Lithuanian Dog thrown from Bridge

HarryD

Anyone else heard about this.. ?
Some Lithuanian scumbags recoreded themselves throwing a helpless dog from a bridge, on to a track 40ft below.
The dog lay injured yelping, while the scumbags filmed it all.
The video has stirred quite a lot of emotions within online communities such as 4chan and reddit, with people offering to go there and deal with the scumbag themselves.
A Facebook group has been setup to track down the culprit, who was originally wrongly identified as someone else on facebook. 4chan have apparantly tracked down the guy.
The police have identified the culprit and are looking to question him.
Thankfully the dog survived and is been looked after, but still not eating or drinking.


HD

Warning: The video is available online but is very distressing to watch.

cashel girl

Advocating violent stuff removed.

star-pants

Hadn't heard about it.
I'm always shocked when I hear a new cruelty case like these ones, you'd think you wouldn't be but every time you just think 'how could they'.
There's clearly some blackhearted people out there, and I hope karma comes to each and every one of them.

little edit here - by Karma (if you click the link there) I mean that they will have consequences for what they've done - whether it be fines/jailed/exposed or have their life just not work out so well. It is *not* a violent statement.

thorbarry

ahh the poor dog

Hellrazer

To the person who reported these 3 posts^^^


Couple of things.

1.Have you nothing better to do?
2.Theres no need to report a thread 3 times.

Are you now the forum police?

Leave the moderating up to the mods please.

thorbarry

Hellrazer wrote: »

To the person who reported these 3 posts^^^


Couple of things.

1.Have you nothing better to do?
2.Theres no need to report a thread 3 times.

Are you now the forum police?

Leave the moderating up to the mods please.

lol we were reported?

Hellrazer

thorbarry wrote: »

lol we were reported?

Yes for advocating violence against the person who threw the dog off the bridge.Its against the forums rules to advocate violence of any sort so Ive edited the reported posts except for Star-pants one which Im sure she`ll defend herself.

star-pants

Hellrazer wrote: »

Yes for advocating violence against the person who threw the dog off the bridge.Its against the forums rules to advocate violence of any sort so Ive edited the reported posts except for Star-pants one which Im sure she`ll defend herself.

Darn right I'll defend myself - there was no violence mentioned in my post? So to the person who reported me you explain how I'm being violent.

Back ON topic - it's horrendous thing for people to be so cruel to animals or anyone I shall honestly never in my life understand it.

thorbarry

star-pants wrote: »

Darn right I'll defend myself - there was no violence mentioned in my post? So to the person who reported me you explain how I'm being violent.

Back ON topic - it's horrendous thing for people to be so cruel to animals or anyone I shall honestly never in my life understand it.

yea, your post was fine dude, i dont see any problem with it

It really amazes me what some people are capable of doing. In my mind, throwing an innocent dog off a bridge is the same as throwing an innocent person of a bridge, and the people that did this should be given a proper jail sentence and not 6-12 months community service

CokaColumbo

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

star-pants

So you feel it's perfectly humane to kill someones pet by tossing them off a bridge?
Purely because we kill animals bred for food in the best way we can?

If chickens & cows and other edible animals were killed by being tossed off a bridge you'd be damn sure there'd be an uproar.

CamillaRhodes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

I am not going to try to advocate against vegetarianism, but you must recognise that the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.

The time may come when eating meat is considered by repulsive by the majority of human beings. But until that time comes, do you really think it would be better that we not be horrified by sickos torturing animals for their amusement?

HarryD

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

Putting any animal through such a degree of suffering is a bad thing.
This case is sick, because it was done for a twisted form of amusement.
However it's as bad as the systematic cases of creulty that goes on today in the meat industry.

Whispered

I think what happened is a disgrace, absolutely.

However, acts of cruelty do happen as standard in abbatoirs. It may not be throwing them off bridges, but needless cruelty happens and people either don't know about it (and if eating ethicially thay should make it their business to know about it IMO) or else they have an idea and turn a blind eye.

