Animal rights

[Zingari]

ozleicester is just a

tree-hugging, granola-munching greeny, ignore him

[OzFox]

ozleicester is just a

tree-hugging, granola-munching greeny, ignore him

Just couldn't resist could ya?

[Zingari]

Just couldn't resist could ya?

I'm like a feckin big kid in a sweet shop really

[MPH]

Mountain lions used to be common in the eastern US, until they were driven out by hunting and habitat loss. Whenever humans remove a predator from the food chain, you then get an explosion in the population of their prey, which is why your backyard is now crawling with deer. The same thing happened in Britain, and in other parts of the US where wolves and bears have been pushed out.

Personally I'd rather see deer controlled naturally by mountain lions than shot for pleasure by hunters. A quick glance at Youtube will show you that a lot of hunting is far from ethical...there's some sickening stuff on there. I've personally seen hunters in Minnesota & Wisconsin shooting bears and deer, often with bow and arrow. Half the time the animal isn't killed outright and limps off into the woods to die slowly, or is tracked by the blood trail then finished off. It ain't pretty and it ain't pleasant (to me at least).

In your previous post you talked about it might not always be this way... and you are right.. who knows... in 30 years time there could well be a harmless silent lazer developed that could steralize any deer that walks past it.

However we are living in the now. not the future. We have the issue to deal with now. One point i'd like to make before continuing.. as you are morally against the idea of taking an animals life, would it really then be fair to force/ stop a breed from doing the one natural thing it can do - create its own life?

You then just mentioned you would prefer an animal to be killed naturally by a mountain lion. Why are you elevating a mountain Lions natural right to kill a deer above a humans right to kill a deer? Should we be punished becuse we are intelligent enough to design weapons? The same intelligence you want to be used to design a better way of dealing with the solution?

I AM however in 100% agreement that there are some sick hunters out there. and bow hunting is something i would never do. The idea of bow hunting is that it is a silnent way of shooting a deer thus not spooking the other deer in the area. To me, hunting should have much stronger regulations, stronger punishments and good hunting standards ENFORCED. But my argument was about people like me who hunt for the food. who wont display the head. who shoot accurately and are conciencious about what they are doing.

I must admit, i am purplexed by your idea that its ok for a mountain lion to rip its pray to shreds whilst its still alive but not ok for a properly regulated hunter to shoot a deer dead within 7 seconds. Should the mountain lion not be more respectul of the deer's rights? Im sorry if i am sounding facetious.. my only point is to get you to understand there isnt a consistent balance here. For someone who is concerned about the rights of animals... my mind is boggled by this. Some animals use their superior strength/ speed to kill their pray other animals ( humans) use their superior intelligence. It is natural for them to use what they were made with, and it should be natural for us to use what we were made with too - our intelligence.

Edited 3 August 2012 by MPH

[MPH]

I'm like a feckin big kid in a sweet shop really

im trying to be respectful here - its obviously something very important to him!

[OzFox]

In your previous post you talked about it might not always be this way... and you are right.. who knows... in 30 years time there could well be a harmless silent lazer developed that could steralize any deer that walks past it.

However we are living in the now. not the future. We have the issue to deal with now. One point i'd like to make before continuing.. as you are morally against the idea of taking an animals life, would it really then be fair to force/ stop a breed from doing the one natural thing it can do - create its own life?

You then just mentioned you would prefer an animal to be killed naturally by a mountain lion. Why are you elevating a mountain Lions natural right to kill a deer above a humans right to kill a deer? Should we be punished becuse we are intelligent enough to design weapons? The same intelligence you want to be used to design a better way of dealing with the solution?

I AM however in 100% agreement that there are some sick hunters out there. and bow hunting is something i would never do. The idea of bow hunting is that it is a silnent way of shooting a deer thus not spooking the other deer in the area. To me, hunting should have much stronger regulations, stronger punishments and good hunting standards ENFORCED. But my argument was about people like me who hunt for the food. who wont display the head. who shoot accurately and are conciencious about what they are doing.

