Ive had this topic on several different sites and was pretty much shocked and disturbed about peoples reactions to animal cruelty etc. Reactions ranged from 80% Say get over it, 10% think its funny and acceptable and 10% of people are genuineley empathetic.
Now please before we derail me as a "hippy" one of the worst examples of a person who actually cares about something other then pot, I would like to make a couple of points clear.
1. I am not a vegetarian, we are biologically designed to consume meat and I enjoy it too much to quit now. The ethical standards of how that meat was produced is a completely different story and the type of animal is also an issue.
2. I am not against hunting, I used to be until I did some research into why and how it is done, I do beleive however there are still some major ethical issues with the sport, namely the use of assault rifles and other overkill weapons.
3. I believe killing animals to eat is justified as long as it is done ethically and with respect for the animals life in which you are taking. As much of the animal should be used as possible. However things like hunting for trophies or for sport "in otherwords any kind of hunting not involving the need for food" is morally disturbing.
Now onto the actuall topic I was curious as to what people on DakkaDakka think of animal cruelty and rights in general, Id like to know your views before I comment.
Meh, the animal cruelty I despise the most is probably closer to cruelty to pets and work animals such as horses. Animals raised to eat should be kept in a sanitary environment, though, for the sake of keeping the people eating it healthy.
But then, our beef industry in the US is so fethed up that they sue people for NOT pumping hormones into the cow because they see it as anticompetitive to sell organic beef. Not that chicken is THAT much better, but at least regulations prevent hormones from being used on them.
It's actually a bad idea to feed your kids beef in the U.S., because of all the hormones in them kids will hit puberty sooner, become more aggressive, etc, and in the case of young girls it increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.
As someone who has hunted and fished since early childhood, I believe in the 'right' of an animal to enjoy a life, up until it's termination, of good living condition and freedom from cruelty.
I also believe the preservation of species is a higher goal than the continued spread of further human beings.
ColdFire wrote:
1. I am not a vegetarian, we are biologically designed to consume meat and I enjoy it too much to quit now. The ethical standards of how that meat was produced is a completely different story and the type of animal is also an issue.
If it's not completely beating the gak out of an animal with a hot pointy stick before killing it, it's ok. I agree that it's really unnecessary to do such things.
2. I am not against hunting, I used to be until I did some research into why and how it is done, I do beleive however there are still some major ethical issues with the sport, namely the use of assault rifles and other overkill weapons.
"Assault rifle" is generally used as a buzzword by people who've never handled a gun in real life as a ridiculous death cannon that splatters anything it touches. It's essentially the hybrid of a rifle and submachine gun, with midrange cartridge and gun lengths and such. Most states have imposed bans on hunting with weapons with high magazine capacities and fully automatic fire. There really isn't such thing as a legally available 'overkill weapon'. Most hunters usually go for something like a 7mm Magnum or 7.62x51, both of which are heavy cartridges to compensate for range. What would you rather do? Would you rather slowly riddle a deer to death with a .22 handgun, or take it out with one shot?
3. I believe killing animals to eat is justified as long as it is done ethically and with respect for the animals life in which you are taking. As much of the animal should be used as possible. However things like hunting for trophies or for sport "in otherwords any kind of hunting not involving the need for food" is morally disturbing.
Respect for its life? It's dead. That's it. I do think hunting for sport without using the meat is pretty stupid, as well.
I'd never kick a puppy or toss a kitten off a high rise,and in general like animals.
That being said,I've done a fair amount of hunting ( though I've never seen much done with an "assault riffle") and fishing,and belive me ...every animal I've ever killed was eaten...except for a dog I once hit with my car.
I'm not a "fan" of trophy hunting,but if someone want's to mount a deer head on their wall (assuming they've also eaten the deer) I suppose that's their affair.
As for trophy hunting, I think don't see anything particularily wrong with it. The animal is dead either way. If a Safarai hunter shot a Rhino and ate it, it has the same effect as shooting the creature and taking only its horn. Why would people be getting upset over why you've killed an endangered creature rather than the fact that you have?
I don't mind being against animal cruelty. I love animals. However, I also firmly believe that since humans are omnivores, we have as much right to kill and eat our chosen prey as a lion or tiger does.
1) As long as it's healthy, and not breaking any laws I don't think 'type of animal' should be a major factor. The West tends to eat chicken, pig, and cow, but different cultures eat different animals. My family back in the Phillippines tends to be fond of balut, which if you don't know is a mostly developed duck/chicken egg with the chick inside. I don't enjoy the food, but I think it's important to respect the differences in culture.
2) I haven't been hunting, but I have fished, and I have to say that from what I can tell with hunting, most hunters would prefer a rifle capable of bringing down the target with a single shot. In all honesty, speaking as a lay person overkill would probably be less painful for the animal than underkill. If I was going to be killed by firing squad, I'd rather take a .50 to the head than a barrage of .22 bullets. It'll be over quicker and relatively painlessly. Yes I'm exaggerating, I'd never expect a .50 cal used for anything but military purpouses, but you get the idea.
3) THe respect for an animals life I have is killing it as quickly and painlessly for an animal. It should have a relatively comfortable life before being killed, meaning it should be fed and generally taken care of if in captivity, and be left to roam free if wild. I see no problem with hunting for sport and trophy. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors used every part of the animal, and part of using every part was making trophies and other such things. Why should it now be morally repugnant?
My view on it is that if you aren't in a life or death situation where you need to kill and eat that animal, or if its not threatening you or your property, you have no business killing it.
Like, going out in the woods and shooting a deer for no other reason than "oh that was pretty sweet" is fething stupid.
But, if you're starving, and you will die if you don't kill that deer, kill it.
The common people really have no business having anything over a standard hunting rifle or a pistol. I don't want people coming around...say my parents house in michigan, firing off AK-47's at anything that moves.
Deadshane1 wrote:I'm not starving....and animals still taste great!
Yummy yummy animals.
Yeah...I can't say that I was ever "starving" any time I've gone into the woods and brought down a deer...and I suppose I could have always gone to the grocery store to purchase meat,however...I see it as a bit less "hypocrytical" (not really the word I want,but it will do) to actually go out and hunt your own food rather than just rush through the "drive through" were someone else has done the "dirty work" for you.
ColdFire wrote:
2. I am not against hunting, I used to be until I did some research into why and how it is done, I do beleive however there are still some major ethical issues with the sport, namely the use of assault rifles and other overkill weapons.
"Assault rifle" is generally used as a buzzword by people who've never handled a gun in real life as a ridiculous death cannon that splatters anything it touches. It's essentially the hybrid of a rifle and submachine gun, with midrange cartridge and gun lengths and such. Most states have imposed bans on hunting with weapons with high magazine capacities and fully automatic fire. There really isn't such thing as a legally available 'overkill weapon'. Most hunters usually go for something like a 7mm Magnum or 7.62x51, both of which are heavy cartridges to compensate for range. What would you rather do? Would you rather slowly riddle a deer to death with a .22 handgun, or take it out with one shot?
You're conflating "assault rifle", the proper term for a general class of infantry weapons, and "assault weapon", the largely meaningless buzzword (well, it does have a meaning, it's just that "kind of scary looking or something" isn't really that meaningful) used by politicians and activists who generally don't have a clue what they're talking about. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted for the better part of the last century, and I'm not aware of any restrictions on larger calibers or stronger charges. It is pretty silly to hunt with an assault rifle, though, since they'd have shorter ranges, less accuracy, and generally less stopping power, since they're meant to injure humans to the point of being unable to shoot back, not necessarily kill something in one shot.
I couldn't care less about animal rights, though, beyond public safety concerns (don't torture a dangerous animal without putting it down, don't raise livestock in conditions that contaminate their flesh, have people who actively torture animals as a matter of recreation (as opposed to valid research purposes) evaluated for mental disorders, etc) and what could more or less be considered "living property rights" or somesuch, to impose harsh penalties for someone wantonly killing or tormenting animals which belong to someone else, or the state providing restitution if it puts down an animal belonging to someone against their will (say, when cops storm a residence they have standing orders to kill dogs; the owners of said animals should be entitled to significant restitution from the state, especially in the case of the wrong residence being stormed (something that happens with a disturbing frequency, even if it's still quite rare), or being acquitted of whatever crime they were arrested for). Humans are only afforded rights as an effective social contract, as a matter of fostering a more functional society that's beneficial to its members; animals aren't members of human society in any capacity higher than willing slavery (except in the rare, unhealthy cases where a dog thinks that it's in charge, which creates a violent, psychologically troubled animal), and far more commonly in roles like "food" or "obnoxious pest".
I think animals are all right. I like most of them, and can understand the whole treat them humanely thing. Then again, if I had to personally slaughter a room full of kittens to save a human life, well I would, because people are more important than animals. I would do my best to make it as quick as possible, though.
I am fine with hunting and fishing as long as it is for consumption. I am completely against sport hunting/fishing. If a test of manhood is what you seek, go toe to toe with that moose/bear and test yourself for sport that way. As far as animal cruelty in the home? The cruelest thing I would ever do to an animal would be to put it in its cage if it misbehaved, because I could never harm an animal, it's just not in me to do so.
2) Yes I'm exaggerating, I'd never expect a .50 cal used for anything but military purpouses, but you get the idea.
You haven't seen any African Safari rounds have you?
There's a round used to drop Elephants (that have been selected and approved by the governments of the respective African countries as "okay to shoot" because they are old or diseased) called the .700 Nitro Express. This is one round not to tangle with. These are also used with Rhinos and Water Buffalo
I think that the way people treat animals is often indicative of how they treat people. I think that cruelty for it's own sake, or due to negligence, is wrong as living things have an inherent dignity to them. I think that there isn't an animal on earth I wouldn't sacrifice to save the worst human being I know of.
Polonius wrote:I think that the way people treat animals is often indicative of how they treat people. I think that cruelty for it's own sake, or due to negligence, is wrong as living things have an inherent dignity to them. I think that there isn't an animal on earth I wouldn't sacrifice to save the worst human being I know of.
I'm the opposite, I would sooner throw someone in a cage to feed a dog than shoot the dog to feed the person unless they were a loved one.
Polonius wrote:I'm a humanist. I think that we should be better humans, and thus better to animals, but I feel that humans have simply higher value than animals.
I wish that were the case, however I cannot remember the last time a marmoset shelled a swamp area in order to drive out its residents and drain its resources for a profit margin. I really wish humanity were different though and I really would love to have your mindset as I once did even though I still try to see the good in everyone more often than not it never is so.
As far as livestock is concerned, I don't think modern day methods are too barbaric I'm more concerned with what’s in the meat than the life of the animal from whence it came.
I like to stick to "organic meat" as they call it and luckily for me I grew up in a fairly rural part of Minnesota so I know a guy who raises "organic" cattle (he was my shop teacher in high school) so I'm all good.
As for hunting and fishing, it’s all good. Hell, there’s are so many damn deer in Minnesota that if you don’t kill off loads of them every fall they starve in the winter after eating themselves out of house and home as it where.
happydude wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think that the way people treat animals is often indicative of how they treat people. I think that cruelty for it's own sake, or due to negligence, is wrong as living things have an inherent dignity to them. I think that there isn't an animal on earth I wouldn't sacrifice to save the worst human being I know of.
I'm the opposite, I would sooner throw someone in a cage to feed a dog than shoot the dog to feed the person unless they were a loved one.
Mr.Self Destruct: By respecting its life I mean you treat it with dignity, you take a life, its not a game. To treat it with dignity you use as much as you can, you kill it cleanly. Thats all, if people cant manage that they have no business hunting.
