This has to stop! (Warning, disturbing content)

Mirosuke · **Posted:** Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:37 pm

Fiction wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks Apan is just running his mouth and he doesn't actually have the balls or the strength to take another man's arm off? lol

Stop crying over shit like this, pull your mother's tit out of your mouth and say hello to the real world brah!

Yes, is the real world but it is his point of view. That's why this is a forum.

Fiction · **Posted:** Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:50 am

Mirosuke wrote:

Fiction wrote:

Am I the only one that thinks Apan is just running his mouth and he doesn't actually have the balls or the strength to take another man's arm off? lol

Stop crying over shit like this, pull your mother's tit out of your mouth and say hello to the real world brah!

Yes, is the real world but it is his point of view. That's why this is a forum.

Like a lot of my post, this was off the cuff and tongue in cheek. I don't actually care if he could rip a man's arm off, or if he pulls his mother's tit out of his mouth. It's just my opinion/2cents on the matter. That's why this is a forum.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

inky wrote:

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

Humans have been domesticating animals for like forever.
and they have also been eating them forever.
Hell id say keeping animals as pets is worse than eating them for food...

My dogs would have to disagree.

You really lack insight.

He might have a point. I'll assume you live in a city and when you go to work or school your dog stays home confined to the house or in some cage at a kennel or the back yard. Ever notice what dogs do when you take them to an open field and remove their leash? they go nuts smelling everything and running around everywhere...unless your dog is one of those cross breeds that is "designed" for a life riding around in a duffel bag I'd say most dogs love freedom and free range. It's understandable why some of them run away.

I know you look at your dog wag it's tail and jump up and down when it sees you and you tell your self it's happy..but if your dog wanted to leave you would you allow it? Also your dog never chose to come live with you..it was bred to live with you (or anyone). That's one reason why I don't have pets. If I lived on a huge piece of land with a forest as my backyard I might consider the idea where at least they can run wild for days and only come home for food, play and rest when they feel like.

When you really think about it we're very selfish. Dogs are raised, bred and trained to fulfill our selfish needs...whether for security, companionship or social status. The price is their natural way of living and their pay is kibbles and bits and visits to a vet. Would we give up the way we live so we can serve someone as long as they fed us and make sure we're healthy? Not saying you shouldn't have your dog..go nuts...I'm just thinking out aloud...

strangelove · **Joined:** Aug 2007 **Posts:** 1255 **Location:** no

The Invisible wrote:

Muslims are taught through the Qu'ran that all animals should be treated with respect and well cared for. The goal is to slaughter the animal, limiting the amount of pain the animal will endure.
When an animal is slaughtered, the jugular vein is cut and the blood is allowed to drain from the animal. Remember, Muslims are prohibited from consuming animal blood.

Halal meat is made in a way to drain away blood which has many diseases and causes diseases in people who eat meat in which blood has not been drained. It is also meat that does not spoil as quickly.
scientists have shown beyond doubt that Muslim-slaughtered (Halal) meat is the most electrically balanced meat, and therefore most hygienic and healthy.

Halal is One of the Most Humane Methods of Animal Slaughter:

Animals Slaughtered the Muslim Way does NOT Cause Harm to the Animal

Spoiler!

Allah calls for mercy in everything. So be merciful when you slaughter; sharpen your blade to relieve its pain.

According to Kamoonpuri (1998), the prescribed method of slaughtering an animal in Islam saves the animal from any kind of pain. When the animals major blood vessel in the neck is cut-off that produces an immediate stunning effect. The advantage of not cutting the spinal cord is that the brain continues to send it electrical impulses to the heart demanding blood. As all the blood is drained, the pipeline, which takes blood to the brain, has already been cut off. The violent reactions in the animal are from the natural muscular contraction and no pain is experienced. Kamoonpuri (1998) mentions two researchers, Gucel and Erbil who subscribe to the fact that blood can cause toxicity in the animal's meat, all has to be drained, and the Islamic way of slaughtering takes care of that.