BUT, at the end of the day, the dog was abused for amusement, nothing else. And there is a difference between that and farming.

lintdrummer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

Difference: Killing animals for food is not pointless and on the whole cows, chickens, etc etc are killed as humanely as possible. And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it. We flavour meat with herbs, spices and sauces.

Killing, or indeed in this case injuring, an animal of any kind simply for kicks and lack of anything else to do is just cruel and unnecesary.

Whispered

CamillaRhodes wrote: »

I am not going to try to advocate against vegetarianism, but you must recognise that the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.

Omnivores, not carnivores.

And while the vast majority of people do not torture for amusement, the same vast majority support cruelty by buying products obtained by cruel means. I am not saying people should not eat meat. But people should try to eat ethicially sourced meat. Like free range chicken and pigs. Meat from family butchers. I hate when I hear people going on about how cheap meat is in x,y or z. It's cheap for a reason. Usually that reason is terrible conditions for the animals.

In saying that, I can't talk, I drink milk and have no idea where it's sourced and how the calves which are a byproduct of this industry end up. Most likely as veal ca;ves I'd imagine.

I don't think that poster was trying to tell you NOT to be disgusted at what happened to the dog. I think s/he was trying to point out that there are levels of cruelty which we accept that we shouldn't.

heno86

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

At the end of the day, the people who committed this vile act did so for amusement; we kill similar animals for nothing more than taste and convenience.

Your thoughts...

blah blah blah we know cows and chickens are killed and the reason it's different is because we do it for sustenance to live, its part of our natural diet...if these guys were starving in the woods i wouldnt have a problem with them eating a dog for survival by the same token if i had a pet cow and someone pushed daisy off a bridge just to see her die and in agony then i would say they were sick fu*ks too...people are more shocked at the mentality of individuals who want to cause pain and suffering to a living creature for no apparent reason other than deriving sick pleasure than the actual death, would you rather live next door to one of these guys or someone who worked at a slaughter house?

Whispered

heno86 wrote: »

blah blah blah

ooohhh quick edit!:)

I think that was his point? That people accept some forms of cruelty with a blah blah type of attitude.

EDIT: Of course it was awful and wrong what happened to the dog and I hope the person responsible does time for it. I think the whole conversation on the ethics of farming would be better off in another forum or thread?

heno86

helena.ryan wrote: »

ooohhh quick edit!:)

I think that was his point? That people accept some forms of cruelty with a blah blah type of attitude.

yeh i felt bad:) haha, it's not a blase attitude towards the animals death it's towards this kind of rationale i sometimes think people just talk like this to hear their own voice...seriously this has nothing got to do with the slaughter of animals for food its an act of cruelty for no other reason than a sadistic thrill thats why it causes uproar, it's nothing to do with the type of animal its the human that people are shocked at and it's very frustrating when people try to belittle one animals suffering to push their own cause, the reality is they're two very different situations and the poster knows that just as any right minded person does so why do people feel the need to try relate any animal cruelty to domsticated animals to livestock treatment

HarryD

Update on the case:
The culprit has handed himself in and has been released pending charges.
The dog is still terrifed but has started to eat and drink again

more links:
here
here

Peanut

emmettogara wrote: »

... And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it.

Nah. I reckon it's more to do with what a particular society is used to.

It's not difficult at all to eat an equivalent in non-animal nutrition, but a majority of people like the taste of meat and prefer not to think about where it comes from too much.

Whispered

I know what you mean I can see what that poster is saying and I agree to a point but it doesn't take away from the fact that it is appaling what happened.

why do people feel the need to try relate any animal cruelty to domsticated animals to livestock treatment

I think because there is unnecessary suffering caused to these animals too. It's not on the same level of depravity, but on a much larger scale.

CokaColumbo

star-pants wrote: »

So you feel it's perfectly humane to kill someones pet by tossing them off a bridge?
Purely because we kill animals bred for food in the best way we can?
If chickens & cows and other edible animals were killed by being tossed off a bridge you'd be damn sure there'd be an uproar.

