Wombat killing.

Post Reply New Topic

Stoning an animal (wombats, goats, humans...) to death is not okay in any context and should not be allowed.

If people need to kill an animal (not humans or close relatives) to feed the family, they should do so in as humane a way as possible.

Inhumane methods are unacceptable no matter what. Cultures need to ditch the unhealthy stuff from the past and celebrate the good.

Common sense. When there’s none to be found...that’s what laws are for.

Who decides what's humane?
Is stoning a wild animal less humane than incarcerating an animal for all its life, before killing it 'humanely'?

I'm not a total cultural relativist, but I am struggling with making prescriptions in fields where I think what we condone is so far off from what's morally right.

When it comes to animal welfare, we're hypocrites.

That said: hunting an endangered species should be illegal, no matter who or how.
We need to reign in and tame the wild beast that we call 'culture'.

Stoning an animal to death is prolonged and painful. There are faster and less painful ways to kill an animal. We all know this. It’s not rocket science.

Which would you prefer for your own death: being stoned to death or killed with one bullet almost instantaneously? (Who wants to start abiding by the Old Testament? We could all formulate petitions to get our prospective governments to enforce such punishments. I doubt we’d get many to sign said petitions. )

Obviously, killing endangered species is wrong but that’s not the issue at hand.

Its so nice to see you taking an intrest in the humble wombat Pepe.Quite touching.

Its a post-colonial, intersectional, multicultural, ecological, conundrum.

Do you take a stance, or does your interest more lie in watching the debate unfold?

Wombats are adorable, I am sad to learn they are being harmed.

Sure there are less painful ways to kill animals, there are also less awful ways to keep animals than mass incarceration, which is what we consider okay.

I'm not sure if I'd prefer living as animal in an animal concentration camp, and get killed quick and simple, or prefer to live in the wild and get tortured to death for half an hour or so.

I'm saying: stoning is inhumane and cruel AND we're hypocrites.

I’ve never said that that was okay but just because that occurs it doesn’t mean that stoning is okay, either.

I guess we agree, then.

But that doesn't really solve the question of whether we're in a position to tell someone else how to ethically treat animals.
Considering the scale of mistreatment, one could argue that THEY have good reason to tell us that our culturally accepted practices of animal husbandry are ethically unacceptable, and that we need to change our culture.
No more cheap meat, then.

But there is a law in place against that. They are just using a loophole to get away with it, which is wrong.

The majority of the population would probably agree that the practice is wrong which explains why there is a law in the first place.

Parents who don’t get their children appropriate medical care due to religious beliefs are often charged with neglect (if not worse things if the child dies).

Both stoning and inhumane treatment of animals on mass farms are both wrong. Just because one group does something wrong, it doesn’t make the other okay. It’s not logical.

You're completely right, but the argument is one of laws of one culture against practice if another. Should one culture be in the position to tell another what to do and what not to do?

I am a very emotional person when it comes to animal cruelty,
(Moreso when I ingest caffeine. )
It took me a little while to stop fuming at the sadistic joy that kent, err, I mean South Australian aboriginal police officer took in cruelly killing a defenceless animal.
In Australia, we provide food to our police force through their salary package, btw.

A question to the aboriginal community:
Is the sadism manifested by this sociopath reflected in aboriginal cultural values?
I would be very surprised if it were.

This creature will get off scot-free,
Because he is aboriginal.
He will stay in the South Australian police force,
Because he is aboriginal.

As a "privileged white kent" (this is how I have been described in one unfortunate interchange years ago),
I have criticised an aboriginal person.
I'm a wery, wery bad man as a result.

Whatever happened to judging a person's character regardless of the colour of his/her skin?
I sometimes wonder where inequality actually lies.

Autistic people tend to have a great affinity with wildlife.
I am no exception.
On the other hand,
I think humanity, collectively as a species, was a very unfortunate evolutionary development.
I am not the only autistic person to have said this.

Anyway,
Enough of my emotional indulgence.
Sanctimony is not my style.
<Pepe puts his pre-frontal cortex back in place>

Enjoy the footage which I haven't watched and haven't provided yet, if at all.
It will be on the internet, of course, if you wish to pollute your mind with those images.

Last edited by Pepe on 08 Dec 2019, 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That person took joy in killing a defenceless animal for a prolonged period of time.
I doubt that the sadistic nature of the killing is actually part of aboriginal culture.

Killing for food is one thing.
Torturing an animal for the "bloodlust" enjoyment is another.
I think it is rather binary here.

Beating children with rods is part of some religious cultures’ values when it comes to child rearing. Am I going to respect that cultural more?

Hell no! I’m calling children’s services if I witness it happening.

With that being said, some aboriginal people are probably horrified that this person is currently casting a negative shadow on their culture as a whole.

Intentionally inflicting pain, especially prolonged pain, on animals (including wombats and children) is not okay.

Of course we should.

If we had a culture in our country with a rich and longstanding tradition of cannibalism, should we respect that cultural heritage, step back, and say: “Who are we to tell another group what they should or shouldn’t do?”

If another culture were to practice cannibalism, but mine actually, in practice, values human life, it would be fair to tell them to stop it.

But this about animals, and we do not, in practice, care about animals.

Let me make it a bit more neutral, so personal values don't get in the way:
Culture 1 is practicing yoga,
Culture 2 is practicing pilates.
Culture 1 tells Culture 2: "stop doing Yoga, that's against our values!"
Culture 2 would answer: "but you are doing pilates! This isn't about values, you just don't want us to do Yoga."