Schultz and Hazim surgically implanted several electrodes at various points on the skull of animal subjects; then making a deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck of the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides. Some animals were then slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and the carotid arteries of sides as well as the trachea and esophagus (Islamic Method). Other animals were stunned using a Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP). During the experiment, electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiograms (EKG) recorded the condition of the brain and the heart of all animals. The results were as follows:
Islamic Method
1. During the first three seconds after slaughtering, the EEG did not record any change, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following three seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out of the body.

3. After this total of six seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood out of the body.
Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning but the EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

2. The heart of the stunned animal stopped beating earlier than the one slaughtered the Islamic way thus resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat.

Professor Schultz and Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University in Germany concluded the following through an experiment:
Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane, compassionate and sympathetic method of slaughter (no pain, deep sleep recorded due to the large quantity of blood gushing out from the body), and that the captive bolt stunning practiced by the Western methods causes severe pain to the animal.

Is there an actual source for your claims? It sounds like something taken verbatim from some Islamic apologist website. The claim about "electrically balanced" meat comes from a book called Electrical Nutrion that is based on pseudo-scientific malarkey.

How healthy or hygienic meat is has very little to do with how it was killed or processed. Properly treated and fed cattle (in conjunction to proper meat storage, handling, cooking, etc) will yield the best results. You can have animals treated in very poor conditions and would would still be considered Halal if killed through the Dhabihah method, which will yield crappy meat. I have no problems with sects killing animals the way they see fit and I'm not about to start applying situational ethics now, but to pretend that it has some sort of benefit is just silly post-hoc rationalization.

[SD]Master_Wong · **Posted:** Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:30 pm

strangelove wrote:

The Invisible wrote:

Muslims are taught through the Qu'ran that all animals should be treated with respect and well cared for. The goal is to slaughter the animal, limiting the amount of pain the animal will endure.
When an animal is slaughtered, the jugular vein is cut and the blood is allowed to drain from the animal. Remember, Muslims are prohibited from consuming animal blood.

Halal meat is made in a way to drain away blood which has many diseases and causes diseases in people who eat meat in which blood has not been drained. It is also meat that does not spoil as quickly.
scientists have shown beyond doubt that Muslim-slaughtered (Halal) meat is the most electrically balanced meat, and therefore most hygienic and healthy.

Halal is One of the Most Humane Methods of Animal Slaughter:

Animals Slaughtered the Muslim Way does NOT Cause Harm to the Animal

Spoiler!

Allah calls for mercy in everything. So be merciful when you slaughter; sharpen your blade to relieve its pain.

According to Kamoonpuri (1998), the prescribed method of slaughtering an animal in Islam saves the animal from any kind of pain. When the animals major blood vessel in the neck is cut-off that produces an immediate stunning effect. The advantage of not cutting the spinal cord is that the brain continues to send it electrical impulses to the heart demanding blood. As all the blood is drained, the pipeline, which takes blood to the brain, has already been cut off. The violent reactions in the animal are from the natural muscular contraction and no pain is experienced. Kamoonpuri (1998) mentions two researchers, Gucel and Erbil who subscribe to the fact that blood can cause toxicity in the animal's meat, all has to be drained, and the Islamic way of slaughtering takes care of that.

Schultz and Hazim surgically implanted several electrodes at various points on the skull of animal subjects; then making a deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck of the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides. Some animals were then slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and the carotid arteries of sides as well as the trachea and esophagus (Islamic Method). Other animals were stunned using a Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP). During the experiment, electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiograms (EKG) recorded the condition of the brain and the heart of all animals. The results were as follows:
Islamic Method
1. During the first three seconds after slaughtering, the EEG did not record any change, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following three seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out of the body.

3. After this total of six seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood out of the body.
Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning but the EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

2. The heart of the stunned animal stopped beating earlier than the one slaughtered the Islamic way thus resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat.

