[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
Did i actually kill the animal. No. end of story. and i rarely if ever eat meat. [/quote]
How is that ‘end of story?’ You paid for someone else to kill the animal. That makes your point bullshit and makes you a hypocrite. If you must troll at least make it funny.[/quote]
I’m not perfect. yes, i have eaten meat. but like I said, I rarely if ever do eat it. I’m not making excuses. People can have beliefs and sometimes they are hypocrits, but i still feel how i do, sometimes when your in a supermarket or at a cookout, you sometimes forget it was once a living creature. [/quote]
Well allow me to remind you:
If you consume meat or contribute to the economy of using animal products (leather, hides, fur, etc.) you ARE a hypocrite. Now, as you put your shoes or belt on this morning, please do not forget that not only are you a troll of the first magnitude (or the poster boy for “meathead”), you are a serial hypocrite.
Now please make your trolling even richer; tell us your daughter does not consume meat products either, if rarely. [/quote]
I understand your sentiment and agree completely. However, I’m wondering how we can successfully define sick torture.[/quote]
the whole discourse has been dancing around that very subject and it’s abundantly clear that “torture” as it relates to animals is a moving target based upon personal sensitivities. my position is that we should not have laws crafted from personal sensitivities - ignoring sanctioned torture here, but prosecuting unsanctioned torture there. because of the slippery slope and irreconcilable differences (at least in this society of hunters, meat consumption, cattle raising, etc.), the only tenable position in my opinion is that animals are property, with no special rights. i know you understand but allow me to illustrate the slope a bit:
- At the top of the slope…
The lunatics at PETA think animal ownership is “slavery”. They do not want you to own dogs or cats and they certainly do not want you breeding dogs or cats. They think this “slavery is cruel”. Nonetheless, properly permitted pet ownership is legal.
There are vegetarians for health reasons, and those that think the consumption of any meat product is “cruel”. Nonetheless, our society overwhelmingly consumes meat. It is legal.
There are those that not only refrain from consuming meat or animal products, they refrain from using ANY animal product (leather, etc.). To use these products is legal.
All 3 of the foregoing would argue that any of the practices above that do not comport to their view is “torture”, yet all are permitted and perfectly legal.
-
There are those that would eat meat and otherwise consume animal products, turning a blind eye to the manner in which cattle is raised and slaughtered, yet somehow are opposed to legal hunting. They would argue that shooting an animal with arrow or other projectile, is cruel. They would argue it is “torture”. Nonetheless, properly permitted hunting is legal.
-
Animals are routinely used in scientific research ostensibly for the benefit of humanity. There are those that have argued this is cruel and constitutes torture. Properly permitted animal research is both sanctioned and legal.
-
There are those of us that hunt with our dogs. Such a hunt routinely requires the dog to engage the prey. As with other types of hunting, with proper permits and license, this is legal. Yet two or more animals are engaged in life and death combat. Some would call this cruel. Some would label it torture. But it IS legal.
-
Then we have so called “blood sports”, the best known of which (due to Michael Vick) is dog fighting. This is illegal and has been labeled “cruel”. Men have gone to jail for it. Millions of dollars of tax payer money has been spent to investigate the practice (and cock fighting) and prosecute it. Pit two dogs (or two roosters) against each other, and it’s a crime. Set one or more dog upon a wild boar (which can result in the death of the boar and the dogs), and with the proper permits, it’s legal (where permitted - which is just about everywhere down south). And speaking of birds, I can legally trap and own a hawk and teach him to hunt (kill) for me. I can take a hawk, and with the proper permits, let that hawk find and kill small game for me. But if I take two roosters, and pit them, it’s illegal. One is “sport”, the other is “cruel”.
-
EVERY SINGLE DAY in this country, animals are seized, found, abandoned, become sickly, whatever, and are summarily euthanized by the “humane” society, animal shelter or vets. You can quite clearly legally kill and unwanted animal. It is much from this obvious contradiction that the PETA nuts make a valid argument against pet ownership. If we didn’t own pets, if we didn’t breed, we would not have to “murder” these innocent animals. I dare say if we could get reliable numbers, that the number of animals killed at vets, shelters and “humane” society would be both staggering and sobering.
-
At the very bottom of the slope (I think), you have the low lying fruit. Those that would not provide proper care for an animal. Those that would mutilate or abuse an animal for amusement or boredom or hatred. These are very clearly wrong.
My point? Until you get to the very bottom of this slope…you have shades of grey and a whole bunch of conflicting opinions and laws. I’m willing to suffer some things that insult my personal sensitivities (lying in wait to shoot bambi for instance) so that I can legally consume meat, wear leather and hunt with my dogs.
I’m not willing, and don’t think we should turn a blind eye to someone starving their dog. But the answer to this last example is not imprisonment, it’s simply seizure after suitable warning and attempts at rehabilitation.
Animals either have rights or they do not. They quite obviously do NOT, notwithstanding the best efforts and intentions of those that say otherwise. Given all the obvious conflict, hypocrisy and contradictory laws and edicts, is it any wonder some Hispanic (I use Hispanic solely to illustrate a “blood sport” that has definite ties to Hispanic culture) kid growing up in his community sees nothing wrong with cockfighting? This kid might have chickens in his back yard. He can legally round one up, kill it and consume it. But the minute he puts two together to fight (whether or not it results in death or not is superfluous) he has committed a crime punishable by jail.
Does this make sense to you?
End rant.
