Why are some people cruel to animals?

[grannywils]

Well said, Ginny.

[Ghogiel]

Thread title could be changed to> why are some people cruel?

 

I've never had an answer.

[Iv000]

I don't think we can answer that question because we don't think like they do.

Those people that are hurting animals have their own way of thinking, maybe they are doing it because of fun, maybe because of no reason at all.

I have never spoken to such a man, I hope I never will, because such people are as low as you can get.

[arcane20]

I think this thread is starting to tread on some dangerous ground. Arcane20, some of the comments you make cannot be replied to because they would involve religious debate which is banned here.

 

Arcane20 comments "There's probably people posting here who eat meat". So what exactly are you saying? That meat eaters should not be posting here, or that meat eaters are automatically monsters who inflict unwarranted cruelty on animals, and are therefore hypocrites who should not have a right to comment on this? As for "Some people feed animals to their pets" - well I hate to tell you this, but it is quite normal for animals to eat each other. Alive in some cases. Keepers of birds of prey and also snakes may feed whole chicks, for example to their pets, but would kill them first, but this would not always happen in the wild.

 

Well I am unashamed to say that I eat meat. I am also aware of how animals are slaughtered and yes, I have actually seen it, both in an abattoir and otherwise. I was a recorder during the foot and mouth cull here in the UK when the government appealed for any licensed slaughterpersons to volunteer, and a friend of mine who was a hunt master volunteered, I went along to record the ear tag numbers. So I have heard the crack of the captive bolt gun and seen more cows and sheep crumple in front of me than I would ever have wished to. After stunning with the bolt they were then promptly and humanely despatched by means of severing the spinal cord. I will not go further into the gruesome process of exactly how it was done here. And I am well aware of the shocking practices that went on during that cull and that go on in abattoirs, and don't excuse them. The problem is, in that example, there was a dreadful job to be done and some of the people who did the most to make sure that the condemned animals suffered least were those who you would probably howl down as being sadists - hunt staff.

 

For me there is no conflict between eating meat and being an animal lover. I will only buy meat, milk and eggs that have been produced in freedom conditions, the meat having travelled the minimum distance to slaughter. Yes, decent butchers here will be able to tell you that kind of info. And I have been dragged away by the police for standing in front of trucks at Millbay Docks in Plymouth trying to load live animals onto the ferries for slaughter abroad. On the hook, not on the hoof.

 

I have also reported numerous instances of cruelty and neglect when I have come across them. Starving horses with grossly deformed feet, yobboes tieing fireworks to cats and other dreadful acts. I do, however, view with dismay the type of people who are so pro animal rights that they think it is perfectly fine to terrorise research scientists and put bombs under their cars.

 

 

In pretty much any debate religion can be involved. Sorry but I'm not responsible for that and wasn't trying to invoke religion in anyway I haven't made any claim about it so don't bring it up again.

I thought this was pretty obvious but "There's probably people posting here who eat meat" Had nothing to do with telling people not to post. It was a point that pretty much *everyone* has caused needless harm on animals since a lot of people didn't seem to realise that. "that meat eaters are automatically monsters who inflict unwarranted cruelty on animals" I do actually think that it is unwarranted though I wouldn't call people monsterous in most cases. It is highly unwarranted, show me evidence that human beings need meat to survive. Not to mention the fact that many many vegetarians are perfectly healthy. People eat meat for selfish reasons and animals suffer for it. "I am also aware of how animals are slaughtered and yes, I have actually seen it, both in an abattoir and otherwise" Entirely irrelevant and an appeal to authority. " I will not go further into the gruesome process of exactly how it was done here." It's an atrocity it doesn't need to happen. And until you can provide evidence that their death is nessesary then it's unethical. "there was a dreadful job to be done " :wallbash: my point is that these is no need for it to be done. Again Show me evidence that it needed to happen. Animals are sentient beings they can feel they can suffer. If a human had the intelligence of an animal would you say it was ok to eat this human because he's not as intelligent or advanced as other humans. If you want to eat meat that's one thing but most people bring up their children to eat meat. Which again doesn't ned to happen. Don't give them the taste for it and they won't need it. The rest of your comment I think was more to yourself than to me because it has no relevance what you've experienced or what happens in a minority of cases. You can't deny that most people will not buy freerange because they're more expensive. If that happened everywhere would be freerange. So yeah please keep your experiences out of the debate it's not evidence or even an argument. :down:

 

 

edit: missed something "well I hate to tell you this, but it is quite normal for animals to eat each other."

