What fur farms really do.

[Carl.]

Oh? So we shouldn't skin raccoons alive huh? What about fish? Can we skin those alive? Can we throw a lobster into a boiling pot? Can we chop a snake's head off even though we know it will live for quite a while after?

Explain to me why you think it should be illegal to torture some animals but not others.

I don't.

You don't skin fishes alive, you usually cut their heads first.. and when you cut a snake heads, If a snakes head continues to live for a while (I never heard of that...), the pain felt must be really small compared to what we see in that video, and for a much shorter period of time. Even a lobster thrown in a boiling pot only has a few seconds to live.

The example you're giving are nothing compared to this. We're seeing a guy going lenghts to inflict great pain on an animal for a sustained period of time when in fact it would be much easier just to kill it before skinning it. It's not hard to see that he's only doing it for his own sadistic entertainment.

Lab animals are also not suffering to entertain anyone, those tests actually have a purpose.

Since you're so much keen on slippery slopes to avoid all sort of regulations or laws, should I be able to "entertain" my sadistic self by torturing my cats on a regularily basis as I see fit, since I own them?

 

[Swift]

Pfft, no. That's like saying "You don't like chocolate, so I guess you don't like coffee and coke."

I eat meat, because I need it. That cows' death served a purpose: Boots, jackets, car seats, food, steering wheel wrap etc. All I'm aware of is that the cow died, I may think it's wrong that that cow suffered if it did, but it's better of dead if it went through that much torment.

Pfft, yes.

You won't answer a simple question. So, do you value you value more, your cat or your brother/sister?

You can either answer the question or concede that you think killing animals is the same as killing people. Because that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Dave A]

It's a no brainer, if you believe in evolution, humans are the dominant species, so we are above everything else. If you believe in God, animals were put in subjection to us, we were given control over them so we are above them then. Whatever you believe, we are above animals, we should respect them and treat them decently whatever we use that animal for imo, ie not skin a live racoon for fur, kill it first.

 

[PS]

So if someone else managed to coax your cat into their house and gave it enough food and other cats to play with or whatever that it didn't want to leave - then you don't think you should be legally allowed to extract the cat... because the cat decided who it wanted to live with.

You have to set boundaries. Like an adult, the cat can run away if he wants to. But like a 5 year old I'm not going to let someone take him away unless I don't want the cat around anymore. But I wouldn't boot it out until I found a home or place @ the animal shelter. Too many variablesa to go into right now. What's your point, anyway?

 

[Swift]

It's a no brainer, if you believe in evolution, humans are the dominant species, so we are above everything else. If you believe in God, animals were put in subjection to us, we were given control over them so we are above them then. Whatever you believe, we are above animals, we should respect them and treat them decently whatever we use that animal for imo, ie not skin a live racoon for fur, kill it first.

That's just about what I was thinking. Thanks L4S

 

[Danoff]

You have to set boundaries. Like an adult, the cat can run away if he wants to. But like a 5 year old I'm not going to let someone take him away unless I don't want the cat around anymore. But I wouldn't boot it out until I found a home or place @ the animal shelter. Too many variablesa to go into right now. What's your point, anyway?

Not seeing the point? The point is that you own your cat.

Since you're so much keen on slippery slopes to avoid all sort of regulations or laws, should I be able to "entertain" my sadistic self by torturing my cats on a regularily basis as I see fit, since I own them?

It's a good question. One that I have trouble answering myself (and one I've tried to figure out the answer to many times). I have trouble saying yes to this question, but I also have trouble saying no.

I pretty much think you should be able to do whatever you want with your animals - that they're your property. But I know that would lead to some pretty sadistic stuff. It's just that, where do you draw the line?

Really I was hoping someone in this thread would help me answer that question. Come up with some idea that I could latch on to, but it seems that it's just a shade of grey.

I think we should be able to skin raccoons, fish, and cats alive. But not dolphins, Elephants, monkeys, pigs or dogs. I think we should be able to boil lobsters and chop the heads off of snakes, but boiling a chimp would be unacceptable.

I should be able to kick my dog, and break its bones. But refusing to set its broken bones, blinding it, or keeping it in a state of starvation is too cruel.

Scientific testing on all of the above is ok with me.

But this is a nasty nasty moral slippery slope. I don't see a good answer.

On the one hand of the slope you have Vegetarians who refuse to eat cows, or allow people to own pets. On the other hand you have people who would torture their animals for years for their own sadistic pleasure.

I'm more likely to take the freest side since I'd rather these people tortured raccoons or dogs than people.

 

[PS]

Pfft, yes.

You won't answer a simple question. So, do you value you value more, your cat or your brother/sister?

You can either answer the question or concede that you think killing animals is the same as killing people. Because that's exactly what you're saying.

Yes, I value myself more because it's me. Without me, nothing exists. I would no longer be, and in relation, niether would anything else.

