Do we ignore animal cruelty to suit us?

It wasn't me!

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Well in all fairness if they don't hunt and murder animals then they more thank likely are!

archer22 wrote: »

Well given that you run around looking for things to kill...I would say that you dont give a jot about animal welfare...nothing against you hunting to eat (even if it is by choice not need).But please dont insult our intelligence by claiming to be concerned about their welfare.

As another hunter, I'd like to stick my oar in and call bull**** on me not caring about animal welfare. If I didn't care, I'd never be upset at seeing populations starve in winter conditions without forage, or at a shot that doesn't result in a quick kill. I'd never bother my arse hunting all day for a wounded animal in order to effect a humane finish. I'd just shoot anything, rather than selecting older animals, or weaker animals. I wouldn't look for signs of nursing females and avoid shooting deer with young at heel. If I didn't care, hunting would be a lot simpler and, without the emotional investment, a lot less worthwhile. Those who don't do it will never know what it is. Those who do will never need to voice it to one another.

Oranage2

I think pigs are potrayed too much are a dirty ugly stupid animal who loves to roll around in its own crap

But look how smart they are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrkIVsYuX4E

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

-Trek- wrote: »

I don't know, I haven't asked one. But its not like they are getting a choice in the matter anyway, but if it were you and me in that situation I think we might express some concern.

Of course we would, you will find it would cause us harm alot easier than an animal with a thick hide. Oh and we are human. Can't really compare the welfare of an animal to that of a human.

redzerologhlen

archer22 wrote: »

Have you given them questionaires to fill out?..

No but I have spent a lot more time around them then you I would imagine and going on their behaviour patterns it doesnt bother them. At least if you are going to respond try to point out a fact and dont use a silly one liner as an argument. It wont make anybody any wiser.

archer22

It wasn't me! wrote: »

As another hunter, I'd like to stick my oar in and call bull**** on me not caring about animal welfare. If I didn't care, I'd never be upset at seeing populations starve in winter conditions without forage, or at a shot that doesn't result in a quick kill. I'd never bother my arse hunting all day for a wounded animal in order to effect a humane finish. I'd just shoot anything, rather than selecting older animals, or weaker animals. I wouldn't look for signs of nursing females and avoid shooting deer with young at heel. If I didn't care, hunting would be a lot simpler and, without the emotional investment, a lot less worthwhile. Those who don't do it will never know what it is. Those who do will never need to voice it to one another.

"populations starve in winter conditions without forage" are you talking about Deer ?...I live in the country,actually have Deer on my land..never seen them starving without forage.So what do you do buy them bales of hay or drive a piece of lead through them?.Oh and you would not need to "look for a wounded animal all day" if you did not wound them in the first place...Doh!!. you wont shoot females with young at heel..how nice...but they usually leave their young hidden...tough sh1t in that case I suppose.And what use are the older and weaker animals to you unless you like eating skin and bones!!.Now maybe you can tell us another story maybe with leprechauns and fairies in it this time!!

Odysseus

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Well in all fairness if they don't hunt and murder animals then they more thank likely are!

archer22 wrote: »

Well given that you run around looking for things to kill...I would say that you dont give a jot about animal welfare...nothing against you hunting to eat (even if it is by choice not need).But please dont insult our intelligence by claiming to be concerned about their welfare.

I don't know anything about your intelligence to insult, however, try reading my post; I provide food for my table. I do not run around looking for things to kill. When minds are closed like this I might as well be taking to someone with a psychosis. All people can see is their viewpoint, it's like most things when you come into contact with fundamentalism, i.e. I hunt so all I care about is killing, the possibility of a discussion goes out the window. All you know about me is that I like to put food on my own table by hunting, rather than buying it in the shop. Therefore, I could not have any interest in animal welfare.