I must admit, i am purplexed by your idea that its ok for a mountain lion to rip its pray to shreds whilst its still alive but not ok for a properly regulated hunter to shoot a deer dead within 7 seconds. Should the mountain lion not be more respectul of the deer's rights? Im sorry if i am sounding facetious.. my only point is to get you to understand there isnt a consistent balance here. For someone who is concerned about the rights of animals... my mind is boggled by this. Some animals use their superior strength/ speed to kill their pray other animals ( humans) use their superior intelligence. It is natural for them to use what they were made with, and it should be natural for us to use what we were made with too - our intelligence.

I think you're getting confused between your Oz's. There's two of us in here

To answer your question about hunting vs natural predation......most hunting is done for pleasure, whereas the animal is killing to survive. Big difference. For the life of me I can't understand people who get kicks out of killing and wounding largely defenceless animals, and I'd love to see it banned (not that it's ever likely to happen as hunters represent too many votes). As I've discussed in this thread, hunting is often not a clean kill. Then there's trapping and snaring, where the animal dies slowly and painfully. Then there's the poaching which goes on out of season. Wildlife groups estimate half as many animals again are killed through poaching, especially bears that are killed to satisfy Asian quackery.

Can you not see the folly of killing all the predators, then having to kill their prey and dress it up in the name of "control"? And they describe animals as savage!

Mountain lions are naturally shy and usually avoid humans like the plague. They would easily re-colonise areas like the Carolinas and pick off the deer if they weren't picked off themselves by hunters. Sure you'll get some isolated maulings but that's what happens when you build a house next to a forest containing wild animals.They were there first...it's their turf. People moving into those areas should respect that, in my humble opinion..

As an aside, I think you might have a few living in the Smoky Mountains. And one was found in Connecticut last month, although it went the way of most cats. Under the wheels of a car.

Edited 4 August 2012 by OzFox

[OzFox]

Sums up the deer debate nicely: http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/HuntingArgument.htm

Arguments For

Hunting proponents argue that hunting is safe, effective, necessary, and inexpensive to taxpayers.

• The injury rate for hunting is lower than that of some other forms of physical recreation, such as football and bicycling.
  
• Proponents argue that hunting is an effective form of deer management because it will remove a number of individual deer from a population and prevent those individuals from reproducing. Since natural deer predators have been eliminated in many areas, hunters argue that hunting is necessary to perform the function of wolves or cougars in keeping the deer population in check. Hunting proponents also argue that reducing the deer population will reduce human/deer conflicts, such as car/deer collisions, Lyme disease and landscaping damage.
  
• Compared to sharpshooters and immunocontraception, hunting is inexpensive to taxpayers because hunters will kill the deer for free. Also, hunting permits are sold by state wildlife management agencies, which are partially or fully supported by the sales of permits.
  
• Hunters argue that killing the deer is better than letting them starve to death.
  
• Hunters argue that hunting is a tradition, a ritual or a bonding experience.
  

Regarding ethics, hunting proponents argue that killing a deer for food cannot be worse than killing a cow or a chicken. Furthermore, unlike the cow or the chicken, the deer lived a free and wild life before being killed and had a chance to escape. Hunters also argue that killing a number of deer benefits the ecosystem as a whole. Some hunters also oppose certain practices they consider unethical, such as baiting, canned hunting, trophy hunting, and hunting of stocked animals.

Arguments Against

Hunting opponents argue that hunting is unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary and unfair to taxpayers.

• Opponents point out that compared to other forms of recreation, hunting injuries are far more likely to be fatalities. Approximately 100 people die in hunting accidents in the United States every year, and unlike other forms of recreation, hunting endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants.
  
• Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads. Contrary to popular belief, hunting does not address Lyme disease because the ticks are usually spread to humans by mice, not deer. And as long as suburban landscaping includes deer-preferred plants such as tulips and rhododendrons, that landscaping will attract hungry deer, no matter how many deer there are. Opponents also argue that hunting does not reduce the deer population because removing some individuals from the population results in more food per deer, which leads to the births of more twins and triplets. This also means that hunting is unnecessary because the deer will self-regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce. If the deer population needs to be further reduced, immunocontraception can be used.
  
• Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, for hunters.
  
• Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of Americans do not hunt.
  

Hunting opponents also find hunting unethical on a number of grounds. From a pure animal rights standpoint, killing any animal for food is morally objectionable, whether that animal is a deer, a cow or a chicken. Many find hunting to be unethical because the killing is recreational. Also, many argue that human/deer conflicts are not the fault of the deer, but are the fault of humans who take habitat from the deer. Some hunting opponents also believe that modern technology has erased any chance of fairness in hunting. Certain practices are also considered especially objectionable, such as canned hunting, trophy hunting, baiting, and hunting of stocked animals.

Resolution

The hunting debate may never be resolved. The two sides will continue to debate safety, effectiveness and cost, but will probably never agree on the ethics of killing wild animals for food, trophies or recreation.

[MPH]

Sums up the deer debate nicely: http://animalrights....ingArgument.htm

Arguments For

Hunting proponents argue that hunting is safe, effective, necessary, and inexpensive to taxpayers.

• The injury rate for hunting is lower than that of some other forms of physical recreation, such as football and bicycling.
  
• Proponents argue that hunting is an effective form of deer management because it will remove a number of individual deer from a population and prevent those individuals from reproducing. Since natural deer predators have been eliminated in many areas, hunters argue that hunting is necessary to perform the function of wolves or cougars in keeping the deer population in check. Hunting proponents also argue that reducing the deer population will reduce human/deer conflicts, such as car/deer collisions, Lyme disease and landscaping damage.
  
• Compared to sharpshooters and immunocontraception, hunting is inexpensive to taxpayers because hunters will kill the deer for free. Also, hunting permits are sold by state wildlife management agencies, which are partially or fully supported by the sales of permits.
  
• Hunters argue that killing the deer is better than letting them starve to death.
  
• Hunters argue that hunting is a tradition, a ritual or a bonding experience.
  

Regarding ethics, hunting proponents argue that killing a deer for food cannot be worse than killing a cow or a chicken. Furthermore, unlike the cow or the chicken, the deer lived a free and wild life before being killed and had a chance to escape. Hunters also argue that killing a number of deer benefits the ecosystem as a whole. Some hunters also oppose certain practices they consider unethical, such as baiting, canned hunting, trophy hunting, and hunting of stocked animals.

Arguments Against

Hunting opponents argue that hunting is unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary and unfair to taxpayers.

• Opponents point out that compared to other forms of recreation, hunting injuries are far more likely to be fatalities. Approximately 100 people die in hunting accidents in the United States every year, and unlike other forms of recreation, hunting endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants.
  
• Opponents also argue that hunting is ineffective for solving human/deer conflicts. Studies show that car/deer collisions increase during hunting season because hunters frighten the deer out of the woods and onto roads. Contrary to popular belief, hunting does not address Lyme disease because the ticks are usually spread to humans by mice, not deer. And as long as suburban landscaping includes deer-preferred plants such as tulips and rhododendrons, that landscaping will attract hungry deer, no matter how many deer there are. Opponents also argue that hunting does not reduce the deer population because removing some individuals from the population results in more food per deer, which leads to the births of more twins and triplets. This also means that hunting is unnecessary because the deer will self-regulate and give birth to fewer fawns when food is scarce. If the deer population needs to be further reduced, immunocontraception can be used.
  
• Hunting is ineffective because state wildlife management agencies intentionally keep the deer population high, for hunters.
  
• Lands managed for hunting are sometimes purchased and maintained with tax dollars, even though 95% of Americans do not hunt.
  