This doesn't make it right. Just because something happens in nature doesn't make something good or right or acceptable.

 

Also change your condecending tone.

Edited September 3, 2011 by arcane20

[ginnyfizz]

Don't lecture me. You are very clearly from the "meat is murder" camp and even seem to think that in an ideal world all animals should be vegetarians.

 

""well I hate to tell you this, but it is quite normal for animals to eat each other."

This doesn't make it right. Just because something happens in nature doesn't make something good or right or acceptable."

 

I'd love to see you try and tell that to a lion or an anaconda. Not going to happen. They don't have your views, they do not have a moral standpoint, they eat what they want/always have done because they are higher in the food chain than their prey. Nature really is red in tooth and claw, and you are not going to change that.

 

Humans are omnivores, who from earliest times have eaten a varied diet, depending on local conditions. Where an area was rich in animals they'd hunt and eat them. Where there were fewer animals, you might find that they ate a more fish/vegetarian based diet. To this day, local cuisines in many areas reflect this. Also the "r" word then later came into the mix. Like it or not, some animals only really exist in such large quantities because they are bred for meat/milk/eggs/hides/wool. These farm animals would be very rare breeds if we were not eating their meat. No-one would run huge herds and just let them skip around until they drop dead of old age. Whether or not eating meat is necessary is moot - the fact is that meat represents an excellent source of protein and many other nutrients for a lot of people.

 

Bringing up the actual business of slaughter is actually highly relevant, because I cannot count all the times I have had one of the "meat is murder" camp shriek at me "If you knew what happened when your dinner was slaughtered you wouldn't be eating that". Well I do, and I do.

 

I always have an ironic laugh when people try and tell me that personal experience is irrelevant to an actual argument, because it tells me that they are uncomfortable with the fact that I have actually had the experience whereas they are talking theoretically, and haven't. You prove this when you challenge my point about the foot and mouth cull thus;-

 

"my point is that these is no need for it to be done. Again Show me evidence that it needed to happen".

 

Umm...err...highly infections disease of cloven hooved beasties that causes considerable suffering to the animals. It was rampant all over the country. Livestock movements were suspended in most areas. British meat not saleable abroad. Farmers facing bankruptcy as a result. The only way to eradicate the disease was by that bolt to the brain for the infected animals and those close to them. Culling is a way to stop the spread of disease in animals- it worked eventually. And it still has to happen, as there are diseases that can spread from animals to humans. Thousands of cattle are slaughtered every year because they carry tuberculosis. Please don't tell me that you wish that disease to come back.

[marharth]

"my point is that these is no need for it to be done. Again Show me evidence that it needed to happen".

 

Umm...err...highly infections disease of cloven hooved beasties that causes considerable suffering to the animals. It was rampant all over the country. Livestock movements were suspended in most areas. British meat not saleable abroad. Farmers facing bankruptcy as a result. The only way to eradicate the disease was by that bolt to the brain for the infected animals and those close to them. Culling is a way to stop the spread of disease in animals- it worked eventually. And it still has to happen, as there are diseases that can spread from animals to humans. Thousands of cattle are slaughtered every year because they carry tuberculosis. Please don't tell me that you wish that disease to come back.

What?

 

I don't quite understand what your saying, how does that have anything to do with humans not being required to eat meat?

 

 

It is hypocritical to say that it is perfectly okay to hurt a cow, but it is a atrocity to hurt a dog.

