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.
2012/11/17 21:24:55
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Did you read that article? It states pretty obviously in rigourus testing that
Bereaved baboons showed an increase in stress hormones and increased levels of social grooming: very similar responses to humans. "This kind of evidence is more compelling," says Semple. "It's rigorous and scientific. It allows us to speculate on what they are feeling or not."
It also says,
Being cautions about conflating animal and human emotions doesn't mean assuming the absence of emotions.
While it does say that more testing is needed to fully comprehend the depth of animal emotions, it also says
In the absence of certainty about what exactly animal emotions are, we should behave towards animals as if they do share emotions.
All of which suggests that investigating what exactly animals are feeling is one of the most pressing areas of contemporary research.
Of course I read it.
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
2012/11/17 21:26:29
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Are said bristles used in Sable/Kolinskiy brushes and/or others:
A. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose (caged)
B. From animals that have been bred specifcally for that purpose ("run free")
C. Dead animals that were...well dead anyway
D. Animals that shed hair relatively naturally and live a "good" life (i.e. are either captive or run free but hair is collected/groomed from them)
E. Something else I'm missing.
Just an FYI from my point of view as I know little about this.
Thanks.
No, not really (on any count).
Most the big brush manufacturers use bristles from live animals - sometimes farmed...sometimes wild caught. At least one manufacturer (if I cared enough, I would look - but I have forgotten the name and only recall the gimick) uses naturally shed fibers. Some manufacturers will use animals which are killed for fur purposes (or meat, or some other reason for natural fibers other than sable).
Generally speaking, fur farms take good care of their animals. Blemishes and scars reduce the value of the pelt and a poor diet leads to poor quality hides and fibers. Back home there were three commercial furriers relatively close to my house and I actually saw the processing up close and personal. I have never seen an animal skinned alive as a lot of the animal rights groups claim. Normally the animals are dispatched quickly with a snap of the neck and then skinned on a skinning board before the blood has a chance to pool and damage the skin. The same methods are used to kill rabbits for food and fur use as well as many other small animals.
The mere concept that you would attempt to skin a fur animal while the heart is still beating is simply slowed. A stained pelt is a worthless pelt, not to mention the technical difficulties of attempting to do the task to an animal that is "suffering".
2012/11/17 21:31:27
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants and the only animal to have sex for pleasure; other than Humans are Dolphins.
Both of which are very "human" things. Apparently. That no other species does, as they lack the capacity to do so.
Oh, wait...
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2012/11/17 21:32:34
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
I read it. I even quoted the last statement. It also dangerous to state that they don't feel the same emotions you are trying to say they don't. All the article is saying is that there is not enough evidence either way to conclude decively one way or the other.
Jesus man change your tampon and drive on - darefsky
In the grim darkness of the far future something will shoot your dog. - schadenfreude
And saying you have the manliest tau or eldar tank is like saying you have the world's manliest Prius. I mean yeah, it's fast and all, but it's a friggin PRIUS. - MrMoustaffa
2012/11/17 21:34:33
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Ratius wrote: Good post Sean, I hope no one was advocating live skinning and interesting to hear your first hand experiences.
No - just a common claim I hear from a lot of animal rights groups. As I said though, attempting to skin a live animal for fur would not be a very productive task. Even if you could - the pelt would be ruined in the process and the task would have no commercial value (which is the goal of furriers after all).
2012/11/17 21:34:49
Subject: Re:GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
The real issue, he thinks, is not any dispute about the existence of animal emotions but more a matter of establishing what exactly it is animals might be feeling and what those emotions are.
That says to me, animals feel emotions, but we are not exactly sure what they are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/17 21:37:17
Jesus man change your tampon and drive on - darefsky
In the grim darkness of the far future something will shoot your dog. - schadenfreude
And saying you have the manliest tau or eldar tank is like saying you have the world's manliest Prius. I mean yeah, it's fast and all, but it's a friggin PRIUS. - MrMoustaffa
2012/11/17 21:39:37
Subject: Re:GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants
Forgive me but what is your definition of "War"?
Ants fight over territory or recourses, so do Humans but so do several animal groups.