Hunting opponents also find hunting unethical on a number of grounds. From a pure animal rights standpoint, killing any animal for food is morally objectionable, whether that animal is a deer, a cow or a chicken. Many find hunting to be unethical because the killing is recreational. Also, many argue that human/deer conflicts are not the fault of the deer, but are the fault of humans who take habitat from the deer. Some hunting opponents also believe that modern technology has erased any chance of fairness in hunting. Certain practices are also considered especially objectionable, such as canned hunting, trophy hunting, baiting, and hunting of stocked animals.

Resolution

The hunting debate may never be resolved. The two sides will continue to debate safety, effectiveness and cost, but will probably never agree on the ethics of killing wild animals for food, trophies or recreation.

so an article that appears on an animal rights website is balanced and fair and sums it up nicely?

Oh and nice dodge of the points i raised....

[OzFox]

so an article that appears on an animal rights website is balanced and fair and sums it up nicely?

Oh and nice dodge of the points i raised....

Since when is about.com an animal rights website? It makes as many points for hunting, as against. And it brings up some of the points you raised.

And nice dodge yourself! Read my previous post.

Edit: here's another from that "animal rights" website, except this is from the hunting section. The author's attitude is typical of the hunters I've come across in America, often turning to the bible to justify the hunt. Makes entertaining reading

"Animals do not - and should not - have any rights. Man was told in Genesis 1:28 to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." So Biblically as well as practically, we are the caretakers of all non-human life here on earth, and we have dominion over them.

My dictionary defines "dominion" as "supreme authority." Therefore animals (including insects and the like) lie under the rule of man, certainly not on anything resembling an equal footing."

http://hunting.about.com/cs/deerhunting/a/aa030710a_3.htm

Edited 4 August 2012 by OzFox

[Rincewind]

Enjoy your bacon sarnie

Edited 4 August 2012 by Nightguard

[ozleicester]

Consider the point that the grain it takes to feed one cow can feed a hundred people. With all the starving people on the planet, it would make sense to have them eat grain and not meat.

The problem with this statement is that those people aren't starving because there isn't enough food--they're starving because they don't have access to the food. When you say 'We could feed all the starving people with the ', ask yourself 'but would we?' One recent study found that half of all food in America goes to waste. If we had twice as much, wouldn't we simply waste the increase too?

Wouldn't such a monoculture food supply be easier to manipulate politically .

"Banana Republics" seem to be just that , controlled much too easily

It's really very misleading to ask things such as , 'Well, how would you feel if you were slaughtered and eaten?' How you would feel may not be comparable to how a lower life form feels. Similarly, if i was kept in a field all day eating grass I'd soon get bored and I reckon even I could work out that I was being kept as a slave to the master's needs and would do some rabble rousing.

I've got to admire your stamins and steadfastness in your beliefs though oz , is it all the nut cutlets that you eat that fortifies your constitution ?

Sorry if you feel you're going over the same old stuff oz

"illegitimi nil carborundum" as they used say in Rome ( or maybe they didn't)

Cheers..interesting post, and no, i wont... even though i studied latin in high school i had to google that as my latin knowledge isnow limtied to "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"

I've joined this debate somewhat late so apologies if I am making points which have already been covered.

welcome.. I have covered some of your questions earlier, so forgive me if i dont go into deatail .. if ive missed a question thoug, feel free to remind me

1. If we were to make the switch the a vegetarian lifestyle then there would obviously be a dramatic reduction in animal population. Now I am aware that this is not necessarily a bad thing as one can rightly argue that maintaining a large population of animals purely for the purposes of consumption is not humane and therefore makes the large population not much of a bonus. However there would be little point in keeping, treating and maintaining livestock as their is no financial incentive to do so and this could see a great deal of suffering (albeit natural) amongst huge swathes of the animal population.

we keep Panda's alive for no purpose, no reason why cows shouldnt be the same

2. Small amounts of livestock would need to be kept to feed the domestic pets which people have, this would raise certain ethical issues over which animals should be selected to maintain a healthy dog and cat population.