I think by the standards of a meat eater, this act was not an inherently wrong thing to do as we both kill animals for essentially trivial reasons. Granted, those men killed that dog for the sheer, perverted enjoyment of taking his or her life; but we the consumers kill animals all the time because we are absolutely indifferent to their suffering and death (which is not exactly saintly in my opinion).

CamillaRhodes wrote: »

...the vast majority of human beings are carnivores, and have been for millenia. The vast majority of humans are not torturers of animals for their own amusement. Thus the actions of those few are repulsive to the majority.
...But until that time comes, do you really think it would be better that we not be horrified by sickos torturing animals for their amusement?

I defintely agree that the vast majority of humans are not deliberate and active torturers of animals but I do think that we are passive torturers of animals.

It is because of us and our indifference to 'food' animals that we allow severe abuses to be inflicted upon them, equal to and often worse than the poor dog who was thrown off that bridge.
Yes we eat Irish cows and Irish pigs whose lives have been 'humanely' taken away from them but we also generally eat packaged pizza's, Chinese take-aways, imported yoghurts, chocolate bars, biscuits, Tesco processed meals, imported ice creams, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King etc. etc. all of which contain animal products which have come from animals who usually live out their short lives in perpetual pain and discomfort in intensive agriculture conditions (factory farms).

emmettogara wrote: »

...And for taste and convenience isn't the only reason we eat animals, nutrition has much more to do it. We flavour meat with herbs, spices and sauces.
Killing, or indeed in this case injuring, an animal of any kind simply for kicks and lack of anything else to do is just cruel and unnecesary.

I can assure you that a diet which does not involve meat products (or animal products at all) is entirely healthy and may be in fact more beneficial to you in the long run. Eating meat is just more convenient in obtaining the necessary nutrients and minerals (protein, iron etc.) but all of these can be found easily in a plant based diet. Convenience and taste are the only reasons we can put forward for our killing of animals; we are the ones who "lack" justification for taking sentient life away.


In my opinion, we are all, in one form or another, those bad men on the bridge.

lintdrummer

Peanut wrote: »

Nah. I reckon it's more to do with what a particular society is used to.

It's not difficult at all to eat an equivalent in non-animal nutrition, but a majority of people like the taste of meat and prefer not to think about where it comes from too much.

I agree. Certainly people enjoy eating meat and it is to do with society, tradition is a valuable part of cuisine.

However you missed my point here, I wasn't trying to drag the thread off topic into a vegetarian vs omnivore debate, I was simply stating that killing an animal to eat it is not pointless and is entirely different from pointless cruelty.

Discodog

It's a pity that there was not an internet outcry over the poor puppy that was set alight & thrown over a wall in Dublin. Those delightful people are still at large. Maybe because it was not filmed. Perhaps we can ignore what we don't see ?.

CokaColumbo

wrote:

Perhaps we can ignore what we don't see ?.

That's exactly it. We point the finger at those who commit this abuse with such blatant intent yet we ourselves are guilty of comparable abuse; we just have different motives, but equally frivolous ones, for committing it.
We hide behind the bogus claim of "I only eat humanely killed animals" and "humans need meat for its nutrition". Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

(if I have misrepresented your quote I apologise. That sentence just summed up my initial argument.)

lintdrummer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I can assure you that a diet which does not involve meat products (or animal products at all) is entirely healthy and may be in fact more beneficial to you in the long run. Eating meat is just more convenient in obtaining the necessary nutrients and minerals (protein, iron etc.) but all of these can be found easily in a plant based diet. Convenience and taste are the only reasons we can put forward for our killing of animals; we are the ones who "lack" justification for taking sentient life away.


In my opinion, we are all, in one form or another, those bad men on the bridge.

My good god what is wrong with people here? I never said that I disagree with vegetarianism and I never said that it is less healthy than a meat rich diet. My girlfriend is a vegetarian and I rarely eat meat myself. My point was that killing an animal for it's meat isn't senseless whereas throwing a pet off a bridge for no reason is.