[ginnyfizz]

Marharth, it is extremely bad manners to call anyone a hypocrite, especially when you have totally misunderstood what was being said, as your quote clearly proves.

 

Arcane20 was arguing, so it seems, since he appears to think that killing an animal can never be justified, that when we had a catastrophic outbreak of foot and mouth disease here in the UK, (and all stemming from animals that had been imported in the first place I might add) that it was not necessary to cull millions of animals. That paragraph of mine that you have misquoted is an explanation of why, in such a case, a mass slaughter of animals can be necessary. Foot and mouth, once more with feelings, is a highly infectious disease of cloven hooved beasts that spreads like wildfire. Once it is established, there is no viable alternative to slaughtering not only the infected animals, but also those in the immediate area. In the UK this is combined with a ban on all livestock movement. Naturally the Labour government cocked it all up as they found that they did not have enough men and women with guns and, ironically, had to call on the fox, harrier and deer hunting communities (whose livelihoods they were ironically seeking to abolish)to assist. Whilst they were dilly dallying about asking the hunts for help, THAT was when animals who were waiting for their appointment with the slaughtermen suffered most, since the cockeyed way the Ministry enforced the movement regulations could mean that on isolated farms where the land lay either side of a road, in some cases they had made it illegal to drive to take food to the animals. Public outcry at this was a factor that led to the calling in of more slaughtermen, including from the hunts, to hasten their end.

 

I then went on to say that there are still infectious diseases of cattle that are potentially life threatening to humans, tuberculosis the major one. Here in the UK it is compulsory for cattle to be tested and as soon as you get a "reactor" they are marked for slaughter and the rest of the herd are isolated for a long period and if any of them show the signs, they are slaughtered too. No cattle from that farm can be moved or sold for long periods.

 

Due to the animal rights lobby, and the accusations of cruelty, Goverments have held back from tackling the issue thought to be at the root of endemic bovine TB, namely that there is a correlation between the activity of badgers (in whom TB is endemic also)and incidence of bovine TB.

 

DEFRA on Bovine TB

 

However, the current Government have give the green light to the badger cull commencing in the South West of England and Wales.

 

Sometimes, what people in ivory towers call cruelty, namely culling, is necessary to prevent more suffering. Most of the younger people on here won't ever have seen a human spitting blood from TB. I have, I was infected as a kid. I survived and as a result am now immune. But people do die from it as new strains are resistant to existing antibiotics.

[marharth]

Marharth, it is extremely bad manners to call anyone a hypocrite, especially when you have totally misunderstood what was being said, as your quote clearly proves.

 

Arcane20 was arguing, so it seems, since he appears to think that killing an animal can never be justified, that when we had a catastrophic outbreak of foot and mouth disease here in the UK, (and all stemming from animals that had been imported in the first place I might add) that it was not necessary to cull millions of animals. That paragraph of mine that you have misquoted is an explanation of why, in such a case, a mass slaughter of animals can be necessary. Foot and mouth, once more with feelings, is a highly infectious disease of cloven hooved beasts that spreads like wildfire. Once it is established, there is no viable alternative to slaughtering not only the infected animals, but also those in the immediate area. In the UK this is combined with a ban on all livestock movement. Naturally the Labour government cocked it all up as they found that they did not have enough men and women with guns and, ironically, had to call on the fox, harrier and deer hunting communities (whose livelihoods they were ironically seeking to abolish)to assist. Whilst they were dilly dallying about asking the hunts for help, THAT was when animals who were waiting for their appointment with the slaughtermen suffered most, since the cockeyed way the Ministry enforced the movement regulations could mean that on isolated farms where the land lay either side of a road, in some cases they had made it illegal to drive to take food to the animals. Public outcry at this was a factor that led to the calling in of more slaughtermen, including from the hunts, to hasten their end.

 

I then went on to say that there are still infectious diseases of cattle that are potentially life threatening to humans, tuberculosis the major one. Here in the UK it is compulsory for cattle to be tested and as soon as you get a "reactor" they are marked for slaughter and the rest of the herd are isolated for a long period and if any of them show the signs, they are slaughtered too. No cattle from that farm can be moved or sold for long periods.