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.
ChrisWWII: I am not saying that different cultures should not be allowed to eat different meats, that would be absurd. The animals we eat are a product of our environment and our culture, while I might eat Crocodile here a friend of mine in South Africa enjoys Springbox. However I do believe that it should be ecologically sustainable, if an animal I enjoy eating was to become on the endangered list tommorow I would have the self discipline and good sense to stop eating it. For example currently we are having major issues in Australian waters from people from South East and East Asia whaling and hunting sharks for their fins.
Most Whale species are on the endangered list, they have slow breeding cycles and long gestation periods, they are being killed off before they can replenish their numbers, Sharks are being hunted for their fin and only their fins, the rest of the animal is tossed away to drown a slow horrible death. Shark fins are almost pure cartlidge and have no nutritional value whatsoever but of course they are a delicacy so noone cares, its fancy and it makes you fancy if you eat it. I believe it will be an incredibly slow process of convincing these countries that what they are doing is ecologically wrong, I doubt it if they care, areas in South East Asia still use Tigers for traditional medicine. I am not against people having a different culture, I find it fascinating, I am however against people ignoring ecolological disasters from the past and being wilfully ignorant by senselessly wiping out a species for trivial reasons.
Sir Pseudonymous: I am sorry you feel that way although your comments are descent, however how on Earth you came to the conclusion that animals are at the standard of "Willing" slaves I will never understand. Animals have not been willing slaves since we first domesticated them, that is why they are penned up, put in cages and fenced away. They dont sacrifice themselves for us, we sacrifice them for us. A major example is ever since animals were used in war, this is one of the most blatant abuses of animal life, the very fact that we force them into our petty wars in some terrible ways is disgusting. Bat Bombs, Mine Dogs, Bomb Mule, Fire Monkey's, sickening.
Polonius: I wish I could be a Humanist, I really do and live in a deranged fanatasy where we are all as valuable as gold and the most precious being which ever existed. But that would be a lie.
I would sooner slaughter a million of the worst of humanity "not genetically" then a single animal. Humans with all our intelligence and incredible achievements still seem to have trouble understanding that we ARE animals, we arent a higher lifeform, there is no value of life, value is a creation of man, hence it does not trully exist. All organims are equal in their validity.
If you want to go by erconomically then we are lower then insects, we destory and serve very little purpose in the food chain. if we died tommorow we would leave behind a safer, healthier planet. If you took away all the insects in the world it would start a chain reaction of catastrophic proportion which could potentially see the death of billions of species.
I find that Humans act to animals like how bigoted Rich people act to labourers, they treat them like lower lifeforms put on Earth to do what they want and when they want it but what they forget is that without these "lower" lifeforms they are nothing but beasts themselves in fancy costumes.
Polonius wrote:I'm a humanist. I think that we should be better humans, and thus better to animals, but I feel that humans have simply higher value than animals.
I wish that were the case, however I cannot remember the last time a marmoset shelled a swamp area in order to drive out its residents and drain its resources for a profit margin. I really wish humanity were different though and I really would love to have your mindset as I once did even though I still try to see the good in everyone more often than not it never is so.
Well, if you judge things by their worst, than I haven't seen a human rip the head of her husband after sex. Or cannibalize the young of another. Animals can be bastards to. OTOH they don't create art.
I wont misstreat an animal, I think that is cruel and wrong in so many ways. (and sick, like mentally, but thats another argument).
I hunt, I use a 7mm magnum for whitetail deer (and other game) Its capable of bringing anything in the us down except moose and grizzlies (which I have no desire to hunt), so for whitetails I guess you could define it as overkill...
However overkill isnt necessarily a bad thing in this terms. I use Silvertips, which fragment on impact, literally liquifying whatever they hit. I have never had an animal run on me, which I think is less cruel then a smaller caliber that has animals run 100-200 yards before it collapses from exhaustion and dies slowly. I also carry a .22 snubnose to put a round in the brainstem to ensure the deed is done...
Also I dont hunt for pleasure as much as I hunt for meat. Sure its a rush to take that big buck down, but getting 70-100lbs of venison (which is hard as hell to find, and expensive when you do) is way worth it.
Yeah, sorry, animals are not as valuable as people, morally or philosophically. If stampeding the last herd of bison across a minefield would save a human life... tough gak bison, should've evolved thumbs. And by all means, collect up what meat you could and eat it. Of course, artificial constructs are even lower on the totem pole, so if dropping a few dozen rounds of 155 on said minefield is cheaper and easier - go with that.
I don't really like Animal Cruelty... infact some of the lolcats pictures disturb me as much as make me laugh.
I don't think hunting is animal cruelty. I'm thinking that the hunter ought to be respective of the prey if they're taking the time and effort to kill them in an efficient manner... or something like that.
ColdFire wrote:Sir Pseudonymous: I am sorry you feel that way although your comments are descent, however how on Earth you came to the conclusion that animals are at the standard of "Willing" slaves I will never understand. Animals have not been willing slaves since we first domesticated them, that is why they are penned up, put in cages and fenced away. They dont sacrifice themselves for us, we sacrifice them for us.
I said the highest they reach in human society is the position of a willing slave, referring to the more intelligent breeds of dog, for whom the abstraction of their place in life may be attainable. They are pack animals (in the sense of "living in packs", not "carrying packs", just for the sake of clarity), and are perfectly content in a subordinate role (in fact, dogs that are not in a subordinate role, or don't believe themselves to be, are violent, psychologically troubled animals), obeying humans for nothing but subsistence and attention; the most intelligent of them seem to breach the lower end of abstract thought, and so the term "slave" could be considered accurate. For lower animals (including less intelligent dog breeds) it's not, anymore than you'd call a car, lawnmower, or computer a "slave".
All living things are self-replicating machines formed from a genetic algorithm. Their bodies and basic behavior are dictated by the results of their predecessors going through the test conditions of such. Even learned behavior comes from thus, as it offers advantages over just waiting hundreds of years for slight behavioral correction to take place, and higher abstract thought is a further shortcut, allowing a being to engineer its way around problems that would otherwise take hundreds of thousands of years to solve evolutionarily, if at all. Thus, things like "pain" and "fear" can be considered as nothing but evolved tools in shaping behavior to avoid injury and death; when an animal's purpose does not involve surviving in its natural environment long enough to breed, we needn't worry about them when the purpose we have for it, or the circumstances thereof, happen to trigger such feelings.
We exist as a society, and thus it is, as individuals, in our best interests to prevent hazards to ourselves, and fostering an environment wherein killing and stealing from each other is punished by society is the easiest way to go about protecting ourselves under general circumstances. Is harming someone "wrong", per se? Of course not, but it's counter productive to a safe, functional society under most circumstances, and so shouldn't encouraged or tolerated (except when it's not counter productive, as in dealing with individuals who have made themselves hazardous to those around them). When given the low place of animals in our society, this argument generally doesn't hold up beyond not creating public hazards (leaving a violent, dangerous animal alive, allowing food to be contaminated, evaluating the mental health of people who enjoy inflicting pain on animals (since that's generally an indication of mental problems that could result in a public hazard), etc), and preventing the killing or torture of animals belonging to other people (just as torching someone's car or home is illegal).
A major example is ever since animals were used in war, this is one of the most blatant abuses of animal life, the very fact that we force them into our petty wars in some terrible ways is disgusting. Bat Bombs, Mine Dogs, Bomb Mule, Fire Monkey's, sickening.
Animals torture each other constantly. Hunting, parasitizing, defending themselves from the former, etc. Then you've got the ones that just think killing things is funny, like cats and chimpanzees. Comparatively, strapping a bomb to one at least affords it a fast death, as opposed to getting eviscerated and slowly suffocated by a predator that's just run it down to the point of collapsing from exhaustion. Of course, as I recall, most of those were pretty much abject failures, since animals are rather unpredictable when frightened, as by the loud noises modern weapons make...
Stormrider wrote:
You haven't seen any African Safari rounds have you?
There's a round used to drop Elephants (that have been selected and approved by the governments of the respective African countries as "okay to shoot" because they are old or diseased) called the .700 Nitro Express. This is one round not to tangle with. These are also used with Rhinos and Water Buffalo
...And I thought the Tyrannosaur was a big round. Jesus H. Christ. Screw elephant hunting, I'm going tank hunting with that thing!
ColdFire wrote: I am not saying that different cultures should not be allowed to eat different meats, that would be absurd. The animals we eat are a product of our environment and our culture, while I might eat Crocodile here a friend of mine in South Africa enjoys Springbox. However I do believe that it should be ecologically sustainable, if an animal I enjoy eating was to become on the endangered list tommorow I would have the self discipline and good sense to stop eating it. For example currently we are having major issues in Australian waters from people from South East and East Asia whaling and hunting sharks for their fins.
Oh yes, in that case then yes, I am in favor of enviromentally sustainable fishing, and if we have to cut down on eating certain things to ensure we have that species for generations to come, I'm all for it. However, as long as it is enviromentally sustainable, I see no problem with it. But humans still come first...if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.
Animals have not been willing slaves since we first domesticated them, that is why they are penned up, put in cages and fenced away.
I have to point out that this is not true. Dogs were domesticated from wolves who were able to work with humans to ensure better survivability for both them and their humans. Cats were similar, evolving so that they favored individuals more willing to live with humans, and the humans who allowed these animals to work with them survived better than the humans who chased the animals away. Cows and other forms of domestic animal have a similar symbiosis: they work for us, we give them food.
I would say that animals and humans have a employer-employee relationship, not a master-slave one. Yes, we demand a lot from our animals, but we also give them a lot. We give them shelter, food and water. They help us live our lives more comfortably and enjoyably, and we provide for what they need to survive.
Animal Cruelty that pisses me off the most is abuse to pets, like those scumbags that left their dogs tied up during Hurricane Katrina. If they didn't drown they die of starvation or dehydration.
Or people who think it's ok to just ditch your pet when you move, to me pets are part of my family and should be cared for as much.
As far as hunting, I do hunt anything I'm not going to eat, with the exception of vermin that threaten livestock (prairie dogs for example) while I think hunting with semi-auto's (these are not "assault rifles" people) is unsportsman like, it's not my place to tell you how to hunt. Hell I think firearms give a pretty unfair advantage, and if there wasn't such a huge risk to the dogs (and the horrid painful death to the prey) I'd partake in pack hunting. But, I don't see my self ever doing that, as a hunter you owe that animals life your about to take a quick, clean death, pack hunting does not do this. Not to mention even animals like deer will seriously frack up a large breed dog.
ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.
You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.
ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.
You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.
By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:
But humans still come first...if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.
You see this is one thing which confuses me, do you draw a line or do you just generalise the entire human race.
Now if this was a loved one or a close family member like one of my brothers I can see how some one would get this mindset, I would hate myself afterwards but I would probably do it. A loving mother, a scientist who could potentially cure Cancer,etc, people who contribute in a positive way to society I would certainly consider.
But please what about a Sociopath who will spend his entire life either murdering people or in a cell or my cousins former husband who enjoyed beating her and her children while doing drugs which made him psychotic to the point that his oldest child has very little chance of growing up without problems or a firebug who enjoys setting fires in the bush even if it could potentially endanger the lives of hundreds of people etc etc......
why are these people worth it?
I certainly understand the concept Black and White is wrong and there are factors but if there is no help for these people why would you wipe out an entire species to save them. A sociopath doesnt even think with the mindset of a human. I realise that aside from Sociopaths and others born with mental concerns that these people are a product of their environment but I know for a fact that sometimes these people cant be saved. Certainly we should continue working to stop this from happening as unlikely as that is but why should animals pay for what our society does to people.