I am not a vege basher!!!!!!!!!!!!

CokaColumbo

emmettogara wrote: »

My good god what is wrong with people here? I never said that I disagree with vegetarianism and I never said that it is less healthy than a meat rich diet. My girlfriend is a vegetarian and I rarely eat meat myself. My point was that killing an animal for it's meat isn't senseless whereas throwing a pet off a bridge for no reason is.

I am not a vege basher!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry if I made you look like a vege basher

My point is that it is in fact senseless to kill a living, sentient being, a person in my opinion, when it isn't necessary in any way WHATSOEVER to do so! I think the taking of that dog's life was just as pointless as killing a cow to make 50 double, flame grilled cheeseburgers. Emmettogara, i want you to become a vegan. I want you to reject animal products for ever and ever.

heno86

in other news check out after hours, a fish being eaten alive after being fried, if i hear "well thats no worse than what happens to charlie the chicken in bangladesh" i think i might scream, look at it for what it is not what its comparable to....its really fu*ked up if your squeamish dont look at the vid

wolfpawnat

Well I dont see what vegitarianism has to do with a dog in Lithuania, but anywho!

That poor animal, those sub-human beasts would not do such things if they knew they would be subjected to the same in return. I wish there was harsher laws for animal abuse!

If you can't love a dog what can you love?

star-pants

Cokacolumbo, whilst I see your point, if we go by that rule, then every person on the planet is a murderer, paedophile, torturer, abuser and so forth.

People fight for better conditions - such as free range animals, so as to give them the best life they can have (being bred for food).
Animals kill other animals for food.
We kill animals for food.

Killing animals for fun is another matter and that's what this thread was about.

lintdrummer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I am sorry if I made you look like a vege basher

My point is that it is in fact senseless to kill a living, sentient being, a person in my opinion, when it isn't necessary in any way WHATSOEVER to do so! I think the taking of that dog's life was just as pointless as killing a cow to make 50 double, flame grilled cheeseburgers. Emmettogara, i want you to become a vegan. I want you to reject animal products for ever and ever.

Apology accepted CokaColumbo!

This is an argument for another thread methinks.

Vegetarianism I can do; vegan, now thats just not for me. Yet.

heno86 wrote: »

in other news check out after hours, a fish being eaten alive after being fried, if i hear "well thats no worse than what happens to charlie the chicken in bangladesh" i think i might scream, look at it for what it is not what its comparable to....its really fu*ked up if your squeamish dont look at the vid

Funny, I was just looking at this before I came to reply here. It's bizarre, but many aspects of Asian cuisine are odd from a western point of view.

lintdrummer

star-pants wrote: »

Cokacolumbo, whilst I see your point, if we go by that rule, then every person on the planet is a murderer, paedophile, torturer, abuser and so forth.

People fight for better conditions - such as free range animals, so as to give them the best life they can have (being bred for food).
Animals kill other animals for food.
We kill animals for food.

Killing animals for fun is another matter and that's what this thread was about.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for being better able to articulate your opinion!

Discodog

Killing animals for fun is an everyday occurrence & often state sponsored. What is a pheasant shoot about ?. Please don't say they are for food !. Some sections of society accept killing & cruelty. They will dress it up by saying that they are trapping crows because they eat crops or lamping for bunnies because they cause damage. People will hare course, dog fight, & even cock fighting is becoming popular here. Some will give excuses but some do it purely for pleasure.

CokaColumbo

star-pants wrote: »

Cokacolumbo, whilst I see your point, if we go by that rule, then every person on the planet is a murderer, paedophile, torturer, abuser and so forth.

People fight for better conditions - such as free range animals, so as to give them the best life they can have (being bred for food).
Animals kill other animals for food.
We kill animals for food.

Killing animals for fun is another matter and that's what this thread was about.

