Your pets are more important than your kids?

[Lexite]

in my culture pets are not that given much deal as what I've heard in other countries
(is it true that you could be imprisoned if you don't take your dog for a walk??)

To a point you could be imprisoned for not taking your dog for a walk. If you are not taking care of your dog at all and it is being neglected then yes you can be taken to jail, if the case is bad enough. For just not walking the dog but feeding it and taking care of it, no. The dog will be taken away in most situations before you are taken to jail.

The food bank is kinda a nice idea as long as it is only used by people that absolutely cannot afford food. However, they better be having a hard time getting food for themselves as well before they use a food bank for dogs. I would say that the pet should be taken away or given up first though because if hey cannot afford food then how can they afford other needed supplies and health care.I grow tired of people complaining about how expensive dog food is when they pay 3-4 times more on food for themselves a day. People can give up their food luxuries (like soda and more coslty cuts of meat) so that their dog can eat a healthy meal as well as they do. People need to start looking at their dog's food ingredents. If you wouldnt eat it, you shouldnt force your pet to eat it too. Just like for a human, if a dog is eating "junk food" then their bodies are going to act how the human body does when it eats junk food. Dogs are omniverous but eat more animal matter then plant.

 

[Morm]

well it speaks volumes that up in Edmonton, Alberta, some kids put a live cat in a microwave and turned it on, til the cat died. They got a slap on the wrists for their hideous crime, meanwhile if you did that to a small human child you'd basically be labelled a monster for life and serve 25+ years

 

[akuchi]

animal life isn't given the same importance as human life. you don't need to think about cats in microwaves, just the fact that people for the most part eat animals and not other people.
peter singer argued otherwise, but the man is an ass.

 

[Lexite]

I would say that if the kid is metally compitent and understnads life then the kid should have receved a much harsher punishment then that. The kid should have had to gone to a correction center and surved a lot of community service time (really shitty jobs like picking up trash in a bad area), as well as some classes on animal crulity.

There are laws that protect animald from curiliy and violating the laws can mean jail time and lots of fines for people, but I do feel they need to be a little harsher and harder to worm your way out of. If you tied a dog to a tree and then the rope to be fused into the skin and you starved the dog to the point that it was on deaths door, I better see you in jail for a number of years, not weeks.

animal life isn't given the same importance as human life. you don't need to think about cats in microwaves, just the fact that people for the most part eat animals and not other people.
peter singer argued otherwise, but the man is an ass.

There is a differnece though, you cant put the live chicken that you are about to eat into the microwave. And in the US we do not eat cats, so there is another difference there.

 

[Morm]

animal life isn't given the same importance as human life. you don't need to think about cats in microwaves, just the fact that people for the most part eat animals and not other people.
peter singer argued otherwise, but the man is an ass.

perhaps another reason is that peole fight back more, taste like shit (or so I was told...) and cannibalism is something that species will avoid more often than not.

 

[lati0s]

some people may prefer the company of pets to that of children but over all children are conscious thinking beings that will, hopefully, one day grow into productive members of society whereas pets are not, so kids are more important than pets even if some people would prefer the company of pets

 

[diinbong]

Sure, it's fine to chop up and generally brutally sever and torture live chickens in an animal farm, but when it goes public with a kitten, something is suddenly horribly wrong.

 

[Morm]

Sure, it's fine to chop up and generally brutally sever and torture live chickens in an animal farm, but when it goes public with a kitten, something is suddenly horribly wrong.

Well the difference is that the cat was killed in a mallicious way for no reason other than to see it die. The chicken is at least eaten.

 

[Lexite]

Sure, it's fine to chop up and generally brutally sever and torture live chickens in an animal farm, but when it goes public with a kitten, something is suddenly horribly wrong.

If they are being tortured that is wrong. If they humanely kill them it is different from brutalizing them and torturing them. If you would stop and think, farmers cannot torture and brutalize their animals because it they did they are going to have a really messed up chicken that no one is going to eat. Most farmers do take good care of their animals because they want to be able to sell a good product. The farms that do not care for their animals, under new laws, will be corrected. It is not in the best interest for a farm to abuse their animals and for that reason most do not, if they do, people are not going to buy their product and the farmer will then change his meted.

 

[diinbong]

edit:ok than, bottom line: I don't like animals and you're right that these situations act on a different premise

And interesting article along the lines of this discussion:

At the root of 'unlimited compassion for animals' lies a 'fundamental' need of man-the desire to be loved unconditionally. "I would rather keep loving only my dog because he doesn't expect anything from me, he loves me for what I am"-declares a woman in her 20s, self-righteously. "Animals are better that humans because they don't know hate", says a boy studying in the 9th Standard! It is almost an universally accepted fact that one has to necessarily feel love for animals and care for them.

But is such, the nature of human love?
What is love?