It's a no brainer, if you believe in evolution, humans are the dominant species, so we are above everything else. If you believe in God, animals were put in subjection to us, we were given control over them so we are above them then. Whatever you believe, we are above animals, we should respect them and treat them decently whatever we use that animal for imo, ie not skin a live racoon for fur, kill it first.

There's a difference between evolution and god, and neither of them are laws. What if you're atheist and believe in the realiens?

 

[Dave A]

I'll give you one thing danoff, while I dissagree with allowing people to do these things to animals, your grounded very well with your reasons. Sure I dissagree with you, I wouldn't skin or boil any animal alive, break any animals bones ect. Your the opposite, I'm not saying you do the above, but you'll view it all as acceptable rather than you can to this but not to that which at least I can understand.

As for the last line, I agree with that, I would rather them than people since I view people as above animals, but I'd rather neither than that.

 

[Carl.]

I'd rather see these people not torturing anything alive, period. That's a bit like saying I'd rather see these people rape other people than murder them.

I don't see which useful freedom the current laws against animal cruelty are preventing, especially in that case. Do I think it should deserved the same punishment as for torturing or murdering humans? No. But I'm glad it's addressed by the law, and that such behavior can be prosecuted in most of North America.

Of course in most case like kids blowing critters in microwave ovens and such, it's obviously impractical to apply the law, and I don't recall seeing any case of that nature. But what we see in that video could easily put the guy to jail.

 

[Dave A]

There's a difference between evolution and god, and neither of them are laws. What if you're atheist and believe in the realiens?

What is a dominant species? What are humans on earth? The answer screams we are above animals. Sure you can like animals and treat them as kind as you want, but that doesn't mean your not above them.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see which useful freedom the current laws against animal cruelty are preventing, especially in that case.

This is how freedom is removed. Is it useful to have the freedom to smoke or drink? Is it useful to have the freedom to drive a 12 cylinder vehicle? Is it a useful freedom that we have to be able to tattoo ourselves or collect keychains? We have lots of useless freedoms - that's what's great about freedom. You shouldn't be asking yourself why someone should have a certain freedom. You should be asking yourself why they should not. The default case is free.

Sure I dissagree with you, I wouldn't skin or boil any animal alive, break any animals bones ect. Your the opposite, I'm not saying you do the above, but you'll view it all as acceptable rather than you can to this but not to that which at least I can understand.

You're walking a careful line here, but I think you managed to walk it. There is a big difference between what I would personally do and what I think should be legal. You mention that in the second part of this quote but kinda slipped in the beginning.

If you've never had lobster though, you're missing out.

 

[PS]

What is a dominant species? What are humans on earth? The answer screams we are above animals. Sure you can like animals and treat them as kind as you want, but that doesn't mean your not above them.

Are you religious? It doesn't mean we are, either.

 

[Swift]

Pfft, yes.

You won't answer a simple question. So, do you value you value more, your cat or your brother/sister?

You can either answer the question or concede that you think killing animals is the same as killing people. Because that's exactly what you're saying.

Yes, I value myself more because it's me. Without me, nothing exists. I would no longer be, and in relation, niether would anything else.

I didn't ask whether you value yourself more then the cat. I said do you value your sibling more then the cat?

 

[PS]

I don't have a sibling.

 

[Swift]

I don't have a sibling.

Ok, then your best friend.

 

[Carl.]

This is how freedom is removed. Is it useful to have the freedom to smoke or drink? Is it useful to have the freedom to drive a 12 cylinder vehicle? Is it a useful freedom that we have to be able to tattoo ourselves or collect keychains? We have lots of useless freedoms - that's what's great about freedom. You shouldn't be asking yourself why someone should have a certain freedom. You should be asking yourself why they should not. The default case is free.

Well, I think I adressed that (in blue), and it's quite obvious.

Do you honestly believe that people are dumb enough not to take further steps towards a regulation frentzy leading to mandatory vegetarianism for everyone just because there's already a law against sadistic people to prevent torture on animals? I know masses can make dumb choices, but come on, we both know that's just not going to happen.

 

[PS]

Ok, then your best friend.

If I had to give one away, it would probably be the cat then.

[edit]

*Actually, probably my cat. He has seniority. And he's more mature. Plus I can pet him. I think the cat offers more short-term benefits than the friend. Well, the friend i'm thinking of anyway.

 

[Swift]

If I had to give one away, it would probably be the cat then.

Wow, I'm almost glad I'm not your friend then. "probably",

You accept the theory of evolution. If you do, then that makes humans the top of the food chain. Like L4S said.

So to you, all life is equal then?

 

[Dave A]

Are you religious? It doesn't mean we are, either.

What you quoted has nothing to do with wether or not you, me or anyone else is religous. It's asking, what is a dominant species? And what are humans on earth? I can give you the answers if you want.

 

[PS]

Wow, I'm almost glad I'm not your friend then. "probably",

You accept the theory of evolution. If you do, then that makes humans the top of the food chain. Like L4S said.

So to you, all life is equal then?