I'm not 100% about the pedophile part, but yes all of us, on Boards at least, are absolutely of guilty of mass abuse of animals. Its that simple.

In practice, nooooobody (except vegans) actually lives up to their supposed pro-animal principals. I do however make a clear distinction between those who commit deliberate abuse (all Lithuanians :pac:) and those who commit passive abuse (us).
That said the distinction applies only to our motives, not our actions. Our motives don't reflect those of the Lithuanians but our actions do.


Yes, non-human animals kill other non-human animals for food but they do so out of necessity, in order to survive. We omnivores do not. We do so because we like the taste of meat, and because its convenient. That's all. No other reason. Diddly squat. Ding dang dooodly diddly squat.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that the best life an animal can have is being bred for food. But that's for another day.

star-pants

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I'm not 100% about the pedophile part, but yes all of us, on Boards at least, are absolutely of guilty of mass abuse of animals. Its that simple.

By what you said - yes it all applies, every bad thing in the world, we are all guilty of. Because someone somewhere looks the other way.

What do you mean by 'on boards at least?'

CokaColumbo wrote:

In practice, nooooobody (except vegans) actually lives up to their supposed pro-animal principals. I do however make a clear distinction between those who commit deliberate abuse (all Lithuanians :pac:) and those who commit passive abuse (us).
That said the distinction applies only to our motives, not our actions. Our motives don't reflect those of the Lithuanians but our actions do.

Very generalised sweeping statements btw - not all vegans are strict vegans.
And not all Lithuanians are like those in this situation would do that to an animal.

CokaColumbo wrote:

Yes, non-human animals kill other non-human animals for food but they do so out of necessity, in order to survive. We omnivores do not. We do so because we like the taste of meat, and because its convenient. That's all. No other reason. Diddly squat. Ding dang dooodly diddly squat.

Again - sweeping statement, humans have eaten meat for thousands of years, it's part of our diet and it some cases part of culture. When people are old enough to understand they can make the decision to do what they wish about that.
We began by killing animals in order to survive, as we progessed yes we have found other sources of sustenance but even then in order to be completely healthy without meat and by products supplements need to be taken no?
So why would supplements be needed if we didn't need meat?
I don't like the taste of almost all meat so I don't eat it. That's my choice and I'll never force my opinion or beliefs on anyone.

CokaColumbo wrote:

Lastly, I strongly disagree that the best life an animal can have is being bred for food. But that's for another day.

I did not say that's the best life an animal can have.
I said, that those being bred for food /by products are given the best life they can be given in those circumstances (the free range ones).

dlofnep

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

If you don't know the answer to that question, then I'm actually utterly dumbfounded.

Discodog

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That's exactly it. We point the finger at those who commit this abuse with such blatant intent yet we ourselves are guilty of comparable abuse; we just have different motives, but equally frivolous ones, for committing it.
We hide behind the bogus claim of "I only eat humanely killed animals" and "humans need meat for its nutrition". Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

(if I have misrepresented your quote I apologise. That sentence just summed up my initial argument.)

You did rather misrepresent me. Yes I do eat meat & I know that I shouldn't. Out of sight is out of mind. The old saying that none of us would eat meat if we visited an abattoir is true. However your question as to whether throwing the dog off was "that bad a thing" has just totally destroyed any respect that I might have for you, your views or your Vegan lifestyle.

CokaColumbo

Discodog wrote: »

You did rather misrepresent me. Yes I do eat meat & I know that I shouldn't. Out of sight is out of mind. The old saying that none of us would eat meat if we visited an abattoir is true. However your question as to whether throwing the dog off was "that bad a thing" has just totally destroyed any respect that I might have for you, your views or your Vegan lifestyle.

Mate I clearly think that what happened to that dog was disgusting. I think it was vile, absolutely vile. Taking my OP as a whole, I did not put forward any opinion whatsoever on the matter; I simply played Devil's Advocate on the issue. You should not be disgusted by that.
The reason I asked that question was to get debate going, to make people question their own involvement in practices which involve the maltreatment of animals. And I think I got the ball rolling.
No offensive remarks were made by me.