ItsAWindUp

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't know anything about your intelligence to insult, however, try reading my post; I provide food for my table. I do not run around looking for things to kill. When minds are closed like this I might as well be taking to someone with a psychosis. All people can see is their viewpoint, it's like most things when you come into contact with fundamentalism, i.e. I hunt so all I care about is killing, the possibility of a discussion goes out the window. All you know about me is that I like to put food on my own table by hunting, rather than buying it in the shop. Therefore, I could not have any interest in animal welfare.

You make it sound like you'll starve to death if you don't kill these animals.

fatherted1969

ScumLord wrote: »

You basically repeated my point with more words.


your wrong, if any one of us was hungry enough we'd quite gladly rip the thing apart with our bare hands, us westerners just don't have to suffer that kind of hunger, count your self lucky. another thing is what exactly do you think would happen to all these cute cattle if we didn't eat them. They won't get squatters rights on the fields, there'll be no emancipation they'll all be slaughtered to make way for our crops that we'll need to eat. Domestic cattle need us to eat them or their screwed.

Check your original post again scumlord. You said they are all killed the same way, they're not. Halal and conventional slaughtering are completely different methods of killing an animal. You obviously dont know what your on about

Odysseus

It wasn't me! wrote: »

As another hunter, I'd like to stick my oar in and call bull**** on me not caring about animal welfare. If I didn't care, I'd never be upset at seeing populations starve in winter conditions without forage, or at a shot that doesn't result in a quick kill. I'd never bother my arse hunting all day for a wounded animal in order to effect a humane finish. I'd just shoot anything, rather than selecting older animals, or weaker animals. I wouldn't look for signs of nursing females and avoid shooting deer with young at heel. If I didn't care, hunting would be a lot simpler and, without the emotional investment, a lot less worthwhile. Those who don't do it will never know what it is. Those who do will never need to voice it to one another.

But the anti's will never see that, we are the bad men with guns who just kill for the sake of it. We will always be wrong no matter what, and you just can't engage with that type of mentality, not only do they believe the are totally right and are unwilling to see any other viewpoint, you often encounter significant moral superiority, not only are we wrong we are evil.

Or you get the viewpoint that hunter's are psychologically or emotionally damaged. Have a look at some of the threads in the animal welfare forum, you get the sense that some people believe that because they "love" animals and don't eat meat, that they have a special relationship with their pets or animals in general, it makes them special and superior to others. Those that haven't encountered this special relationship are lacking something; you could almost say that some believe they have evolved more than others. It is fascinating in one way, but it shuts out those who don't have that special type of empathy with animals.

To be fair that is at the extreme end of the scale and it would be grossly unfair to tar all the posters there with the same brush. A lot of them do excellent work with animals often in their own time and out of their own pocket. However, I personally don't feel I'm lacking anything either morally or ethically because I can't see a need to arrange a wedding for my pets as one poster was talking about the other night. Each to their own, but we can't all have the same opinions.

Laisurg

That video makes me want to dig a farmer in the face and kick him while he's down..... That methods not actually common practice is it?!

Odysseus

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

You make it sound like you'll starve to death if you don't kill these animals.

No but I do hunt for my table. That way I get good quality food, I know where it has come from, I know how fresh it is, and in these times I save myself a few euro. I'm not dependant on the local supermarket, and I help my local farming community, which is why they like me shooting on their land.

doctor evil

archer22 wrote: »

Well given that you run around looking for things to kill...I would say that you dont give a jot about animal welfare...nothing against you hunting to eat (even if it is by choice not need).But please dont insult our intelligence by claiming to be concerned about their welfare.

All creatures die eventually some are luckier than others in how they go.

I think a lot of people who are against hunting/meat have problems with squemishness/ignorance or they are very handy at compartmentalising.

ScumLord

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Check your original post again scumlord. You said they are all killed the same way, they're not. Halal and conventional slaughtering are completely different methods of killing an animal. You obviously dont know what your on about

I was talking about the Irish production line. They don't kill one cow with a bolt gun and the next halal. On a production line they are all killed the same way.

softmee

doctor evil wrote: »

All creatures die eventually some are luckier than others in how they go.

