Live pups and kittens used a bait

[Celtic_Emperor]

While your point is valid and has been argued about by many, bull fighting is more than just entertainment for Spanish people. Technically, it is just plain brutal murder, but thats not the reason it's entertaining to them. Bull fighting is a sport (yes, that much is true) of honor, and glory. Fans of bull fighting consider it to be very honorable to let a bull have a death such as that. The point of a bull fight is not really man vs. animal, it's basically a measure of honor. And actually, some people don't know it, but the bull is not always killed. It's a rare occassion to be sure, but it happens.

The gist of what I'm saying is, what you see bull fighting as is the honest truth, but what it's meaning is goes far deeper.

Having some spaniard blood running through my veins, I already know what bullfighting represents in the wider scheme of things as I've bothered to look into it. However, it is my opinion that to create the self-satisfying illusion of machoism, pride, and honor in fighting an animal with the intent to kill it, no matter how naturally vicious it can become if taunted (and down right stabbed to death 😛 ) is nothing short of foolishness.

Theres no honor in killing an animal just because its been made a sport and people are calling for the animal's life from the stands, like this is the good old gladiator days.

Theres no excuse for this other than the culture that has been errected as a front to the slaughtering. This sport is not a true part of the spanish people any more than alcohol is a true part of the irish people.

We just believe they are because they have become mainstays in those societies. No matter how infused they have become, it doesn't make them right no matter how ideal or cultural they have been made to be. Alcoholism is a sickeness, and bullfighting is just down right sickening.

When you get right down to the fact of the matter, you're killing the animal in a cruel and malicious way. Theres no saying otherwise. No tradition, "honor" or misguided sense of glory can whitewash that fact.

 

[-Kunoke-]

Having some spaniard blood running through my veins, I already know what bullfighting represents in the wider scheme of things as I've bothered to look into it. However, it is my opinion that to create the self-satisfying illusion of machoism, pride, and honor in fighting an animal with the intent to kill it, no matter how naturally vicious it can become if taunted (and down right stabbed to death 😛 ) is nothing short of foolishness.

Theres no honor in killing an animal just because its been made a sport and people are calling for the animal's life from the stands, like this is the good old gladiator days.

Theres no excuse for this other than the culture that has been errected as a front to the slaughtering. This sport is not a true part of the spanish people any more than alcohol is a true part of the irish people.

We just believe they are because they have become mainstays in those societies. No matter how infused they have become, it doesn't make them right no matter how ideal or cultural they have been made to be. Alcoholism is a sickeness, and bullfighting is just down right sickening.

When you get right down to the fact of the matter, you're killing the animal in a cruel and malicious way. Theres no saying otherwise. No tradition, "honor" or misguided sense of glory can whitewash that fact.

No, you're absolutely right. I was just bringing across the fact that it's a matter of perspective. 🙂

 

[Ignatz]

Valerie is right. The provenance of this story is a little (ahem) fishy and may turn out to be completely false or, at most, one isolated incident blown out of proportion. Fishermen are practical fellows in any culture and I can't believe kittens and puppies would be more plentiful or easier to use than baitfish.

 

[joham1]

Hey joham, don't bring up the topics of the U S Constitution and to use your words the 'American Christian Empire' because they are not even germain to this thread. What these fishermen are doing is barbaric and inhumane. Like I said earlier I would just skip the fine and use them for live bait if I ever had the opportunity to do so. Sharks have been around for millions of years and they will still be in all of the Worlds oceans except the Arctic long after we humans are long gone so there goes another one of your pipe dreams up in smoke. As far as the other stuff you bring up in your post most of it is not germain to the topic of this thread either but I think that should be pretty obvious to everyone to say the least.

"Germane" is the word you're looking for, but that's beside the point.

I brought up a token "anti-American" straw man argument as a counter to the "Another reason to hate the French" comment that was idly thrown in at the end of the original post. It's totally relevant to the discussion - it serves to show that it's silly to paint an entire nation with the same brush just because some of them disagree with you, or through some percieved national pride. Hating the French seems to be all the rage right now, and for no real reason other than their choice not to support the invasion of Iraq. Do you believe everyone in France supported that decision? Did they have a big get together and every single person in France said "no, let's not go to Iraq". Even sillier, there seems to be the notion that France didn't go to war purely to spite the US rather than for any rational, thought out reasons which is just bemusing.

Simply put: "America arrests people without charge for an indefinite period and holds them without trail or access to a lawyer and without telling them what they are charged with, then says the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. Just another reason to hate America"

How is that different from the initial post lambasting the French?

Disclaimer: for those not getting it, the above statement does not necessarily reflect the views of this poster, void where prohibited, colours may differ from those shown, never roller skate in a buffalo herd, do not eat iPod Shuffle, yadda yadda

Now, as for shark fishing. You are correct; sharks have been around in the oceans for millions of years so you seem to think they're invincible. It's a bit of a non-sequiteur really, since humans have only started to fish them to death in the past couple of hundred years (if that). That's 200 years compared to 5,000,000 years of existance (to pick a number out of the air in the millions).

The Dodo bird existed for thousands of years until human settlers wiped it out in a short period of time. There are countless species that humans have wiped out, and some on the very brink that we're trying to save having realised that once they're gone, that's it.

The formula is simple: if sharks fished per year is greater than sharks born per year then eventually they will die out. Incidentally, that's not my pipe dream at all: I have no wish to see them gone at all.

meh. I need a cup of tea.

 

[coloman]

I am happy to see you responded to my reply to your original post. Your explaination for using 'anti-American' as a token straw argument to counter the 'hate the French' comment was appreciated. It's refreshing to know that while we may not agree on every issue we can discus those issues and still remain civil with each other. You have a valid point on sharks being fished until they are extinct and the fact that man has wiped out other species of animals, etc as well. I wonder how many species of animals have ceased to exist since life began on this planet because of natural causes or a cataclysmic event like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs?

 

[joham1]

I have heard it's something like 90% of all the species that once existed don't anymore.

The Earth is something like 13 billion years old, and the dinosaurs in one form or another ruled over it for 70 million years or so relatively undisturbed. Human era existance, and most of the species around us today, account for such a tiny sliver of that timespan.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

The Earth is something like 13 billion years old, and the dinosaurs in one form or another ruled over it for 70 million years or so relatively undisturbed. Human era existance, and most of the species around us today, account for such a tiny sliver of that timespan.

A few corrections to make. The age of the earth you quoted is somewhat more close to the age of the universe. The earth is generally accepted to be around 4.5 billion years old while the universe itself is estimated at between 11.5 and 20 billion years old (Precision is not readily available for that estimate.). Also, the dinosaurs lived for about twice that 70 million year period: 150 million years is the general estimate.

Apologies, but HDS likes to nitpick. 😛

 

[XaviarRkR]

Just saw an article today where on the French island of Reunion live puppies and kittens are being used as shark bait. Guess this is another reason to hate the French.

If someone thought to write about it, chances are someone will be doing it legal or not.

True or not, as a concept, it's sick, twisted, evil and very, very primitive and utterly unnessesary!

The human capacity for cruelty and/or never ceases to amaze and horrify me.

 

[joham1]

Thanks for the corrections HDS, I was just pulling numbers out of my ass and didn't fancy looking up the figures.

4.5 billion does make more sense. Or 6000 years, if you believe Pat Robertson. 🙂

 

[BigNorm]

Did anyone read the excerpt posted? This is illegal under French law.

But then, locking up people and holding them without trial or access to a lawyer is against something called the Constit... constamatu... constitution, I think it's called, but that doesn't seem to prevent the American Christian Empire from doing it.

I'll have some French Fries please.

And so endeth the "don't hate all people of one nationality because of a few freaks" rant.

Oh, and drudgereport as a legit news source?! That's funny. You're killing me here.

Edit: it's also interesting that there's such outrage over the use of dogs and cats. I'm not saying it's right, but would there really be so much fuss if the animals weren't cute? What if they baited the shark with one of the many cows that are destined to end up in your Quarter Pounder with cheese?

My personal annoyance is that they're fishing for sharks - the oceans will be bare of them if we're not careful. The shark has been around for a considerable amount of time longer than we have and we'll have made them extinct in the blink of an eye.

oh please, a Brit taking the side of the french, now i've heard it all, and don't hit on our governement, it may not be perfect, but it sure as hell beats the good ol fashioned king and queen tyrany. and i'd be against using cows as bait, because that's less burgers for us, lol.

 

[nessonite1]

*blows whistle*
*makes various refferee-like movements with arms*

The bashing of various nationalities must stop, k?

 

[joham1]

Bignorm, you read the words of my post but didn't actually understand them - I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that taking sides and chucking national slurs around is like trying to staple gun diarrhea to the wall.

edit: missed a word out.

 

[Hungarian21]

Being European is shamefull at times like this, considering the fact that animal cruelty is very lightly punished in Hungary. I trully hate those kinds of people. 😡
Perfect timing, really, for the french have also come up with another bastard-like thing: "prooving" that Lance Armstrong was indeed using drugs to win races. 🙄 Why cant they just except that Lance is a better rider that any of them lot? To think that I have spent three years learning French.... Glad I dont remember a thing :happy:

 

[nessonite1]

*point emphatically to reply #36*

I dont want to have to close the thread but if we can't think of anything better to do than bash the french and the British...

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

We could always...oh..I don't know....focus on the TOPIC of animals and how we undermine their rights and value. I've presented several questions a few posts ago that could be answered if anyone is interested. It would be easier to do something about this if someone other than me tried to do right by this thread and mods did more than just caution people and helped me out or something.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

For those that are too lazy to look back to page 3 (just one page back edit: 3 pages over now since this post makes page 5) here is the post:

"On topic, I'm also disturbed by whaling. The Blue Whale (the largest mammal in the world) has declined drastically. It is believed that there are only about 600 blue whales left, at least thats what I heard. Those numbers may be inaccurate.

These gentle giants should just be left alone, but their sheer size make them prime targets for hunters, poachers and other sonsabitches.

I could see if whaling was necessary, but its not. Its practically a sport and they kill these magnificant creatures for just some parts of them. Its like how the settlers would kill buffalo and leave everything but the hide, whereas the native americans honored the animals in whole, by not allowing their bodies to go to waste.

A side question- what is your (and by your I mean anyone genuinely interested) opinion on cosmetics/furs/clothing made from animals, and for that matter, whats your opinion on animal testing of these and various other products? Should we continue, or are we wrong in assuming that just because animals are a "lower form" of life, that its justified?"

 

[nessonite1]

I actually didnt see that post at all, Vlad ^^

I never really heard/read too much on the topic of whaling so I don't really have much of an opinion of it. Harvesting animals I don't have much problem with as long as a) the animal is but to as much use as is can and it's not wasted and b) the animal is not endangered or threatened. While I am horrified that people are using dogs and cats as shark bait I also try to understand that my opinion is influenced by my culture, where they are companion animals and held in high esteem. They may very well just be heartless and cruel....or they could see no difference between that and using worms to fish.
Against my Californian upbringing I dont have a problem with leather/fur/eating meat, etc. I would like to see animals raised for their meat/skin treated and killed more humanely however.

 

[BigNorm]

*point emphatically to reply #36*

I dont want to have to close the thread but if we can't think of anything better to do than bash the french and the British...

no, no, no, i was in no way meaning to bash the british, brits are cool, often times cooler than me, i was giving an example of no government is perfect.

Bignorm, you read the words of my post but didn't actually understand them - I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that taking sides and chucking national slurs around is like trying to staple gun diarrhea to the wall.

edit: missed a word out.

just next time be more clear. what you said seemed pretty straightforward. it's like someone saying: "Nazi's are like so cool." in writing you can't tell if they're serious, or being a smartass.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I actually didnt see that post at all, Vlad ^^

I never really heard/read too much on the topic of whaling so I don't really have much of an opinion of it. Harvesting animals I don't have much problem with as long as a) the animal is but to as much use as is can and it's not wasted and b) the animal is not endangered or threatened. While I am horrified that people are using dogs and cats as shark bait I also try to understand that my opinion is influenced by my culture, where they are companion animals and held in high esteem. They may very well just be heartless and cruel....or they could see no difference between that and using worms to fish.
Against my Californian upbringing I dont have a problem with leather/fur/eating meat, etc. I would like to see animals raised for their meat/skin treated and killed more humanely however.

I'm sort of indifferent on the clothing deal.. Wearing it is not my concern, its the manner in which the animal perished that the clothing/furs became available, that is. And I'm not a vegitarian, so that answers that. However, I would not eat something endangered out of principle or because it was so hard to aqquire that its some delicacy, as that itself can lead to endangerment, even if the animal in question is not currently at risk. As in actuality, by eating it and declaring it was good and that I wouldn't mind more, I'm telling cooks to get fishermen/hunters to go after those particular animals, and thats what leads to the problem in the first place.

What is your opinion of chemical testing on animals? Should we find human volunteers or is the testing justifed on animals? If you believe it is justified,why do you think it is so?

Thank you for your response. 🙂

 

[MistressValerie1]

For my part, I oppose unneccessary cruelty towards any animal for any reason, but I don't oppose reasonable use of animals for the betterment of humankind. For instance, humans evolved as omnivores, so it's hard to argue that eating meat is unnatural even though I choose to be a vegetarian myself. I prefer not to wear animal products as clothing (except for shoes, as there is no good substitute for genuine leather), but I would not want to inflict my morals on anyone else. I would, however, support humane-kill laws for such animal uses.

I favour animal testing only if no viable alternative exists, and I would like to see more development of cell cultures and computer models to replace animal tests when possible. I oppose cruel entertainments such as rodeo and circus acts, but as a political libertarian I would prefer improved animal-welfare laws over total prohibition.

Just my $0.02 🙂

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Very good response, Val. Thank you. 🙂

What is your opinion of organizations like Green Peace? Do you feel their work is in vain?

 

[nessonite1]

I don;t know a whole lot about chimical testing on animals so it wouldn't mean much to voice an opinion on it. I think that to an extent lab testing on animals is necessary if we're to get anywhere in the fields of medicine and science. it may not be ideal but..

YEE there's a huge spider crawling across my moniter!

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I suppose the actual question then is what makes it ok to test on animals but not other willing human beings who are being paid and are recieving the best treatments in the event of negative side-affects money can buy?

Naturally we have evolved and in the process been taught to believe that we are at the top of the food chain and that anything below us is to be expendable because we are above doing that to ourselves based on an early principle.

What value is it, do you think, that justifies using animals over humans? Is it so simple a decision because the animal cannot defend itself or speak, or is not considered to have the same level of being and feelings (both emotional and physical) that we do and therefore we give it and it's rights no say at all because they're not able to stop us in any way nor do they band together as a society to voice their outrage like we can? Its the same for the actual animal cruelty this thread is about.

What value would we place everything below us with, and would we still see ourselves as the only precious existance or lifeform that we would not use ourselves but destroy other existances?

Note, I'm not suggesting animals are worth more than human beings in the greater scheme of things, but I'm hinting at their base value as living creatures being the same. I of course understand animal testing, but do not completely agree with it. Its not ideal, its not right, but its been made one of those necessary evils I suppose.

"It makes no difference, a worm's life or a human's life. A life is a life."- Deedlit, the High Elf (Record of Lodoss War)

(Yes its an anime quote people, but the messege is true enough. 😛 )

 

[MistressValerie1]

I think that many environmentalist groups like Greenpeace or Earth Liberation Front go too far in defending animals and nature (damaging property, injuring humans and other animals), though I can appreciate the efforts of more moderate societies like the Sierra Club.

Regarding animal testing, I don't think that animals have the same degree of cognition or sense of self as do humans, and although I wouldn't say animals should have no rights, I believe that human interests must come first. Many, if not most test animals are of less-advanced species anyway (rats, mice); these animals are usually regarded as pests or vermin in other settings.

In accordance with laws of nature, animals use and/or eat other animals. Humans are no less subject to natural law, but because humans also uniquely have moral conscience, we should use animals only in the most humane and ethical ways possible.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Thats assuming they're being used for cures and such, good things. What about for weopons of war, lethal injections, nerve agents and other such things which would leave no doubt that the animal is suffering to the highest degree possible and the purpose is to torment it and see how much it can take and in what ammount of dosage, voltage, etc.?

We could easily chalk that up to human interests as well. Where is the line drawn? I'm guessing its not, nor will it ever be. And thats where my ill feelings over this matter lie.

If some of these experiments were performed on humans (who naturally have a higher threshold of tolerance) we would have a better understanding of their effects, as a human can speak and discribe the sensations it's feeling. With an animal, you can only tell so much from visual confirmation and further testing. Through limited human testing we would be able to better refine any discoveries we make. We do that now, but not nearly enough sometimes. And its a wonder we're behind in the field of medicine. Alot of cures/treatments were initially founded through animals. If it had been the other way around, perhaps the cures or at least the findings will have come about sooner.

EDIT: To support the other side and remain fair however, probably the only reason animals are used as opposed to humans is because if the experiment was fatal and they lost the human there was more that was lost than merely their life. Their families and friends suffer, etc, and their individual personality is lost to us and what they had to offer. No one really suffers when an animal dies in this way, nor does their loss of life harm anything else, except for the animal activists out there, and in actual cases, the scientists who have had a change of heart and can't stand what they are doing to these animals anymore, so they sneak them out of the facilities and either take care of them themself or make sure to get them away from that place.

There have been movies based on real life stories of just thing thing; scientists growing attached to their lab animals to such a degree that they can't experiment on them anymore.

In cases where a test would be fatal or there would be a danger that it would be fatal, or it could be predicted that it may be fatal, I don't think its best to use a human for that, however. Anything less than fatal however may have a league of it's own benefits. And because theres more time to save a human from a failed experiment because you can interact with them more fully, the chances of them dying or having extreme, long lasting side-effects are not as severe.

And above all, only volunteers being paid and given the best medical attention thereafter should be called on for these types of things. In the process, they are waiving their rights to sue and to even be volunteering are understanding what they're getting into and are mentally prepared for any outcome.

Don't send a mouse in to do a man's job, I suppose. LOL