Broadly speaking i'm of the opinion that we should always treat animals kindly and with care and concern.
Once you recognise the possibility of sentience in other creatures, you then have to take account of that condition, any moral theory that doesn't have regard for consciousness and it's well being, isn't worth it's salt i reckon.
I'm constantly appalled at how we treat animals, for example battery hens-i don't know what goes on in a chickens mind, but the capacity to feel pain and suffering must exist, and for us to inflict the existence they often have to endure is wrong and is a profound comment on just how civilised we are.

I'm not an advocate of animal rights however, In fact i'm not an advocate of rights at all-why? Because the entrench in a constitution a fixed legal framework that is very difficult to change. For example the American constitution enshrines the right to bare arms (guns to you and me) this goes back to 1776 (i think) when it may have been a good idea to bare arms, now i reckon the idea is a disaster for USA.
But it's very difficult to change a constitution-well that's the point it's not meant to be changed, but the lack of flexibility means its' difficult to implement a new idea that goes against it.
I'm not against killing animals if it's in their best interest, but it should be always be humanly done.
Thoughts anyone?

It's very simple - the old moral phrase about doing unto others as you would do unto yourself should apply. As should the realisation that inflicting suffering on a living thing is evil. Some people seem to think animals are an exception to this and should not be treated with the same respect as humans. If you think this then I think your morals have gone wrong somewhere. And of course you would have to accept that should a 'superior' life form emerge in the future or land on the planet tomorrow, in your logic it would have every right to inflict pain and suffering on the human race. Would any of us accept that? I doubt it.

Some people argue that intelligence sets us apart form other species. well they have a point but you don't have to be intelligent to feel pain, although it may be true that more intelligent life forms tend to suffer the most over periods of time, say in capitivty or poor conditions, due to heightened awareness fo their plight and the ability to worry more - emotional complexity. I'm sure though that a less intelligent creature feels just as much pain being cut open as humans might.

People who use the superior species and intelligence argument fall onto a very sticky wicket as far as human rights are concerned too. We have millions of people world wide who are considered of lesser intelligence than what we perceive as the norm, e.g. people with learning disabilties (and I MUST stress I'm not saying that they should be considered of lesser intelligence and feeling at all, having worked with such people and seen how intelligent they can actually be given the means to express this). If we deem these people as inferior, then we remove their rights. We give ourselves licence to treat them less favourably than others and allow them to suffer. I've heard enough people say that it doesn't matter if these people are suffering, they don't know what is going on anyway! :angry: And taken to the extreme, as has happened in history - remember Hitler? - we can justify 1. preventing these people reproducing (which is a direct infringement of their human rights) 2. inflicting real suffering on such people, or even killing them to either put them out of their perceived misery (which has been done in so called civilised countries) OR because their inferiority is a threat to us genetically. This sounds extreme, but this is where such thoughts and perceptions can lead. Even in this country we've removed the rights of learning disabled people. Things have improved tremendously, however in the 1970s we were still forcing early sterilisation on learning disabeld females without their consent. Not to mention all those in homes who have been basically kept prisoner in a regimented environment (those dreadful homes). They were not allowed to express what they wanted, nor develop their potential. They were just kept out of the way from society and treated very badly, like a nuisance, often beign abused for things that they could not help. An ex-colleague of mine was learning disabled. She was in a hme as a kid, she says it was terrible. She's 50 now and upset that she has never been able to have kids; she was sterilised wihtout knowing what was happening to her at 14. :(

When you say BT that you are nto an advocate of animal rights, I think with respect that you are wrong. You very much are, you are syaing that animals have the right to be treated with respect and nto be subjected to suffering and pain. I see what you mean about changing constitutions BUT the fact that things are difficult and slow to change does not mean that we cant; try and change them. If revolutionary and radical people had taken that attitude, we'd still be living as serfs on our master's land, who would technically own us and we'd have no rights or indeed a constitution of any value.

I know I've gone off track a bit and opened a whole host of other avenues for discussion, but these are my thoughts. It's all about perception and how we view a species or group of a species in terms of their intelligence and emotional complexity. This perception theninlfuences the way we justify ourselves morally in our treatment of that species.

I believe in animal welfare, not animal rights (the difference is subtle, but important). I eat meat, I go fishing, and I have been known to go out with a gun. I obviously cannot be against killing animals, and I'm not. Some may find that a paradox and I understand that, but it does not feel like that to me. I feel able to respect and even admire my quarry. I do not wish to cause it suffering, but also I am prepared to kill it. I obviously don't think that it is inherently wrong or cruel to kill an animal.

