Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey all.

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.

That's about all I have to say.

Good luck Coldfire. History shows that anything to do with animal welfare degenerates swiftly on Dakka.*

Not hunted but used to fish, am a vegetarian but pretty much what MGS said goes for me too.

My younger bro breeds pigs, chickens and geese on his small holding. They have a good life before going to the abattoir.

Right I'm off before I get accused of being on my high horse and the poor thing gets cudgelled with cruel abandon and put in a pie.

*edit: cf above post as if to prove my point.
Thank you for the degenerate illustration

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.

FITZZ pretty much covered what I wanted to say.

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.

I'm not starving....and animals still taste great!

Yummy yummy animals.

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.

Yea...if god didnt want people to kill and eat animals....

....he wouldnt have made them taste so good.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:

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.

I'm of the opinion that if God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of tasty, tasty meat.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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

Vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D41NYBHkb9M

Animal Cruelty is wrong, humane slaughtering/game hunting is a natural and effective way to provide meat. Poachers give hunters a bad name.

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.

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.

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.

What if I killed the dog?

Could I eat it?



His eye's say "why?"

OK Now I have a little insight.

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.

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.

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.

Hunting for food seems to me, if anything, less cruel than raising animals for slaughter.

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.