lesser of two evils versus letting the homeowner deal with it themselves. I don't know how he runs his business, but it might even be in the contract that the homeowner should check the traps daily for humane reasons.

On the other hand, his clients might not even let him check the traps daily. Can you imagine this speech:
"Ma'am, I also need a key to the house. Every day at 10:45 while you're at work I have to swing by and check all the traps. Remember that I placed traps under the porch, in the shed, in the garage, in the basement, under the furnace, under the hot water tank, under the bathroom sink, behind the toilet, under the kitchen sink, in your pantry, behind the fridge, in your closet, under your bed, and in your attic. Every day, ma'am."

This thread and other threads have already illustrated the dangers of letting every homeowner try to deal with it themselves.

[Terralthra]

And if McDonald's sold acid as coffee, I'm pretty sure someone would've sued for that too...dumbass.

Great ad hominem, pal. I'm supposedly the dumbass here, yet you seem to miss the point and don't seem to comprehend why I used the example of acid in the first place...

Who the fuck would be stupid enough swallow something that hot enough for it to do serious damage? Even if coffee was at the right temperature (that is, still piping hot), forcibly drinking it would still cause damage and pain. Jesus, if someone did a stupid Jackass-like contest to see who could drink the most hot liquids in a short time, I suppose the restaurant is responsible too eh? What a load of rubbish.

Even a common kitchen utensil can be dangerous when misused. I suppose we should sue the manufacturer when someone decides to jam it up their butthole? Please.

1) That wasn't an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be if I dismissed your argument because you're a dumbass. I didn't. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, then called you a dumbass.
2) If a restaurant serves acid in a coffee cup with a lid, how are you supposed to tell before you drink it? By the time you realize it's acid, it has already started burning you. If you don't think restaurants have a duty not to serve food or drink that will cause you harm if you try to consume it, then I guess you are consistent with those beliefs, but you're also amoral by most people's definition.