When does it become cruel?
If an animal doesn't want to do something that we want it to do at what point does it become cruel to make it do it. I'm not talking about basic training I mean the other stuff..... being dressed up, having their hair or fur dyed, or making them do something that is totally unnatural to them or even almost impossible for them to do. We all think of cruelty to animals as being beaten, starved, treated badly but what if our actions make our dogs miserable. Is this cruelty? I accept that some animals don't mind us doing to them whatever we want and some even enjoy it, and I am not having a go at anyone who dresses up their pets or dyes their fur or anything else. Everyone knows their own animals and what it will tolerate. This came to mind when I was speaking to someone at Crufts who told me their dog hated being shown and was miserable the whole time they were at the show. In addition to this I was listening to an interview with Victoria Stillwell (it's me or the dog) who said dogs are very aware of what is happening around them and often go into a state similar to that of depression to maintain self preservation. It just got me thinking... are people who make their animals do unnatural things / things the animals hates doing being cruel to their pets but in an "acceptable way" |
|
|
| I have shown my OES's since about 15 years, with our first show dog ("Bobby's Paradise Captain Cook") we noticed at the beginning he hated the whole thing, although we tried for a while we did give up in the end as I saw no point in forcing him. The second OES ("Peekaboo Dash of Class") on the other hand loved being shown and his show career only came to an end when we discovered he had HD. No 3 ("Kikki-Malou Estaban von Rhodonit") didn't mind being shown he was very easy going. The star our Multi Champion "Dairymaid aus dem Elbe-Urstromtal" we bought her as a show dog and she has been outstanding, she is in her element when she is in the show ring and loves the attention and the praise. The new member to our clan is "Fairbancks of Snowboot Bears" he is 20 mths and has never been shown, we will see how he gets on in the ring. I would not say showing a dog is cruelty then in some ways it is their work and most of the dogs I know enjoy the show ring. Of coarse you do get the dogs who resents this and then it is up to the owner to decide, if I had another dog like our first one I would certainly stop showing him then this only results in stress for the dog and yourself. A few question to ponder over. A dog who is grossly over weight: is that cruelty. A dog who is grossly under weight: is that cruelty. A dog who is used for agility: is that cruelty. A dog who is full of matts: is that cruelty. And I could go on and on, a docking ban has been enforced upon the breeders in England and Europe for that matter because it is seen as cruel to dock dogs or animals at that and at the same time when I remember back a few years ago the RSPCA / SPCA used to put animals down after a certain period if they were not re-homed this was accepted as normal, I often wondered why they were called the "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" seemed to me like a contradiction. What I am trying to say cruelty is very hard to define e.g. agility in somebodies eyes it is ok in other peoples eyes it is not  |
Quote: This came to mind when I was speaking to someone at Crufts who told me their dog hated being shown and was miserable the whole time they were at the show. In addition to this I was listening to an interview with Victoria Stillwell (it's me or the dog) who said dogs are very aware of what is happening around them and often go into a state similar to that of depression to maintain self preservation.
Love that Victoria... 
People often call this "submission", when it is actually the dog shutting down and feeling helpless....Two entirely different things. She hit it on the nail. |
Quote: Bosley's mom [/quote]
Love that Victoria... People often call this "submission", when it is actually the dog shutting down and feeling helpless....Two entirely different things. She hit it on the nail. After listening to her interview I noted that some dogs did exactly what she described. I didn't mean in my first post that showing is cruel I meant at what point do we think that something/anything becomes cruelty? Physical cruelty is obvious I wanted people to think more about mental cruelty and whether our actions cause our dogs distress whether intentionally or not. |
| Is agility cruel? I don't know anything about agility training and have been thinking that might be something interesting to do. I haven't even started looking into it. If it is cruel - I am not interested at all. Any info appreciated! Meanwhile I will research what is already on the forum. |
| I can help thinking, "I don't want to go to work everyday but James makes me." I think that's cruel. |
4Sophie wrote: Is agility cruel? I don't know anything about agility training and have been thinking that might be something interesting to do. I haven't even started looking into it. If it is cruel - I am not interested at all. Any info appreciated! Meanwhile I will research what is already on the forum.
It depends on the animal. I think some dogs love it. Others want to please their owners and do well. Phoebe and I have taken a couple of classes mainly to give her some additional exercise in the winter. And she loves to go places and see other dogs and people. If I had a dog who really did not want to do agility or was terribly frightened of the equipment, then I would not force them. Phoebe doesn't have any problem with climbing the ramps or jumping low hurdles. |
| Well, to me the question is what's unnatural for a dog?