Professor Schultz and Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University in Germany concluded the following through an experiment:
Islamic way of slaughtering is the most humane, compassionate and sympathetic method of slaughter (no pain, deep sleep recorded due to the large quantity of blood gushing out from the body), and that the captive bolt stunning practiced by the Western methods causes severe pain to the animal.

Is there an actual source for your claims? It sounds like something taken verbatim from some Islamic apologist website. The claim about "electrically balanced" meat comes from a book called Electrical Nutrion that is based on pseudo-scientific malarkey.

How healthy or hygienic meat is has very little to do with how it was killed or processed. Properly treated and fed cattle (in conjunction to proper meat storage, handling, cooking, etc) will yield the best results. You can have animals treated in very poor conditions and would would still be considered Halal if killed through the Dhabihah method, which will yield crappy meat. I have no problems with sects killing animals the way they see fit and I'm not about to start applying situational ethics now, but to pretend that it has some sort of benefit is just silly post-hoc rationalization.

actually iv heard its quite humane, im not islamic btw im aetheist and prior to that roman catholic (by that i mean i was baptised) had to say that as people often assume faith is part of your oppinion, but i cant say whether all he said is true but i know its healthier and very fast and painless, the islamic faith is very strict on its rules of conduct albiet often misinterpretted but thats the same with christianity only thing is in recent years its been demonised, personally i think the world would do better without any religion but thats a different subject main point is i dont think what he is saying is 100% bullshit

inky · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 4025 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

He might have a point. I'll assume you live in a city and when you go to work or school your dog stays home confined to the house or in some cage at a kennel or the back yard. Ever notice what dogs do when you take them to an open field and remove their leash? they go nuts smelling everything and running around everywhere...unless your dog is one of those cross breeds that is "designed" for a life riding around in a duffel bag I'd say most dogs love freedom and free range. It's understandable why some of them run away.

I know you look at your dog wag it's tail and jump up and down when it sees you and you tell your self it's happy..but if your dog wanted to leave you would you allow it? Also your dog never chose to come live with you..it was bred to live with you (or anyone). That's one reason why I don't have pets. If I lived on a huge piece of land with a forest as my backyard I might consider the idea where at least they can run wild for days and only come home for food, play and rest when they feel like.

When you really think about it we're very selfish. Dogs are raised, bred and trained to fulfill our selfish needs...whether for security, companionship or social status. The price is their natural way of living and their pay is kibbles and bits and visits to a vet. Would we give up the way we live so we can serve someone as long as they fed us and make sure we're healthy? Not saying you shouldn't have your dog..go nuts...I'm just thinking out aloud...

I still say between being killed and eaten or be a pampered pet, I highly doubt my dogs would be eager to let someone slit their throats and jump into a cookpot..try doing it to anyone and see if they'd enjoy it. You have to remember we are talking about dogs - they don't share the same mentality as humans. As far as surviving in the wild, let's just say humans are basically preventing natural selection from driving most domestric breeds into extinction; they're dogs, I highly doubt there's any difference to them whether they find food in a doggie bowl or the the wild. You guys are applying human mentality to canines.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

I might consider the idea where at least they can run wild for days and only come home for food

Seriously, that would be impossible this days. They would be killed at any time.
Well, pets such as dogs and cats have become dependent "even benefit" on humans in many ways.
And keeping such animals as pets is not actually "impinging on the freedom of that animal.
But sure not everyone should have pets. That's another matter.
Well, you see.. a human have kept pets through the ages! And that's not a new phenomenon.

Bananaman · **Posted:** Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:45 pm

You know, if somehow you (the op) Took over the world and got ALL humans to stop eating animals

You still wouldn't be able to keep other animals from eating other animals.

/Thread

apan · **Joined:** Feb 2009 **Posts:** 958 **Location:**

PLEASE READ! /OP

I did not have sound on my computer at the time when I made this thread/saw the film.

I only saw the footage, and did not hear that it was about converting people to vegetarians. I did not make the thread to tell you to go veggie, I made it to show the dirty side of meat-production. My intensions were to share the film, not convert. If anything maybe tell people to buy ecological meat.

