The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How should humans treat animals? > Comments

How should humans treat animals? : Comments

By Allen Greer, published 31/7/2013

Western concern for animals is based on the sentience of some animals, namely, that they share emotional states with humans.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
These two related references provide a unique way of relating to the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human world.

http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/wisdom/observe-non-humans-and-learn

http://animalliberty.com
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 8:38:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How should humans treat animals?

Well I guess that depends on how we use them. Food, beasts of burden, companions, pets or vermin.

I don’t see treatment of animals as an issue outside deliberate cruelty however, cruelty is subjective.

I don’t think a fish sees much difference between being eaten by a shark or a human but there are humans who do see a difference.

The problem begins when some humans try to assign “rights” to animals. These people are just lost souls, driven by angst, emotion, dysfuncionality, unfulfilled lives and arrogance.

The Egyptians treat their donkeys abominably, Arabs in general treat food animals terribly, the Japs and the Nordics kill and eat whales, third world countries eat whatever they can get their hands on, the Chinese eat dogs and we have them as pets, guide dogs, working dogs and sports dogs.

Next we will be raising international concerns about ships going through plankton nursery’s

We have a cat and a dog, we treat them well and love them dearly. The fact that in other countries they might be part of the food chain is utterly irrelevant.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 11:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One gets much more from a work animal, if it is treated with kindness.
A horse that loves its master, will literally run to its death for that master, and there are any number of verifiable true stories where dogs have saved their masters from all manner of harm. Apparently there is evidence that some dogs are able to recognise cancer in humans, long before we manifest symptoms, and early enough for medical intervention to produce a positive/successful outcome.
Even putting themselves in harms way to take a bullet or other harm, to save or rescue a master/owner.
Sniffer dogs have saved numerous humans from all manner of explosive devices!
And its hard to see in the lifetime sacrifice of guide dogs, any of the normal run and play that gives our dogs a measure of interactive pleasure.
Then, if food animals are routinely terrified, before slaughter, the hormone release ensures the meat is far tougher and far less tasty, than that sourced from humanely handled animals.
In the wild, animals rarely attack humans, unless staving or reacting with fear.
And there is something very wrong with the psychology of people who take pleasure from causing harm or hurt to any species.
Only lack of NORMAL human empathy allowed the Nazis to slaughter 6 million Jews, often in the most extreme cruelty!
One often hears that fish feel no pain when a huge hook pierces the cheek or is swallowed before ripping into the gut.
And one can justify that, if the animal is needed for food, but never for so-called catch and release sport. And given a plentiful supply, one should only take what they genuinely need as food.
In the final analysis, we humans should treat animals and each other, as we would be treated if our roles were reversed, or out of simple self interest.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have often wondered if David Attenborough & his ilk should not be charged with animal cruelty, when they can stand idly by, camera in hand, filming the horrible death of a of a deer torn apart, & eaten still alive by a predator. When this is done for profit, merely to titivate a TV audience, & perhaps prove their skill as photographers, I do find it distasteful.

To me this is much worse than live cattle export trade, when the profit motive if nothing else, demands the stock be treated well, & kept in top uninjured condition. When killed these animals will be put to a productive use.

I have breed, broken & trained show jumpers to a very high standard, & always found gaining their trust was of great importance for success, & for enjoyment. My old stallion still calls to me & comes up when ever he sees me, almost 8 years after retirement.

With animals I am not going have a really close acquaintance with, I demand respect, as this is essential for safety.

However when it comes to killing, I would always shoot a rabbit, not let my dogs catch it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 1:15:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we were serious about how best to treat birds, then we should not allow the keeping of their dangerous natural predator, cats, unless of course cats were caged so that they would not be able to stalk birds. Furthermore, feral cats would need to be totally eliminated.

On the other hand, if we were serious about how best to keep cats, then we should not restrict them from engaging in their natural past-time of hunting -- birds and other animals.

Would the animal welfare movement consider caging birds to protect them from being hunted by cats, or alternatively caging cats so that they cannot attack birds?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 1:35:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's simple really, if one farms animals treat them with some humanity. That is, not confined in small spaces, inflicting pain or causing untold damage through barbaric conditions.

This is not about whether animals are like people. They are living organisms and it is not anthropomorphism to observe and believe that animals can feel pain and misery.

Do humans want to be responsible for creating these sorts of conditions to another living being.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 2:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Raycom,

I was reminded from your post of the protected and rare bird species that get slaughtered by wind turbines. As they say at the RSPB, the birds that get the “chop” simply live in the wrong post code.