I am against keeping animals in cruel conditions and, if you are going to kill an animal, I think it ought to be done as quickly and humanely as the circumstances allow.

I clearly think that we are entitled to treat animals differently to the way in which we should treat humans - I would not kill or eat another person.

This is an area where most of us, if we are rigorous enough, are bound to find contradictions between what we think are our views and our actions. One of my contradictions (if you don't think what I have said above is already enough) is that I eat foie gras - although I am not entirely sure how it is produced these days I don't imagine it is a picnic for the ducks.

Animal rights/welfare is a much abused area which it is very easy to use as an excuse to find a 'moral' ground for criticising someone you dislike for other reasons (class, ethnicity, religion) when the reality may be that you would not do too well judged by the same criticism if you searched your habits (and your weekly shopping basket) hard enough.

I could not bring myself to eat foie gras. It doesn't matter how it is produced nowadays, even if your ducks are kept in nice conditions, being force fed to produce and unaturally large and swollen liver is absolutely disgusting. That makes the animal ill, so it suffers. In fact it causes death eventually, if our livers swelled like that we'd have little chance of being comforable and well, and would die eventually. I think it's one of those terrible production processes that isn't necessary to eat well adn survive. It's a bit different if you just kill an animal humanely and wuickly for food, such as a wild hare or something like that.

I'm no saint, I do eat some meat, but another thing I can't brign myslef to eat is lobster since I heard that they were boiled alive. is this always the case? Just wondered. Anyway I tried some and on my seafood platter it was the most overrated thing there and yet the most expensive. Give me a scallop or a mussel anyday, much tastier - and I know Barry is going to tell me off re scallops any moments now. :)

I have a funny story about the revenge of a lobster, will tel it soon as the phonnsi ringing again!

You are right about lobsters - but there are other ways of cooking them that demand a quick despatch with a knife through the back of the head.

I know what you mean about foie gras - I guess I should not have married a Belgian then, or maybe I should be more ethical :shrug: Trouble is, it's just delicious. We get ours from a little farm nearby and the conditions don't look too bad, but I am not going to try and pretend I am a :halo: either.

:rolleyes: And exactly what was the more humane way of preparing those mussels and scallops. (Probably steamed live, rather than boiled.)

Personally, I am not against using animals for food. It's the twisted people who sometimes seem to get sick pleasure out of abusing and torturing animals that bothers me.

"Personally, I am not against using animals for food. It's the twisted people who sometimes seem to get sick pleasure out of abusing and torturing animals that bothers me."

Ditto Nick!

That or the ones who just don't seem to care if animals are suffering. There was a local story a while back about animal control officers that had to rescue a couple horses that someone had not been feeding, and they were tied up to where they couldn't even try to get to somewhere to graze. :( Poor things were just skin and bones, starving to death.

Not interested in foie gras tbh. Sounds far too rich to me and I think it contains a lot of pork with it too, or am I wrong? If I eat pate I like the chiken liver stuff which is only really good if home made. But as I rule, I avoid pate.

Terrible. I don't think the law punishes people for neglect adn abuse of animals highly enough.I've seen several similar cases in this country. there was something in the paper a while back abotu a house that someone did a runner from. they left a load of dogs in there. After several weeks somoone went in there and they found a couple of dogs alive, but in a terrible state. Some had died, and the others had stared to eat them. teh house was filthy and heaving in doggy poo too. What an idot, why not just take the dogs to a shelter? Stupid person. :angry:

No. There may be some dishes prepared with foie gras that involve pork :shrug: , but foie gras itself is simple fattened goose liver.

Thanks. Sound disgusting to me in any case! roflmao I do eat a lot of liver though, that old classic liver and onions is very nice if done well, lamb's liver preferably. Amazing how liver has suddenly become really expensive in restaurants here. pan fried in sauces.

Tell you what though - If I were an animal about to be killed for food, I reckon in a sadistic way i'd prefer being boiled alive - reminds me of terminator roflmao

My view of animals is one that is far higher than a lot of humans that I come into contact with. I am often poked fun at for going ott when looking after my pets. However, I feel I treat my pets in the way they deserve to be treated. It is myself who has brought them into the family home and therefore my responsibilty to ensure they have the utmost care. It sickens me that people own animals and do not care for them correctly, and then disregard it by saying - it's only an animal. It's a living creature for goodness sake and one that relies on you for it's daily needs. Would one have the same reaction about a baby? I think not.
I really feel we should embrace and cherish all animals.

