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.

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.

Hawkward wrote:

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...

If it's for food, who cares?

But anything other then that I despise. Offcourse, the species involved greatly influences my oppinion of the matter.

For instance, I care more about pigs then cows, cause pigs are awesome pets.

I'm a meat lover though, a day without meat is day wasted.

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.......

I like red meat...

Slarg232 wrote:

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.......

Raw beef is pretty good if it is high quality.

??? 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.

Steak Tartare anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare

The meat wouldn't be bloody since it should be hung for a while.

Personally, I wouldn't eat meat raw but I have been known to have the odd piece of raw tuna in Sushi.

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.

corpsesarefun wrote:

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

happydude wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

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

corpsesarefun wrote:

happydude wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

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

corpsesarefun wrote:

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:

corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

Lord Scythican wrote:

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...