You said you're not talking about "Basic training" but I can see many dogs thinking it was "cruel" to make them wait by a door when visitors came instead of doing what's natural for them and that's protect and investigate FIRST ...as they would with some of the things you mentioned, like keeping a shirt on. Same with not barking when someone came which is "natural" for them. Is that cruel to continue to try to train them to do something "unnatural" for them? I don't think dying a dog's hair with safe products or dressing them up is "cruel" even if they didn't like it. Cruel to me means something more extreme. My husband would say "it was cruel" but use in it in a way that he would when saying "it's cruel to make a husband go anything more than 24 hrs w/o sex" While he really does think that, he doesn't really believe it....if that makes sense. Anyway, for me.. if it doesn't hurt them and it helps them with exercise or overall well-being then I don't think it's cruel. I guess if you're having to pull all their hair out to jump over something in agility ...then that would be cruel. Or being over aggressive while grooming, etc... |
4Sophie wrote: Is agility cruel? I don't know anything about agility training and have been thinking that might be something interesting to do. I haven't even started looking into it. If it is cruel - I am not interested at all. Any info appreciated! Meanwhile I will research what is already on the forum.
If I told you obedience was cruel would you stop teaching your dog to sit and stay? |
dairymaid wrote: A few question to ponder over.
A dog who is grossly over weight: is that cruelty. A dog who is grossly under weight: is that cruelty. A dog who is used for agility: is that cruelty. A dog who is full of matts: is that cruelty. What I am trying to say cruelty is very hard to define e.g. agility in somebodies eyes it is ok in other peoples eyes it is not [/color]Stewart - why on earth would you put agility in that list? How unfit, overweight and structurally unsound were the dogs you saw doing agility, I'm presuming you've seen it, that you would think that would be cruel? Yes, there are OES who shouldn't be doing agility. They fall into the categories above (fat, unfit, no working drive to speak of, structurally unsound). Forcing them to do agility would be cruel. But here's the kicker - you can't force a dog to agility. It's not like you can slap a leash on them and drag them around the ring. They either love it or they won't do it. Simple Mad found the breed ring mentally unstimulating to put it politely. Was I cruel to finish her? It was a few minutes of boredom now and then, suck it up and finish, I'll make it up to you, we'll go have some fun doing agility and life goes on. You just don't special those dogs who don't enjoy it. No loss. Belle actually enjoys being dressed up...  OK, probably she enjoys the attention she gets from whatever kid is putting stuff on her  Is that cruel? It would be if you did it to Sybil, who would be horrified.
Different dogs enjoy different things. Kristine |
ButtersStotch wrote: I can help thinking, "I don't want to go to work everyday but James makes me." I think that's cruel.
I am sooo in agreement with that! |
| Thanks, that posting worried me (Tasha on four legs) I was hoping to get to play and my mommy won't let me do cruel stuff!!!! Yeah! |
| Kristine the list was an example of what one person calls cruel and another person would not, I was not trying to pick on agility, the cruelty subject is something really hard to understand where does ignorance end and cruelty start. Sorry did not want to upset a soulmate. Just examples but I have heard talk in part of Europe about banning it as unfit for dogs of any size. |
| I think it was more interesting to see how quickly people jumped on the phrase "agility is cruel" as being a fact WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT!!
Sorry but this is how people get foolish stupid legislation passed. someone says oh my it is sooo cruel that dogs are made to wear purple collars like they have to suffer that indignity! Next thing you know people every wear are saying purple collars are cruel - something has to be done about it! No matter what you hear - stop, think and make your own decisions. My goodness. I am always concerned about how easily swayed people are and to think these same people have pets and kids in their care. It's scary. I'll get off my soap box now. |
Quote: I remember back a few years ago the RSPCA / SPCA used to put animals down after a certain period if they
were not re-homed this was accepted as normal, I often wondered why they were called the "Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" seemed to me like a contradiction. I would like to jump in and say the RSPCA does a huge amount of good work in the UK. It is funded by donations and legacies and receives no funding at all from the UK government or any other organisation. the current running costs are 82 million a year, You make a broad statement to say dogs were put down after a period of time and in some cases you are correct but this was not always the case. This practice ceased many years ago and healthy animals are never put to sleep now. Cruelty to animals is defined in many ways and the RSPCA tries to help all animals in any situation where they are at risk. I think the original poster tries to raise a point and misses what they are trying to achieve. People hurt their animals in many ways as pointed out over/under feeding could be classed as cruelty as well as the obvious things such as stubbing out cigarettes on an animal or starving them to death. Dogs aim to please their owners and will do much that is "unnatural" to them in this quest, however it should be pointed out that in some cases dogs will enjoy doing what you ask them, being in a show ring, doing agility or whatever it is but there are others who do not, and it is up the owners to assess each case and decide if it worth their dog/animals continuing with the activity. It comes down to what you see as acceptable, or as some of you have said what is defined as cruelty? There are no right and wrong answers for many aspects it just comes down to what you think is acceptable for your animal |
dairymaid wrote: Kristine the list was an example of what one person calls cruel and another person would not, I was not trying to pick on agility, the cruelty subject is something really hard to understand where does ignorance end and cruelty start.
