Do we ignore animal cruelty to suit us?

ScumLord wrote: »

Hunting is a fundamental part of nature. I'm constantly shocked people can overlook how nature has been for billions of years and instead assume that they know better based on a decade or two of wallowing in the modern human notions that we're some sort of fairy that can somehow overcome the fact we're also part of nature. Being in harmony with nature means killing, I'd be fairly certain that nature would be proud as punch of her human creation. It's survival of the strongest and fittest, not lets all be friends like on Barney.

I can only assume your don't shop in tesco, if you do your a hypocrite.

No, it's normal, it's been happening since their was life.

I don't live in Ireland so I don't shop in Tesco. But if I did, how the hell would that make me a hypocrite? If I buy free-range eggs and no meat in Tesco, that is sending them a message that there is a bigger market than before for ethical foods.

Also, you keep saying that hunting is in our nature. It isn't. It's not in mine, and it's not in the nature of anyone I know be they vegetarian or not.

You speak about us being hunters. I can only guess that you mean that we are so as historically that's what people did. But our brains and intelligence have also evolved. We now know how to eat healthily and still get our vitamins and minerals. We do not need to eat meat to survive or indeed live a long healthy life.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

OK, looney bin vegetarians, can any of ye answer the below questions? I have asked these of vegetarians before but they were always ignored.

Ye seem to think killing animals is wrong, so:

a) do ye look under your feet to make sure you're not stepping on woodlice and drive really slow to avoid splattering poor defenseless bugs? Because if not you are murdering animals

b) If you your house happens to be infested with rats, would you hire an exterminator, or allow them to have free run of your house?

c) do you care about the millions of animals killed by farm machinery in the harvesting of vegetarian foods (grains etc..) or killed due to elimination of their habitat?


Because if you think you can go through life without killing anything, you are living in a fantastic delusion of your own creation and not the real world

You're lack of understanding of vegetarianism is astounding. And your "looney-bin vegetarians" comment highly insulting.

Should we allow murderers to remain out of prison as, "shur they've already killed a few people, no point in stopping them now". Any vegetarian I know, refrains from eating meat to reduce the amount of harm to animals. It doesn't have to be all nothing. Why not try to avoid killing as many animals as possible by not adding to the demand for meat. It's not a case of, "shur you've been involved in the killing of animals because you stepped on that spider on the footpath, so you may as well go have get yourself a burger in McDonalds".

You have a very simple view of this subject. Also, if you insult a wide-range of people again as you already have done, I'll report your posts.

I'm neither a farmer nor hunter, though I do come from a farming background, and have raised pigs (2) for slaughter.

That video was horrible.
However, I don't believe that was a typical slaughter, as in slaughter for food. It seemed more like a disease control cull. That doesn't excuse the suffering endured by the animals, though.
Having said that, cows do not normally lie on top of one another, as seen in the video, which would suggest that these animals were already suffering.
The question is, could we find a more humane method of killing them?

I'm amazed at the "Black or White" responses here.
As uncomfortable as that video made me feel, I watched it a couple of times, and I've come to the conclusion that the particular method of killing used there can be either humane, or incredibly cruel.
The first few animals appear to have died instantly - I say that because I don't know enough about the level of awareness of the animals, and over what time frame, before they have any more ability to feel pain, ie just because the animal is unable to move doesn't mean it cannot feel - so I have to go with the best scientific evidence available, until/if something else is proven.

Compare this with some of the animals at the end of that video - they're kicking, seem to be trying to get up - in short, appear (to me, at least) to have "awareness" of what is going on.
If I've judged that correctly - and I'm basing that opinion on having spent my entire life around a range of animals, not on any scientific /medical training - then that's a horrible way to slaughter any animal.

The question for me is, if all the animals die instantly, why do the animals react so differently?

Is it not possible that a minute miscalculation about the size of the bolt used, or a sudden movement by the animal at the last minute can cause the bolt to miss the exact nerve centre?
If that is the case, the pain suffered must be unimaginable.:eek:

I also don't understand the bile spewn at hunters.
I despise people who hunt for "fun". It's barbaric.
I fully support banning foxhunting.
On the other hand, I live in the country, and I also support shooting foxes as a method of culling where there are problems with overpopulation. Better a quick bullet than a slow starvation, infested with parasites, as often as not.

Neither do I have a problem with people hunting for food.
A well placed shot will kill an animal instantly. Therefore there is no suffering involved, when the hunter in question is capable, and ethical.

In other words, it's not black and white. Some hunters do actually have a genuine concern for animal welfare, despite what some posters here would like to believe. Others, frankly, have no regard for the animals they kill.
All in all, hunters are like any other group of humans - they are all individuals, with all the character differences that that implies.