Totally right WA :)

Animals have every bit as much right to be on the planet as we do - in some ways we could learn a lot from them i suppose!

I used to have cute little hamsters when I was little and I adored them - so cheeky, so pretty, so unassuming, so innocent, so unfussed!

We have a hedgehog that patrols our garden, along with two squirrels (one knows as "scraggy" or "scraggs" cos of his dodgy tail!), we have pheashants that jump into our garden cos the feel safe, and a mole, which we find funny even when it makes a big dent in our garden. Nature is beautiful. If I see a worm or a drowsy wasp on our tennis court (the club is near some woodland), I stop the game, get him/her out of danger using my racket, and start again. Always have. :)

I agree mostly with what you say, WimbledonAce, but maybe not quite as strongly. I don't mind, for example, that certain animals are raised as a food source (provided they are not abused along the way). And I don't mind squashing the occasional bug that makes it's way into my house or exterminating a nest of wasps that chooses to locate outside my doorway.

I'm generally friendly toward animals, though.

NICK!

I can't believe you squash bugs that go into your house! Shocking!

I saved a lovely little red beetle's life today - he fell off the front door onto our doormat, I told everyone to stop while I took the doormat outside so he could walk off it - the fact he walked off ASAP to the nearest edge of the mat proved he deserved a full life :)

I have to say though, I have little sympathy for pests such as nasty wasps or an army of ants. As I may have said already, we get out the cillit bang when an army of ants are in the kitchen, and BANG! AND THE ANTS ARE GONE!

Roaches, spiders, ants and such get squashed, but some others might simply get shooed outside.

I tend to fall in the Barry / Nick side of things in that, whilst I eat meat and will continue to do so - its the cruelty to animals which upsets me.

No need for it at all.

Unless its wasps.

Absolutely! There is an imbalance on here, which I happily subscribe to. Technically speaking, if a cat should be treated equally to a human, so should a wasp. If a cow should not be killed to provide food, a mosquito should not be killed, especially since there would be no valuable purpose to the killing.

However, while I could never hurt an animal, I will splatter a wasp with a vengeance if it comes near me. I can't describe the hatred I have of these things, they turn me cold to the bone. If I see one crawling up my window, I attack it brutally with a rolled up magazine; if one flies around my face while I'm outside I flail around madly in some kind of epileptic fit until it buggers off. I don't like the weather you guys have here very much, and sadly wasps try their hardest to ruin the only time it gets nice :angry:

Sorry, should probably have unleashed that one onto the rant thread :blush:

Wow, SB that's quite a post and i agree with most of it, except the second to last paragraph where you say
"When you say BT that you are nto an advocate of animal rights, I think with respect that you are wrong. You very much are, you are syaing that animals have the right to be treated with respect and nto be subjected to suffering and pain. I see what you mean about changing constitutions BUT the fact that things are difficult and slow to change does not mean that we cant; try and change them. If revolutionary and radical people had taken that attitude, we'd still be living as serfs on our master's land, who would technically own us and we'd have no rights or indeed a constitution of any value"

What i'm arguing in my initial post is that rather than advocate amimal rights, which i think present problems, we can use the law-by enforcing existing laws that restrict animal cruelty and add to it where we feel necessary, if we as a society so choose.
One of the big problems with rights as compared with conventional political legislature is that rights are inflexible, so if we get the rights bill wrong, we're stuck with it-rights aren't meant to be changed. In other words the political framework as it stands, would in theory allow us to outlaw any act of cruelty we democratically choose.
In America for example much of the equality legislation we implemented in the 70's in this country was never implemented in America because it conflicted with the constitution.
Let me show how a bill of rights could potentially be less of a panacea than you might think.
Imagine in 1776 in the USA they had made it a right of American citizens to treat animals in any way they so choose. Now if that right existed it would be very difficult to change-the Americans would be stuck with something that is outdated, just like they are stuck with gun laws-which are now outdated. Our system in contrast allows us to ban guns and cruelty to animals-if we so choose.
All rights bills become antiques sooner or later the must.

agreed hun

wasps - :smash:

btw, if you are brave enough, the way to get the wasp hovering in front of your face is to clap both hands on it

the sting reflex is directional, if you hit a wasp from both sides at once, it can't decide which side to sting therefore stings downwards. You don't get stung

It works :D

Don't get too many cockroaches here...

