What creatures are below animal cruelty in your opinion?

Capt'n Midnight · 30-01-2015 10:03PM

dodderangler wrote: »

No one ever suspects the butterfly mwah ha ha ha

Tsui Hark's feature directorial debut is a most unusual effort – imagine a traditional swordplay adventure re-structured like a murder mystery and spiced with horror elements from Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS (1963). The storyline tells of how the noble Shum family was beset by a most unusual threat: clouds of bloodsucking butterflies, which may be the result of a curse.

Well worth a watch if you like that sort of thing. Been a while since Channel 4 showed it.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-01-2015 11:00PM

Snotaul Goodman wrote: »

Creatures that will kill you by means of poison or constriction. Certain spiders, snakes, fish etc. They can all fcuk right off.

Also, if given the chance, a sloth will kill you and everyone you care about. True story*

*Probably not

We have giant sloth DNA we could Jurassic park them. It would be like having cuddly elephant-sized bears with massive claws, what could possibly go wrong ?

Letree · 30-01-2015 11:09PM

I wouldn't inflict cruelty on any creature not even a fly or wasp. If i decide to kill them i try and do it fast. I wouldn't like to leave any of them in misery.

TheBeardedLady · 30-01-2015 11:11PM

The One Doctor wrote: »

Cruelty to children seems to be below cruelty to animals. The ISPCA gets far more in donations than the ISPCC ever did. I always laugh at people who champion the prevention of cruelty to animals. They'd probably kick a child out of the way to help a limping puppy. Arses. I never donate to animal charities as they're all either misguided or a blatant con.

The richest charity in the UK is the Donkey Sanctuary. That says a lot about people.

Sorry to all animal lovers out there but this I don't get at all.

Littlekittylou · 30-01-2015 11:43PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Is it cruel to step on a snail? Or to kill a frog? Is it something you consider a potential pet where it stops? Weird topic I know but what's your views?

I would consider people who kill frogs cruel unless it's pest control. I try to get people to put spiders out. But if they can't then to just kill them quickly.

Cruelty damages you too. It damages the heart and your ability to connect.

Anything below cruelty? Save it for assholes who deserve it.

Never kill in cold blood ....save it for the honorable battle

KABBLAH.

DeadHand · 31-01-2015 12:08AM

No creature is below animal cruelty.

Where it is necessary to kill animals (eradication of vermin, harvesting of food animals, etc.) it should be done as quickly and painlessly as is practical.

People who are cruel any kind of animal (including insects) deliberately are slightly bigger assholes than the twats who think animals are our equals and killing them under any circumstance is immoral.

gubbie · 31-01-2015 12:08AM

The One Doctor wrote: »

Cruelty to children seems to be below cruelty to animals. The ISPCA gets far more in donations than the ISPCC ever did...
The richest charity in the UK is the Donkey Sanctuary. That says a lot about people.

Where do you get these figures? I searched them and found this from 2012 (save the children No.4, ISPCC higher than ISPCA)

Or did you just make up the facts to suit yourself?

DBB · 31-01-2015 12:09AM

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Sorry to all animal lovers out there but this I don't get at all.

In fairness, you don't need to get it, because as other posts here have shown, the "stats" posted about the richest charity in the UK by this poster were bullsh!t. But that's not the only bit of that post that is so untrue and misled

I refer to this bit of the same post, which I realise was made some months ago:

I always laugh at people who champion the prevention of cruelty to animals. They'd probably kick a child out of the way to help a limping puppy. Arses. I never donate to animal charities as they're all either misguided or a blatant con.

I run an animal welfare charity, fully registered and legit, as do many people I know. Yet, amazingly enough, I can still find room in my heart to help and support humans in need, and would consider myself to be a deeply empathetic person towards all species. I consider myself to be representative of most people out there, so this bullsh1t that people like me would "kick a child out of the way" is, frankly, disgusting.
Neither is the work I do misguided or a blatant con, and what an insulting and ignorant insinuation it is to make about the majority of excellent legit animal rescue services in this country.
I've posted here about this before, but not only do me and people like me help people who can no longer look after their dogs for whatever reason (these days it's usually related to emigration, moving to a smaller/rented property etc), not only do I keep the county council pounds just that little bit clearer of unwanted dogs thus saving taxpayers' money, but my service and others just like it also provide a social service for those who adopt dogs from us.
I have had so many elderly, or disabled, or sick, or lonely, or depressed, or grieving people thank me (and my ilk) for giving them a reason to get out of bed in the mornings, to keep going, to stay alive, because they have a little life to be responsible for now. Even for people in the full of their health, the happiness brought to them by being carefully matched up with the perfect dog for them is priceless.
So, it might not be clear to ignorant people who know no better, but just want to make a bit of a name for themselves on an internet forum, but for all decent and legit animal rescue charities, the animals make up less than 50% of the equation... the other 50+% is made up solidly of human beings whose lives have been changed by the work we do.
Arses indeed.