I would also like to remind people that as Omnivores we are not restricted to meat, if the last animals on the planet were endangered why on Earth would the only option be to kill them till their gone to feed a couple of people who dont like lettuce. We have the teeth to eat meat but we also have the teeth to eat plants and thats why we were so successfull. The fact that we have an option and even if we dont like it the human race could potentially subsist on a diet totally consisiting of plant material, fungus and even some forms of bacteria.
Id question why you would kill the panda when you could give them some fruit or the other multitudes of food growing all around us.
It is a generalization. Yeah, there are some people who deserve to die, but that's not for me to decide. If I didn't know anything about the person, and I had to choose between killing a panda to feed them, and letting that person die, I'd kill the panda. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, but I can't know about them. If I was omniscient, and could tell whether a person was worth saving or not...yeah, I'd let them starve, if they'd be a drain. But I'm not, and it is my opinion that a human being is innocent until proven guilty, and as such I will choose to feed the human being over keeping the panda alive.
Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables. When I said I'd kill the panda, I was assuming that either: a) we need the meat due to lack of other sources of protein or b) the only food available is bamboo (which humans can't eat) and pandas (which we can).
ChrisWWII wrote:It is a generalization. Yeah, there are some people who deserve to die, but that's not for me to decide. If I didn't know anything about the person, and I had to choose between killing a panda to feed them, and letting that person die, I'd kill the panda. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, but I can't know about them. If I was omniscient, and could tell whether a person was worth saving or not...yeah, I'd let them starve, if they'd be a drain. But I'm not, and it is my opinion that a human being is innocent until proven guilty, and as such I will choose to feed the human being over keeping the panda alive.
Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables. When I said I'd kill the panda, I was assuming that either: a) we need the meat due to lack of other sources of protein or b) the only food available is bamboo (which humans can't eat) and pandas (which we can).
Yeah I suppose that would have made it clearer.
I realise that we cant eat all plants but there is a considerable amount of plant life that we can eat, Im simply saying we have the option.
A lot of people call me a sick, sadistic bastard for this, but I believe that within reason, you should be able to cause physical pain to a household animal if they've done something that could be considered wrong. Animals in general, unlike humans, don't have a firm grasp of morality, or much of an ability to reason, so pain is often the only barrier keeping a household pet from doing whatever the feth it wants to. Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.
If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.
Needless to say, my roommate has learned to make sure that her cat stays out of my room at all costs. She's someone who believes that an animal should never suffer physical pain under any circumstance. Even if it burns your house down, it's innocent. We get in fights about this all the time.
Also, I think that unethical treatment of animals is far overblown by PETA and company. We are shown all of the bad cases, and none of the good ones. Therefore, most people are led to believe that it's all horrific, all of the time.
Not to say that it's not horrific when it does happen, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm only saying that it doesn't happen as often as you are led to believe.
Polonius wrote:Well, if you judge things by their worst, than I haven't seen a human rip the head of her husband after sex. Or cannibalize the young of another. Animals can be bastards to. OTOH they don't create art.
While thats true , dont you feel it might be abit circumstancial?
Animal live in a strict circle of life , where humans are not bound by it, for what ever reason we ended up evolving this way , it doesnt matter
because we DO have the luxury of messing around when animals do not.
So in a way , they have higher priorities in doing other things to insure their survival than say , creating art.
For example, when is the last time you see your parents do art ( please please dont be from artistic family rofl )
Well you get my point , i hope.
In other words , im the type that believes animals have soul , and most have emotions , and many display love and effection.
This alone makes me sympathetic in their treatment. I believe they should have the right to live unless they threaten our own lives or is some emergency like we are going to die from starvation.
Unfortunately as there are so many type of human beings in this world...
Some do others harm because they can.
While others wish others well and help because , they can.
If they want to kill animals for the sole reason of because "they can" well , for me thats even lower than a beast that kills to survive.
ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.
You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.
By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.
Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.
As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:
If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.
It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.
Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.
For every action , there is definitely a reaction , this is the rule of universe and will never change. While it makes no difference to the already dead animal ,
it makes every difference to the one that initiated the "action" to the kill and anyone that has a part of it .
Or else , cant we simply say "anyone that have extinguished a human life should be treated the same way? " "May it be in self defense, or in cold blooded murder since the victim is dead? "
As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:
If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
Interesting question , here is my reply. I would save the human, why? because i believe a lone human should have more impact in the world's existence or more capability to change the world , then a boxful of kittens.
In a way, humans like to say they are supreme life form on this planet? Alright so be it, then we do our share since we are such hot shots. With great powers comes great responsibilities no?
We maybe "just humans" to each other , but there is no doubt when compared to animals or insects , we hold godly powers compared to what they can do?
( almost related to humans asking why doesnt god help us right? even though god is so mighty ? very interesting huh ^^ )
But you are missing the point people mentioned. Many have killed animals NOT out of necessity , only because they "can" which is very different then your question.
As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.
Yes i understand.
It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.
I think there's an obligation to minimise suffering to animals, and that this is just part of being a decent human being. Basically I don't have a problem with eating meat, if that meat is humanely slaughtered. Finding out if that is actually the case is an extremely hard thing to do.
happydude wrote:I wish that were the case, however I cannot remember the last time a marmoset shelled a swamp area in order to drive out its residents and drain its resources for a profit margin. I really wish humanity were different though and I really would love to have your mindset as I once did even though I still try to see the good in everyone more often than not it never is so.
You're confusing capability with morality. Animals lack the capability to reap vast environmental damage, but this doesn't mean them more moral. If that marmoset grew so large that it could sweep a whole swamp it wouldn't start acting more carefully, it wouldn't even have the intellect to consider such a thing necessary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisWWII wrote:Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables.
There's no probably about. People not only can, they can actually eat far more healthily than people do now. That is, the healthiest diet possible would include a small amount of meat, but you could have a vegetarian diet that's much healthier than what 99% of people live on today, if you were so inclined.
As for ease, livestock is a primary cause of carbon emissions and many livestock types are incredibly damaging to the land. It would be far easier and more sustainable to feed our current population on plant life alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chrysaor686 wrote:Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.
If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.
Being social animals, dogs learn more from shaming than they do from pain. Seriously, the dog will learn more and suffer more from being scolded and seperated from you than it will from being hit.
What this actually means is that the issue "do you hit a dog?" is actually pretty meaningless, because the dog doesn't really give a gak either way. It's got a threshhold for pain way beyond what you're likely willing to inflict, so hitting it won't really traumatise the dog nor will it actually achieve anything.
Scolding the dog and seperating it from the group is by far the better option.
Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.
For every action , there is definitely a reaction , this is the rule of universe and will never change. While it makes no difference to the already dead animal ,
it makes every difference to the one that initiated the "action" to the kill and anyone that has a part of it .
Or else , cant we simply say "anyone that have extinguished a human life should be treated the same way? " "May it be in self defense, or in cold blooded murder since the victim is dead? "
That's because human life has equal value.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying, I would completely understand an animal killing a human in self-defence (and would advocate that the creature be allowed to live unless it was likely to do so again), just as I would also abhor the torture of animals. The inherent value of humans over animals, as you've said, isn't a one way street.
My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.
For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.
As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:
If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
Interesting question , here is my reply. I would save the human, why? because i believe a lone human should have more impact in the world's existence or more capability to change the world , then a boxful of kittens.
In a way, humans like to say they are supreme life form on this planet? Alright so be it, then we do our share since we are such hot shots. With great powers comes great responsibilities no?
We maybe "just humans" to each other , but there is no doubt when compared to animals or insects , we hold godly powers compared to what they can do?
( almost related to humans asking why doesnt god help us right? even though god is so mighty ? very interesting huh ^^ )
I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.
But you are missing the point people mentioned. Many have killed animals NOT out of necessity , only because they "can" which is very different then your question.
Humans aren't alone in this. Hell, cats even play with their food.
It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.
Well thats your freedom i guess :'P
Whoops, meant to be a n't there.
I'd only eat meat if it was sustainable, otherwise the meat will run out sooner or later. Same goes for farming crops and the sustainable practice of that.
My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.
The difference would be the amount of animals killed would greatly differ between the 2 reasons of killing them
For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.
I would be against it , though of course the trophy hunters have no use for none rare animal to be used as trophy :'/
I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.
But thats what makes humans different then animals no? the ability to reason over our innate primal reactions
Humans aren't alone in this. Hell, cats even play with their food.
I agree with minimalising the damage we cause to animals. Some is inevitable such as eating which is a natural process, but being capable of higher though I believe we should try and reduce the pain they feel. I am completely against harming animals for enjoyment.
I'm ok with hunting if it's for food, the animal got a good life (better than most farm animals) and people have to eat. Hunting for sport is not something I can ever agree with. IMO the animals life is more important than someone's enjoyment or pride at having killed it. One must be done the other is uneccessary.
The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.
I agree with a lot of what Luna said. Especially about animals being much close to humans than we admit. You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.
Chrysaor686 wrote:Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.
If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.
Being social animals, dogs learn more from shaming than they do from pain. Seriously, the dog will learn more and suffer more from being scolded and seperated from you than it will from being hit.
What this actually means is that the issue "do you hit a dog?" is actually pretty meaningless, because the dog doesn't really give a gak either way. It's got a threshhold for pain way beyond what you're likely willing to inflict, so hitting it won't really traumatise the dog nor will it actually achieve anything.
Scolding the dog and seperating it from the group is by far the better option.
Truth. When humans hit dogs, it's generally to make themselves feel better, as opposed to correcting their dog. Every time you hit a dog, you increase the probability that it will bite you one day, as they don't understand the concept of being 'hit'. Apparently, when you hit a dog, the dog interprets you drawing your hand away after the hit as fear, and fear to dogs is weakness. Plus, you pretty much can't hurt a dog with your bare hands, especially if you're a teenage boy, and not exactly the 'captain of the football team type'. This is because some breeds are nigh on impervious to pain - I've seen my Lab take some blows to the head (she's a clumsy fether!) that would have knocked me out, no question. The tail just keeps on wagging.
I even heard a story about a guy who nearly got his arm ripped off by a pitbull - he punched it in the face over and over again to try to get the dog to let go of his arm. In the end, he managed to grab a kitchen knife, and had to stab it six times before the dog would even loosen its grip.
4M2A wrote:IMO the animals life is more important than someone's enjoyment or pride at having killed it. One must be done the other is uneccessary.
So well said , i cant believe i left that part out. I 100% agree with you , most of the sport hunting is just that. A life traded for one's adrenalin rush , wall trophy.
The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.
Again , i 100% with you especially the part i high lighted in bold. Nope! been intelligent doesnt make us more important , because its obvious mother earth dont give a ****
how smart we are while we continue to destroy the very environment that is sustaining all life. IF anything , slowly killing ourselves really doesnt seem intelligent at all.
You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.
My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.
The difference would be the amount of animals killed would greatly differ between the 2 reasons of killing them
You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?
Can you spot the difference between the two?
For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.
I would be against it , though of course the trophy hunters have no use for none rare animal to be used as trophy :'/
It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).
I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.
But thats what makes humans different then animals no? the ability to reason over our innate primal reactions
Not really, unless you believe there is something inherently divine that seperates man from animal. For all we know we could just be very darn successful as far as species go.
You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?
Can you spot the difference between the two?
Arnt we strictly using endangered species in the quote? If its cows , then of course its different.
It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).
I think thats a difference between game hunter and trophy hunter vs poachers
You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?