Definitley, it will undoubtable be a challenging society...but as ive stipulated in the past posts... this is a long term (generational) change, therefore we would work through these issues...and to be fair, we have already learnt how to "create meat" in the lab.. so it may be no problem.

3. In terms of clothing and other items which rely on animal carcases there would again need to be a proportion of animals bred for the leather industry, bedding/clothing (feathers etc for pillows and duvets) plus others for cleaning and cooking products. Again this raises issues over which animals should/could be kept for these purposes.

I think this is a real no brainer... leather is definitly not required, current synthetic materials are better, stronger and longer lasting than animal skin and feathers. It is only pseudo snobs who think they are something special because they have a chair/coat made out of dead animal that is keeping the industry alive.

4. Are we accepting that it is ok to keep animals for their milk and eggs or is that too undesirable?

ideally that too is undesirable... for example the only reason we have cows giving milk... is because we take away their calves to ensure a milk supply

Typical and expected reaction. But the truth is I'm right. We are genetically programmed to enjoy eating food and especially food which is good for us in a fundamental sense. The desire to eat is as strong as the desire to procreate and like procreation offers a satisfaction mechanism.

But anyway, I really don't give a ****. Vegetarians are like religious people. Pointless arguing with them when they're so obviously deluded.

No!.. we are not genetically programed, we began eating animals when climatic conditions neccesitated it, our jaws and teeth are designed for grinding nuts fruits, vegetables, not for meat.

The desire to eat is indeed strong.. but it is NOT the desire to eat meat... that is just what you have been brainwashed to beleive.

Im glad you dont give a fvck, and that, "not giving a fvck" extends to spouting bullshit in a discussion about animal rights.

Tthere is a major difference between veggies and religious people... Veggies actually think and decide for themselves... religious people, simpletons and many meat eaters simply follow the rules set down by others.

I do have a question though - what are your thoughts on insects as a food source? There was an article on the BBC the other day about a possible solution to expensive meat being grinding down insects like crickets and making them into sausages, burgers etc. Are you ok with eating insects?

No im not supportive of eating insects, if you have the intelligence to read back over previous discussions you will see that i do not support the killing of anything, simply for the pleasure of a human.

A question for you, if you got rid of mass produced meat, slaughterhouses etc. How would you feel about people living off the land, ie. killing a wild dear and eating it?

Opposed, killing another creature for my pleasure is wrong

If that's not ok, are you not ok with the thought of a lion eating a Zebra?

You're asking for man to treat animals like humans, so presumably you ask the same of them? Or is that different because we can verbally express our enjoyment of eating meat. Where as they can't?

Man DOES NOT need to eat meat and is designed to eat vegetables, we also (well most of us) have the intellect to decide what is right and wrong... Lions, and all REAL carnivores have no choice other than to eat meat. So, lion eat Zbra... fine

If you come face to face with a hungry lion would you try and convince it that it is cruel to eat a human or take your rifle ( if you had one) and blast the bugger between the eyes?

as ive said before, everyone has the right to self protection.

I noticed this thread just underneath the I'm a Celebrity thread and I was wondering,

what about the rights of animals appearing on I'm a Celebrity?

From my very brief experience with Im a celeb... everyone on the show appears to be a dumb animal and needs our protection

i've seen some of the locals in WA and me and the sharks have something in common there

OI!!!

By the way... there have been 5 people eaten by sharks of the Perth beaches in the past 10 months... and im fine with that, Sharks need to eat meat, humans are meat

In your previous post you talked about it might not always be this way... and you are right.. who knows... in 30 years time there could well be a harmless silent lazer developed that could steralize any deer that walks past it.