CokaColumbo

star-pants wrote: »

By what you said - yes it all applies, every bad thing in the world, we are all guilty of. Because someone somewhere looks the other way.
What do you mean by 'on boards at least?'

You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was talking about our own individual actions and how we should reflect on them before pointing the finger at others. 'On boards' referred to everyone who is involved in this debate.

star-pants wrote: »

generalised sweeping statements btw - not all vegans are strict vegans.

Please stop nitpicking and focus on the core arguments in my posts. One could make the point that if you consume animal products then you are not a vegan.

star-pants wrote: »

And not all Lithuanians are like those in this situation would do that to an animal.

Hence the laughing smiley face..?

star-pants wrote: »

sweeping statement, humans have eaten meat for thousands of years, it's part of our diet and it some cases part of culture. When people are old enough to understand they can make the decision to do what they wish about that.
We began by killing animals in order to survive, as we progessed yes we have found other sources of sustenance but even then in order to be completely healthy without meat and by products supplements need to be taken no?
So why would supplements be needed if we didn't need meat?
I don't like the taste of almost all meat so I don't eat it. That's my choice and I'll never force my opinion or beliefs on anyone.

If you disagree with my point, state why you disagree with it. I think my point is entirely valid and has been left unchallenged.
And no, you don't need supplements to be a healthy vegan. It does of course make life easier no matter what diet you consume but it is not a requirement.

star-pants wrote: »

I did not say that's the best life an animal can have.
I said, that those being bred for food /by products are given the best life they can be given in those circumstances (the free range ones).

You wrote, "...so as to give them the best life they can have (being bred for food)." Perhaps you should be more clear.

star-pants

CokaColumbo - I'm not going to sit here arguing with you.

You are taking a thread that was a discussion on the cruel actions against a dog and turning into a debate on whether people should kill animals full stop. And basically saying that vegans are the only pure people. This thread is not for that discussion.

CokaColumbo

star-pants wrote: »

CokaColumbo - I'm not going to sit here arguing with you.

You are taking a thread that was a discussion on the cruel actions against a dog and turning into a debate on whether people should kill animals full stop. And basically saying that vegans are the only pure people. This thread is not for that discussion.

And you are the one accusing others of making sweeping statements?
I made very relevant points, and highlighted two issues, people's abusive treatment of animals for entertainment; and our abusive treatment of animals for food, and how both are very similar indeed; I felt the connection needed to be addressed, and quite frankly it did.
In my opinion, you are the one who degenerated this thread.

But yes, I too am getting tired of arguing.

Whispered

CokaColumbo, I hope you realise that people who shove opinions like you did on this thread make anybody who holds similar views look just stupid. It undermines the integrity of ANY argument against farming and for veganism as people are going to immediately equate any mention of it with opinionated and frankly, at times insulting, opinions. You make some good points, but in doing so managed to insult everybody else on the thread. (including a forum moderator)

However, considering you are vegan all of 7 days, I suppose it's down to excitment?

CokaColumbo

helena.ryan wrote: »

CokaColumbo, I hope you realise that people who shove opinions like you did on this thread make anybody who holds similar views look just stupid. It undermines the integrity of ANY argument against farming and for veganism as people are going to immediately equate any mention of it with opinionated and frankly, at times insulting, opinions. You make some good points, but in doing so managed to insult everybody else on the thread. (including a forum moderator)

However, considering you are vegan all of 7 days, I suppose it's down to excitment?

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I never put myself above any criticism; I made a point of using the term 'us' and 'we' when referring to animal consumption. In this way, I referred to myself, all in separate instances, as a consumer of animal products; as a passive torturer of animals; and of being guilty of animal abuse.

I also never actually said on this thread that I was in fact a vegan, only you did, so well done for broadcasting the very thing you are condemning me for tarnishing. I even disassociated myself from veganism in the following quote,

wrote:

In practice, nooooobody (except vegans) actually lives up to their supposed pro-animal principals. I do however make a clear distinction between those who commit deliberate abuse (all Lithuanians ) and those who commit passive abuse (us).