Sorry did not want to upset a soulmate. Just examples but I have heard talk in part of Europe about banning it as unfit for dogs of any size. Sure, sure, Stewart. You're just pulling that old soul mate trick out of your hat to keep me from pouncing on you verbally for possibly denigrating my raison d'être
You know I'm not that easily offended.  But since you've commented on agility before along those lines, I was just curious as to the source of the sentiment. If there have been rumblings about banning it in Europe - and we are constantly under similar localized threats in the US; herding is cruel, hunting is cruel, sledding is cruel, crating your dog is cruel and on and on and on until they finally get to the crux of it: owning a dog is cruel - I can see how easily, as Kerry pointed out, such a sentiment can take hold and spread.
That really scares me. Not specifically agility being banned or not, but how easy it is to go from someone's opinion to fact, and from there to legislative efforts. Amazing. Frightening. Kristine |
| Hi Kristin you are not easy to kid are you, seriously though, I do not think that agility is cruel although as I have said before I think the OES is too big and heavy to do this sport, furthermore they do tend to be clumbsy and that makes them even more liable for accidents. I was verbally attacked at show once for showing our OES the lady who confronted me was against showing dogs I actually think she was against most humans, but however we had no right to brush the dogs up that was not natural and the dogs wwere being used as a sort of fashion item. After I was granted the chance I did eplain to her it is worse for the dogs to be matted than to be regulary groomed, her reply was we should sheer them if you have read my posts concerning that subject then you can inagine the "coating" she took from me. I agree cruelty is not easy to define we could even go as far as to say it is cruel to keep a dog at home with us and we all know this is rediculous, however this is a subject that we could discuss forever. |
| In reply to our guest who defends the RSPCA/SSPCA, since I come from Britain I know they relay on donations to survive, this is not the point, unless it has changed since I lived in the UK dogs were put to sleep after a short period of time if not re-homed, one of the reasons was the so called need of funds. You seem to forget like all charities this organisation has a body of people who earn money as well it is not all done by volenteers and I would love to know what percentage goes to finance this body. People like Gill Harwood who take any OES if it is sick or it is in good health and keep the dogs until they are re-homed or die are the real heroes of this world, oh and by the way Gill does this from her own money and a little help from her many friends and helpers. |
| Very interesting thread. On a human level, we have to do so many thing we don't want to do, going to work, housework, dealing with difficult situations. But it just makes us stronger and appreciate the other moments of relaxation and play. some of us get depressed dealing with these things, some of us relish the challenge. Maybe it's similar with dogs. We all enjoy different things.
However, just because most of us have to work for a living or excersise to keep fit and healthy, doesn't mean we will get depressed. I don't enjoy walking Ru in the freezing rain, but I know I gotta do it. Maybe he doesn't enjoy having to sit to get a treat, but he knows he has to do it. I think there is a level of mental cruelty but I find it hard to identify. Sometimes I think strict training is tough, for example, training a dog not to pull on the leash, or making him wait at the door. But most training is for safety reasons. As for agility or showing, well, it's like sports or hobbies. You still have to work at them, but you enjoy them too. You need to find what your dog enjoys. Taken to the extreme we could say humans should not keep pets at all, because just being with us is asking them to be 'un-natural'. When you have any dog, you need to be strict in training and be consistant otherwise you will end up with no control and we all know that is dangerous for everyone. |
Hint of Mischief wrote: I think there is a level of mental cruelty but I find it hard to identify. Sometimes I think strict training is tough, for example, training a dog not to pull on the leash, or making him wait at the door. But most training is for safety reasons.