I'm truly sorry.

Midori · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 3425 **Location:**

apan wrote:

PLEASE READ! /OP

I did not have sound on my computer at the time when I made this thread/saw the film.

I only saw the footage, and did not hear that it was about converting people to vegetarians. I did not make the thread to tell you to go veggie, I made it to show the dirty side of meat-production. My intensions were to share the film, not convert. If anything maybe tell people to buy ecological meat.

I'm truly sorry.

I am laughing so hard right now.

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

There is no easy way of killing something, even the easy ways, could go wrong and end up being a horrible messy death. I don't eat meat, or animal product because of the cruelty those animals endure before their death, there is no need for it. There is no way really of knowing the meat you are eating has been treated properly. I don't drink milk, because the animals are made to get pregnant each year, the calves taken away from their mothers at 5 days old, so we can drink another animals milk (it isn't natural, we're the only animals that drink milk into adult hood, and not even our own milk), the young bullocks are then slaughtered because they are not needed. The same with egg, free range doesn't always mean free range, most of the hens are in confined spaces in a "warehouse" type building with no natural light, and limit access to outside, I don't know what it is like with other countries. The eggs that hatch, the hens will grow to produce eggs and the cocks are incinerated, because they're not needed.
There is no point trying to argue the case, if there is a more humane way of farming then by all means, please tell me.

Doron · **Posted:** Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:14 pm

No, YOU are disturbing content.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

inky wrote:

I still say between being killed and eaten or be a pampered pet, I highly doubt my dogs would be eager to let someone slit their throats and jump into a cookpot..try doing it to anyone and see if they'd enjoy it. You have to remember we are talking about dogs - they don't share the same mentality as humans. As far as surviving in the wild, let's just say humans are basically preventing natural selection from driving most domestric breeds into extinction; they're dogs, I highly doubt there's any difference to them whether they find food in a doggie bowl or the the wild. You guys are applying human mentality to canines.

First of all i specified all animals, not just dogs. But anyways, pets are usually confined a very small space for their size (whether its dogs in a small apartment or birds in a cage they cant even fly in). And they live this life for their whole lifespan. Now in america most dogs are born in captive so they dont know the outdoors anyhow (you could also say the same about animals raised to eat- they are born in captive so they probably dont know much more about life their their confinement), but in say other countries (like nepal) dogs are basically picked off the street and tied to the chain outside, forever. So yeah, pets see the same confinement as food animals, they get the same castration (however different the method may be, you still wake up without your balls), and are born in captivity so they dont even know the outdoors/ think life is what they see (same as farm animals). The only difference is farm animals get a earlier death

Also humans have been domesticating pets or ages? Well they have been domesticating food animals for ages too.

inky · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 4025 **Location:**

Quote:

Hell id say keeping animals as pets is worse than eating them for food...

We will never see things eye to eye. Maybe it's because I treat my dogs differently than you described, but I still don't believe that death is better for animals than actually being kept as a pet.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

Well thats your opinion then

And yeah, most people in 1st world countries treat dogs more like companions (where you are probably from) while in third world countries they are kind of like luxury items, showcase for people that come to the house.

Anyways, still no difference in parrots, birds etc being kept in cages so small they never get to fly in their life.

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

inky wrote:

but I still don't believe that death is better for animals than actually being kept as a pet.

+1 Nuff Said!

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

Well thats your opinion then

And yeah, most people in 1st world countries treat dogs more like companions (where you are probably from) while in third world countries they are kind of like luxury items, showcase for people that come to the house.

Anyways, still no difference in parrots, birds etc being kept in cages so small they never get to fly in their life.

But not everyone is like that, I know people that keep birds and have a huge aviary and also free range birds. I have rabbits, and they live in a shed with a run/aviary, and free range of the garden when I am about. Not everyone keeps their pets confined to small spaces, but the people that do, tend to neglect their pets, and most end up in rescues. Then that brings me to breeding, there are 1000s of unwanted dogs, cats and rabbits in rescues because of irresponsible breeding, because people think it is unnatural to spay and neuter their animals. But animals that are not driven by hormones are happier and healthier then intact animals.

