Space Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Completely agree knightendo. Signed. I tried to join the RSPCA a few months ago but they wanted me to print off a form and post it to them. Couldn't believe it, all I wanted to do was sign up to a direct debit. I'll have to try again now that I'm home and have a printer. With any luck they've updated their website to make it easier to support the cause.
dukkadukka Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 at the end of the day, all of this should stop! discussing the "ethics" of this is pointless, at the end of the day it's cruelty to animals and this is something we should all get behind! i think discussion of the ethics behind this is crucial, this issue brings up many questions about our motives. this will probably be banned, but drawing parallels between this and many other examples of cruelty to animals in our society, something really doesn't fit.
jayseven Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Why must the debate over ethics stop? Half the people are saying that this is obviously a wrong thing to do, the other half are (probably) playing devil's advocate. They're just defending the differences you will actually find in the world. As CTG said on page one (i think), we don't force our monogamous way of life onto those middle-eastern cultures where it's socially acceptable to have up to eight wives, or whatever. Sure, it's obvious to most people (especially in our western world) that this is downright cruel, but think about the way these people live. They're a small island controlled by an overseas government on the other side of the world. You think they're well off? They have fricking stray dogs roaming the streets, what about their human rights? May I point out NOW that I don't like this animal cruelty either, and may I also point out that I'm not too bothered arguing the case for relativist ethics (yes, I've just started studying AS Ethics/philosophy, sue me) because forcing my view that you can't force your views on others is kinda hypocritical. I'm just forcing my view that you should listen to what each other and, in particular, what Wes has been saying. Perhaps remembering the unwritten rules of debate would help you too -- Don't put someone else down just because you have a difference of opinion. I guess that covers slagging off the french. SO yeah, i don't give a shit what your argument is for anything, it's just the manner you go about sharing it with others (and me) that matters most.
dukkadukka Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 the other half are (probably) playing devil's advocate. They're just defending the differences you will actually find in the world. thankyou! (yes, I've just started studying AS Ethics/philosophy, sue me) ooh, interesting! i'm gonna read your posts more closely from now on. they never had philosophy at our school unfortunately, i'm thinking of taking night classes though.
ThePigMarcher Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 Valid point dukka , how many of us here would have signed if it wasn't cats and dogs but some other animal. The ethics regarding all forms of animal cruelty are a very important part of this topic and the issues it raises. I have been a long time supporter of the RSPCA and their work , and I don't agree with any form of cruelty to animals , admittedly I have attempted to go vegetarian but have struggled , but I make a point that my meat purchases (albeit small) are purchased from places where animal treatment is as fair as possible. Don't even get me started on the issues regrding animal testing. I can only hope that this issue has raised peoples awareness of all the other forms of animal cruelty that happen worldwide on a daily basis , and that they feel empowered to do something about it.
dukkadukka Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 admittedly I have attempted to go vegetarian but have struggled , but I make a point that my meat purchases (albeit small) are purchased from places where animal treatment is as fair as possible. same here, i'm not strong enough to beat my urge to eat meat, but i try to control it and make sure that even if these animals do get slaughtered for my weakness, at least they live a happy life beforehand. just to make my stance clear to anyone who hasn't worked it out so far, i'm speaking from the assumption that this treatment of dogs as live bait is sick, but wondering where the line is where "sick" ends and "acceptable" starts. i hope no-one is misnterpreting me to be forcing my opinion on them, because if i'm honest i'm unsure what that opinion is right now.
ThePigMarcher Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 My last post was disjointed because I had to answer the phone but I also meant to add the following :- I can sort of understand the bashing some people have got for not signing , bearing in mind that we are only dealing with 'cute' animals in this issue , BUT , the people who refuse to sign are entitled to their opinion and should be allowed to express if freely. They have certainly raised some intersting discussion regarding cultural differences and this is certainly an important part of the discussion (and the main reason why they should not be ridiculed for expressing their views.
James Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 They use cats as-well, dont forget the cats, I haven't signed.