See - I don't think of training as strict or tough. There are so many ways to make the dog want to do what you want him to do. Is it hard to instill that kind of self-control? In some dogs. (SYBIL!!!!! )
All creatures exist within limits of what is to their benefit and what is not, ourselves included. Some times it's nature that dishes out the harsh consequences of not behaving sensibly or in keeping with your environment. Since dogs are domestic animals that live in close conjunction with us, they have to live with our rules. Yet they are still dogs - they can't be anything else - so they must think we are a bunch of party poopers who don't think barking for any number of reasons or rummaging through the garbage for snacks is acceptable, nay, make that fun behaviour. Now, the trade-off for behaving in what we consider to be a civilized manner is that we feed them, groom them, love them, take care of their medical and social needs, keep them safe etc. My dogs appear to feel that's a fair trade-off. The problem remains that people will have different definitions of cruel. A number of people we place rescue dogs with think our suggestion that a young, untrained, undercivilized OES will benefit from a crate until such a time as she can reliably be trusted not to tear the house apart, potty inappropriately or ingest something that can kill her is cruel. I've learned to let them figure this out on their own...Can a crate be cruel? Yes, of the dog is left in for long periods of time with little or no exercise or social interaction. Then how long is too long? 30 minutues? One hour? Three hours? All night? And so, as Stewart notes, the debate continues. On a different level, and often driving and directing the debate among genuine animal lovers, we have the politically motivated Animal Rights organizations such as PETA, HSUS, and I would suspect the UK's RSPCA. The hard core Animal Rights movement, which is almost religious in nature (think cult) goes back many decades in which they've had time to hone their tactics from outright terrorism (though they tend to support those actions still) to a more savvy twisting of the political process fueled by their fundraising abilities aimed at a mostly caring and compassionate public by throwing up some sad looking animals. claiming they are involved in animal welfare (they are not, unless you consider ending animals' lives welfare, which is PETA's position, borne out in deed as well as writings by the fact that their lone shelter (in VA) had a 97 % kill rate in 2006), and Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS' position: "One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals." — Animal People News, May 1993 In case you missed that implication, that's what is being attempted with the mandatory spay/neuter policies these groups are funding, city by city, state by state in the United States until no dog can legally be bred. Think about that one...puppies will become the new moonshine. Yeehaw!! Now you take the cruelty debate to a new level. You presume that owning an animal (oh, I'm sorry - we shouldn't "own" our animals, we should be their "guardians". Sounds good until you realize the legal implications) is in and of itself cruel. Most certainly there is animal cruelty, but do most of us feel we are cruel to our dogs? By their definition, we are. The only way to liberate them from our enslavement is to make sure no more are born and better to kill the remaining ones. Both organizations are loudly opposed to the successful no-kill shelter approach, and as vocal as the HSUS was regarding the cruelties imposed upon Michael Vick's fighting dogs, as soon as the case was concluded and the dogs were no longer needed as evidence, they wanted them disposed of. Fortunately for the dogs the HSUS, despite fundraising very successfully by using this issue, was never in a position to have a say in the dogs' futures, so those that could be rehabilated were. Better off dead, I guess, is the HSUS' position. The next time someone starts screaming "cruelty" think long and hard about what they're actually saying, and why. Laying around being brushed for a couple of hours on a grooming table isn't MY idea of a good time. But cruelty? I think you're going to have a hard time making that case. But if you do, since our dogs' hair grows perpetually and we will always have to subject them to the cruelty of grooming, better off no OES be born I guess. Me? I'd miss them. A lot. Kristine |
I get SO upset when I have people start in on me about training, crating & grooming being "cruel".  Mostly these are people that don't have dogs in their lives. If they could see the fun dogs have interacting with us, learning & knowing when they have done what we as a team were attempting to do in the ring they would see a dog that is HAPPY! I'd LOVE to have somebody spend the time on me that I spend on my dogs. As for cruelty in the way I house, own, train, feed & vet my dogs? I should try to take care of myself as well as I do my dogs! How many times I have cut down at the grocery store to make sure my dogs had the good food they needed. I forego dr. & dentist visits to make sure my guys get their regular vet visits, flea protection & heartworm medication. Every once in awhile, someone comes along at a dog show while José is lying on the table being groomed, watchs me for a bit & then says "can I be next?"  I suppose I can gauge how "cruel" I am to my dogs by the fact that when they are out & about, they prefer to come up along side me & be touched & petted than run off into the "free wild blue yonder". |
| Can anyone point me in the direction of reliable, unbiased (or as unbiased as possible) information about PETA. My daughter is particularly sensitive to animal abuse and cruelty so she is drawn to PETA. I'd like to point her towards other information that more carefully evaluates the issues surrounding animal rights and animal abuse.