Can you spot the difference between the two?
Arnt we strictly using endangered species in the quote? If its cows , then of course its different.
That's my point, it's the unsustainability that makes these acts reprehensible, not really anything else.
It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).
I think thats a difference between game hunter vs trophy hunter
Generally carnivores aren't hunted for their flesh either way.
It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.
That's my point, it's the unsustainability that makes these acts reprehensible, not really anything else.
If thats the case , then for example , wouldnt it be awful if the amount of cow we killed, are not eaten?
I'm sorry can you reiterate this? Are you saying it would be awful if we kill more cows than we eat? It would depend, many may have been put down due to disease or weren't suitable to be eaten. If a certain slaughterhouse was chopping up a cows for gaks and giggles then that would be disturbing.
and if only took their horns / heads?
Was taking the horn/head a relatively dangerous activity (like the Matador in Spain)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
4M2A wrote:It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.
If you had read my post you'd see I'm not saying that.
Humanity bears the gift of sapience, which makes any human more precious in my eyes than any other animal life. Given the choice between saving most humans and saving an animal, I'd probably choose the human.
That being said, however, the value of an individual is not measured by how he treats his equals; it's measured by how he treats his inferiors. If you harm an animal simply to cause it suffer, and not for sustenance or to save your own life, then you're lower than any animal.
Hawkward wrote:Humanity bears the gift of sapience, which makes any human more precious in my eyes than any other animal life. Given the choice between saving most humans and saving an animal, I'd probably choose the human.
That being said, however, the value of an individual is not measured by how he treats his equals; it's measured by how he treats his inferiors. If you harm an animal simply to cause it suffer, and not for sustenance or to save your own life, then you're lower than any animal.
If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?
If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?
If my need to travel great distances with little access to technology was because my life was in danger and there was no other course of action, then killing a human and taking his horse would be justified. It would be more justified if the lives of my friends or dependents relied on my getting there quickly. If it was simply as a matter of convenience, I'd just go without a horse.
Where land can be used for either crops or animals, I would prefer it to be used for crops, as they can feed more people per acre than animals. On land unsuitable for crops, animals should he kept.
I would agree with the majority of people that meat animals should be treated as well as possible before being turned into steaks, burgers and other foodstuffs.
Hunting for sport is fine so long as the person doing the hunting has at least some fundamental knowledge and skill as to how to make clean kill shots.
Pets and so on should be treated well. People unable to care for animals should not be permitted to own them.
Generally anyone who mistreats animals should face the law.
Chrysaor686 wrote:A lot of people call me a sick, sadistic bastard for this, but I believe that within reason, you should be able to cause physical pain to a household animal if they've done something that could be considered wrong. Animals in general, unlike humans, don't have a firm grasp of morality, or much of an ability to reason, so pain is often the only barrier keeping a household pet from doing whatever the feth it wants to. Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.
If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.
Needless to say, my roommate has learned to make sure that her cat stays out of my room at all costs. She's someone who believes that an animal should never suffer physical pain under any circumstance. Even if it burns your house down, it's innocent. We get in fights about this all the time.
Also, I think that unethical treatment of animals is far overblown by PETA and company. We are shown all of the bad cases, and none of the good ones. Therefore, most people are led to believe that it's all horrific, all of the time.
Not to say that it's not horrific when it does happen, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm only saying that it doesn't happen as often as you are led to believe.
Hitting an animal, especially a dog doesnt really discipline them. Dogs respond better to scolding and isolation, although I think someone already mentioned this so i wont go on.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.
You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.
By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.
Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.
As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:
If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.
It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.
The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.
As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.
4M2A wrote:
The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.
I agree with a lot of what Luna said. Especially about animals being much close to humans than we admit. You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.
I completely agree with everything posted here.
Hawkward wrote:
corpsesarefun wrote:
If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?
If my need to travel great distances with little access to technology was because my life was in danger and there was no other course of action, then killing a human and taking his horse would be justified. It would be more justified if the lives of my friends or dependents relied on my getting there quickly. If it was simply as a matter of convenience, I'd just go without a horse.
OK while were on the topic of morality and life value, heres one for you. What if this man riding this horse was fundamentally more important than you, would you sacrifice yourself to ensure that his contribution can be made which will benefit the lives of countless humans or do you kill him because survival ranks above all things.
I personally feel that animal life, unfortunately, has negligible inherent value comparable to humans. They do have value directly linked to the worth of the animal to humans. If I had to sacrifice a single human or every animal in the world I hope the person would understand that they'll be taking one for the team because of the suffering their absence would cause.
Otherwise, I agree that they shouldn't suffer any more than is reasonably necessary. I disagree with the killing of more intelligent animals for food unless necessary for human survival.
I also am strongly opposed to cases of animal welfare being blown out of proportion. If someone is unnecessarily cruel to an animal they may face punitive action. They probably don't deserve death threats and hysterical condemnation.
Also, I'd like to repeat that animals can be cruel, murderous, incestuous rapists. I have no doubt that most animals would blithely cause the deaths of a bunch of people in return for a treat if they had the power or intelligence.
ColdFire wrote:
OK while were on the topic of morality and life value, heres one for you. What if this man riding this horse was fundamentally more important than you, would you sacrifice yourself to ensure that his contribution can be made which will benefit the lives of countless humans or do you kill him because survival ranks above all things.
If sacrificing myself would benefit the lives of countless humans, I'd certainly consider it. If my own life was on the line, though, and if I had been thrust into the situation through no fault of my own, then I'd be perfectly within my rights to say "screw it" and fight for my own survival.
Also, I'd like to repeat that animals can be cruel, murderous, incestuous rapists. I have no doubt that most animals would blithely cause the deaths of a bunch of people in return for a treat if they had the power or intelligence.
Murderous yes but animals can't be cruel. This implies they get some pleasure from causing escess harm, which isn't something they understand. It may seem cruel to us but not to them.
Being "incestous rapist" doesn't have the same problems for animals as us. While unhealthy they don't see it as a problem. Dignity is a human emotion and so being animals don't have issues being raped. Animals don't breed for love they breed for the sake of reproduction so rape isn't really a problem.
I think animals should be treated far better than most humans, considering what we do to eachother....
I mean, Animals act the way they do because they are animals, people, being the third smartest species on the planet, have a choice of how to behave, animals, not so much.
Now, having said that, it's a dog eat dog world, and we have to eat, but still.
I suppose I could say I detest beating a dog, and I would really like to give those people who take live dogs, skewer them on hooks, and then use them as sharkbait, WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE, and do the same to them, the bastards.....
SilverMK2 wrote:Where land can be used for either crops or animals, I would prefer it to be used for crops, as they can feed more people per acre than animals. On land unsuitable for crops, animals should he kept.
I would agree with the majority of people that meat animals should be treated as well as possible before being turned into steaks, burgers and other foodstuffs.
Hunting for sport is fine so long as the person doing the hunting has at least some fundamental knowledge and skill as to how to make clean kill shots.
Pets and so on should be treated well. People unable to care for animals should not be permitted to own them.
Generally anyone who mistreats animals should face the law.
This is pretty agreeable to me.
In terms of animals being bred for foodstock, we certainly need to look into some of their treatment(huge meat farms for chicken etc, millions of tiny cages, etc), and also stop with all the hormones; that isn't good for humans.
Also someone shouldn't be hunting unless they plan to eat their kill.
Slarg232 wrote:I think animals should be treated far better than most humans, considering what we do to eachother....
I mean, Animals act the way they do because they are animals, people, being the third smartest species on the planet, have a choice of how to behave, animals, not so much.
Now, having said that, it's a dog eat dog world, and we have to eat, but still.
I suppose I could say I detest beating a dog, and I would really like to give those people who take live dogs, skewer them on hooks, and then use them as sharkbait, WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE, and do the same to them, the bastards.....
Humans are animals, too. Simply because we are capable of giving our actions names does not free us from the onus of instinct.
Animals have a choice how to behave, just like humans. I guarantee you that the darkest depravities of the animal kingdom are just as shocking as the depravities of mankind.
Slarg232 wrote:I think animals should be treated far better than most humans, considering what we do to eachother....
I mean, Animals act the way they do because they are animals, people, being the third smartest species on the planet, have a choice of how to behave, animals, not so much.
Now, having said that, it's a dog eat dog world, and we have to eat, but still.
I suppose I could say I detest beating a dog, and I would really like to give those people who take live dogs, skewer them on hooks, and then use them as sharkbait, WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE, and do the same to them, the bastards.....
Humans are animals, too. Simply because we are capable of giving our actions names does not free us from the onus of instinct.
Animals have a choice how to behave, just like humans. I guarantee you that the darkest depravities of the animal kingdom are just as shocking as the depravities of mankind.
But in being the only ones who can, the only ones who can really fight our instincts, makes us the ones that should be taking care of (poor choice of words, sorry) the rest of them.
Now, I'm not saying go hug a snake or anything, but seriously, what the hell is the purpose of sticking a firecracker in a cats ass?
I think we can all agree that it is wrong to be unecessarily cruel to animals, and no one is arguing that we should be shoving firecrackers up cat's asses for the hell of it. If doing above action would somehow save a human life, or seriously help a human being, then I'd do it, but I wouldn't do it for the hell of it.
As the one species that can control nature, do we have some responsibility to help other animals out? Yeah, we likely do. However, we've only agreed on ends, not the means. I say we do our responsibility by keeping the other animals alive. We do it by feeding our livestock and pets, we do it by passing laws to keep endangered species alive. We do it by establishing national parks to preserve habitats. Why do we need to do more?
ChrisWWII wrote:As the one species that can control nature, do we have some responsibility to help other animals out? Yeah, we likely do. However, we've only agreed on ends, not the means. I say we do our responsibility by keeping the other animals alive. We do it by feeding our livestock and pets, we do it by passing laws to keep endangered species alive. We do it by establishing national parks to preserve habitats. Why do we need to do more?
Its not so much taht we need to do more to help them, it's we need to do less that hurts them, me thinks.
I mean, we are starting to get that way, where we won't deforest the planet due to computers and I-pads becoming so popular, it's only going to be 10-20 years until we get those Sci-Fi Computer thingymajigers that you can just type on and everyone carries around. You know, with the holovid touch screen thing that extends to its full length and then goes back in when your not using it.
And also, we need to burn those people that do the aboved mentioned to Dogs for use of Sharkbait.
As the one species that can control nature, do we have some responsibility to help other animals out? Yeah, we likely do. However, we've only agreed on ends, not the means. I say we do our responsibility by keeping the other animals alive. We do it by feeding our livestock and pets, we do it by passing laws to keep endangered species alive. We do it by establishing national parks to preserve habitats. Why do we need to do more?
None of the examples are actually us looking after animals, they are just us reducing the harm we do or righting previous mistakes. Most recent extinctions are due to humans (either because of intentional actions or carelessness) and so passing laws to protect endangered animals isn't us being nice we are just reducing the marm we do, but still causing some harm. Feeding livestock can hardly be called caring, we feed them because it suits us, not through genuine care. National parks are set up to protect habitats- from us. We seem very happy to see our species as one that cares about animals but most of the things we do are just getting us closer to neutral- and we are still a long way to go.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:As far as livestock is concerned, I don't think modern day methods are too barbaric I'm more concerned with what’s in the meat than the life of the animal from whence it came.
I like to stick to "organic meat" as they call it and luckily for me I grew up in a fairly rural part of Minnesota so I know a guy who raises "organic" cattle (he was my shop teacher in high school) so I'm all good.