Guest Offerman Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 same here, i'm not strong enough to beat my urge to eat meat, but i try to control it and make sure that even if these animals do get slaughtered for my weakness, at least they live a happy life beforehand. But thats no better - if you got hit by a speeding car tomorrow, just because you had led a happy life, would that immediatly make it ok. The problem is people are happy to critise other peoples way of life - but will not critise their own because they know if they did, and they did something about it - then it would be detrementle too their way of life. If you stopped eating meat then fair enough, dinner time would be pretty boring, I'l admit too that. But just because we enjoy it doesnt mean any of us can justify it.
dukkadukka Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 The problem is people are happy to critise other peoples way of life - but will not critise their own because they know if they did, and they did something about it - then it would be DETRIMENTAL too their way of life. have you even read any of my posts in this topic? you're just recycling my original point and you're making very little sense.
Guest Offerman Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 have you even read any of my posts in this topic? you're just recycling my original point and you're making very little sense. If all your going to do is pick flaws in my spelling and grammer and try and say that its always me in the wrong then there really is no point me trying to have a conversation with you.
dukkadukka Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 well i'm just saying that my whole point was wondering what makes our lifestyle more justifiable than theirs, and then like a week later you come along and re-iterate the same point but try to use it against me. and offerman, conversation isn't just a one-way thing. btw, do forgive me for asking you to check your spelling every once in a while.
Guest Offerman Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 well i'm just saying that my whole point was wondering what makes our lifestyle more justifiable than theirs, and then like a week later you come along and re-iterate the same point but try to use it against me. and offerman, conversation isn't just a one-way thing. btw, do forgive me for asking you to check your spelling every once in a while. I wasnt referring to what you said a-week ago. I was referring to what you said on the 30th. You said that just because what you ate, lived a happy life before it was slaughtered that meant it was ok. If you can justify that - which you can, why can't you justify the ethics of other cultures butching varied animals.
dukkadukka Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 You said that just because what you ate, lived a happy life before it was slaughtered that meant it was ok. no i didn't. while i'm sure you want to get back at me for making you look like an ass before, twisting my words isn't the way to do it. can you just leave it now, and let this thread go back to the interesting discussion it was before.
Guest Offerman Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 no i didn't. while i'm sure you want to get back at me for making you look like an ass before, twisting my words isn't the way to do it. can you just leave it now, and let this thread go back to the interesting discussion it was before. I'm not trying to retaliate or twist your words, I was mearly questioning what you said. But since I am in the wrong again, and have once again turned a placid thread into an argumentive one I'l stop.
Pancake Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Ideally the practice of using any live bait should be outlawed. I don't suppose it's that simple though, i mean would you arrest someone for using a live maggot as bait? You couldn't really, seeing as people are free to squish insects under their shoe.
dukkadukka Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 pancake, you raise an interesting point. we obviously value the life of some animals more than others', it's seen as perfectly normal to kill some animals but an atrocity to kill others. is there a certain criteria that species have to adhere to for their lives to be taken seriously? i'd love to know more about other peoples' opinions on this, do you think it's a dog's intelligence, personality, or just human-like eyes that make it more precious than a maggot? jeez you two, get a room or something. please don't give him any ideas.
Platty Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 come on guys calm it down, this was simply for people who believe it is very cruel to sign it, not for a big argument to start! this discussion is a good one as it raises some good points but stop the personal attacks on each other please.
|Laguna| Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 This is disgusting and outrageous that the people are doing this and can sleep at night. I mean live bait, it's looking up at you while you drown it and end it's life : /. Nasty nasty Frenchies. Just imagine, your own Dog/Nintendog being used to catch a bit of bloody fish. Sickening Stuff. But why on earth aren't the french government doing anything to stop this.
Wesley Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 That's a point, has anyone heard the French government doing anything? Also, you may be interested to know that despite me going on about not signing it, I am a vegetarian.
LukeLee Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 It is a cruel thing and is unnecessary. However there have been some interesting points raised. Firstly the comments against the French are ridiculous, you shouldnt be judging a whole nation based on a select few - would you like all of Britain to be judged as fox hunters? As for animal cruelty i see the RSPCA as one of the worst, they put down healthy animals if they dont find a home within a short time period. Companies like the Mars group (you know, Mars and Snickers) especiaaly breed animals for animal testing. I am aware that dogs are a much loved animal here in Britain, but it is interesting how different animals are given a different value on their life - which is usually decided on "cuteness" rather than anything else. But it happens with people as well, people are given different values on their life depending on their status/background. It's good to have a petition but there are many animal issues here in Britain which need to be addressed before we go calling other countries cruel.
Recommended Posts