Thanks |
tgir wrote: Can anyone point me in the direction of reliable, unbiased (or as unbiased as possible) information about PETA. My daughter is particularly sensitive to animal abuse and cruelty so she is drawn to PETA. I'd like to point her towards other information that more carefully evaluates the issues surrounding animal rights and animal abuse.
Thanks Actually, since it's such an emotionally charged issue, it's hard to find a source that you would say has no bias. The nice thing about PETA is that they aren't afraid to speak their mind, eh? So all you have to do is search through the many references to interviews with their top brass, usually Ingrid, and so on to see what's what. Plus, the state of VA requires shelters to report statistics - it's actually one of the better states in this regard - and PETA's one and only shelter (that's one more than the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) - ironic, isn't it?) is at their headquarters in Norfolk, so their abysmal adoption rates are public knowledge. As is, unrelated to that data, their support (verbal, but also if you start following the money, monetary) for various groups that are on the FBI's domestic terrorist list.
Do a search and if you can get past their own endlessly published rhetoric and self promotion, you will find newspaper accounts of a couple of PETA employees who were charged, I think it was for littering, after they dumped the corpses of newly killed animals that they had collected from various vet's offices and so on in a dumpster, after promising to find them good homes. They euthanized the pets they were supposedly "rescuing" almost as soon as they got them into their van. I think their convictions were overturned, but the actions of acquiring puppies and kittens under false pretenses just so they could put them out of their "misery" speaks for itself. Mind you, the charges were for littering, not for cruelty, as the animals were voluntarily relinquished to them, so they were well within their rights to kill them. It's the ethical, not the legal, implications that are so striking. You can always start at: http://www.activistcash.com/ They take a look at how the various organizations are run, starting by going through their IRS records, which are public, and what the money actually gets used for. Look up HSUS while you're at it. Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: You can always start at: http://www.activistcash.com/
They take a look at how the various organizations are run, starting by going through their IRS records, which are public, and what the money actually gets used for. Look up HSUS while you're at it. Wow! That information on the Humane Society of the US is fascinating. I just assumed that any entity called a "humane society" would be like our local humane/anti cruelty organizations, focused on spay/neuter and adoption programs. The HSUS agenda is pretty close to PETA. It's sad that HSUS can be sitting on over $100 million and not using any of that money to support local shelters. Particularly now, when the shelters are overwhelmed by pets who have lost their homes when their owners go into foreclosure. I saw a sign last week for a local shelter, and I thought about driving by and dropping off a check. I think this week I'll actually do it. |
| search youtube for penn and teller & peta
ok, that may be a bit biased, but they do point out some intersting facts i was told a while back to support animal welfare, not animal rights |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Mad Dog wrote: You can always start at: http://www.activistcash.com/ They take a look at how the various organizations are run, starting by going through their IRS records, which are public, and what the money actually gets used for. Look up HSUS while you're at it. Wow! That information on the Humane Society of the US is fascinating. I just assumed that any entity called a "humane society" would be like our local humane/anti cruelty organizations, focused on spay/neuter and adoption programs. The HSUS agenda is pretty close to PETA. It's sad that HSUS can be sitting on over $100 million and not using any of that money to support local shelters. Particularly now, when the shelters are overwhelmed by pets who have lost their homes when their owners go into foreclosure. I saw a sign last week for a local shelter, and I thought about driving by and dropping off a check. I think this week I'll actually do it. Is there a similar resource to find out the financials of rescue organizations? like all charity organizations I am sure there are some that have more resources than others and I would like to help groups that while well run don't sit on large sums of money. I know I have concerns about how much my kennel club has in the bank and how much they focus on making more at events compared to the amounts donated to rescues and relief organizations. |
kerry wrote: Is there a similar resource to find out the financials of rescue organizations? like all charity organizations I am sure there are some that have more resources than others and I would like to help groups that while well run don't sit on large sums of money. I know I have concerns about how much my kennel club has in the bank and how much they focus on making more at events compared to the amounts donated to rescues and relief organizations.
Kerry - as far as I know, only if the rescues are 501(c)(3) You'd need to file a 4506A request - see information the IRS site for how they are complying with the Freedom of Information Act: http://www.irs.gov/foia/ see http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4506a.pdf for Form 4506 A The IRS is also supposedly cracking down on political organizations masquerading as charitable organizations. I'm actually having rather fond and fuzzy feelings about the IRS right now. I think I need to go lie down until these disturbing feelings pass...