As for hunting and fishing, it’s all good. Hell, there’s are so many damn deer in Minnesota that if you don’t kill off loads of them every fall they starve in the winter after eating themselves out of house and home as it where.
happydude wrote:
Polonius wrote:I think that the way people treat animals is often indicative of how they treat people. I think that cruelty for it's own sake, or due to negligence, is wrong as living things have an inherent dignity to them. I think that there isn't an animal on earth I wouldn't sacrifice to save the worst human being I know of.
I'm the opposite, I would sooner throw someone in a cage to feed a dog than shoot the dog to feed the person unless they were a loved one.
What if I killed the dog?
Could I eat it?
His eye's say "why?"
If it's for consumption, sure go ahead and eat it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, sorry, animals are not as valuable as people, morally or philosophically. If stampeding the last herd of bison across a minefield would save a human life... tough gak bison, should've evolved thumbs. And by all means, collect up what meat you could and eat it. Of course, artificial constructs are even lower on the totem pole, so if dropping a few dozen rounds of 155 on said minefield is cheaper and easier - go with that.
However ecologically they are much more valuable and with no ecosystem or by harming an ecosystem, you will have no philosophy or morals as the planet degrades into ruin slowly and steadily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
happydude wrote:
Polonius wrote:I'm a humanist. I think that we should be better humans, and thus better to animals, but I feel that humans have simply higher value than animals.
I wish that were the case, however I cannot remember the last time a marmoset shelled a swamp area in order to drive out its residents and drain its resources for a profit margin. I really wish humanity were different though and I really would love to have your mindset as I once did even though I still try to see the good in everyone more often than not it never is so.
Well, if you judge things by their worst, than I haven't seen a human rip the head of her husband after sex. Or cannibalize the young of another. Animals can be bastards to. OTOH they don't create art.
You're right, not after sex. However I doubt that praying mantis had gas chambers, implemented mustard gas or created concentration camps. As far as cannibalization, yeah man I hate to say it but certain tribes will eat the other ( kids and all ) when taking territory over. And as far as art, art is subjective. If you want art nature is the largest and most beautiful canvas that will ever exist. Dali has nothing on the Aurora Borealis, and Van Gogh couldn't capture a true rain forest setting if he tried his hardest. Animals do not screw each other over for a profit margin, and this is what makes us the most worthless beings on the planet. However what makes us unique is that we can also be the best thing that happened to this planet if we so choose however I doubt I will live to see that serenity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to top it all off... no animal aside from humans is responsible for the extinction of so many species needlessly...
Yeah point number two was a bad one. I mean, what's more cruel, shooting an elephant with 400 rounds from a pop gun or blowing its ass in half with a 105mm rocket?
I would NEVER hurt a dog. However; I HAVE swerved to the other side of the road to hit a cat. (I hate cats).
As for the hunting issue:
In this day and age (in 'merica) there is food available EVERYWHERE! The "hunting for food" argument is BS, as the price of ammunition skyrockets and quarry dwindles.
Oh.... I forgot to mention, I HUNT. For Trophys. *yes I DOeat what I kill, and last year I got two eight-pointers and a doe.*
I only take trophy worthy animals, and couldnt tell you how many I have "let walk". I only take a doe on the last day of the season.
Hell, I let six jakes and a hen walk THIS MORNING!
gregor_xenos wrote:I would NEVER hurt a dog. However; I HAVE swerved to the other side of the road to hit a cat. (I hate cats).
As for the hunting issue:
In this day and age (in 'merica) there is food available EVERYWHERE! The "hunting for food" argument is BS, as the price of ammunition skyrockets and quarry dwindles.
Oh.... I forgot to mention, I HUNT. For Trophys. *yes I DOeat what I kill, and last year I got two eight-pointers and a doe.*
I only take trophy worthy animals, and couldnt tell you how many I have "let walk". I only take a doe on the last day of the season.
Hell, I let six jakes and a hen walk THIS MORNING!
You must feel like quite the bad boy swerving to hit a 1 1/2 foot long animal with a vehicle. FLAMING OTHER POSTERS IS AGAINST THE RULES.
gregor_xenos wrote:I would NEVER hurt a dog. However; I HAVE swerved to the other side of the road to hit a cat. (I hate cats).
Wow, so you intentionally try to kill someones pet? That's horrible :S I mean, if I saw someone do that to my cat, I'd search the globe for the guy to personally run him over.
Bakerofish wrote:I love animals...my digestive system REALLY loves animals
I know what you are trying to say. It is a variant of the tasty tasty meat joke. However, your digestive system really does not love animals. Meat eaters have a intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly. Humans have a have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length. Because the meat stays in your system a lot longer than it should, you will have lots of toxins in your body.
You know the whole thing about people who eat a lot of steak and they have large turds? That is because of the build up and how long it takes to get that crap out of you. In addition, while it is sitting in your body, it is getting really disgusting.
Have you ever seen what happens to a piece of meat that stays in the sun for three days? Meat can stay in the warmth of the intestine for at least four days until it is digested. It does nothing but wait for passage. Often, it usually stays there for much longer, traces remaining for up to several months. Colonic therapists always see meat passing through in people who have been vegetarians for several years, thus indicating that meat remains undigested there for a long time.
Your stomach acid isn't the strength it needs to be either. Humans have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater.
The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form.
Now of course, I like a good steak and home made hamburgers or great, but I do limit how much I eat, because honestly we just are not built to eat meat.
I'm glad you posted Gregor_Xenos, as I have to ask, (without any intention of being insulting, as I am genuinly interested) what is the appeal of hunting?
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
4M2A wrote:I'm glad you posted Gregor_Xenos, as I have to ask, (without any intention of being insulting, as I am genuinly interested) what is the appeal of hunting?
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
A true trophy would be if he had the stones to simply use a knife and attempt to take down a nice 8 pointer and succeed.
Lord Scythican wrote: However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
Actually, raw/bloody meat isn't all that bad. It's just not as good because it's harder to put flavorings on it, since it all washes out with the blood.
What? I can't help it some people in my family don't know how to cook.......
Lord Scythican wrote: However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
Actually, raw/bloody meat isn't all that bad. It's just not as good because it's harder to put flavorings on it, since it all washes out with the blood.
What? I can't help it some people in my family don't know how to cook.......
??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
Live raw fish sliced up on shore = yum yum
Whereas living fish on the shore is wrong
If it is good enough for the inuit I am all for it
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
If it tasted good I would eat it the same. Of course I don't like the taste of salmonella...
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
If it tasted good I would eat it the same. Of course I don't like the taste of salmonella...
Red meat is normally fine for that, it is your white meats like chicken and pork that are problematic.
Lord Scythican wrote:??? Ok So if I take out a knife and slice a huge chunk of meat from a live animal and passed it to you, you would eat it like that and not have any problems? Maybe even let it lose it's warmth for that extra pazazz?
There is a difference between a rare steak and raw bloody meat people.
The difference between cutting a chunk from a live animal and killing it then cutting a chunk from it is enormous.
I would eat steak fresh from a cow if it tasted good.
If it tasted good I would eat it the same. Of course I don't like the taste of salmonella...
Red meat is normally fine for that, it is your white meats like chicken and pork that are problematic.
Well since you said normally, I will not call BS. Of course "normally" comes from cooking the outside of the piece of beef. That's why hamburger is suggested to be cooked completly, since the salmonella could be ground up into the inside of the patty.
Steaks can have salmonella too, but this is usually from the meat being tenderized with a fork which pushes the salmonella deep inside. If you sear the outside before tenderizing then you shouldn't have a problem with salmonella.
Well since you said normally, I will not call BS. Of course "normally" comes from cooking the outside of the piece of beef. That's why hamburger is suggested to be cooked completly, since the salmonella could be ground up into the inside of the patty.
Steaks can have salmonella too, but this is usually from the meat being tenderized with a fork which pushes the salmonella deep inside. If you sear the outside before tenderizing then you shouldn't have a problem with salmonella.
If it is fresh from the cow you shouldn't have many issues with salmonella either, with red meat the risk of food poisoning is almost completely in the storage and preparation.
4M2A wrote:I'm glad you posted Gregor_Xenos, as I have to ask, (without any intention of being insulting, as I am genuinly interested) what is the appeal of hunting?
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
There is a bit more skill required in hunting than simply walking into the woods and shooting an animal,knowing how to track and locate your target,staying downwind,getting close enough to make the shot all require skill...
Using a round/weapon that is likely to kill the animal with one shot(also a skill) is,IMO,far more "humane"...
And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...
FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...
Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.
FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...
Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.
FITZZ wrote:And...as I stated previously in this thread,unless your a vegetarian, I see hunting your own meat as less Hypocrytical than having someone else do the killing for you...
Is there really that much sport in cow hunting? It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.
...Never hunted cow...though I imagine it would be quite easy.
My overall point is that I've often heard people with freezers full of processed and packaged meat descibe the act of hunting as "cruel",and this makes me wonder if they fully grasp just where their pot roast and hamburgers came from...or if they somehow belive an animal dying has somehow been removed from the equation simply because they had no part in it.
If I cut into a person and removed an organ, I could be a surgeon, or a sadist. It all depends on the circumstances and the mindset.
A person that hunts for the sport of it, and really just likes the hunt, isn't doing so for food, but there's a primal base feature there that isn't too scary. A person that hunts because he likes to kill is a bit different.
Now, things get interesting because at least where I live hunting is the only thing keeping the deer population at bay. we're the only predator left, so if we don't hunt, the ecological balance is way out of whack.
Either way, hunting isn't the problem. The mass production of livestock for consumption is a bigger problem, IMO.
I appreciate there is more skill than just walking up to it and shooting it but the pride (I assume) is from killing the animal. When hunters talk about hunting they are always focus on the killing than the stalking. The action of killing the animal doesn't really require any skill.
If you want to track an animal there are lots of ways to do that without killing it afterwards.
As I said before I see no problem hunting for food - infact I would prefer the animal to have lived a happy life than stuck on a farm. I just disagree with killing for enjoyment.
Hmm...I don't know if I would say I "enjoy" the act of killing a deer...I mean I certianly don't leap up and do a victory dance or start exchanging high fives with those I hunt with...
But...I do admit to a satisfaction in my ability to put food on the table with the use of my own skills...a certian "pride" that I brought the deer down myself and didn't need anyone else to aquire the meat for me.
sofar as "Filthy Pigs" go... yep, I hunt and eat them too.
BTW: your turban is poking out.
Hope I can answer some questions here:
What is the appeal of hunting?
Stalking, calling, and "clean" kills are alot harder than hunters are given credit for. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to prove my standing as a "top predator" something that many men cannot rightly claim now-a-days. (unless you count killing your fellow man.... seems like the inner city needs a hunting season)
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
Wow.... Consider yourself lucky if you even SEE an animal; and that's after rise at 4 in the morning, take a shower in scen killer, stalk 30+ acres of land *while minding the wind*. If you accomplish all that, and see the "deer" at 200+ yards and manage to kill it with one shot. *youre a marksman first off* That's really satisfing. I hunted every morning of deer season in NC..... I SAW 8. *not counting those caught on a trail-camera.*
And just to stir the pot more:
This afternoon I went back out to the field *turkey hunting* (this one is admittadly easier) and killed a coyote. He was stalking the call I was using. I kill these menaces every time I get a chance. They cut the deer, turkey, livestock, and pet populations around here. *Last deer season a buddy and I got 22!* (BTW... until 4 years ago there was a $3 bounty on them.)