TheDrop · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 7150 **Location:** uefa2012

^Well i was comparing extremes because thats what the video shows (about farm animals).

So basically you neuter/spray your animals so they arent sexual, basically turning them into toys? Though the flip side would be too many dogs/cats obviously.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

inky wrote:

Quote:

Hell id say keeping animals as pets is worse than eating them for food...

We will never see things eye to eye. Maybe it's because I treat my dogs differently than you described, but I still don't believe that death is better for animals than actually being kept as a pet.

Inky you'll defend the practice of having a pet because it's what you do. And tell yourself you treat your pet humanely but then you'd see someone with say a pet bird in a small cage and you'll probably feel conflicted...Its funny how we are...Its funny how we can rationalize whats OK and whats not.

Some animal lovers will see you as nothing but a slave owner. All it takes is just for your dog to "get out of line" and then you'll exert higher dominance as a human to remind the dog who's the boss here. We fail to see the similarities in the things we do with the things others do that we don't like.

There is a good chance that one day you'll take your dog to the vet to get put down because it is suffering..(humanely ofcourse)...You need to remember that some times death is a better alternative....Not saying people should treat animals in any harsh ways. I don't condone that...but stop looking at this situation in a black and white manner and feel that you are an exception as loving caring pet owner.

Also even as non pet owner myself my hands are stained with guilt (probably just like you) by my lack of practical concern about the harsh conditions animals have to endure. When you and I crunch down on a big mac its a form of support to an industry that tortures animals. You lovingly pet your dog with hand while chow down on the flesh of a once tortured, battered, and abused cow with other.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Isis wrote:

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

Well thats your opinion then

And yeah, most people in 1st world countries treat dogs more like companions (where you are probably from) while in third world countries they are kind of like luxury items, showcase for people that come to the house.

Anyways, still no difference in parrots, birds etc being kept in cages so small they never get to fly in their life.

But not everyone is like that, I know people that keep birds and have a huge aviary and also free range birds. I have rabbits, and they live in a shed with a run/aviary, and free range of the garden when I am about. Not everyone keeps their pets confined to small spaces, but the people that do, tend to neglect their pets, and most end up in rescues. Then that brings me to breeding, there are 1000s of unwanted dogs, cats and rabbits in rescues because of irresponsible breeding, because people think it is unnatural to spay and neuter their animals. But animals that are not driven by hormones are happier and healthier then intact animals.

And here is another example....Loves animals to a point where he/she wouldn't even drink their milk but condone their enslavement...Especially about knowing people who have birds in huge aviary....Is that aviary the size of the bird's natural flight range? I doubt that. We are interestingly funny as humans that I'm laughing right now...We're lost....I'm lost

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

^Well i was comparing extremes because thats what the video shows (about farm animals).

So basically you neuter/spray your animals so they arent sexual, basically turning them into toys? Though the flip side would be too many dogs/cats obviously.

I am not even going to reply, because both of you sound like idiots and haven't got a clue about any kind of animals.

MrTwilliger · **Joined:** May 2008 **Posts:** 1374 **Location:** Hiding

Just a bit of a story about pet ownership.

Over my childhood our family has had a lot of pets; 4 dogs, 3 rabbits and 2 birds. They were more than pets, too, they were all part of the family and we treated them like such.

Our dogs lived in a giant 1 acre yard and each one had their own couch and blankets, under the back pergola, that they would sleep on. Each night when they got tired and jumped on the couch we would walk outside, tuck them in and say good night. They got fed daily, had 203 bones each week and every day we would take them for off-leash walks through the bushland behind our house.