Saying that they "make war" is no different to Lion pride attacking a Hyena pride for food/territory/resources or a water well. Its not "fighting against themselves" - its a Darwinian driven drive to thrive - whether other Ants or the local Centipedes are in their path, matters not.
Can you back up the Ant theory emirically?
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
"Feelin' goods, good enough".
2012/11/17 21:39:47
Subject: Re:GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Lead Farmer wrote: As a person who keeps hens for eggs as a way to reduce animal cruelty in a very real way, I hate these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it. The don't eat anything. Killing these things reduces animal cruelty. This whole group of animals is sadistic.
Horse gak.
Weasels, foxes, chimpanzees, marmots, prawns, beluga whales, sea anemones, dogs, humming birds and, oh yeah, every other species on the face of the earth are incapable of sadism. It's entirely a human quality.
If your chicken coop isn't critter proof, you need to improve it. We, as a species, can journey to the moon, split the atom and clone life and you're telling me you get outsmarted by a weasel?
Chicken wire and a concrete floor... My auntie keeps chickens, rescued battery hens, had them for years. They free run in the days and live in the coop at night. She's never lost one to a fox or stoat or weasel. She built her coops to be impregnable.
The coop has since been improved after two exterminations four years apart and is now predator proof. However the most likely conclusion is that the birds were killed simply because the creature wanted to, It didn't eat anything, store them for later, or gain anything as far as I can tell. Why would you think humans are an anomaly that are unique in experiencing emotions, similar to ours or not.
Fully Painted Points Total since 01/01/10
Orks: 369
Trollbloods: 34
2012/11/17 21:42:28
Subject: Re:GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants
Forgive me but what is your definition of "War"?
Ants fight over territory or recourses, so do Humans but so do several animal groups.
Saying that they "make war" is no different to Lion pride attacking a Hyena pride for food/territory/resources or a water well. Its not "fighting against themselves" - its a Darwinian driven drive to thrive - whether other Ants or the local Centipedes are in their path, matters not.
these kinds of animals as they will frequently break into the chicken coop and slaughter all the birds for no other reason but the pure joy of it.
Uhm, you are really ascribing Human-motivations to an non-Anthropomorphistic (allowable as a word?) group.
You might percieve the culprits as having Human-esque emotions but I'd wager (pretty heavily) they have none - its simply nature acting on nature.
I cant take those links as empirically proven or valid Im afraid Grim - they are intesresting but nothing short of unscientific and "pop cultured" Im afraid - thats not being harsh to you, just I'd prefer a peer reviewed journal or scientific study to prove that as you said "Ants make War"
They do not imho, they simply do as most other animal groups do, they look for food/terriroty/rescourses - as most animals do.
Human "War" can involve ideology/religion/hatred and the factors above - animals do not - no Lion wars over his belief in God
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/17 21:48:55
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
"Feelin' goods, good enough".
2012/11/17 21:55:14
Subject: Re:GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
There is no requirement for "war" to be over ideological lines... Natural resources and social reasons are just as valid and are motivators in the animal kingdom.
While scientists don't have all the facts, experts with much more experience than everyone on dakkadakka have evidence to directly refute many of the claims maid on the lack of animal emotions, and ability to wage war. There is almost do difference between humans and chimps so this idea that we are somehow unique in our ability to do things equated as "evil" and such isn't supported by science, just dogma of artificial walls between man and beast.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
2012/11/17 22:09:24
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Did you not read the closing statement? Read the last two paragraphs, it's what I've been saying in the thread, we cannot ascribe human emotive responses to animal behaviors. The risk in accusing an animal of being guilty of 'sadism' or 'starting a war' is dangerous.
Ignoring the fact that, just off the top of my head, the only other species that makes war with its own kind; other than Humans are Ants and the only animal to have sex for pleasure; other than Humans are Dolphins.
Both of which are very "human" things. Apparently. That no other species does, as they lack the capacity to do so.
Oh, wait...
Coral colonies also wage war on each other.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/11/17 22:22:26
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
There is no requirement for "war" to be over ideological lines... Natural resources and social reasons are just as valid and are motivators in the animal kingdom.