Killing and animal and eating it is entirely different to killing an animal for sport. It's not my thing, I derive no pleasure from killing animals 'for sport', whatever sport there is in using a rifle to shoot an unarmed creature. If a creature needs killing legitimately it's generally because it's threat or food.
I'm against unnecessary cruelty. We eat animals sure, but there's no reason not to make an effort to treat them in some decent fashion. I think that animals that are farmed for food could be treated a lot better in general, I buy free range for the better treatment such animals get before slaughter. They get slaughtered but at least their lives are not a misery stuck in a small pen with hardly any daylight. Even if you have no care for the animal's well being it has to be said that animals that are humanely reared and slaughtered tend to produce a better quality of meat, not only because they use less antibiotics and hormones but also because animals slaughtered in a panicked state produce adrenaline which affects the meat.
Lastly there's research purposes. For medicine it's a necessary evil. Animals will always be placed before human lives, you can't test most drugs on people because the risks are too great, you simply have to reduce the number of drugs that reach the human testing stage because lives are at risk. People who claim that drugs tests can be satisfactorily carried out in petri-dishes on or isolated cells prior to human testing are liars, nothing can replicate the real environment of a living creature unfortunately for all those mice and other creatures subjected to testing.
But medical research is a different thing to cosmetics, cosmetics is an industry I have no interest in supporting in using any form of animal testing.
By for enjoyment I just mean killing for the primary reason of enjoyment.
Feeling pride at doing something yourself isn't really the same as enjoying killing. Your killing to eat, which is no different from buying prepared meat.
I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.
The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.
Well since you said normally, I will not call BS. Of course "normally" comes from cooking the outside of the piece of beef. That's why hamburger is suggested to be cooked completly, since the salmonella could be ground up into the inside of the patty.
Steaks can have salmonella too, but this is usually from the meat being tenderized with a fork which pushes the salmonella deep inside. If you sear the outside before tenderizing then you shouldn't have a problem with salmonella.
If it is fresh from the cow you shouldn't have many issues with salmonella either, with red meat the risk of food poisoning is almost completely in the storage and preparation.
Of course for the better part of society that is "normal" either. If I want beef, it is usually Wal-Mart, Kroger's, or some other supermarket. Society isn't set up so everyone can go get them a slice of fresh cow from their backyard.
4M2A wrote:I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.
The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.
that's an interesting thought, but it's kind of like arguing "you know your wife loves you, why do you need to have sex with her?" Sometimes the visceral thrill is part of the emotion.
Ive had this topic on several different sites and was pretty much shocked and disturbed about peoples reactions to animal cruelty etc. Reactions ranged from 80% Say get over it, 10% think its funny and acceptable and 10% of people are genuineley empathetic.
Now please before we derail me as a "hippy" one of the worst examples of a person who actually cares about something other then pot, I would like to make a couple of points clear.
1. I am not a vegetarian, we are biologically designed to consume meat and I enjoy it too much to quit now. The ethical standards of how that meat was produced is a completely different story and the type of animal is also an issue.
2. I am not against hunting, I used to be until I did some research into why and how it is done, I do beleive however there are still some major ethical issues with the sport, namely the use of assault rifles and other overkill weapons.
3. I believe killing animals to eat is justified as long as it is done ethically and with respect for the animals life in which you are taking. As much of the animal should be used as possible. However things like hunting for trophies or for sport "in otherwords any kind of hunting not involving the need for food" is morally disturbing.
Now onto the actuall topic I was curious as to what people on DakkaDakka think of animal cruelty and rights in general, Id like to know your views before I comment.
I think you'll find, and proven by the many posts here, that what people define as Cruelty will differ from person to person, mostly because anyone can feasibly argue a valid point as to why something is not cruel on almost anything. There will always be exceptions of course, I personally cannot see how anyone could logically justify throwing a cat from a highrise for kicks, for example.
I can ssum up what I view cruelty as quite simply ... anything that causes undo suffering to an animal.
For example.
I don't view slaughtering animals for food as cruelty because animals are kept in decent conditions and killed humanely and their body used to give vital foods and forms a vital part of our diets and industry. (in registered establishments in Britain at least)
I view Hunting for sport as Cruelty because an aminal is actively hunted by a human/dog predator for reasons of sport. The fact they are shot at the end before the dogs get them is completely a mute point.
Of course I understand(and somewhat disagree) that some poeple have counter arguements, such as by denying an animals right to live is classed as cruelty. Or with hunting, is the arguement of overpopulation of a species or the destructive repercussions of the animal in surrounding areas/farm land.
The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.
IMO,it's far more "humane" to use a riffle for hunting than say a bow (though bow hunting does require a bit more skill),I've seen more "prolonged" death to deer due to bad shots with a bow than from a riffle.
I'm not sure what you mean in your statement that killing a deer with a gun doesn't "prove" anything...unless your attempting to some how connect the act of hunting to some sort of "macho posturing".
4M2A wrote:
None of the examples are actually us looking after animals, they are just us reducing the harm we do or righting previous mistakes. Most recent extinctions are due to humans (either because of intentional actions or carelessness) and so passing laws to protect endangered animals isn't us being nice we are just reducing the marm we do, but still causing some harm. Feeding livestock can hardly be called caring, we feed them because it suits us, not through genuine care. National parks are set up to protect habitats- from us. We seem very happy to see our species as one that cares about animals but most of the things we do are just getting us closer to neutral- and we are still a long way to go.
But it IS us looking after animals. It suits us to have healthy, living cows, pigs and chickens to eat, so we feed and shelter them. If that's not caring for them then I don't know what is. Passing laws to try and protect endangered animals is doing a good, it's us being nice and not continuing through with the 'kill everything' idea. The fact that we are going through with these plans shows that we do live in some kind of symbiosis with animals. In exchange for the services they provide for us, be it food, companionship, entertainment, etc. they are either allowed to live their lives as normally as possible, or are actively cared for by humans.
I'd say that whether or not our great balance of caring for animals is still waited heavily negative, it doesn't change the fact that we do care for our animals, even if said care is limited to us NOT wiping them from the face of the Earth.
I'd even say that humanity should not go all the way to help or hurt animals, yes the ones that have been endangered through our actions should be cared for, but extinction existed for millions of years before humanity, and we have to no right to stop it. If anything we should be neutral, trying to let evolution take its natural course as much as possible. Of course, part of evolutions natural course is the existence of a species intelligent enough to direct it, so make of that what you will.
Yes but I was talking about proving you are a top predator. Killing something which isn't a top predator with a very powerful weapon doesn't prove anything. Trying to be a top predator is nothing more than trying to feel macho- which is one of the reason I think it's so stupid.
Melissia wrote:Meh, the animal cruelty I despise the most is probably closer to cruelty to pets and work animals such as horses. Animals raised to eat should be kept in a sanitary environment, though, for the sake of keeping the people eating it healthy.
But then, our beef industry in the US is so fethed up that they sue people for NOT pumping hormones into the cow because they see it as anticompetitive to sell organic beef. Not that chicken is THAT much better, but at least regulations prevent hormones from being used on them.
It's actually a bad idea to feed your kids beef in the U.S., because of all the hormones in them kids will hit puberty sooner, become more aggressive, etc, and in the case of young girls it increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.
4M2A wrote:By for enjoyment I just mean killing for the primary reason of enjoyment.
Feeling pride at doing something yourself isn't really the same as enjoying killing. Your killing to eat, which is no different from buying prepared meat.
I can't stand the idea people kill to give themselves the feeling they are top predator- humans are clearly the top predator it doesn't need any more proof especially not at the cost of something's life. In the end you are putting your enjoyment above the life of an animal.
The fact that it's killing a deer with a gun makes it even harder for me to understand. Seriously if you want to prove your a predator go attack a crocodile with your hand- then you can claim your the top predator. Killing a deer with a gun doesn't prove anything.
I dont kill to eat. I just eat what I kill. (it is soooo much easier to go to the market) no matter what they say ALL hunters enjoy the kill.
About putting my enjoyment above the life of an animal.... yep. They do have better than house odds though. Added to the fact I'm doing the habitat a service.
As for what makes man the top predator, it's the abiltiy to use his brains and "tools" and someone who attacks a croc with his hands only proves he's the "top-idiot"
It's very easy to say "it proves nothing" when youve never tried. Thats like saying "Sex with a woman is Impossible!" just because youve never gotten any. Correct?
4M2A wrote:Yes but I was talking about proving you are a top predator. Killing something which isn't a top predator with a very powerful weapon doesn't prove anything. Trying to be a top predator is nothing more than trying to feel macho- which is one of the reason I think it's so stupid.
As was pointed out, it's very difficult to succesfully hunt. You don't go out just firing randomly and bring back a dozen dead deer. In all honesty, the fact that we're hunting them with a powerful weapon proves we're the top predator. Other animals have to close the range and kill their pray with tooth and claw, humanity has developed ways to kill from a distance, it's part of our nature.
WHen hunters talk about their kills, the fact that they made the kill is part of the inherent respect I have for them. It's not all about macho posturing...it's much more about the inherent skill implied by sucesfully bringing down their prey.
Using a gun doesn't show your a top predator. Your personally didn't do any thinking when it comes to pulling the trigger. Humans as a species developed weapons but that isn't your achievement- you didn't design it.
IMO the tracking is entirely seperate as if it was just about the tracking the killing would be unneccessary. The tracking isn't hurting them- the shooting them is.
Part of why humans are the top predator is our igenuity, and the gun is part of that. Using it is expressing your dominance as the top of the food chain. Saying that using a gun doesn't show you're the top predator is like saying tha a shark using its teeth is disproving its own predatory superiority, it's part of our evolution, what makes us such succesfull predators.
I'd say that part of the reason fro the kill is an expression of the skill it took to track it. It's like with fishing, you can talk all you want about the massive beast you once caught, but I'm not going to believe you until I see it.
I don't know, I used to romanticize a lot of animal cruelty. (read a lot of Hemingway type books)
Dog fighting/racing. I used to not really be concerned about these until I understood them better. Dog fighting is just terrible all the way around, every aspect from breeding to the fight itself takes a noble animal whose only desire is to please its master and be loved into a evil machine.
Dog racing is almost just as bad, I used to like to go to the do races, until I know some people that adopted used racing dogs. These are shattered animals, I have no idea what they do to them, but it must be horrible.
In general I'm a hypocrite, I don't like seeing dogs get hurt because I know dogs, I understand dogs, I love dogs, I own dogs.
Cat fights. I'd probably love to see cat fights because I HATE CATS. People don't take care of their cats, they just buy them and let them go. If you love your cat get it spayed it neutered, there are way too many cats, so I don't think I would have a problem with cat fights. I had a friend when I was growing up that lived on a farm and he would hunt cats with a bow and arrow. I thought it was cruel and gross, but I honestly didn't have a problem with it, I eventually had a problem with him, because he was just a jerk.....go figure. He actually did some very cruel things. He's probably a serial killer now.
Cock fighting/bull fighting. Meh, at least they get to do something before they get turned into food. It's true it's cruel, but I don't know if I consider it any more cruel than wasting your life in a box. At least this way they may get some room to move and fresh air.
Bear baiting. Pretty gross and again dogs, i just don't understand cruelty to dogs at all.
Fox hunting. I don't really have a problem with it.
Horse racing. I love horse racing. I love going to the track with friends and placing a bet here and there, just to make it interesting. I'm sure if I look, I'll have the same issues I have with dog racing.....so i don't look. I don't want to look. I don't really know jack about horses, don't want to.