Our birds had a very strange set up considering the strange nature onto which we came about them. One day, dad was driving home from work when he saw a rare birds on the road (dad is very keen on birds). Dad stopped the car and opened up his door to take and look and the bird just jumped up into the car and sat on the passenger seat. Anyway, he came home that day and we built a giant aviary for the birds, probably the size of a very large bedroom. We also use to let it go free and fly around the backyard and it always came back to us, it was incredibly tame and never flew away on us. I don't remember how we got the second bird, we my have bought it or got it off a family friend, but it was the same as well.

The 3 rabbits lived in the same aviary and got along really well with the birds, they never seemed to argue or have conflictions with them. We use to let the rabbits out of the aviary (It had grass and hay floors) so that they could run around our property or bake in the sun if they wished to.

What I'm trying to say is, people can care for animals much like they were part of the family. When we lot each of our pets it really stuck us as a family, I remember mum crying for days when our oldest rabbit, Jaffa, passed away one day. It's not just a one sided relationship, it was clear enough to me that all parties involved were happy.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

Isis wrote:

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

^Well i was comparing extremes because thats what the video shows (about farm animals).

So basically you neuter/spray your animals so they arent sexual, basically turning them into toys? Though the flip side would be too many dogs/cats obviously.

I am not even going to reply, because both of you sound like idiots and haven't got a clue about any kind of animals.

I suppose before man started to domesticate animals and making them not driven by hormones these animals were suffering hard and were not happy (or less happy). So man came and saved them form a life of misery.

If we stood on the side lines and watch a FULLY CAPABLE human being who doesn't understand the meaning of freedom...(Was never told but rather shown that the opposite was how to live from birth) who isn't allowed to go anywhere without supervision...who is not allowed to abandoned the control or care of another individual and this other individual feeds this human being and make sure he/she is healthy and happy we'd feel bad/angry toward this situation.

We have this misguiding claims on how much we love animals and take it in our heads that we have to control their lives to make them happy. I'm of the opinion that they're fine before we cared that they existed. If you really love them I believe you should allow them to live naturally much like how your living. Just an opinion...my opinion..

*BlackFox · **Joined:** Sep 2008 **Posts:** 7923 **Location:**

MrTwilliger wrote:

One day, dad was driving home from work when he saw a rare birds on the road (dad is very keen on birds). Dad stopped the car and opened up his door to take and look and the bird just jumped up into the car and sat on the passenger seat.

That's a pretty much amazing story.. lulz Well, what kind of bird was it?

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

Isis wrote:

UnbeatableDevil wrote:

^Well i was comparing extremes because thats what the video shows (about farm animals).

So basically you neuter/spray your animals so they arent sexual, basically turning them into toys? Though the flip side would be too many dogs/cats obviously.

I am not even going to reply, because both of you sound like idiots and haven't got a clue about any kind of animals.

I suppose before man started to domesticate animals and making them not driven by hormones these animals were suffering hard and were not happy (or less happy). So man came and saved them form a life of misery.

If we stood on the side lines and watch a FULLY CAPABLE human being who doesn't understand the meaning of freedom...(Was never told but rather shown that the opposite was how to live from birth) who isn't allowed to go anywhere without supervision...who is not allowed to abandoned the control or care of another individual and this other individual feeds this human being and make sure he/she is healthy and happy we'd feel bad/angry toward this situation.

We have this misguiding claims on how much we love animals and take it in our heads that we have to control their lives to make them happy. I'm of the opinion that they're fine before we cared that they existed. If you really love them I believe you should allow them to live naturally much like how your living. Just an opinion...my opinion..

Domesticated animals will not survive in the wild, without our help and care. Most domesticated rabbits are not faster then a wild rabbit, and will not be able to survive for long, either killed by Mr. Fox, or die through the cold winter nights, same with cats and dogs, would you rather see a starving animal on the street, or that animal being loved in a warm home, with a family? We, us humans have domesticated animals, for companionship, it is us that have to look after, care for and love. Take them to the vets if they're ill, they haven't got a voice, we're their voice. My rabbits can't tell me if they're ill, but I sure will know, because I know their behaviour. A female rabbit (doe) could develop uterine cancer, if they're not spayed. Male rabbits are driven by their hormones, they're aggressive, constantly mounting, spraying etc. There are about 34,000 rabbits in rescues, mainly because people DO NOT NEUTER, have you heard the phrase breed like rabbits? They literally breed none stop, once the doe gives birth, the buck will start mating with the doe again.