What a wise thing to say.. :rolleyes: It's like with us humans, we also have to die eventually, why we don't kill each other? :rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

softmee wrote: »

why we don't kill each other? :rolleyes:

We don't? News to me!

archer22

softmee wrote: »

What a wise thing to say.. :rolleyes: It's like with us humans, we also have to die eventually, why we don't kill each other? :rolleyes:

Bolt gun or Halal anyone ? or wounded with a rifle and chased around the countryside for a day...or hey chased with a pack of dogs and "humanely" torn to bits.Ahh the choices are endless.What a wonderfull world.

softmee

It wasn't me! wrote: »

We don't? News to me!

I meant "us", not in general

krudler

nature is cruel, animals can be cruel, presenting the killer whale, natures asshole

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELm8yRxAK9o

softmee

krudler wrote: »

nature is cruel, animals can be cruel, presenting the killer whale, natures asshole

I agree, thats why it is always annoying me how people are "overrating nature, by thinking in general that "natural" is better -not it isn't always..
-domestic dogs live longer then wolves, they get more nutrition, dont have parasites all life etc...

..so what?

We can do better then that.

softmee

krudler wrote: »

nature is cruel, animals can be cruel, presenting the killer whale, natures asshole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wzD0U841LRM

pragmatic1

If we were meant to be vegetarians we wouldnt have canines and would likely have more than one stomach. As long as the animal has had a good enough life and is killed in a humane as possible way, I dont see the big issue.

Having said that, wouldnt eat foie gras, veal, battery chickens, etc.

Laisurg

Laisurg wrote: »

That video makes me want to dig a farmer in the face and kick him while he's down..... That methods not actually common practice is it?!

Why would you want to kick an animal?

That's pretty cruel... Whereas I'm yet to find out what's so wrong with what they did in the video?

pragmatic1

pragmatic1 wrote: »

If we were meant to be vegetarians we wouldnt have canines and would likely have more than one stomach. As long as the animal has had a good enough life and is killed in a humane as possible way, I dont see the big issue.

Having said that, wouldnt eat foie gras, veal, battery chickens, etc.

I agree. The killing of animals in the OP's video didn't distress me, but the thought of the lives of some animals out there (foie gras being pretty high up on the list) does.

softmee

true-or-false wrote: »

Whereas I'm yet to find out what's so wrong with what they did in the video?

Ok, I didnt want to watch this..but I have seen few seconds in the end after I've read your post and I seriously think there must be something really wrong with you if you think thats ok what they are doing.

Natural and normal reaction to something like this is shock and rejection.

Healthy and mature human beeing can feel something like empathy..if you don't you are just not fully developed human.. and I am scared of people like you -really!

softmee

pragmatic1 wrote: »

If we were meant to be vegetarians we wouldnt have canines and would likely have more than one stomach. As long as the animal has had a good enough life and is killed in a humane as possible way, I dont see the big issue.

Having said that, wouldnt eat foie gras, veal, battery chickens, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fYlzHvn4Oe8

krudler

softmee wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wzD0U841LRM

yes being made to watch a Lars Von Trier film does constitute cruelty :pac:

softmee

softmee wrote: »

I seriously think there must be something really wrong with you if you think thats ok what they are doing.

Natural and normal reaction to something like this is shock and rejection.

Healthy and mature human beeing can feel something like empathy..if you don't you are just not fully developed human.. and I am scared of people like you -really!

Well first of all, you have no business telling me how I should react to something which is clearly accepted by the majority of people. Nor do I appreciate you calling me an under-developed human being, so I'll be honest with you too.

I think you took a naive shock reaction to the video and want to jump on the "people are horrible" bandwagon (and also must be squeamish). Can you actually tell me what's wrong with it? They shot the animals in the brain, causing the animal to clearly collapse instantaneously and go unconscious, and they then made sure the brain was completely dead to ensure there was no chance the animal felt any pain. I don't know much about farming or killing, but it was clearly not for meat, it seemed more like culling due to disease etc., in which case it would have been an extremely distressing yet merciful way for the farmer to kill the animals, who had to die regardless of his choices.