Hunting. I've hunted, I ate what I hunt. I see what happens when people don't hunt enough. So I don't have a problem. Also there is a lot more to hunting. I don't think there would be too many people that would just go to deers in pens and cap them for fun. Oh I'm sure they are out there they probably work at a meat processing center, but that's not the majority. It's more about the hunting.
Raising animals for food. I think their lot should be improved. I know you are gonna be food, but lets have some dignity. I can understand though, the people that process these animals would have to be callous do what they do day in day out. I'm sure they don't even see them as animals.
Animal testing. Not really sure about this. I mean does this really help? Is it necessary? Someone must think so, but I don't know why? Is a rabbit a real analog to how a human would react? I don't know, but I don't really care.
I'll be honest for the most part I'm willfully ignorant about animal cruelty. I don't kick animals or light cats on fire. If someone did that to my pet, I'd be furious...but I'd also wonder how they got my pet. I feed stray dogs when I travel to other countries because I saw them all the time in Russia and India. One night in Russia, I saw a drunk guy punt one of our stray dogs that lived outside the dorms, I kicked his ass.
So I don't know what that makes me, but that's my view.
I grew up at Turf Paradise Race Track (Phoenix, AZ) until my Mom got seriously injured in an accident. I can say the for those most part, from what I saw the Horses were treated pretty well. Better than the workers for the most part.
But you need to remember this is a more high profile racing sport, and one that requires the animals to be in top notch health to compete, I doubt it has to do much with the good nature attitude of the owners.
There are some instances of abuse no doubt, most involving thing like shockers (a 9vt battery, couple nails and some copper wire) which were used to "convince" the animal to run faster, but given this was considered cheating, was grounds for being banned from the grounds and seen as a poor move by the people in the back, it was a rare thing and cracked down on hard when discovered.
Dog racing is another beast entirely though, my wife did volunteer work at a greyhound rescue for a couple years, if I had the room where I lived I'd adopt some of those dogs in a heart beat, they really are treated like trash.
I think probably the thing that gets me most are breeders and people that buy pure breeds. Go rescue a dog from the shelter. Is your ego so shot that your animal has to be a status symbol! I've always has strays or rescue dogs. They have the least problems because of their lack of inbreeding. Puppy and kitten mills are the worst!
ColdFire wrote:
The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.
Okay, so the Rhino was a bad example. But what if killing a Rhino, taking the horn (and then eating the meat) was seen as a rite of passage by an indigenous tribe? Either way the act is unsustainable (given the endangered nature of some Rhinos, especially the Java Rhinocerous in South-East Asia).
As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.
I already pointed out my typo in that post.
If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.
If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.
Screw Pandas, they seam unworried about the survival of their own species. I mean really Pandas, have some sex would you, the GD things won't even copulate, much less populate. Lazy gits!
4M2A wrote:It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.
What about the enjoyment from eating it?
I mean, if you're going to make a statement that human enjoyment can't be used to justify the killing of an animal, then you're probably going to say that includes not killing an animal for the pleasure of eating it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
4M2A wrote:Murderous yes but animals can't be cruel. This implies they get some pleasure from causing escess harm, which isn't something they understand. It may seem cruel to us but not to them.
Not quite, cruelty requires an indifference to suffering, not necessarily a desire to cause it.
If an animal doesn't get that it is causing suffering because it is not intellectually capable of understanding that, it might absolve it from blame but it doesn't make its action any less cruel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
happydude wrote:You're right, not after sex. However I doubt that praying mantis had gas chambers, implemented mustard gas or created concentration camps. As far as cannibalization, yeah man I hate to say it but certain tribes will eat the other ( kids and all ) when taking territory over. And as far as art, art is subjective. If you want art nature is the largest and most beautiful canvas that will ever exist. Dali has nothing on the Aurora Borealis, and Van Gogh couldn't capture a true rain forest setting if he tried his hardest. Animals do not screw each other over for a profit margin, and this is what makes us the most worthless beings on the planet. However what makes us unique is that we can also be the best thing that happened to this planet if we so choose however I doubt I will live to see that serenity.
You're confusing capability with moral restraint.
Animals are not capable of conceiving of genocide, let alone acting it, but this is only a measure of their intellect, not their morality. Animals also have very limited empathy, and will not limit their actions for the welfare of another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this.
First up, we are biologically meant to eat meat. There's vital proteins that we need that we could't get out of any other source. We can now substitute those proteins thanks to modern science, but for most of human history we needed to eat meat. Those canine teeth are there for a reason.
Second up, I think you're confusing "we weren't to eat this much meat" with "we weren't meant to eat meat". The amount of meat in most people's diets today is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean much smaller amounts of meat
Thirdly, there's nothing saying what we've done historically is how we should act now. Our diets, traditionally, were a product of our limitations, we ate what we could get our hands on, and we didn't have the moral systems built up to ever consider if we should eat any other way. We now have almost complete control over what we choose to eat, and so all that matters is what we most enjoy eating, what is healthiest for us, and what is most ethical. Which, according to each individual, may be no meat, some meat or a whole lot of meat. But what certainly doesn't matter is how much meat we've eaten historically.
Hawkward wrote:
Humans are animals, too. Simply because we are capable of giving our actions names does not free us from the onus of instinct.
Animals have a choice how to behave, just like humans. I guarantee you that the darkest depravities of the animal kingdom are just as shocking as the depravities of mankind.
No they arent, the very fact that we devote so much time and effort into finding new ways to hurt each other is testimony to that. And what about Torture, not so much now but for centuries this was a form of entertainment and oh all the fun little things we invented to peel peoples skin off or gouge out their eyes while keeping them alive, or why not bury them to the chin in sand so that they can slowly die of sun stroke. Though I dont believe we are higher lifeforms we are more "Civilised", comparing the actions of animals is like comparing our moral standards to when we were cavemen beating women over the head to rape them and bear children for us. You just cant compare the two, we have all of this knowledge and understanding but we choose not to use it.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
ColdFire wrote:
The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.
Okay, so the Rhino was a bad example. But what if killing a Rhino, taking the horn (and then eating the meat) was seen as a rite of passage by an indigenous tribe? Either way the act is unsustainable (given the endangered nature of some Rhinos, especially the Java Rhinocerous in South-East Asia).
As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.
I already pointed out my typo in that post.
If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.
If it was a right by indiginous tribes I really have no say in it, I certainly dont agree with it, Indiginous tribes here wiped out almost half of our native animals for food, some pretty spectacular creatures too like Giant Wombats and Kangaroos 3 metres tall. I think if the tribes were willing to listen they should be educated in what will happen if they continue doing what they are doing, if they insist on continuing we would simply have to have the option to relocate a couple of specimens to a zoo for continued breeding. Zoos are excellent, they are a great source of education and will probably be the last bastions of many endangered species. Well, most zoos anyway, some zoos in East Europe are deplorable.
As for the panda thing, sure if its sustainable any animal is game but ONLY if it is sustainable, although Panda's dont have an ideal birth rate to be considered sustainable for mass food production.
Andrew1975 wrote:
If eating Panda meat was not sustainable then I wouldn't eat Panda meat. If it was sustainable then there would be Panda all around.
Screw Pandas, they seam unworried about the survival of their own species. I mean really Pandas, have some sex would you, the GD things won't even copulate, much less populate. Lazy gits!
Im sure your joking but just to be clear, I seriously doubt Pandas realise the situation they're in.
LunaHound wrote:Maybe its just animals doing what their instinct tells them to do , but i like to think they deserve way more praise then we give them credit for.
Loyalty and pack behaviour isn't the same thing as empathy and I say this as a guy who's always had dogs in my life, and thinks they're wonderful.
But there's no point pretending dogs, or any other animals, don't have fundamental intellectual limitations compared to humans. The original issue was whether an animal would reap immense environmental damage for the sake of profit. Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
sebster wrote:Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
I don't think most CEOs understand this either really.
What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human, elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
I personally believe in animal intelligence, its just at a much later stage to us, we didnt start off as perfectly emotionally or mentally developed, many of us still arent and our ability to use technology is a taught skill, if there was noone to teach us to use it we would do a WH40K and revert to technobarbarity. Definately some animals are more developed then others, Crows for example are extremely intelligent. There have been incidences where they are learning to crack nuts by placing them under the wheels of cars stopping at traffic lights and collecting the nuts when the traffic is gone or stops once more. They have learnt that red means stop and green means go.
This innovation is the same kind of thing which got us where we are today, Chimpanzees are innovative as are many apes.
Animals like Cows however show are far lesser degree of intelligence although they really havnt had much to think about, they have been domesticated for thousands of years, their lives consist of eating grass in a paddoch until master takes you to the big noisy building on the hill.
Cows have been forced into admittandtly more comfortable lives "relatively and not all of the time" in exchange for the ability to develop.
Sadly alot of intelligent animals will be wiped out by us due to our indifference, if things keep going the way they are just about the only creatures besides us on this planet will be those who are useful to us or those who can breed fast enough to replenish the numbers we exterminate. Im thinking Rats and Mice and Cockroaches and alll the other things we despise but will never get rid of.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't think most CEOs understand this either really.
In all seriousness, people do fail to live up to ethical standards, but this isn't because we're worse than animals. It's because we've been smart enough to gain the power to change systems in ways that animals never have. No penguin has ever committed mass environmental damage to make his bonus because no penguin has ever been made CEO of BHP. We shouldn't confuse powerlessness with purity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ColdFire wrote:What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human, elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
But to simply have an emotion is not the same thing as having emotional reasoning. Could any of these animals possibly make a complex emotional decision? Could they weigh up two conflicting emotional needs?
I personally believe in animal intelligence, its just at a much later stage to us, we didnt start off as perfectly emotionally or mentally developed, many of us still arent and our ability to use technology is a taught skill, if there was noone to teach us to use it we would do a WH40K and revert to technobarbarity. Definately some animals are more developed then others, Crows for example are extremely intelligent. There have been incidences where they are learning to crack nuts by placing them under the wheels of cars stopping at traffic lights and collecting the nuts when the traffic is gone or stops once more. They have learnt that red means stop and green means go.
This innovation is the same kind of thing which got us where we are today, Chimpanzees are innovative as are many apes.
The examples you show are nothing compared to the intelligence demonstrated among humans.
ColdFire wrote:What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human
Dolphins are easily the most deliberately sadistic and violent animal on the planet, coming up equivalent to the dregs of human society as an average, so yeah...
elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
They're herd animals with brains the size of beachballs, what do you expect?
Sadly alot of intelligent animals will be wiped out by us due to our indifference, if things keep going the way they are just about the only creatures besides us on this planet will be those who are useful to us or those who can breed fast enough to replenish the numbers we exterminate. Im thinking Rats and Mice and Cockroaches and alll the other things we despise but will never get rid of.
Even assuming such a ridiculous premise were plausible, and not just some idle "horror-fantasy", so? So long as we last the few decades left until the estimated point of technology singularity, what does anything's existence matter? The Earth could be a molten wasteland in a few centuries and it would be irrelevant so long as we'd reached that point. What happens to us? Doesn't matter. We either become living gods or create one and die, and either way something better has come about. What does the fate of a bird or whale matter beside that?
Loyalty and pack behaviour is just like empathy. It's animals having a natural desire to stay close and look after one another. It's exactly the same in humans- often there is no rational reason for empathy and helping others we just do it because it's our instinct to do so.
4M2A wrote:Loyalty and pack behaviour is just like empathy. It's animals having a natural desire to stay close and look after one another. It's exactly the same in humans- often there is no rational reason for empathy and helping others we just do it because it's our instinct to do so.
