How should animal cruelty be dealt with?

Post Reply New Topic

Now to find those humane slaughter houses I'm sure they exisit.....

Or anxiety induced psychosis I've found sadly

Thank god for medication even if it's tested on animals

Huh?Just for suggesting counseling??And I have no idea if God exists,they say he(she?)knows when a sparrow falls.I'm sure the ones I feed in my yard like me well enough.Anyway,people do get fined for leaving dogs in hot cars with the windows up.It only takes a few mnts to cook your dog here.

I find unnecessary cruelty to animals disgusting and I hardly advocate being cruel to sentient beasts. I am merely wondering why the government should intervene in such matters with armed force. Government are for keeping the peace in the land, not for imposing morality on people.

ruveyn

^^^I didn't say anything about armed force,but I'd like to shoot the person in the foot that starved two horses to death here.Even after he was reported by several people.But that's just me.If he couldn't even care for those horses,heaven help any child he sires.

all cruelty to animals is unnecessary. what examples can you cite that are a proponent to the notion of "necessary" cruelty to animals?



what dost constitute a "beast".
what is sentience and....
which label matters least?


"merely" was the starring word in this paragraph in my mental appraisal.

i think that even simple animals who fear death like i do are as concerned about their preservation of life as i am.

i will take any action that i must to stay alive. so do many other animal species. every life of every animal is worth as much as mine. no more and no less.

i try to protect vulnerable things. i find your attitude to be very corroded.

They do, thanks in part to Dr. Temple Grandin. She loves animals and has made it her mission to make their slaughter as stress-less as possible.

We really are omnivores and we really did evolve eating animals/fish/eggs as well as plants. But cruelty is unjustified and never necessary. Cruelty comes from a lack of regard for the suffering of the animals and is not inherent in either hunting or farming. Traditional hunters knew this and thanked the animal for its' sacrifice. Dr. Grandin knows this and has devised ways to make the process much less stressful for the animals.

I believe in living in harmony with nature. I do not think veganism is an example of this because it is not in harmony with our bodies as they evolved. But neither is cruelty. Cruelty can be and must be avoided. Dr. Grandin is a leader in that.

http://www.grandin.com/

her web page^^^^

I voted for community service/banned from pet ownership/fine.

Ideally I'd like to repeatedly punch the offender where it hurts most and throw them off a bridge, but I'm rational.

Do you think you (or any one else for that matter) has the right to be an anti-animal abuse vigilante?

The only animals whose protection you have a standing for are animals that you own, i.e. your property.

ruveyn

whatever method works to instill in them that torturing animals, and not being conflicted with its suffering, will increase the likelihood that they'll hurt another human being, and again, not be conflicted with its suffering.

It is no coincidence that animal cruelty in the Muslim world is accompanied by immense amounts of human cruelty.

how can you prepare such detailed models based on nothing but an indeterminate and indistinct premise relating to "1% of people i talk to"

well i talk to only 3 people who i know well enough to discuss the matter of eating meat with.
i talk to about 20 other people (various shop cashiers), and i am not inclined to deviate from the primary exercise of obtaining my goods, and so auxiliary conversation is never required.

so 1% of 3 people is 3/100th's of a person, and considering an average steak eater eats 2 steaks per week, then only a 6/100th of a steak would be saved every week if i convinced 1% of my friends to not eat steak. i do not think that your intention was to portray what i just said.

-----
on the other hand, i could assume you mean if i talk to the whole worlds population and only convince 1% of them to "reduce" (another fuzzy term) their meat intake, then.... well etc.

i was going to end my post with my previous sentence, but i decided to add a bit more.

i will go roughly through my summary appraisal.
if 20% of the worlds population eats meat, then 7 billion*.2= 1.4 billion meat eaters
so i only need to talk to 1.4 billion and not 7.x billion people.
if i manage to convince 1% of them to not eat meat, then there would be 14 million less meat eaters in the world.

i am not a convincing or innervating person, so i remain only a witness to that which i, in principle am antagonistic toward.

you see things through your jaded and antiquated point of view. i am not an hysterical animal liberationist that would take it upon myself to "free" all the rats in a laboratory so they can be faced with starvation and disorientation for the short rest of their lives.



i will try to protect any animal that i see that is being treated cruelly, and i do not need to be "allowed" to help the animal by any human authority. you may be smart, but it is in all the wrong ways.


no animal could be my "property". you are so 1800's. i will splash out and say "lol".

Interesting theory.

I wonder if there is an analogous relationship between KFC-run factory slaughterhouses and guantanamo bay. Quite possibly.

I'm kind of with ruveyn, what is our concern? Animals are not a member of our tribe. They are not really members of an allied tribe. Animals within human society are more similar to trees, stones, or property than they are to any moral agent. I mean, maybe we're best off mitigating the problems of the consciences of certain people with certain mild laws about the matter, wrist-slaps to say that "we're doing something" and to recognize certain sentiments, but these sentiments are inconsistent(ever wonder why dogs get all of the love and pigs get slaughtered?), when made consistent they're much harder to make coherent with good human functioning.(whatever you want to say about veganism, it is generally true that it is a very restrictive diet, one that undermines our cultural cuisines, and one that makes nutrition more difficult given that animal and animal products are the best source of complete proteins and the most efficient in terms of prot/calorie and prot/qty. Broccoli may have 1 gram prot/10 calories, but each calorie requires a LOT of broccoli.)

And so what is the point? Is it really that much worse to punch a dog than it is to slaughter a pig? Maybe one may say that the pig slaughter requires a thousand absolutions, but the issue remains that both veganism is strictly viable but also highly undesirable(we'll kill a lot of our food culture, and it's difficult), so it seems like people just want to have some weird middle ground where they can have their pig and eat it too.

Well is it worse to slaughter a dog for food than punch a pig?

Punching a pig, unless they are trying to mount or attack you, is pointless. So yes you can say it is worse IMO.

The real question is it worse to slaughter a pig for for or a dog for food. Both can be smart, generally dogs are smarter, but some breeds of dog are not so smart. They also help us with a number of tasks (domestic cats on the other hand are not so useful).

Probably the most intelligent animal we eat (excluding bush meat apes), is octopus.

Bravo! A palpable hit!