Things are rarely black and white - to improve things, sometimes we need to find the grey areas, then see how we can improve things.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

We have been cooking food for at least 100,000 years. Until about a hundred years ago, extracting oils from seeds and vegetables was not possible, therefore was not a viable food for humans for most of our existence.
We don't need meat to survive (to keep healthy, now that's debatable) but we do need animal products (eggs, milk etc..) to get Vitamin B12, deficiencies of which lead to brain shrinkage and death. This is excluding supplements, which again, humans haven't been able to eat for most of our existence.

(Egg, milk etc are not meat, I am talking about meat eating.)
Maybe some actual facts might help you here. Vegetarianism has been around for thousands and thousands of years in an unbroken line, it is not unhealthy.
Vegetarianism.

The term vegetarian was coined in 1847 by the founders of the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain, but vegetarianism has been around as long as people have created diets. Some of the world's oldest cultures advocate a vegetarian diet for health and religious purposes. In India, millions of Hindus are vegetarians because of their religious beliefs. One of the ancient mythological works of Hinduism, the Mahabharata, states that, "Those who desire to possess good memory, beauty, long life with perfect health, and physical, moral and spiritual strength, should abstain from animal foods." The yoga system of living and health is vegetarian, because its dietary practices are based on the belief that healthy food contains prana. Prana is the universal life energy, which yoga experts believe is abundant in fresh fruits, grains, nuts and vegetables, but absent in meat because meat has been killed. Yogis also believe that spiritual health is influenced by the practice of ahimsa, or not harming living beings. The principle of ahimsa (non-violence) appears in the Upanishads (Vedic literature) from c. 600-300 b.c. Taking of animal life or human life under any circumstances is sinful and results in rebirth as a lower organism. It became a fundamental element of Jainism, another religion of India. Some Buddhists in Japan and China are also vegetarian because of spiritual beliefs. In the Christian tradition, the Trappist Monks of the Catholic Church are vegetarian, and some vegetarians argue that there is evidence that Jesus and his early followers were vegetarian. Other traditional cultures, such as those in the Middle East and the Mediterranean regions, have evolved diets that frequently consist of vegetarian foods. The Mediterranean diet, which a Harvard study declared to be one of the world's healthiest, is primarily, although not strictly, vegetarian.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question about deer culling. I didn't expect you to, I'm used to hysterical vegetarians ignoring the hard questions about their beliefs

1. You didn't ask me that question, I also gave my attitudes on hunting earlier in the thread.
2. I am not a vegetarian.
3. Defending the rational from the irrational is not being hysterical.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not because your still displaying the same naivety, that being we could simply remove or introduce species to and from the ecosystem and everything would be just fine and dandy, the fact is the wild animals have adapted to human farming cycles, I'm fairly certain I've heard of wild species already coming under treat in Europe due to the move towards more industrial farming.

With all due respect you're not being very rational here, how can you compare areas destroyed by industrial farming to areas where domestic animals are removed and left to go wild
In the hypothetical situation where all domestic animals were to disappear from this island, the wildlife would have a proverbial "field day", they do not rely on us and our animals to survive and prosper, we are not essential to the workings of this planet.

Zulu wrote: »

Because Wolves will be concerned about humainly killing humans?

To continue the off-topic line.....
Wolf attacks on humans.

A reasonable source for information is the world-wide study of wolf attacks on humans done by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) in 2002. The finding of the report was that during the 100 years of the 20th century there were between twenty and thirty attacks in North America (including Alaska and Canada, which have relatively high populations of wolves). Of these, three were fatal, all because of rabies. No attacks have been recorded in Yellowstone since the reintroduction of wolves more than a decade ago

3 deaths in 100 years, highly dangerous animals those wolves.

ScumLord wrote: »

I do live in the countryside and I have seen plots chocked by weeds to the point nothing could even walk through and a minority of plant variety could compete, it all depends on the area though.

Would a viable broad leaf forest pop up rapidly? I would have thought a broad leaf forest would take a decade or more to establish itself. You'll have a period when the environment will be in transition, really your talking about moving through 3 different environments, as it is now, the transition period and then an established forest which would kill anything that was growing in the meantime. So animals would have to adapt 3 times due to one change. It could very well mean the loss of a few species and that's across the board loss, plants and animals.

It's very hard to know though, you just can't say either way what will happen but going on past experience it more than likely will surprise us in some way that could take further decades to fully realise.

It would take a lot more than 10 years.
Our native wildlife wouldn't have to adapt to anything, how much wildlife do you see living in (not just crossing) open grass fields, they are a virtual desert bereft of wildlife, the wildlife is based in hedgerows and wooded areas, ie little bits of wilderness. .

I wonder how our vegetation would react to the sudden loss of livestock manure after thousands of years of it being there?

Come on now, I'm looking out my window typing this and the only place where there is cow sh*t is on the desert of a grass field, there is none in the hedgerows or wooded areas full of plants trees and animals.