Correct in that empathy is an instinctual mechanism for fostering social behavior in a small group, wrong in assuming that gives it any particular importance in judging something's value. An animal doesn't become important simply because it's a pack or herd animal, nor does such behavior necessitate intelligence of any degree. It is wrong to ascribe any more importance to the opinions and wellbeing of an animal than to those of a lawnmower or computer; which is to say, unless it is your property and you thus have an interest in maintaining it for whatever purpose you have decided it should have, you should not particularly care, though preserving the property of others, or at least not intentionally vandalizing it, should be a matter of best practices; you wouldn't torch your neighbor's car, and you'd probably call the cops if you saw someone else do it, but it wouldn't be any of your business if he smashed it up with a sledgehammer himself (though you might worry about his mental health if he did such).
What importance something holds depends entirely on the individual there are no rules on what should be seen as important. From your explanation it is easy to put a human life below that of an item you own as their life doesn't help you. In this case the importance you give the life depends on how much you empathise with the individual.
My previous point was aimed at the idea that animals don't feel emotions in a similar way to us. While ours are more developed and we have a better understanding of them they are still caused by the same things that cause animals to behave the way they do. We still follow the same instincts as animals just in a more complex way. Many people see the emotion difference as what makes us better than animals- if the diffences are much smaller than we pretend then we really aren't much better than other animals so the superiority we feel is more to do with biased opinions than really being more important.
4M2A wrote:My previous point was aimed at the idea that animals don't feel emotions in a similar way to us. While ours are more developed and we have a better understanding of them they are still caused by the same things that cause animals to behave the way they do. We still follow the same instincts as animals just in a more complex way. Many people see the emotion difference as what makes us better than animals- if the diffences are much smaller than we pretend then we really aren't much better than other animals so the superiority we feel is more to do with biased opinions than really being more important.
"Emotions" are rationalisation for the chemical imbalances we suffer due to various stimulations. For example, if someone jumped out at you in a dark hallway, your immediate reaction would probably be to jump and turn towards the noise, as well as a number of other biological processes (increase of blood going to the muscles and lungs, decrease of blood going to the digestive system, pupils increasing in size to take in more light, etc). It is only afterwards that you can rationalise that reaction and determine you were "scared". At the time you simply reacted.
Emotions are just the words we use to describe the internal effects of an action. Fear is the state caused by a reaction. Animals have these states as much as we do.
Lord Scythican wrote:The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this.
First up, we are biologically meant to eat meat. There's vital proteins that we need that we could't get out of any other source. We can now substitute those proteins thanks to modern science, but for most of human history we needed to eat meat. Those canine teeth are there for a reason.
Second up, I think you're confusing "we weren't to eat this much meat" with "we weren't meant to eat meat". The amount of meat in most people's diets today is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean much smaller amounts of meat.
I think I did pretty much say that in a matter of speaking. More or less my comments were directed to people who think they can eat meat like a carnivore instead of what they are, a omnivore. More than likely you thought I was one of the vegan nuts. I was just pointing out the problems with eating a lot of meat. Maybe my point wasn't clear and I focused too much on the problems with eating too much meat, but I do agree with what you are saying.
The only living creatures I will kill on sight are cockroaches....and mosquitoes. Everything else, like spiders or frogs, that get in the house are scooped up and thrown outside...unless the cat gets to them first then I end up scooping it into a bag with kitty litter a few days later. I stopped eating beef and pork a while ago because it's expensive here and, although tasty, generally I'm not down with killing something just to eat it. Hypocritically though, I still eat chicken and fish. Go figure. Duality of man.
I would never kill or condone the killing of an endangered species, but, where I live deer breed like crazy. If it wasn't for the culture of hunting, for both food and sport, in this area they would be a blight. I have never hit a deer driving, but I've come close more times than I can count. If you are going fast enough hitting a deer can be fatal, I have driven past some bashed up vehicles when a deer wanders onto a highway.
In a way it is our responsibility to hunt deer in this area, as we have eradicated wolves which were their main predator, and every so many years disease runs rampant through them when the population gets too big. A quick death by bullet is a lot better than wasting away to disease IMO.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Even assuming such a ridiculous premise were plausible, and not just some idle "horror-fantasy", so? So long as we last the few decades left until the estimated point of technology singularity, what does anything's existence matter? The Earth could be a molten wasteland in a few centuries and it would be irrelevant so long as we'd reached that point. What happens to us? Doesn't matter. We either become living gods or create one and die, and either way something better has come about. What does the fate of a bird or whale matter beside that?
How is that not a plausible premise, assuming we dont detroy ourselves beforehand I just dont see it happening.
Got this today! 26 lbs 10 inch beard 1.25" spurs. Took it with 3.5" 12ga turkey load.
Ahh well... looks like you bleedin hearts get a break, since the Dakka is crapping on my photobucket right now... I happy just letting you know though! lol
Khornholio wrote:The only living creatures I will kill on sight are cockroaches....and mosquitoes. Everything else, like spiders or frogs, that get in the house are scooped up and thrown outside...unless the cat gets to them first then I end up scooping it into a bag with kitty litter a few days later. I stopped eating beef and pork a while ago because it's expensive here and, although tasty, generally I'm not down with killing something just to eat it. Hypocritically though, I still eat chicken and fish. Go figure. Duality of man.
Well, that's okay, you're just showing some class solidarity. Eat the gak out of chicken whenever you can though, because chickens are birds, and birds used to be dinosaurs, and dinosaurs used to eat people all the time (or so hollywood leads me to believe).
ChrisWWII wrote:if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.
I can't think of one reason where that would be necessary. I mean what are we talking about here? The possibility of one person needing only Panda meat to sustain himself or he will die?
I think it's a hypothetical situation, meant to illustrate a point: that human life is worth more than animal life.
You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater (we can't wreck our own ecosystem), but something like Pandas, while adorable and neat, aren't really critical to the stability of the biosphere.
True. I was only mentioning ecological balance to show the upper end of what I'd gladly hand over for humans. You couldn't, say, kill all polinating insects to save human life: the cost outweighs the benefit.
But on the whole, any burdern borne by animals that improves human life is more or less ok with me.
Melissia wrote:I wouldn't. I'd tell him to get his fat ass on a diet.
I was majing the assumption that the one human is on the verge of starving to death, and the only available food is the worlds panda population. Saying he should 'get his fat ass on a diet' is saying, "Yeah, we could save you life. But we're not gonna. Sorry."
As Polonious said, it's a hypothetical situation that illustrates that, from my POV at least, in general, animal lives are less valuable than human lives. As was explained there are exceptions (the world's supply of pollinating insects being one), but if it's a human life versus a panda, the pandas going down. If it's a human life versus the continued viability of civiilization as we know it....well, then the human may have to take one for the team.
Melissia wrote:I wouldn't. I'd tell him to get his fat ass on a diet.
I was majing the assumption that the one human is on the verge of starving to death, and the only available food is the worlds panda population. Saying he should 'get his fat ass on a diet' is saying, "Yeah, we could save you life. But we're not gonna. Sorry."
As Polonious said, it's a hypothetical situation that illustrates that, from my POV at least, in general, animal lives are less valuable than human lives. As was explained there are exceptions (the world's supply of pollinating insects being one), but if it's a human life versus a panda, the pandas going down. If it's a human life versus the continued viability of civiilization as we know it....well, then the human may have to take one for the team.
He would have to be a giant fat ass though to eat the entire panda population by himself though!
I don't think it's right to abuse animals, but I have to come down close to ChrisWWII. I would let a lot of animals die before I would let a person die. People are just on a different level of importance than animals.
gregor_xenos wrote:
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
This is why scientifically speaking bow/blackpowder hunters have on average much larger balls than those hunters armed with semi automatic rifles and shotguns.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:This is why scientifically speaking bow/blackpowder hunters have on average much larger balls than those hunters armed with semi automatic rifles and shotguns.
I don't know about other state's laws but in Illinois you can't hunt with rifles and shotgun season is only one week a year. Does that say something about the men in IL
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
Try tracking and finding the animal first. Even then try to get a good shot on one. It's a lot harder to shoot a deer than "hey dear!" BLAM!
LunaHound wrote:Maybe its just animals doing what their instinct tells them to do , but i like to think they deserve way more praise then we give them credit for.
Loyalty and pack behaviour isn't the same thing as empathy and I say this as a guy who's always had dogs in my life, and thinks they're wonderful.
Elephants and other intelligent animals have been shown to display human-level empathy. Elephants, in particular, are known for this amongst researchers; they display recognizable grief, for example, should their child be brought down, and many great apes have shown to have emotional development roughly the equivalent of humans, engaging with those people they "like" (not recognize, like; captive apes have been proven to show preferences between their handlers) and treating them differently according to preference.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:This is why scientifically speaking bow/blackpowder hunters have on average much larger balls than those hunters armed with semi automatic rifles and shotguns.
I don't know about other state's laws but in Illinois you can't hunt with rifles and shotgun season is only one week a year. Does that say something about the men in IL
No... it says something about the animal population, versus hunter population and includes incroaching housing/industry. BTW if the hunters that I know from IL are any indicator, you need a year round deer season. These guys just cant shoot.
On an aside... the quote that was attributed to me above wasnt actually mine. I LOVE hunting with guns. And Bows. And traps. I would hunt with Claymores (not the sword.... wait.... hell, the sword too) if it was legal.
Evil Overlord List #46: If an advisor says to me "My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?", I will reply "This," and kill the advisor.
ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:I don't think it's right to abuse animals, but I have to come down close to ChrisWWII. I would let a lot of animals die before I would let a person die. People are just on a different level of importance than animals.
No we arent, we only think we are because we are a part of the human race, humans are fascinating and a natural marvel but in terms of ecological importance we are one of the most unimportant beings on this planet. Our damage to the planet outweighs our ecological niche and the planet would be far better off if we werent here. We are extremely unimportant, if all the pollinating insects in the world died tommorow the worlds plant life would be severely affected and a great deal of our oxygen production would dissapear, insects in general are vital to just about every food chain on the planet, even the humble worm serves a greater importance then our self glorifying species.
Bromsy wrote:
4M2A wrote:Neither is 1 person
One person has vastly more potential to affect the world at large than almost any number of animals.
This has been true in the past but is not true in practice, what you really mean is one person with just the right amount of intelliegence, charisma, skill, connections, motivation and luck has the potential to affect the world at large. And then there is the nature of their effect, Hitler killed millions of our own species and instigated a war which ravaged Europe, the Pacific, Africa and many other areas of the world with problematic consequences still felt today. He did affect the world though, for the better I dont think so.
In history the amount of people who genuinely affect the world are less then a percent of our population and even less had positive affects.
We cant just bogart exemplarary people from our history and hold them up as the average human, the truth is the majority of humans will serve in menial jobs with no willingness to affect the world in a positive way.
micahaphone wrote:As testing on grown human skin cells and what not is more accurate, cheaper, and more humane, in most cases animal testing is unnecessary.
I beg to differ. Whilst alternate techniques have been (and continue to be) developed, they still do not provide, in many cases, all the data that is required. A lot of tests can be done using them, but there are still those which require animal and human testing.
I would also like to point out that animal testing controls are some of the strictest controls in the world (in the UK at least) and you don't get permission to do it willy nilly.
micahaphone wrote:As testing on grown human skin cells and what not is more accurate, cheaper, and more humane, in most cases animal testing is unnecessary.
I also beg to differ:
1) Animal testing has saved thousands upon thousands of human lives over the years.
2) Human skin testing can only go so far, sometimes you need a full body to test the effects of a certain drug. Human skin cells might be perfect for cosmetic testing though.