While scientists don't have all the facts, experts with much more experience than everyone on dakkadakka have evidence to directly refute many of the claims maid on the lack of animal emotions, and ability to wage war. There is almost do difference between humans and chimps so this idea that we are somehow unique in our ability to do things equated as "evil" and such isn't supported by science, just dogma of artificial walls between man and beast.
Interesting stuff, worth some rumination.
However I will reiterate the original supposition that War is:
A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
War is an organized, armed, and, often, a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.[1][2] War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war (and other violence) is usually called peace.
(Ripped from dict and Wiki, I know - hardly empirical - which I asked for - granted )
However, the point that animal groups cannot wage said definition due to lack of nations etc. (as we define them - if you define Ant colonies as such, then we anthroprophise them (help us out there Dogma), ) hence the point cannot hold.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lets define "War" first before we continue, would that be fair?
Or else use another term for when non - Humanoids fight each other?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/17 22:25:10
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
"Feelin' goods, good enough".
2012/11/17 22:37:25
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Some is taken from live animals, some (i suspect most) comes from animals trapped and killed (often they would be killed to remove the pest anyway)
Some brushes labled as Kolinsky sable will contain hair from other animals either in whole or in part, possibly farmed, possibly wild. This is most likely to happen in no-brand brushes, or from very large manufacturers where they buy in hair from a wide variey of souces
This is exactly why I am not automatically buying that the whole distinction between this (cruel) hair and that (less cruel) hair is the complete and undisputed truth.
We are talking about Russia (and China) here, and $$$ are involved. They will spin it any which way they can to get their desired results, so if the label "pest" achieves this, then great! In Siberia where hardly anybody lives... a pest to who? Normally in areas not or barely populated by humans nature regulates itself. It is only us who declares anything a pest (to us). I need to hear/read more about that first. Are we sure the Russian fur/hair dealers aren't just saying whatever is convenient to them? If that is what you need to say to sell your stuff then of course these are caught in the wild!
And where are these brushes made, does anybody know? Could that be China, where labels of components & ingredients are forged on a scale we can't imagine in the West? Does GW (and other such companies) even know/want to know?
I do admit that the contributions of the three or four posters in this thread who have explained this difference in nature have swayed me somewhat, again if in fact this whole distinction between farmed and caught in the wild and "pest" story is true, but given the whole nature of this business I am not inclined to trust it just yet. There is a lot of shadyness.
I think 7.1 million Serbians would disagree with the whole, "where hardly anybody lives" part.
Jesus man change your tampon and drive on - darefsky
In the grim darkness of the far future something will shoot your dog. - schadenfreude
And saying you have the manliest tau or eldar tank is like saying you have the world's manliest Prius. I mean yeah, it's fast and all, but it's a friggin PRIUS. - MrMoustaffa
2012/11/17 22:45:57
Subject: GW contributes to unnecessary animal cruelty
Kanluwen wrote: How about explaining why this is an issue...?
Because animal cruelty is a HUGE issue to a lot of people?
No, I get that.
Explain how (Kolinsky) Sable hair brushes contribute to animal cruelty.
Do I really have to explain this
Those animals are bred, stuffed together in small cages before getting electrocuted and skinned. All the while there are synthetic alternatives, making it completely unnecessary.
Yeah, you kinda do.
Not everyone is aware of what Kolinsky Sable hair comes from, nor the fact that it comes from an animal which does not "farm" well.
If you want to raise awareness, it helps to explain things better than you did.
So basically...
>Dives into this thread, inquests OP for the purpose of thread a couple of times.
>Eventually you realized what OP said was a fact, only you didn't know about it prior.
>Would expect google to be used after the first post.
Quoting specifically from your friend,
You're here, so your internet can't be 'broken'...
Since when are people always the ones that have to explain things to you when you can google before you speak?
Who ever said this thread need to raise awareness to start? is it to do with the anecdote "since I don't know what sable hair is, Im sure no one else in thread does!" ???.
Maybe very silly, but couldn't they simply make (smaller) brushes out of human hair? Barbershops and the needy could make an extra buck, and it would be for a good cause too
Is it not considered usable? Anybody happen to know?