Kristine |
| I've been "warning" people on here about the hsus for a long long time, they aren't your local Humane Society and their leader is a scam artist.
However, some people in our community support them. As far as looking at financials of a 501(c)(3) try www.guidestar.org The IRS form 990s for the past year or two for many charities are available there free of charge. For example, here's a link to HSUS's form 990 for the year 2005 http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... 3927-9.pdf |
| thanks Ron I had forgotten about Guidestar - we have used it to check on "facts" supplied by not for profits before. people should check there to see the assets and overhead of any charity before they donate.
unfortunately very few OES rescues have information available because only a few of them generate enough income and have large enough assets to be required to file with the IRS. but what is available is interesting. |
| Is it cruel to make your kid go to soccer practice when he doesn't want to?
Is it cruel to make them comb their hair and wear a certain outfit on picture day? Is it cruel to make them eat their vegetables when they don't want to? |
| I think the cruelty starts when we run the animals out of their enviroment. Like what is going on with the great Silverback Gorilla's in the Congo. Only about 700 - 750 left!!! Its either the trees or the gorilla. Man chose the tree!
What becomes of them when enough trees are gone and they have no where else to go? Man will move them around to another "safe" place - well, at least until those trees are cleared out. I think when it comes to the dogs - whatever we do to them that is unnatural to them in the wild, other than training, etc..... is probably cruel if you look at it through the eyes of the dogs. Do they enjoy being 'dressed up?" Do they have no choice? It may not seem like it, but in a sense they're captives. Maybe they don't realize that, so they can tolerate the silliness of us humans.
It would be more cruel to lack training and enforcement, than to enforce it. The same applies to our kids. All you have to do is watch how those with it act compared to those without. |
| And there we are back to the overbroad, overused definition of cruel. I don't think destroying habitat or other ways we push WILD animals into extinction falls under the definition of cruel. Short-sighted, unfortunate and quite likely plain dumb, yes. But that is merely my opinion on the matter, not a legal definition.
But let's be clear: dogs are not wild animals. Though the evolution of the domestic dog is still under study and debate, one thing we know for sure is that there is archeological evidence that they've been sharing our lives for thousands of years, serving mankind probably first as simple guards dogs around our domiciles, then helping us hunt for our food, protect and direct our food (cattle, sheep, domesticated fowl etc), hauling things around for us and even, yes, as our food. The pure companion aspect is a much more recent aspect for the most part, but the bottom line is that without us, there would be no dogs as we know them today and releasing domesticated animals who are completely dependant on us for their survival into the wild would amount to animal cruelty in my mind. Perhaps that is why even your most hardcore Animal Rights person understands that the more appropriate course of action within their world view is to ensure that no more dogs (and cats etc) are allowed to reproduce: by enacting mandadory spay and neuter legislation so that no more can be produced, and either grudingly accept that the last generation of dogs will be raised till their natural death by their so-called "guardians", or kill any they can get their hands on. The better of dead philosophy. The Animal Rights philosophy objects to all use of all animals including pets. The simple act of owning a dog, no matter how you care for your dog, is by their definition cruel. You don't have to dress them up to be cruel. You own a dog, you are by definition guilty of cruelty. I don't think you can get a much broader definition than that when it comes to our dogs. There is legislation underway in Spain that paves the way for granting equal rights to Great Apes (let's forget for one moment the notion being presented in Switzerland that plants have feelings - i suppose the very act of walking on grass can be considered cruel). That ought to be interesting. Increasingly, one extreme view of the world with its broad definition of cruelty is being forced upon us in the most effective and crippling way possible: legislatively. Now, if you believe that we should all live as vegans and phase out (or kill off) all domestic animals and accept that the life of an ant is equal to that of a pig which is equal to that of your child's (that is, as important as), then you will welcome this change. As for the rest of us, eh, probably not so much. One of the first legislative changes Hitler made in Nazi Germany, this dates back to 1933, I believe, was to outlaw research experiments on animals (evidently, as we know, this protection did not extend to, by their definition, "sub-humans" - nor were they completely successful in their ban). It makes sense to me that you can find parallels with the Animal Rights movement, which is at its core anti-human more than pro animals (or why be so intent on killing them off?) and facism. But, you know, most of us are decent human beings and none of us wants to be thought of as being CRUEL. Kristine |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|