Millicent

The thing is, as much as people want to say commercially slaughtered animals like those in the original video are distressed, they're not. Distress before death or on the way to slaughter affects the taste and quality of the meat. It's actually in slaughterhouses' interests to keep the animal as stress free as possible. So not necessarily an altruistic reason to have calm animals, but a good one from the perspectives of those doing the slaughtering.

softmee

true-or-false wrote: »

which is clearly accepted by the majority of people.

No its not, they just prefer not to see that and majority would be distressed by that!

Also, they weren't only shooting them in brain but screwing something what looked like wine bottle opened. Pure horror!
This isn't a "naive shock"- this is a normal reaction to something cruel.

Odysseus

softmee wrote: »

Natural and normal reaction to something like this is shock and rejection.

Healthy and mature human beeing can feel something like empathy..if you don't you are just not fully developed human.. and I am scared of people like you -really!

Can you back up this assumption with any type of study? I happen to know just a little bit about empathy since I'm a clinician. What you are coming out with here is just plain bullsh!t

Please post any real links you may have which stand over such a subjective viewpoint.

It upset me, so it has to upset others and be normal, therefore not being upset equal an under-developed subject. This is what you are saying, but I'm sorry to say the world does not work that way. If anything is pathological here, I'm sorry to say but it appears to be your distorted viewpoint of humanity.

softmee

softmee wrote: »

No its not, they just prefer not to see that and majority would be distressed by that!

Also, they weren't only shooting them in brain but screwing something what looked like wine bottle opened. Pure horror!
This isn't a "naive shock"- this is a normal reaction to something cruel.

1. I'll need proof for the bolded part before I'll believe it.
2. Like I said, they were being humane by making sure the brain was completely dead. In other words, the screwy thing actually adds to ensuring a painless death. There's no other purpose to it except wanting the animals to not suffer. They're hardly doing it for the craic. They probably had to kill loads of animals, yet they took the extra time on every single one, even though the gun would have been enough, to make absolutely sure the animals had no pain reception or consciousness.
3. You still haven't told me what's wrong with it other than you don't like the look of it.

softmee

Odysseus wrote: »

Can you back up this assumption with any type of study?

Yes I can and I will. People who lack empathy are psychopaths (not talking about previous poster, dont know him/her that well...:rolleyes: ) and they usually start torturing animals. (will back up this tomorrow).

If you can watch this video without beeing even slightly distressed - your level of empathy ( or compassion ) must be really low.

softmee

true-or-false wrote: »

3. You still haven't told me what's wrong with it other than you don't like the look of it.

You really need me to tell what is wrong in screwing a huge bottle opener to the living creature brain?

krudler

softmee wrote: »

Yes I can and I will. People who lack empathy are psychopaths (not talking about previous poster, dont know him/her that well...:rolleyes: ) and they usually start torturing animals. (will back up this tomorrow).

sweet jesus...

softmee

softmee wrote: »

Yes I can and I will. People who lack empathy are psychopaths (not talking about previous poster, dont know him/her that well...:rolleyes: ) and they usually start torturing animals. (will back up this tomorrow).

Psychopaths lack empathy, that doesn't mean that lacking empathy for any given situation makes you a psychopath. That's like saying oranges are fruit, so all fruit are oranges. I killed an ant once, and didn't feel empathy, so I'm a psychopath? Okay. Have you ever washed your hands? You probably killed about 90% of the stuff living on your hands.

And anyway, the matter in question is why should empathy be felt for what's happening in the video? I genuinely want to understand the other side of the argument, but you still haven't answered my only real question.

As I've stated already, I feel a great deal of empathy for the way some animals are made to live; I do feel empathy. I just don't see what was done in the video that was wrong other than the clearly sensationalist text throughout.

Edit: Oh right, just saw this:

screwing a huge bottle opener to the living creature brain?

