Killing and compassion ARE mutually exclusive when you're talking about killing something that is in no pain and has no desire to die.
Killing itself doesn't really make compassion void, because the person is actually compassionate enough to ensure that there's no more suffering.
How about if someone sets off a trap, but it doesn't kill a mouse - but they see it in pain and end its misery instead of just allowing it to suffer? Is this not an act of compassion, while the act of killing is still there? It might not be as compassionate, as say, releasing the mouse somewhere else... but it is still there.
Would it be better to be tortured to death, or killed quickly?
We're not putting a terminal cancer patient out of their misery here. We're talking about taking the life of something that means so little to you that you are willing to kill it for being a nuisance.
Actually, we're talking about your "method of death does not matter because you are killing anyway" philosophy here. This principle can also be used with a whole host of things, including terminal patients. It doesn't quite cut it, because as humans we understand that pain can and should be minimised if death is an inevitable option.
Did you not say that suffering leading to death does not matter because you are going to kill, or let die anyway? That the actual killing makes the suffering leading up to inconsequential? If you're in a situation where you have no other choice but to use a lethal option, should not the killing be swift and painless as possible?
Personally I think the way someone kills an animal says a lot about their personality.
You don't really care about the welfare of mice, or else it would never enter your mind to kill them.
Seems that you have "welfare" confused with "rights". Animal welfare has a more rational approach, that does not really condemn killing where appropriate. If I really didn't care, then I would not care enough to oppose cruelty when it is not necessary.
The only thing that's wrong with this situation is how some people validate their cruelty by imagining that it matters how "nice" and "compassionate" they are when they commit this minor murder.
There are levels of cruelty, and compassion. I'm saying it's just very douchy to be cruel to an animal and then just say "because I don't give a fuck" to justify it.
At least I don't go around pretending that I am a "kind and compassionate" mouse killer.
No, but that's hardly the point. But I will say I'm more kind and compassionate killing the mouse quickly rather than throwing it into the bin stuck on a glue trap to starve. I suppose that doesn't matter when the end aim is to kill it, according to you? Well, I don't agree. The ends don't always justify the means... if someone *has* to be cruel (as killing arguably is), then it should be minimised. The lesser of two evils. Then there are mercy killings... which is a whole other thing entirely which might overlap here a little.