It makes us the top predator, it doens't make us better. I think all living being deserve the same respect, but I'm not going to force it onto others, it's just rude and invasive. Telling someone that something is better is purely opinion, and noone has the authority to justify what deserves something and what doesn't.

 

[PS]

What you quoted has nothing to do with weather or not you, me or anyone else is religous. It's asking, what is a dominant species? And what are humans on earth? I can give you the answers if you want.

If you haven't noticed, religious folk put humans above animals. Biologically, we're all the same. Physically, we're all very similar. Mentally, humans are capable of more, but are rarely ever "smarter".

 

[Dave A]

Humans consciousley make decisions that arn't based on instinct. Animals make instinctive decisions, theres, humans have higher brain capacity and functionality than anything else on earth. What is your definition of superiority?

 

[Swift]

It makes us the top predator, it doens't make us better. I think all living being deserve the same respect, but I'm not going to force it onto others, it's just rude and invasive. Telling someone that something is better is purely opinion, and noone has the authority to justify what deserves something and what doesn't.

Ok, let me ask you then. You're driving down a fairly crowed 2 lane, bi-directional road. No hard shoulder or easy escapes. A raccoon jumps out. Now, do you swerve and/or slam on brakes and put all the people on the road at serious risk. Or do you just run over the raccoon and feel bad about it?

 

[Dave A]

If you haven't noticed, religious folk put humans above animals. Biologically, we're all the same. Physically, we're all very similar. Mentally, humans are capable of more, but are rarely ever "smarter".

Eh, were a lot smarter than animals. What animal has ever come close to creating computer, television or cup of tea for that matter. We have the ability to utilise more of whats around us, we are not the same biologically at all. Were not the samephysically either. I don't know where your coming from, but even in your post you described humans as superior. Were similar in every way, but we are mentally capapble of more, so superior then.

 

[PS]

Humans consciousley make decisions that arn't based on instinct. Animals make instinctive decisions, theres, humans have higher brain capacity and functionality than anything else on earth. What is your definition of superiority?

I don't have one because I don't think we're all that more superior. Spider web construction is much more complex than any of our buildings, and the silk is 60x stronger than steel pound for pound. Ant hills have seemingly endless tunnels, all with a working hierarchy and stations for incubation. Wasps nests have a honeycomb construction made in such a way that the entire nest is cooled with a simple breeze. Ventilation is all throughout the nest.

90% of mankind's "technology" comes from nature. We've merely stolen their ideas and used them to suit us. We hid in trees from our predators 50,000 years ago, now their hiding from us. They shouldn't have to.

 

[PS]

Ok, let me ask you then. You're driving down a fairly crowed 2 lane, bi-directional road. No hard shoulder or easy escapes. A raccoon jumps out. Now, do you swerve and/or slam on brakes and put all the people on the road at serious risk. Or do you just run over the raccoon and feel bad about it?

The 'coon ran out in front of me. I'll hit it because I'm not risking my insurance premiums going up and endangering my life. Duh. What a simple scenario.

 

[PS]

Eh, were a lot smarter than animals. What animal has ever come close to creating computer, television or cup of tea for that matter. We have the ability to utilise more of whats around us, we are not the same biologically at all. Were not the samephysically either. I don't know where your coming from, but even in your post you described humans as superior. Were similar in every way, but we are mentally capapble of more, so superior then.

Where did I describe us as superior?


Who gives a damn what we invented? What we invent will ultimately be our own demise. Not so smart, now, are we?

 

[Swift]

The 'coon ran out in front of me. I'll hit it because I'm not risking my insurance premiums going up and endangering my life. Duh. What a simple scenario.

But you don't even consider the people on the road.

Also, what happened to all that compassion for animals. I mean, your reason for hitting the racoon is extremely selfish and says that you are "better" or "more valuable" then the racoon. If you are, why isn't everyone else?

 

[PS]

But you don't even consider the people on the road.

Also, what happened to all that compassion for animals. I mean, your reason for hitting the racoon is extremely selfish and says that you are "better" or "more valuable" then the racoon. If you are, why isn't everyone else?

I've already stated why I've valued myself more. Without me, I am nothing and neither is anything else. It comes hand in hand.

Sure, I might break or slow down, but if there's traffic behind me and nowhere to go, well, then another one just bit the dust. Survival of the luckiest it seems.


I noted they deserved respect, not for me to bend over backwards for their own good.

[edit]

Boy, I'm comming up with some really philisophical sh/t here!

 

[Dave A]

How is a television our demise?

The animals you mentioned before, like the wasps and the ants do what they do instinctivley. The next wasps nest isn't better thant he last, it's the same, every wasps nest is the same basic design. We build mud huts, wood huts then brick houses, we improve. Animals do not. Not only that but we can copy what we see other doing, we have a higher level of creativity.

And yes, in the post I last quote, you descibed humans and animals as very similar. But you said we had a higher mental capacity. If were very similar but better in that way, were superior then. It's be like two televisions, both identical, one doesn't have remote control capability but the features are the same, the one with the remote control capability is superior.