The animals were already dead. They were just making doubly sure. If you though they were still alive, then I do get why you would be distressed.

archer22

I am only waiting for one of them to tell us that animals actually enjoy being killed :rolleyes:

Odysseus

softmee wrote: »

Yes I can and I will. People who lack empathy are psychopaths (not talking about previous poster, dont know him/her that well...:rolleyes: ) and they usually start torturing animals. (will back up this tomorrow).

You will need more than that there is a long list of criteria for psychopathy, lacking the ability to empathise is only one of them and is not by itself enough to diagnose a person, the torturing of animals is often seen in psychopaths at a young age, but againg by itself not enough. Plus those criteria where developed by Robert Hare,everybody does not agree with him. As I said they are only two criteria the PCL psychopath check list is a very long list there is a lot more to it that the above.

The above is a video of animals being dispatched, it is debatable whether it is torture, as the people involved would be before the courts if it was clear cut torture would they not? It is merely your opinion that it is torture.

The first thing you need to do is establish whether psychopaths exist, as a lot of clinicians and researchers have different opinions on it. However, in order to back up your opinions you need to discover that there is a lot more to psychopathy than just lacking the ability to empathise.

softmee

true-or-false wrote: »

but you still haven't answered my only real question.

"As for me, I could never so much as endure, without remorse and griefe, to see a poore, sillie, and innocent beast pursued and killed, which is harmelesse and voide of defence, and of whom we receive no offence at all.
Montaigne, Of Cruelty

-he can explain better then me.

""The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
Leonardo da Vinci

-and I hope this time will come

"Our task must be to free ourselves… by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein

"If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian."
Paul McCartney

softmee

softmee wrote: »

"As for me, I could never so much as endure, without remorse and griefe, to see a poore, sillie, and innocent beast pursued and killed, which is harmelesse and voide of defence, and of whom we receive no offence at all.
Montaigne, Of Cruelty

-he can explain better then me.

""The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
Leonardo da Vinci

-and I hope this time will come

Okay, so it's that they're being killed at all? I can understand that reasoning.

What if they were being killed because they were diseased? It could save a lot more lives than it cost.

Edit: I just mean that since they weren't in an abattoir and they were doing the brain thing (which AFAIK they don't do on animals for consumption?) it seems like they were being culled.

Odysseus

softmee wrote: »

If you can watch this video without beeing even slightly distressed - your level of empathy ( or compassion ) must be really low.

Interesting enough I can, but yet for a living I work with people who have been victims of very bad acts, various abuses of anything you can think of. I have been at this game a long time and my clients would not agree that I lack empathy.

At the same time I sometimes work with the people who carried out some of the acts I have described above, I can understand them and empathise where appropriate.

Having the ability to empathise does not mean I become emotionally upset or distressed. If it did spending my day listing to people express their experience of some very nasty life experiences would mean I would be unable to work.

archer22

I wonder how many" brave" killers of animals there would be if the animals had the ability to defend themselves.At the the end of the day animal cruelty and hunting is a spineless cowards game.

softmee

true-or-false wrote: »

What if they were being killed because they were diseased?

It doesn't change the fact that millions are killed every day not because of disease. I will come back to it tomorrow..

Odysseus

archer22 wrote: »

I am only waiting for one of them to tell us that animals actually enjoy being killed :rolleyes:

Now you are just being a silly billy:rolleyes:

archer22

Odysseus wrote: »

Now you are just being a silly billy:rolleyes:

Well there was a hunting fella on TV3 one night who said Foxes enjoyed being chased by a pack of hounds....so nothing would surprise me.