However we are living in the now. not the future. We have the issue to deal with now. One point i'd like to make before continuing.. as you are morally against the idea of taking an animals life, would it really then be fair to force/ stop a breed from doing the one natural thing it can do - create its own life?

Its not ideal, however i would prefer this to the murder of them or the possibility of overpopulation and starvation.

You then just mentioned you would prefer an animal to be killed naturally by a mountain lion. Why are you elevating a mountain Lions natural right to kill a deer above a humans right to kill a deer? Should we be punished becuse we are intelligent enough to design weapons? The same intelligence you want to be used to design a better way of dealing with the solution?

See previous answers... Lions are carnivores humans are not

I AM however in 100% agreement that there are some sick hunters out there. and bow hunting is something i would never do. The idea of bow hunting is that it is a silnent way of shooting a deer thus not spooking the other deer in the area. To me, hunting should have much stronger regulations, stronger punishments and good hunting standards ENFORCED. But my argument was about people like me who hunt for the food. who wont display the head. who shoot accurately and are conciencious about what they are doing.

Killing for pleasure is wrong

I must admit, i am purplexed by your idea that its ok for a mountain lion to rip its pray to shreds whilst its still alive but not ok for a properly regulated hunter to shoot a deer dead within 7 seconds. Should the mountain lion not be more respectul of the deer's rights? Im sorry if i am sounding facetious.. my only point is to get you to understand there isnt a consistent balance here. For someone who is concerned about the rights of animals... my mind is boggled by this. Some animals use their superior strength/ speed to kill their pray other animals ( humans) use their superior intelligence. It is natural for them to use what they were made with, and it should be natural for us to use what we were made with too - our intelligence.

see above, lions dont kill for pleasure

im trying to be respectful here - its obviously something very important to him!

Thanks but im quite comfortable with humour

Enjoy your bacon sarnie

This and feedlot farming and battery farming..and a myriad other farming procedures are cruel evil and disgusting and unfortunately anyone eating meat is supporting it.

No one has answered my question... will you eat human meat... if not.. why not?... we are animals, its just meat

Phew, i think ive addressed most things raised, but feel free to remind me if ive missed something

[Zingari]

Cheers..interesting post, and no, i wont... even though i studied latin in high school i had to google that as my latin knowledge isnow limtied to "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"

No one has answered my question... will you eat human meat... if not.. why not?... we are animals, its just meat

Phew, i think ive addressed most things raised, but feel free to remind me if ive missed something

I think there was a plane crash somewhere in the mountains and the survivors ate the bodies .

It may have just been a film I saw though

[OzFox]

Enjoy your bacon sarnie

Dunno what's worse...that pigs get treated like that or that most people turn a blind eye to it.

Here's a bit more slaughterhouse brutality from today's Aussie news

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/pigs-kicked-bludgeoned-at-nsw-piggery/story-fndo48ca-1226442842507

"Images also included buckets of dead piglets, a sledge hammer used to bludgeon pigs, and sows with open sores.''

The CEO of industry lobby Australian Pork Limited, Andrew Spencer, said he was "utterly appalled'' at the footage.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Mountain lions used to be common in the eastern US, until they were driven out by hunting and habitat loss. Whenever humans remove a predator from the food chain, you then get an explosion in the population of their prey, which is why your backyard is now crawling with deer. The same thing happened in Britain, and in other parts of the US where wolves and bears have been pushed out.

Personally I'd rather see deer controlled naturally by mountain lions than shot for pleasure by hunters. A quick glance at Youtube will show you that a lot of hunting is far from ethical...there's some sickening stuff on there. I've personally seen hunters in Minnesota & Wisconsin shooting bears and deer, often with bow and arrow. Half the time the animal isn't killed outright and limps off into the woods to die slowly, or is tracked by the blood trail then finished off. It ain't pretty and it ain't pleasant (to me at least).

Good post. I totally agree.