Hachiko · 31-01-2015 12:12AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Often we hear stories that cause outrage when it comes to animal cruelty. Over the years we've heard of horses being left to starve, cats being abandoned and dogs being booted around. On the flip side, nobody would bat an eyelid if someone swatted a fly or stepped on a bug. Where is the cut-off point? Is it cruel to step on a snail? Or to kill a frog? Is it something you consider a potential pet where it stops? Weird topic I know but what's your views?

seagulls

utter ba$tards, England is full of the ****$. Stealing food, dropping bombs everywhere and being a general nuisance squaking and acting the b0llox in general.

Any car owner will testify to the damage caused by these little prick$.

I like pets and all that but I need to draw the line somewhere.

Seagulls go in my room 101, put a gadzillion pounds of semtex into the room with the entire seagull population.

Littlekittylou · 31-01-2015 12:21AM

DeadHand wrote: »

No creature is below animal cruelty.

Where it is necessary to kill animals (eradication of vermin, harvesting of food animals, etc.) it should be done as quickly and painlessly as is practical.

People who are cruel any kind of animal (including insects) deliberately are slightly bigger assholes than the twats who think animals are our equals and killing them under any circumstance is immoral.

But the truth is we do swat flies. Or kill a spider or dust a web. And we rarely feel bad about this. Or I do these things sometimes. If I am brave enough I will try the cup over the spider method but it rarely works. :rolleyes:

I would be lying if I said I did not do these things. Yes I don't nor have I ever tortured anything.

It's rarely practical it involves a lot of screaming and dancing around said spider.

My mother has a terrible phobia of Daddy Long legs. She will cry real tears scream and run and demand the door is closed quickly each nigh to avoid letting them in. She really fears them coming in.

When I once killed one for her with a newspaper she said she felt guilt as it was making me do a bad thing. I guess we felt it is better to be a sensitive person. But you have the balance of what my mother's emotions where and what effect they had on me. She is bigger and louder! And I love her and she is very good to me. But I am really not easily cruel. I don't enjoy it. I would shew them out if she let me!

Not fair but there.

I never thought I would think so in depth about Daddy Long legs.

ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL!

I am not sure if this post makes me cruel or nauseatingly good. Either way I can't win.:o

osarusan · 31-01-2015 12:25AM

Regarding what it is considered ok to kill, I'd say that cute/not cure, intelligent/not intelligent, and clean/not (perceived as) clean have a lot to do with it.

Cruelty is a different thing - causing deliberate pain to animals is something that should never be ok.

764dak · 31-01-2015 12:31AM

mitosis wrote: »

People chase crows and starlings away from bird feeders. People let a ladybird crawl on their hands but scream if a black beetle comes near them. A mouse is a pest but a gerbil a pet.

The line is drawn between perceived cute and perceived uncute.

Mice are kept as pets.

TheBeardedLady · 31-01-2015 12:35AM

DBB wrote: »

In fairness, you don't need to get it, because as other posts here have shown, the "stats" posted about the richest charity in the UK by this poster were bullsh!t. But that's not the only bit of that post that is so untrue and misled

I'm happy to hear that.

I'm not against animal charities btw.

31-01-2015 12:40AM

I do not see a "below" here. I am not quite as bad as the Jains who drink water through cheese cloth and sweep the road infront of them as they walk - all in the hope of minimizing the animal life deaths they might cause - but my philosophy is to let any and all animals go on their way peacefully until the point they are either a threat to me - or I need to eat them.

I prefer to kill my own meat where I can - which is rare except for rabbit and fish - and I prefer to buy my bought meat ethically where I can too. So I minimize cruelty where I can. And I would generally prefer to chase a fly around my house for an hour and then put him out - than swat him in 10 seconds too.

So I guess no animal is below "cruelty" but perhaps my view of "cruel" might differ from some people.

TheBeardedLady · 31-01-2015 12:53AM

I'm not particularly an animal lover meself but do agree that we should respect them. I wouldn't like to see or hear about cruelty towards any animal; I'd throw an insect out the window rather than stamp on it (though I do kill cockroaches for hygiene purposes) and I only eat fish (which yes, I know are animals too but I wouldn't equate the killing of a cow with the killing of a sardine personally - and I love seafood).

Namaste. *Bows*

Tarzana2 · 31-01-2015 01:12AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Weird topic I know but what's your views?

A really interesting topic, IMO.

And one I have given thought to. My thoughts on insects is that they die instantly pretty much when you kill them so I guess that's one big reason why it's not deemed to be as big a deal.

I wouldn't intentionally smush one though. I'm terrified of spiders and really hate but always ask people to put them outside without harming them.

But I guess ultimately it comes down to, the bigger the animal, the more likely they will suffer pain in death meted out by humans in cruelty cases.

31-01-2015 01:13AM

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Doctor View Post
Cruelty to children seems to be below cruelty to animals. The ISPCA gets far more in donations than the ISPCC ever did. I always laugh at people who champion the prevention of cruelty to animals. They'd probably kick a child out of the way to help a limping puppy. Arses. I never donate to animal charities as they're all either misguided or a blatant con.

The richest charity in the UK is the Donkey Sanctuary. That says a lot about people.