Millicent

Odysseus wrote: »

Now you are just being a silly billy:rolleyes:

I dunno. The cows in that snuff film I saw looked to be having a whale of a time. The whale, though, did not.

kraggy

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

I hate when people say things like 'you wouldn't eat that meat if you knew where it came from and what those animals had to go through.' It's bullshit, I know that animals have to die for me to eat them, I've seen them being killed and would happily kill them myself if I had to. A captive bolt gun is a humane way to kill an animal, it collapses almost instanteniously unconscious. The squirming of the animals being pithed is a result of someone shoving a piece of metal through their brain, obviously this is going to come into contact with the various motor centres in the brain resulting in efferent nerve signals being sent throughout the body resulting in movement. There is however no reason to believe afferent nerve signals are being sent (and even if they were they couldn't be processed since the brain has been essentially mushed) so no pain can be felt.

Having said that, I try to avoid eating meat from outside Ireland or especially outside the EU since I don't know what they're animal cruelty laws and standards are like. I also try to avoid eating meat more than a few times a week, partly because you don't need much meat for a balanced diet and partly because, methane production in paddy fields aside, when it comes to the industrial farming practices that feed most of the world it's an awful lot more efficient in terms of land used and CO2 produced to produce grains and vegetables rather than beef.

A rising demand for meat in Europe, the US and now places like China mean farmers the world over are expanding their meat production often at the expense of natural habitats (eg Amazon rainforest) or existing tillage land. This obviously has detremental impacts on natural eco-systems as well as the price of food which is why the price of rice and other grains have risen to levels where many of the world's poorest can barely afford to eat.

I don't give a fuck about eating an animal that was reared on an Irish farm with plenty to eat and shelter in the depths of winter and an ultimatley human death (not saying it couldn't be more humane, that inert gas stuff looked interesting but present slaughter practices are far from barbaric). But I will think twice about eating meat if my levels of consumption prevent some peasants in India, south america or africa from eating anything at all.

You think that because you eat EU meat that the animals involved went through minimum cruelty?

Battery cages are still legal in the EU and will be until next next year at which time they will be banned, thankfully.

It's not just about how animals are killed, it's their lives before that that has to be taken into account. As we speak, there are over 1 million chickens/hens in battery cages in Ireland. They cannot even stretch their wings, never mind try to fly.

kraggy

kraggy wrote: »

They cannot even stretch their wings, never mind try to fly.

Yeah, but those free range chickens really do get to be a pain flying over my house all the time...

Duggy747

kraggy wrote: »

As we speak, there are upwards 2 million chickens/hens in battery cages in Ireland.

It's half of that considering there's an estimated 2+ million chicken / hens in total in Ireland.

archer22

Millicent wrote: »

I dunno. The cows in that snuff film I saw looked to be having a whale of a time. The whale, though, did not.

Yeah we know that Killer Whales,Sharks, Wolves etc have to kill to survive.They dont have supermarkets they can go to and pick an alternative food.

kraggy

Duggy747 wrote: »

It's half of that considering there's an estimated 2+ million chicken / hens in total in Ireland.

My mistake. Post edited.

Phew, that means there's only 1 million hens in battery cages with no room to stretch their wings or have any comfort.

All's well so...



Here's a link to Compassion in World Farming. They're one of the most respected Animal Welfare organisations in the world. i.e. They're no PETA/Animal Liberation Front. So they don't exaggerate or make stuff up.

http://www.ciwf.ie/farminfo/farmfacts_egghens.html


Beak trimming
Commercial hens may resort to pecking at each other's feathers. This behaviour should be addressed by improving their environment, or changing the breed of bird as some breeds are more prone to feather-pecking. However, on most farms, the hens have part of their beaks removed to stop them from feather-pecking. This may be done using a red hot metal blade - a painful process. In systems that provide for the welfare of hens, beak-trimming should not be necessary.



What happens to male chicks?
Obviously the males do not lay eggs and they are not considered to be the right breed for meat (as they don't put weight on quickly enough). EU slaughter legislation allows these day-old chicks to be killed by gassing or by a mechanical apparatus (e.g. a machine with rapidly rotating killing blades).



It's shocking to think that this goes on. But a lot of the reason is that people demand eggs for ridiculously low prices. If people were prepared to spend just an extra few cents, they'd get Free-Range eggs which taste better and are obviously, in most cases, a better deal for the animal too.