Love is one form of an expression of evalutation of an individual's worth, the highest form to be more specific. There is no such thing as unconditional love. Love for another person comes from an understanding on own's worth first because love is the confession that "you are my friend because you are worth me" .

The opposite of love is hate, a profound disliking of a person for his ideas and therefore for his values and morals. Hate is also an expression of evaluation-a negative one.

Love has to be earned, to be fought for, love has to be gained by a demonstration of merit.

But what do these animal rights activists long to achieve? They want to feel love without earning it. They want to enjoy the fruits of labour without labour. They are, in other words, trying to dissociate cause from effect; they want to experience the love of their fellow-men without standing up to any of their expectations. What they fail to understand is that such a love is an impossibility.

Alienation

It is in the face of such facts that 'alienation' sets in. Their ideas of earning 'undeserved love' clash with the ideals of those who want to like people for their worth. To such people, love from deserving sources seem spurious because they are against the very concept of such a love. And undeservingly given love also doesn't appease them because an such a love is at best- a poorly disguised counterfiet currency note, similar to the real one at first sight, revealing its uselenesses later.

It is in search for a cure for such alienation that these people come across animals. And since animals neither evaulate nor question (and thus can neither love anybody nor hate anyone), they are perfect targets for the fulfillment of the emotional needs of such people. And this is what makes them proclaim the things that I have mentioned above.

Note also that I am not denouncing animals as pets. What is disagreeable (and distasteful) is statements like, "Animal love is better that human love". People who utter such statements have never experienced true human love and therefore know little about its nature. For such people, animals are just scapegoats in the bargain, objects of proof that show that their 'idea' of love exists.

Animals as pets are a form of indulgence to man, a form of pure joy and pleasure. They can be loved and cared for, but not in sense that the 'man-haters' seem to proclaim.

 

[Lexite]

I have no clue what you are even trying to say. Please explain because I cant even figure out what the article is trying to say because this writter isnt making any sense.

 

[Morm]

I have no clue what you are even trying to say.

to expand on your shitty post, I will point out that cats and dogs (and other commonplace, domesticated pets that have been around for tens of thousands of years as pets) have been BRED to be cute and cuddly and be companions, unlike chickens which have been bred to be exploited. There really aren't any Galliformes out there, for example, that lay infertile eggs nearly as consistently as chickens do.

I can't help but wonder if some people have an agenda in this thread to promote vegetarianism.

 

[diinbong]

[important sections]

"I would rather keep loving only my dog because he doesn't expect anything from me, he loves me for what I am"-declares a woman in her 20s, self-righteously.

Love is one form of an expression of evalutation of an individual's worth, the highest form to be more specific. There is no such thing as unconditional love. Love for another person comes from an understanding on own's worth first because love is the confession that "you are my friend because you are worth me" .

Love has to be earned, to be fought for, love has to be gained by a demonstration of merit.

But what do these animal rights activists long to achieve? They want to feel love without earning it. They want to enjoy the fruits of labour without labour. They are, in other words, trying to dissociate cause from effect; they want to experience the love of their fellow-men without standing up to any of their expectations.

And since animals neither evaulate nor question (and thus can neither love anybody nor hate anyone), they are perfect targets for the fulfillment of the emotional needs of such people.

So in full;

What is disagreeable (and distasteful) is statements like, "Animal love is better that human love". People who utter such statements have never experienced true human love and therefore know little about its nature. For such people, animals are just scapegoats in the bargain, objects of proof that show that their 'idea' of love exists.

and in my mind;

This subject is hardly debatable, considering they are two very different forms of relationships.

 

[Morm]

I really think comparing emotions across species that aren't all that close is foolish to begin with. However, I know what I feel about my cat is certainly love; whether he feels that is purely speculative, but I can observe that he would rather spend time adjacent to me than anyone else, including my roommates.

 

[diinbong]

But since the original post's question was essentially "Which relationship do you value more, that of your pet, or that of your child?", no one could accurately answer unless they had experienced both (and even then it comes down to opinion). But in reality, I'm certain 9/10 parents that have pets will say that their children are more important. The question, relating to some earlier replies, had nothing to do with which one is more annoying, but which is in higher value; in which case, it is almost undeniable that most all human beings will find their pets less important than the lives of people.

edit: i guess that's my point

 

[Morm]

so why are we even still talking? There's only a very very few people on this forum that would be qualified to say anything aside from speculation.

 

[ivar]

If they are being tortured that is wrong. If they humanely kill them it is different from brutalizing them and torturing them. If you would stop and think, farmers cannot torture and brutalize their animals because it they did they are going to have a really messed up chicken that no one is going to eat. Most farmers do take good care of their animals because they want to be able to sell a good product. The farms that do not care for their animals, under new laws, will be corrected. It is not in the best interest for a farm to abuse their animals and for that reason most do not, if they do, people are not going to buy their product and the farmer will then change his meted.