[Rincewind]

I see nothing wrong with killing and living off animals to survive. The native American used to hunt bufalos for food and clothing not always successfully but their numbers were constant. The Europeans moved in bringing with them more deadly weapons and almost wiped the bufolo out within a few decades. They saw a profit in the hunting but never considered what their actions could lead yo. No wonder the Indian Apache becamed pissed off with the white man.

But this is the price we pay for progress and modern civilixation right or wrong.

[The Doctor]

No one has answered my question... will you eat human meat... if not.. why not?... we are animals, its just meat

Phew, i think ive addressed most things raised, but feel free to remind me if ive missed something

No, and that's a ridiculous comparison. People don't eat people because cannibalism is rarely good for the survival, eating other animals as part of the natural diet however is.

Edited 4 August 2012 by LargeAl

[Frost]

I think there was a plane crash somewhere in the mountains and the survivors ate the bodies .

It may have just been a film I saw though

Pretty sure that's true. They were Argentinian if I recall correctly.

[ozleicester]

No, and that's a ridiculous comparison. People don't eat people because cannibalism is rarely good for the survival, eating other animals as part of the natural diet however is.

So.. whats wrong with it... we have 7 billion people and the ability to farm more of them, its the ideal meat product.

People have said they wont eat Whales coz they are endangered... so weve tons of people and a few people who weigh a ton.. so chow down folks?

[ozleicester]

By the way... i take it, no-one here can see anything wrong with killing another creature simply for your own pleasure?.. and yet i constantly here about how terrible it is that people are cruel to animals.... aww the poor ickle puppies n kitties, some one dropped on e in a bin or hung a couple of a bridge...BASTARDS!...

now will some one kill a pig... chop it in to little bits... burn its carcass on a fire so i can eat its flesh. .. now..... back to those inhumane cruel bastards.

[Webbo]

But tbf, bacon is delicious.

[AdamN]

By the way... i take it, no-one here can see anything wrong with killing another creature simply for your own pleasure?.. and yet i constantly here about how terrible it is that people are cruel to animals.... aww the poor ickle puppies n kitties, some one dropped on e in a bin or hung a couple of a bridge...BASTARDS!...

now will some one kill a pig... chop it in to little bits... burn its carcass on a fire so i can eat its flesh. .. now..... back to those inhumane cruel bastards.

If you don't see the difference between dropping an animal off a bridge in a bag and quickly slaughtering it then I'm afraid there's little point in debating it.

As for the part in bold, you've added that to make the killing sound somehow crueler, but the fact is, if the animal is already dead then there's nothing you can do to it that's inhumane.

Edited 4 August 2012 by AdamN

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Enjoy your bacon sarnie

This is sickening! Totally inhumane.

[Zingari]

Are those pig baskets just for transportation or are they kept in them all the time ?

[OzFox]

I see nothing wrong with killing and living off animals to survive. The native American used to hunt bufalos for food and clothing not always successfully but their numbers were constant. The Europeans moved in bringing with them more deadly weapons and almost wiped the bufolo out within a few decades. They saw a profit in the hunting but never considered what their actions could lead yo. No wonder the Indian Apache becamed pissed off with the white man.

But this is the price we pay for progress and modern civilixation right or wrong.

You call it progress, I call it greed and stupidity. The buffalo were slaughtered for short term profit, as were most fur bearing animals.

Check out what they did to the american passenger pigeon. Used to be flocks miles long. They estimate there were billions before white settlers turned up and started killing them, millions at a time. Do you think they kept a few around for future generations? Did they fvck. Killed every last one.

[Jaspa]

You call it progress, I call it greed and stupidity. The buffalo were slaughtered for short term profit, as were most fur bearing animals.

Check out what they did to the american passenger pigeon. Used to be flocks miles long. They estimate there were billions before white settlers turned up and started killing them, millions at a time. Do you think they kept a few around for future generations? Did they fvck. Killed every last one.

You killed the Dodo

F**k Tha Pigeons