Sorry to all animal lovers out there but this I don't get at all.

I think its quite simple.

The sad reality is that people can dump or neglect animals as mico-chipping and any other control measures aren't in place and/or aren't enforced. Therefore there is no comeback on the person who did it and more often than not there is nobody to fill the void left. Technically I think the Dept. of Agriculture are meant to be taking a more active role in relation to this but the time, resources, interests or political will isn't there to do it. Pumping money into animal charities isn't going to win you votes. The laws on animal welfare are extremely light and it doesn't pay to go after the people who are neglecting animals as they will get a fine of a couple of hundred euro and a slap on the wrist (best case scenario)

I know of two animal charities near where I live and they both do fantastic work in saving animals from horrific situations and certain death and re-home them or at the very least give them a dignified death. There are people there who devote countless hours to a thankless and shocking job. I know there are dodgy charities in there as well but that is present in all charity sectors.

In contrast to animal charities, imo giving to children's charities is an absolute minefield. Giving money to something like Childline definitely helps the services they can offer and we see from the number of phone calls they receive its unfortunately a service that is as badly needed as ever but in all fairness I would never consider giving money to the ISPCC as I don't really see what any money they receive could directly achieve.

I don't doubt they do good work but in reality what can they do bar lobby the government for extra child welfare laws and run education campaigns? They aren't in a position to intervene I'd imagine. Maybe they can make interventions but I'd highly doubt it. Ultimately the state has the primary responsibility in the area of child protection and it has to be up to the state to intervene.

There are strong laws in place for the protection of children. Maybe not strong enough but there is a political will there for the area whereas with animal charities there isn't so it is left up to individuals to battle against the tide.

Tarzana2 · 31-01-2015 01:24AM

Bodytights wrote: »

Do you think bigger animals feel more pain?

Nope and that's not what I said. ANY animal (inc. humans) won't feel pain if they die instantly.

Dying instantly is much, much, much more likely to happen with tiny creatures due to the nature of how they usually die ie. relatively massive force being applied to their body. (being eaten alive on terrible TV shows aside)

I think how primitive the animal, and how developed their nervous system, should also be taken into account.

pueblo · 31-01-2015 02:11AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Often we hear stories that cause outrage when it comes to animal cruelty. Over the years we've heard of horses being left to starve, cats being abandoned and dogs being booted around. On the flip side, nobody would bat an eyelid if someone swatted a fly or stepped on a bug. Where is the cut-off point? Is it cruel to step on a snail? Or to kill a frog? Is it something you consider a potential pet where it stops? Weird topic I know but what's your views?

Ahh.. morality... "Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so" William Shakespeare Hamlet

shruikan2553 · 31-01-2015 02:22AM

I wouldnt view any animal below cruelty. If I step on a snail I feel bad. I would kill some insects unlessthere is an easy way to get them out of the house. Insects dont feel pain but I would still try to make it quick.

Littlekittylou · 31-01-2015 04:01AM

I help animal charities ....I also help human charities.:rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander · 31-01-2015 04:10AM

It's not a straightforward question, so I'm inclined to take the safe approach and just avoid being cruel to anything.

Take a fish, for example. You may be able to show that it has nerves and that they send 'pain' signals to its brain. But does it actually feel that pain? Does a fish have enough of an awareness to know it's in pain? Can it suffer? Or is it more akin to a sensor in your car's engine notifying the computer that a component is too hot and it should shut itself off?

I don't know the answer, so I'll play it safe and just not hurt fish where possible.

DeadHand · 31-01-2015 03:27PM

Borders no.2 wrote: »

Technically I think the Dept. of Agriculture are meant to be taking a more active role in relation to this but the time, resources, interests or political will isn't there to do it.

The time, manpower and resources are certainly there but the interest and will (political or otherwise) aren't.

The Dept. of Agriculture is one of the most overstaffed and underworked government departments of all (that's saying something). It has a deeply ingrained culture of laziness and self-entitlement that is outstanding even by Irish public sector standards.

Ask any farmer, they'll tell you.

Outkast_IRE · 31-01-2015 03:39PM

Honestly i dont think any living creature is below animal cruelty.

A serious distinction must be made however between

1. Purposeful cruelty for feelings of pleasure/power or any sort of sick thrill ( In my opinion completely unacceptable be it insect or four legged friend)

2. Cruelty through negligence & laziness eg.(Dogs left out in all conditions with inadequate shelter, or in unclean conditions)

3. Necessary Cruelty for food/survival, unfortunately slaughter houses and fisheries etc are necessary to provide food to people but they should be monitored to ensure that the animals are killed quickly and as humanely as possible. (None of this Halal , slitting throats bullsh*t)

4. Cruelty as part of sport.... Deer hunting/fox hunting etc. To me personally i believe that if you are doing this sort of hunting you have a reponsibility to make a quick clean kill, and preferably all parts of the animal are for consumption or similar. Killing animals for sport and just leaving them dumped is completely wrong.

I think any form of cruelty falling into bracket 1 or 2 needs to be dealt with quickly and harshly.

What creatures are below animal cruelty in your opinion?

Comments