Wrong. I'm guessing this perspective on the meat industry is based on intuitive judgment, as opposed to any sort of research. Read up on the meat industry; you'll see just how much farmers care about their livestock and how much they want to avoid making "really messed up chicken that no one is going to eat." I mean... I don't even know what to say to that comment.

I plan on having kids, just for the experience, and see what comes of it. I think I'll just care for them in a different way than I do the animals that I've worked with.

You plan on having kids just for the experience? You sure that's a smart idea? What if the experience is unsatisfactory? You just gonna tell your kid to fuck off? If you're gonna have a kid, make sure you want to have the damn kid--don't do it just because it's custom, or out of curiosity.

 

[Lexite]

Wrong. I'm guessing this perspective on the meat industry is based on intuitive judgment, as opposed to any sort of research. Read up on the meat industry; you'll see just how much farmers care about their livestock and how much they want to avoid making "really messed up chicken that no one is going to eat." I mean... I don't even know what to say to that comment.

If you did any research you would know that there are many chicken companies that do take good care of their animals, like organic farms and other farms that have free range chickens. Yes there are companies out there that do not care but they are a growing number that does. If a chicken is bruised or hurt in any way, that chicken cannot be sold for food. There are food regulation laws you know that say that chickens have to be in good condition for them to be sold to the consumers, right? A farmer cannot continue to raise bruised and damaged chickens if he plans to make a profit. You clearly do not know anything about retail.

http://www.eatwild.com/animals.html
http://www.ecofriendly.com/ecofriendly_foods/chicken/
http://www.chicken.ca/Defaultsite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=246
http://www.peteandgerrys.com/environment.php

Kinda off topic, but I really hate seeing the Alpo add at the top of the page, Alpo is really really shitty dog food and if any of you feed your dog Alpo, please read the ingredients.

 

[Vineon]

ever ate foie gras, Lexite?

its so good :(

 

[Bran]

Is it just me, or didn't the title of this thread make you think this was another promotion from PETA??

 

[Lexite]

ever ate foie gras, Lexite?

its so good :(

Ummmm, no, the smell of liver is just to...... no. I know its good for you, but no. And most of all, force feeding the animals corn to fatten their liver is just wrong. I am against feeding animals, live stock as well as pets, corn. Corn is not a food source for most animals. I hate seeing corn in dog and cat food and I still do not want to see the animals I eat being corn fed either for that matter.

 

[Vineon]

Animal welfare organisations can bite my ass.

The Humane Society of the United States' president has a salary of more than 500,000 a year. This is paid by the generous public's financial aid to 'save the animals'.

They make a shitload of money out of defending certain animals primarly. Those of course being the ones that will attract the most financial contributions. The Harp Seal comes to mind. It is not a threatened specie by any stretch but it grants them shocking visual material. Baby seals are extremely cute, thats regardless of the fact their hunt is generally banned (the hunt being restrained to slightly older animals generally), yet that's the images they will use. Blood on snow makes quite a picture as well.

They recently came here to film hunters. They had their camera on a seal that was left dying, which is against the law. Instead of ending its suffering, they simply filmed it for about 20 minutes. Eventually, it managed to crawl to the water... so they ordered the crew to get it back on the ice for further filming.

This is a business to them, they are simply out there to make money and they manage to make a lot of it. They pay themselves trips to various locations, have many of their own helicopters and always manage to invite celebrities with them.

 

[Vineon]

Ummmm, no, the smell of liver is just to...... no. I know its good for you, but no.

Good foie gras is also achieved through 'torture' by gavage to the duck/goose hence why I asked.

edit: oh you edited that in O_o

It isn't really that they are corn-fed, it has more to do with the force feeding. They pretty much sink a tube in their mouth to their throat, shut the mouth and open the valve.

 

[Lexite]

Good foie gras is also achieved through 'torture' by gavage to the duck/goose hence why I asked.

edit: oh you edited that in O_o

It isn't really that they are corn-fed, it has more to do with the force feeding. They pretty much sink a tube in their mouth to their throat, shut the mouth and open the valve.

The corn feeding adds to the problem since the animal is not going to be well nourished at all since corn is a horrible food source for animals. The method is also just awful and I wouldnt eat the product even if I did like liver. I also do not eat Veal since I do not like the method either.

At least groups like the ASPCA try to help out animals. The humane society might take in a lot of money and pay their president an absurd amount, but it is better then noting. Not that I am saying it is ok, there should be some regulations on the groups, but at least they do something.

 

[Morm]

You plan on having kids just for the experience? You sure that's a smart idea? What if the experience is unsatisfactory? You just gonna tell your kid to fuck off? If you're gonna have a kid, make sure you want to have the damn kid--don't do it just because it's custom, or out of curiosity.

It's called "Mow the fucking lawn again...but this time, leave it longer!"

How can anyone know if they will like or want an experience before they have it? So sure on your opinions at 15 are you?