 

Due to the animal rights lobby, and the accusations of cruelty, Goverments have held back from tackling the issue thought to be at the root of endemic bovine TB, namely that there is a correlation between the activity of badgers (in whom TB is endemic also)and incidence of bovine TB.

 

DEFRA on Bovine TB

 

However, the current Government have give the green light to the badger cull commencing in the South West of England and Wales.

 

Sometimes, what people in ivory towers call cruelty, namely culling, is necessary to prevent more suffering. Most of the younger people on here won't ever have seen a human spitting blood from TB. I have, I was infected as a kid. I survived and as a result am now immune. But people do die from it as new strains are resistant to existing antibiotics.

I didn't mean to call you a hypocrite. I was just saying that hurting a cow should be no different the hurting other animals, it wasn't meant to be directed at you.

 

I eat meat, so I am not really even on his side.

 

I understand what you mean now, and I agree.

[JimboUK]

Thread title could be changed to> why are some people cruel?

 

I've never had an answer.

 

I don't think normal people will ever get an answer, those that commit these acts are obviously disturbed.

[arcane20]

"You are very clearly from the "meat is murder""

That's an ad hominem. Which is another logical fallacy. You haven't got a clue on my position. Do not try to undermine my position by labelling it.

 

"I'd love to see you try and tell that to a lion or an anaconda. Not going to happen."

Of course nature is like that. Humans DO NOT NEED to eat meat we are not carnivores like lions and anacondas. Plus humans have the capacity to ignore what is coded in their DNA unlike most animals. Just because nature is like that doesn't mean we should follow it. AGAIN It is an appeal to authority. What you're essentially saying is "Nature does it so it's ok" You know what else is natural? SMALLPOX. But we changed our mind on that pretty quickly didn't we? yeah, So if you're going to argue that everything unnatural is bad you should get off the computer because guess what? computers aren't natural and therefore must be bad by your logic.

 

"Humans are omnivores,"

Yes we *can* consume prepared cooked meat. That's because we don't have the digestive system to deal with the bacteria in most raw meat. If humans had not discovered fire we wouldn't be eating meat. And just because we can does not justify anything. I can probably stab someone with a kitchen knife but it doesn't justify it. You have still yet to provide evidence that we need it. People eat it because we're addicted to it but if you brought up your children as vegetarians there would be no addiction. I don't think most people are terrible people because they eat meat. I just think they haven't thought about it.

 

"Bringing up the actual business of slaughter is actually highly relevant, because I cannot count all the times I have had one of the "meat is murder" camp shriek at me "If you knew what happened when your dinner was slaughtered you wouldn't be eating that". Well I do, and I do."

That's a strawman yet another logical fallacy. That's not my argument. You're arguing against someone else. Quote me where I have said "If you knew what happened when your dinner was slaughtered you wouldn't be eating that".

 

"Umm...err...highly infections<sic> disease of cloven hooved beasties that causes considerable suffering to the animals."

I never brought up anything about foot and mouth or anything of the sort. Every time I have said that there is no need for it is towards the slaughter of animals in general, because if they weren't bred to die it never would have happened. And also this would contradict my view of euthanasia. I also asked for evidence. WHERE IS IT? show me a peer reviewed scientific study which documents the need for humans to eat meet.

 

"Arcane20 was arguing, so it seems, since he appears to think that killing an animal can never be justified"

You're strawmanning me AGAIN!. That isn't my argument :wallbash: . My argument is that eating meat perpetuates an industry that bases itself on the breeding and slaughtering of livestock due to an inane archaic construct that human beings should eat meat and if people didn't eat meat there would be no need for the industry and no need for the unethical treatment and slaughter. Now I accept that people are addicted to meat it's hard to quit but there is no justifiable excuse to raise children to eat meat. That is my argument, what is yours?

 

Do you know what's bad mannered?; mislabelling my position because you have no evidence.