I don't think I gave anybody any abuse; I was simply straightforward, direct, and frank with people. If you take 'Emmettogara' for example, we dealt with each other with absolute decency and I even apologised to him on one occassion.

I ask you please to point out where in fact, according to you, I insulted every other poster...

Whispered

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

good point, but you must realise how many people switched off at this line? Had I not similar views, I know I would have rolled my eyes and thought - Oh here we go again

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think by the standards of a meat eater, this act was not an inherently wrong thing to do as we both kill animals for essentially trivial reasons. ........In my opinion, we are all, in one form or another, those bad men on the bridge.

Ok again a good point until you start saying that we are all "those bad men on the bridge". This is where I stopped supporting your view in my posts.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

i want you to become a vegan. I want you to reject animal products for ever and ever.

Was this tongue in cheek?

Discodog wrote: »

However your question as to whether throwing the dog off was "that bad a thing" has just totally destroyed any respect that I might have for you, your views or your Vegan lifestyle.

Now as far as I am aware Disco Dog does not hang around in the V&V forum (please correct me if I am wrong), so I guess from your posts, it is obvious you are vegan without me saying it?

star-pants wrote: »

And basically saying that vegans are the only pure people.

See, a lot of people reading the thread got the same vibe. If you saw a thread where a person was trying to make out that a certain religion was the only right way of doing things, or as SP put it, the only pure way, would you be a bit annoyed at that?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In my opinion, you are the one who degenerated this thread.
.

So you start in a thread, telling people that they are no better than some scum who threw a dog from a bridge, and people who don't agree degenerated the thread?

You make some good points that I agree with, but, you make these points in such a way that I want to distance myself from it. Do you know what I mean. Like it's because of people saying things such as you did that makes me reluctant to tell people my views as they will immediately associate me with trying to turn them, or thinking they are inferior. The vast majority of veggies and vegans are happy to live and let live. You are not going to change the system, and trying to do so by annoying people is not going to work. It's the same reason I don't support peta. Sometimes I think these people care more about the shock/anger factor and less about actual results.

I don't want to discuss this further here. A thread about cruelty has turned into a thread more suited for the v&v forum. If you start a thread there, I would be happy to reply.

HarryD

My 2c:
In terms of cruelty, those of us that eat non-humanely sourced meat have got blood on our hands. But it's difficult to avoid.
I buy my meat from this guy & try to always buy free range eggs.
However I can't be sure all the materials in clothes I wear are humanely sourced.
The EU need to review animal welfare laws, such as chicken farms, veal crates, an foie gras production.
There are some inroads been made on this but still a long way off.

This case was particularly sickening, because it was motivated not by hunger (which is responsible for much inhumanaity in nature)
but by a twisted form of entertainment, and as such as needless.

HD

Whispered

HarryD wrote: »

My 2c:
I buy my meat from this guy ........

thats brilliant, I didn't think there was anything like that. All my googling for free range pork didn't turn him up.

Thanks for the link.

CokaColumbo

helena.ryan wrote: »

good point, but you must realise how many people switched off at this line? Had I not similar views, I know I would have rolled my eyes and thought - Oh here we go again

The point I made was clearly valid and I was absolutely correct in saying what I said. I don't think that this argument should even be taking place because at the end of the day, I simply don't fit into your role of polite, 'don't want to hurt anybody's feelings', subdued vegan. If you disagree with anything that I actually said, then focus on that. If you disagree with my approach (which was not unduly judgemental or offensive at all) then realise that we have a difference of opinion and move on.
I'm sure some people tuned out immediately when they read my comment, but that doesn't mean most people did. In fact, it got the debate raging...

helena.ryan wrote: »

Ok again a good point until you start saying that we are all "those bad men on the bridge". This is where I stopped supporting your view in my posts.