Quote:

Did you know "Up to 80% of un-neutered female rabbits develop uterine cancer by the age of five - please neuter your bunnies and help them to live happier and healthier lives!"

Their is also the over breeding of "hard men dogs", staffies, pitbull type dogs. They are over run in rescues, because they have this bad reputation as being an aggressive dog. And people don't want them, but yet people are still breeding them, why? To make money!

Someone I work with has three cats, and she lets them breed, I have been working with her, for over a year, and the cat has had three litters in that year. Guess what, all the kittens have died because of inbreeding, she cannot afford to get her cat spayed/neutered!! It pisses me off, that there is people in the world that treat their pets like this. And you are giving me stick, because I neuter my rabbits, so I can give them a better happier life.

Rescues are picking up the pieces that irresponsible people have left behind.
I am infuriated by your stupidity!

inky · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 4025 **Location:**

Once again,

inky wrote:

You guys are applying human mentality to canines.

It all boils down to your assumptions about domesticated animals being "happier" living out in the wild. We're talking about domesticated animals - not some wolf or bear that was captured in the wild and placed in captivity; in short, animals who depend on humans for their survival. As I said a few posts up, I highly doubt dogs would find any difference if they find food in a doggie bowl or the wild..it might seem difficult for certain people to understand that domesticated animals do not think the same way people do. Yes, we humans pretty much take charge over our pets because it's what responsible people do - I'm not going to let my dog run around the streets because he "seems happier" there when he's not even aware of the danger around him.

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

My aim is not to try and change hundreds of years of tradition regarding man and his relationship with animals. But to show those people who claim they love animals that they ought to recognize their actions (or lack there of) when making these claims. And again rabbits were doing well without human intervention for hundreds of years. Foxes need to eat too.

Isis · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 4171 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

My aim is not to try and change hundreds of years of tradition regarding man and his relationship with animals. But to show those people who claim they love animals that they ought to recognize their actions (or lack there of) when making these claims. And again rabbits were doing well without human interventionism for hundreds of years. Foxes need to eat too.

Do you not actually read what I typed? DOMESTICATED rabbits will not survive in the wild!!! I wouldn't want to set my rabbit out in the wild and watch him being eaten by a fox, that is just cruel and sick.

Rabbits, were bred for meat....

inky · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 4025 **Location:**

BuDo wrote:

My aim is not to try and change hundreds of years of tradition regarding man and his relationship with animals. But to show those people who claim they love animals that they ought to recognize their actions (or lack there of) when making these claims. And again rabbits were doing well without human interventionism for hundreds of years. Foxes need to eat too.

I had no idea you had such deep insight that you know us better than ourselves. :roll:

I don't think there's anything I can say that would let you see how ridiculous you sound more than I can convince Fred Phelps that homosexuality is not a choice. Let's agree to disagree

BuDo · **Joined:** Dec 2008 **Posts:** 4714 **Location:**

inky wrote:

BuDo wrote:

My aim is not to try and change hundreds of years of tradition regarding man and his relationship with animals. But to show those people who claim they love animals that they ought to recognize their actions (or lack there of) when making these claims. And again rabbits were doing well without human interventionism for hundreds of years. Foxes need to eat too.

I had no idea you had such deep insight that you know us better than ourselves. :roll:

I don't think there's anything I can say that would let you see how ridiculous you sound more than I can convince Fred Phelps that homosexuality is not a choice. Let's agree to disagree

I don't claim to know you and I don't know where u got that Idea..I only know what was being told here ie: "My dog" which portray you have a pet. I've already stated that what I said is an "opinion"...not a fact....Don't get it twisted and assume sh*t and calling what I say ridiculous.

Silkroad Online Forums

This has to stop! (Warning, disturbing content)

Who is online