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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.