That quote simply summed up what I had been arguing from the very beginning. If you disagree with that quote, you disagree with my whole argument which, by your own admission, you don't. It is absolutely consistent with my first post.

helena.ryan wrote: »

If you saw a thread where a person was trying to make out that a certain religion was the only right way of doing things, or as SP put it, the only pure way, would you be a bit annoyed at that?

I did get annoyed once, a year or two ago, when somebody argued that veganism is the moral baseline for anybody who really cares about the situation of animals. That didn't stop it from being true though and looking back, it was better that he did say it rather than holding his tongue for fear of offending someone.
If you are a moral vegan and you think that challenging people's perceptions in a frank but 'non-preachy' way is a bad thing, then you are the one who has missed something along the way...think about it.

helena.ryan wrote: »

So you start in a thread, telling people that they are no better than some scum who threw a dog from a bridge, and people who don't agree degenerated the thread?

Once again I will point out that I did clearly included myself in all areas of animal abuse and animal consumption. I never put myself above criticism. And in case you haven't actually read the posts, I was the one accused of degenerating this thread.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Like it's because of people saying things such as you did that makes me reluctant to tell people my views as they will immediately associate me with trying to turn them, or thinking they are inferior.

No offence, but both of these things are correctly associated with veganism. Ethical vegans do think that people who eat animal products are morally inferior; I really do hate to put it as starkly as that, but that's simply the way it is. Its never put as plainly as that to people's faces, but that's what ethical vegans fundamentally believe.
Also, as ethical vegans, we should at least explain the merits of and logic behind veganism instead of shying away from it for fear of what people might think.

I think you are criticising me for not conforming to the standards which exist in your head, not the standards which exist in reality.

Whispered

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't want to discuss this further here. A thread about cruelty has turned into a thread more suited for the v&v forum. If you start a thread there, I would be happy to reply.

.

Hellrazer

helena.ryan wrote: »

I don't want to discuss this further here. A thread about cruelty has turned into a thread more suited for the v&v forum. If you start a thread there, I would be happy to reply.

I agree.How we got from a dog being thrown off a bridge to an argument about vegans is beyond me.

Now time for me to go and have a nice large steak,smothered with onions and mushrooms--nyom,nyom.


^^^Saracsm btw before anyone decides to give out.

jen_23

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Was throwing the dog off the bridge that bad a thing?

Eh Yes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I am asking this question because we ourselves kill thousands of animals every year who aren't morally or logically distinguishable from that poor dog (i.e. cows and pigs and chickens etc.) and for pretty trivial reasons, primarily taste and convenience.
If they had stunned the dog before throwing him or her off the bridge, wouldn't that be fine?

There is a huge difference between throwing a dog off a bridge for sick pleasure and eating meat!.
In fact I would be grossly concerned as that behavior is typical of a sociopath. It has been claimed that sociopaths torture and kill animals for their own amusement and kicks before graduating to crimes against people.
I don't think people (or atleast i'd hope not!!) that work in abbatoirs do it for their own amusement. I imagine for the most part it's a way to earn money and provide sustenance.

People have been eating meat since we have been living in caves. Granted were not killing them with a spear and throwing them on a spit anymore - instead as civilisation has evolved so has the way in which we slaughter. The difference between an abbatoir and throwing a dog from a bridge is that there are practices in place in which to humanely kill the animal - be it by CO2 gassing or by a captive bolt pistol to stun them which frankly I know I would prefer to straight on slaughter!

Granted I will say that I read a book last year which shocked me due to it's insight into what goes on between trasport of livestock to the abbatoirs and in some cases what goes on in there (it was on american abbatoirs) but after that I just took more notice and care of where I bought my meat from. I still wouldn't say that doing something that we have done for thousands of years is as bad or worse than throwing a family pet off a bridge to suffer for no other cause than amusement!

As others have said though this is a topic which can be strongly debated in several different ways but it doesn't hold much relevance to a poor dog having to suffer under sociopaths!