I guess it’s OK to blame domestic cats as long as you ignore “official” wild life protection failures.

I guess I’m OK with that as long as we also “cage” wind turbines. The real conservationists once railed against wind turbines but it seems that this has been sacrificed upon the altar of carbon reduction expediency? Just thought I’d mention the “H” word (hypocrisy) for context, you don’t need to respond, we already have the narrative.

The words that jumped out in your comment were “natural predators”. Yep, that about sums up the way the world has always worked.

I expected more from you Raycom
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 4:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wholeheartedly agree with you. If you own animals, be it pets or farm animals, treat them with respect and make their lives as enjoyable and living worth as possible.

I think that basically there is nothing wrong with eating animals since mankind has done that since forever. however, I cannot stand many of the conditions that animals are held in. Laying batteries and factory farming are simply not tolerable.

i know it is a difficult topic and sure, people could argue that breeding animals just for then sake of killing and then eating them i cruel itself but that's how I see it.
Posted by bbfor, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 7:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the author says rings true about all sorts of social justice issues as well as for animals. People start from the position that they are the best possible example and then strive to make others do the things that they think would be good for them, often without any consideration of the genuinely needful things that the people they are trying to help might be lacking.

So we get feminists that tell us that the most important thing is that women must have equal opportunity to be wage slaves, yet for most women the most important thing in their lives is security to raise their children.

We get Aboriginal activists telling us that the most important thing is that aborigines must be told "sorry", yet for most aboriginal people all that really matters is that they are able to live well.

We have refugee advocates telling us that the most important thing is to help people who make it to australia, yet for most refugees the most important thing is to be safe and be able to get on with their interrupted lives, wherever they are.

The list is endless and the major common feature is that the advocates are really, really concerned about how they feel and are determined to do whatever it takes to make the reality of others fit their own perceived emotional needs.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 9:51:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, bbfor, animals in the wild often have a much tougher time than animals raised properly in domestic circumstances, with the latter experiencing their most difficult time when it comes to transportation and slaughter.
Throughout the whole of their lives domestic stock should be treated with care and respect, with particular emphasis on minimizing stress of any kind - although it may not be possible to avoid all stress.

Why should we care? Anyone who has seen an animal in distress should know the answer to this.
Anyone who doesn't care is either a fool or a rogue.

Those who treat animals harshly prove themselves to be lesser humans, and, as such, are not themselves to be trusted.

The author appears to dislike the animal welfare movement, and points to the movement's questionable 'anthropomorphism' of the sensibilities of animals, by the attribution of 'human' feelings to them.
However, though the movement may hold rather extreme views in some cases, the movement's endeavours are generally seen as meritorious, and in many cases as well-founded in exposing unnecessary and unacceptable cruelty. 'Anthropomorphic' or not, the movement exercises a necessary human 'conscience', and does so on behalf of the great majority of sensible and caring people in our society.

We would prefer a quick and painless death, and a stress-free life, so why would any sentient animal prefer otherwise?
Do they care? Watch a distressed animal and you will know.
"A small bird may fall dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself", but that does not mean it may not have felt distress or pain during its life.

We have a duty of care not to cause distress, anxiety or pain, to one-another or to any animal capable of feeling pain or anxiety.
We may not always be able to eliminate doing so, but it should always be on our conscience if we do not make every reasonable effort to minimize its occurrence.
Why? Because any avoidable cruelty detracts from ourselves, from our sense of self, and makes us a lesser human being, a 'lesser' animal.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 31 July 2013 11:33:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well put Saltpetre.

I would go further and say that anyone who mistreats any animals will often also mistreat humans.

A cruel nature towards animals almost inevitably leads to crimes against humans.
How often do we hear that murderers or violent thugs also used to torture animals prior to their crimes against humans?
So it is essential that our society cracks down on cruelty to animals severely.
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 1 August 2013 12:30:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with everything mentioned above.

How did Gandhi put it?

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

And Kant said:

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."

Nothing to add there.
Posted by bbfor, Thursday, 1 August 2013 5:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The problem begins when some humans try to assign “rights” to animals. These people are just lost souls, driven by angst, emotion, dysfuncionality, unfulfilled lives and arrogance," says Spindoc pontifically!

I feel sorry for any animal in his care. And god-knows what he would do to an animal lover if he got the chance!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 1 August 2013 6:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy