dusk wrote:

Dammit I don't know how to get the whole point across shorter than that.... animals who kill other animals are fine IMO, its nature.

We are also animals, I get your point and support it, eat what you hunt, and not what machines kill, here it's not like that just yet, animals get a lot of freedom before being killed, they get real grass, real land, they aren't closed in a box their whole lives, which is good, but not possible in big urban areas, here it's really rural.

Everything is a food chain. Humans are at the top. We can kill anything we want and eat anything we want. It's up to the discretion of the human to decide what to eat, because he/she can eat anything.

I can say or sure a lot of humans wouldn't be able to kill an animal to eat, I know I'd feel bad about myself, and I see that I'm being ignorant by purchasing meat at the shop, but it became a basic human right, if I absolutely had to get my own farm with cows/sheep I totally would.

They live in fields here too, we don't keep them in boxes, but I still wouldn't go into the field with an axe and start chopping at a cow...

Interesting and very valid point.
I think because humans seem themselves as an "upper" species that we should kill animals in the most pain-free way possible. We hate seeing animals suffer because we feel that their "pain" is unnecessary and unwarranted. Some humans also think that if we kill inhumanely (which in itself is subjective- what IS humane? what isn't?) it lowers us to the "standard" of animals.

Other animals do not feel the same way. For example, does a snake care when it wraps it's way around it's prey (eg. a chicken), causing it's prey much stress? No, it is just getting what it wants- food.

I don't see the OP as an asshole or anything. The first humans would have killed animals with clubs and sticks. It's from evolution and cultural western practice that we do not experience these things daily and naturally get upset when we see it happen.

I might add, what would be twisted would be to torture the animal as you are killing it for self enjoyment. That is sick.

dusk wrote:

1. You need to teach me how to talk to animals. Seriously.
2. Like I said many times a hammer is almost exactly the same as a machine, I've been in a slaughterhouse, at a very opportune time I might add. You don't want to see a cow with a jammed captive bolt lodged in its forehead, and thats assuming that the company is even trying to prevent pain and terror. If you know how to do it right, a hammer causes the same amount of pain, and lifting your arms back to take a second swing if the cow does live is a lot faster than fixing the gun from what Ive seen, and Its definitely better than the kind of people that gut and/ or skin the animals while they're still alive.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------


You hit it in the head lisa, one hit, you use something heavy.

Why would you need to talk to animals to realize they do not care they have no idea what having a humane death means?...
You don't have to be able to talk to animals to realize they don't want to die and that they don't like pain.

There was an interesting interview on Radio 4 this morning with an English matador. He questioned whether there was any such thing as humane slaughter. And there's a point there. We don't need meat, so do we lose the humanity of our actions as soon as we begin slaughtering?

dusk wrote:

This is exactly what I mean, and I think you understand a lot more than some people here did

Thank you. Although I can't say I agree with all of your argument. I think attacking one's cow with an axe would probably be pretty inhumane as slaughters go. There's too much margin for error with a relatively unwieldy instrument. I'd prefer shooting my animals.

☺ wrote:

I think because humans seem themselves as an "upper" species that we should kill animals in the most pain-free way possible. We hate seeing animals suffer because we feel that their "pain" is unnecessary and unwarranted. Some humans also think that if we kill inhumanely (which in itself is subjective- what IS humane? what isn't?) it lowers us to the "standard" of animals.

I would agree. I'm currently leaning towards the idea that it is morally wrong to cause an animal excessive or great pain in slaughter because of this awareness that we have. I'm sure the snake would be questioning its behaviour if it had the capacity for empathy that we do.

I'm going to move this thread to the D&D section by the way, seeing as it's moving definitely into that territory and there's some people in that section who don't come to the Café that would be interested in it.

dusk wrote:

JC, I don't need to talk to animals, I'm making fun of you because ofc you cant understand animals any better than I can. Pain is natural, pain is the way things are supposed to be, and the way they have been forever. To give up pain would be to give up what little meaning any moment of comfort has.

Being a "fighter" you should understand this; If you were fighting someone and you knew they were out to kill you, but neither of you had weapons other than your body, your opponent is bigger,stronger, and faster than you, you trade punches and do about the same damage to one another, but he knocks you down because you had poor balance.
He tells you if you stay down, you'll feel no pain. Without assuming anything about you just now I hope you understand, a real fighter would get up, because with the painless death, your life means nothing in the first place. On the other hand, if you get up, you lose, and your opponent kills you, your life has weight, and you lost it with respect. I respect animals, and to gain profit of some kind for them, I think other people should too.

I wouldn't get up...
I would tell that guy to come to the ground with me.
Screw pride, I'm winning that fight whichever way possible.


But that's a completely different situation. I am fighting for my life, and even if my chances are small, they are still better than 0...

I'm just saying that when you hit an animal it moves away. When you hurt it it tries to run away because it wants to live. There is no point in prolonging it's suffering.

I don't think that you are sick or twisted, Dusk. Everyone has different opinions that are created from the substance of their every day lives, upbringing etc. Some people consider harm to animals to be something terrible, cruel etc, and others such as yourself would consider it not so bad. However, you should have seen all of this coming - you were having this conversation with someone who thinks that not only animal harm is bad, but also taking things like milk and eggs. The outcome of your conversation was expected, because your views are completely opposite.

Grey I think you're lovely

As long as you were joking, nah.
If you were being serious, yeah you are.

Okay, some of the quotes contain two different posts in them but I thought it was most convenient to reply that way. Sorry for the long post.

dusk wrote:

I think though that to kill something, and sell it or eat it, you should have to earn it. That means hunting it, or at the least doing it by hand, because honestly i don't think the world cares enough to just stop eating meat all together, much less selling it, with that in mind the people who continue to do that should feel their actions IMO.

-----------------------------------------------------------

...you don't see animals in nature using machines to line up mass quantities of prey and kill them. To me it's like.. a good death makes life worthwhile, and a good death should have some.. heart to it. The way animals are kept confined, and raised that way, then lead into a chamber where they just die is a terrible death.

You also don't see animals in nature using hammers to discharge their prey either. It doesn't matter whether you're out hunting game or you're an employee in a slaughterhouse, anything humans use to kill animals - be it a spear, a bow & arrow, a blunt-force instrument, or a gun - isn't "natural". (I understand that we don't have sharp teeth or claws, ergo our brain is our natural weapon, but I don't think one means of killing something is any more natural than the other when it comes to humans.)

dusk wrote:

My point wasn't to cause the animal more pain, it was that for the possibility of having slightly more, for a second or two at the most, it would be worth it to let the animals die a real humane death.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I see that as a much worse offence than pain, because I don't see pain as such a big deal, unlike what was argued I'm not a masochist, I just wouldn't go so far as to disrespect an animal enough to make it's life less than mine by assuming that it can't take a little pain, everything feels pain at some point, and I think if your going to kill, you should feel the victim die in this case at the least.

The real debate here is what someone would consider a "real"/meaningful/humane death, and that's something that's very much just an opinion, I think.

You mentioned in another post that you don't know what animals are thinking, and the answer: probably not very much. They're not like humans where they willingly put themselves in situations where they know they're going to be hurt, and they don't have any sense of what an honourable death would be. They don't have morals. They don't care how they die because they're only programmed to try and survive.

I think I heard a story once about a very long race where a horse was pitted against a man. Naturally, the horse would win. But it didn't. The horse had sense enough to stop because it was tired and didn't want to run anymore, whereas the man pushed through the pain because he can break those psychological barriers and find a sense of purpose or honour. I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes sense.



I also wonder why your choice of weapon is what it is though. I snare gophers at my grandmas all the time and we usually use hammers or shovels to kill them; one quick pop on the head and they're done. However, if they're not finished the first time they don't fight back - they try to run. They don't care that I'm killing them by my own hand, they just don't want to die.
And I mean, if a hammer (or axe, or whatever) can't always finish off a measly little rodent, how would you expect to efficiently kill a cow with one?

If you want to talk about what's natural, if you believe in evolution, then if you go back to our ancestors, humans were originally created with night-vision, but quickly developed colour-vision instead. This is because mankind needed to be adapted to getting the food it needed, which was plants and fruit and things of similar sorts. It is true that mankind did have meat in the diet, but naturally, were were scavengers, who ate meat left over from others. To be truthfully honest, us killing an animal at all, weapons or none, is unnatural.

I'd also like to point out that just because some people enjoy pain, that doesn't mean all other creatures do. Natural instinct tells us to escape from pain. Just because some of us humans are weird, that doesn't mean everything but us is unnatural, it means we are. Mankind is the most unnatural species on Earth.

I understand what you're trying to say, I'm just not sure why an animal would have to die what you feel is a "good" death, when it doesn't care at all how "good" it's death is. Why your feelings over theirs?

Just because pain is a constant doesn't mean we should intentionally cause it, it's supposed to be there there as a mechanism to tell us that something is harmful and that we should avoid it. Just because some people find it meaningful to try and overcome or fight through pain doesn't mean animals do. They'll generally avoid it at all costs.

I'm also wondering how this would work if a majority of people agreed with it and the system actually came into place. You couldn't just walk out into a field with a 20-lb sledgehammer and kill a cow (or likely any animal for that matter) - we'd still have to breed them, line them up so they can't escape, and kill them. Unless I really am misunderstanding what you're thinking of!

dusk wrote:

So today me and rollinrightinnuit got into a talk about animal slaughter in TC.
We both agreed that slaughterhouses are fucked up. I made a comment though, saying that the animals should be killed with a hammer, axe, or something like that.
She disagreed, and eventually i was called a twisted asshole.

My point in saying that was this; we as humans have killed animals (including other humans) for food, sport etc. etc. for longer than anyone can remember or record. IMO it's just the way things are, I think though that to kill something, and sell it or eat it, you should have to earn it. That means hunting it, or at the least doing it by hand, because honestly i don't think the world cares enough to just stop eating meat all together, much less selling it, with that in mind the people who continue to do that should feel their actions IMO.

It was brought up that machines kill faster, the animal may feel less pain. I see that as a much worse offence than pain, because I don't see pain as such a big deal, unlike what was argued I'm not a masochist, I just wouldn't go so far as to disrespect an animal enough to make it's life less than mine by assuming that it can't take a little pain, everything feels pain at some point, and I think if your going to kill, you should feel the victim die in this case at the least.

So! question is, am I a sicko, and please try to not get too emotional or anything, I'm very used to being talked shit to for my opinion.

:rofl:Allow me to introduce myself, my name is ANTI CONDOM. And your post is purely for attention.:rofl:

But I will entertain you. You are a twisted sicko. Wow. I have never in my life met a twisted sicko like yourself. I hope never to meet someone like you. I apologize for being so rude, but you are a big tough guy. :oOooooooo:o

Such a charmer eh?

Look man, it's not about the pain of which an animal is killed.
It's about the fact the animal's life is being taken against it's will.
Its not right..