Spiders are interesting...

Just don't open your mouth while doing that - if it goes inside your mouth you cold be in trouble - a sting to the throat can be fatat :o

Try this for a bundle of contradictions (says he putting on the tin hat and diving into a bunker for cover). I have a firmly fixed hierachy of creatures to which I respond very differently.

Spiders, woodlice, ladybirds, beatles generally, honey & bumblebees I would NEVER squash or shoosh down the plughole and would go out of my way to rescue. If ever you see a tired bumblebee that is shagged out after an unproductive afternoon buzzing on the inside of your window it is great fun to give it a tiny bit of honey on a spoon and it will stick out a huge straw, gorge itself, and fly away in minutes - makes me feel good.

Wasps, common flies, mosquitos, midges, maggots, rats, mice, squirrels, rabbits, and pigeons are all pests to me and I am happy to dispatch the same (speedily) by squashing, trapping, and shooting accordingly.

I love birds, indeed I am a bit of a twitcher, but I am happy to shoot gamebirds, I have also gone deer shooting at times which, when done properly, is IMHO a form of humane culling to enable deer & us to share this crowded Island as best as possible.

I also eat meat and go fishing.

I hate neglect of animals in our care - that is unforgiveable IMHO and in my book only deliberate cruelty is worse. I would include pulling the wings of a fly in that category - I don't mind killing an animal (provided it's lawful and not a rare animal etc.) but if you want to kill it get on with it.

I also happen to think that a lot of people end up being cruel (indirectly, not deliberately and I don't exclude myself) by not shopping carefully. It may be cruel sometimes to avoid killing an animal that is injured beyond cure and in pain because you are squeemish about killing. I have a friend who is a vet who is always amazed when people bring in a wounded pigeon from the road that is in a terrible state and he tells me that he takes them (the pigeon that is) into the back and wrings their necks quickly. I'd even go so far as to suggest that there is a case for saying that owning a cat involves indirect cruelty because it can inflict unnecessary suffering on the animals they catch and play with - it's not the cat's fault obviously, but the owner has to justify to his/herself having a cat in the knowledge that it will do that. Dogs catch and kill but they don't play with their prey so there is a lesser case - but it's there.

I may be an extreme case, or I may be very rational, but I think it is almost impossible to live in this modern world without displaying a host of contradictions towards the animal kingdom. If you drive you want to see all the squashed insects on your windscreen and sometimes running over a rabbit etc. is unavoidable, yet somehow we all justify to ourselves that cost as being an acceptable by-product of driving.

In all of this I have, in some way, to accept that we can do things to animals that we should not do to each other, but at the same time I agree that we have a responsibility towards animals not to cause unnecessary suffering - and if they are in our care to do a damn sight more than that.

Consistency is impossible, but the temptation to judge is overwhelming sometimes.

Way to go WA :clap: :clap: :clap:

Couldnt; agree more. I have the same feeling, I get less sh*t off animals than I do some people. Like my horrid neigbour, she's total b*tch but her cat visits me at least twice a day and is so sweet, sleeps here, likes a cuddle and a stroke! roflmao If you look after them well they respect you indeed. I have no pets of my own at the moment, but that is so as i can look after my garden wildlife well, as dogs and cats scare the birds and small mamals away. I ensure my wildlife have food and the right conditions and as a result I am rewarded with a host of lovely creatures in the garden, some fo which eat form my hand. Many live here and it's great when the birds and squirrels bring their babies round. :)

What a great attitude you have there :)

Squirrels are VERY intelligent creatures indeed. You should see how mine manage to dismantle my bird feeder whilst I was away! It wasn't just a case of demolition, they had actually unscrewed a screw and slid out a bar to remove the holding net and release the nuts without damaging it! They must have power tools! roflmao I had the same squirrel visit me for 4 years until i assume it died. We called it Whitey. I've called a few Scrag too, and some do have messier tails than others - we've had SkinnyTail, HalfTail, Redback, Hazel, all based on appearance really! We called a couple Bleeder and Thuggie cos their appraoch to getting nuts form you was like a mugging! :D

I used to have teo ducks who flew in and stayed here from April to Sept. I called them Crispy and Arrow, as in your Chinese crispy aromatic duck! roflmao The female was hilarious, she really bossed the male about and qualcked her head off when it was time to fly home. They used to come on the patio and quack round me for bread. Don't see them much now, I think the increase of cats round here has scared them off, but they still land on the nieghbour's roof now and then and must have been coming for 8 years. I'm overrun with collared doves but I cannot name them as they all look the bloody same!

When we were down in Brixham we had a bird's eye view of all the rooftops and chimney pots. We got to see all the seagulls in action, building nests and having territorial disputes over this. I've never seen this beofre and we had a rather priviledged view beign so high up that few could see. One gull woudl wait until his neighbours left their nest and steal the moss cos he was too idle to fetch his own. Anything that landed on his roof was chased away without delay. He was turfed otu fo his nest by a huge black winged gull, but somehow got his territory back after a few fights. They also ski down the roof slopes. It was quite entertaining, they are loud in the morning though! roflmao

:ok:

On people killing wasps and stuff, I go out of my way not to kill insects. I can understand people doing it to protect themselves, but very few wasps are intending to sting us, in fact if you wind them up you will be much more likely to get stung. I just waft them out the window if they come indoors. Why people kill spiders is beyond me, they are hardly harmful and are actually a useful part of the environment. I have tons in my garden and I am pleased because they catch a lot of the flies that would either bite me or eat my plants. I really hate gnats or any mosquito realtive becasue for some reason they love me and always bite me. I've been in hsopital with infections form their bites before, I do seem to react badly to them. I cant; kill them though as I cant; bloody see them! I do take measure to protect myself and use repellents and protective things. I;ve got some nets on the windows for summer. I've never had a bug zapper as form what I hear they are not 100% sucessful. If I did kil one it would be in self defence as it were.

BIG TODGER - i havent; copied your post as the whole thing is now too long. Thanks for complimenting my post. :)

I do see what you are saying, we can indded use the law and constitution to establish and defend rights. We don't always seem to do so very well though in some cases. And I have my reservations about relying entirely on statue because the whole idea of rights is more about our attitudes and perceptions and morality as a human being rather than anythign else. A lot of people dont; respect the law and will break it. They don't all get reprimanded either, so relying solely on the law is not a good thing. The law is a back up to enforce breaches or rights. The key is abotu educating people and getting them to examine their actions and attitudes towards others, and hopefulyl improve the way they act iin respect of te rights of others. I'm sure most of us are decent people and automaticlly do the right thing anyway, but there are enough people out there who don't. I'm not sure that simply telling people that they must nto do something always works, it's more abotu getting them to understand why.

And on types of rights, that's a whole new debate. We have rights enshrined in law, natural, divine or personal rights. It was a great area to study at Uni, and there has been so much written on it - I reckon you'd find it interesting to get into. There are so many people to quote that I can't list them all (or remember half of them) but Thomas Paine was a pioneeer, The Rights of Man. He went to America as he wasnt; so welcome here and I understand he helped set up the constitution. Mary Woolstonecraft was aroudn the same time, Vindication of the Rights of Women in I reckon abotu 1780. She was Mary Shelley's daughter and partner of the free thinker Godwin. Very brave of her to write as she did at the time, considerign women's position back then. I think it was Hobbes who wrote Leviathan too, which seemed to give people few rights. not

Well, I don't know about where you live, but we have some spiders around here that can be quite harmful, mostly the black widow and the brown recluse. My brother-in-law was bitten by a brown recluse a couple years ago, and it caused him to have these horrible, painful sores all up and down his arm that took months to finally heal. :yikes: It was quite nasty. And all that from a tiny little bite on his hand. Of course, most spiders are not that harmful, though even the less dangerous ones can cause severe reactions in people who are particularly sensitive.

So, I will kill spiders inside my house. Generally, I don't mess with any that are outside, and I enjoy watching some of the more colorful ones. If I found something like a black widow outside my house, though, I would squash it. I do put the safety of myself and my family a bit higher than the life of a spider.

I have to say i like this post, it seems common sense-concerned for animals, but realistic and down to earth too.
I too accept the killing animals too in as long as it is done as quickly and compassionately as possible. This would however exclude forms of killing like fox hunting for example, where there is a long-prolonged chase and viscous killing of the fox-what's the phrase 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (well something like that)
I think the third to last paragraph is superb, it seems a quintessentially British approach (though i have no idea of the authors nationality) our relationship with animals is often contradictory, we're human beings-not saints after all, i think as long as we keep in mind the fact that animals can suffer-and do our best we wont go far wrong.

I think ironically idealisation and over reverence of animals can lead to cruelty, both to animals and humans.
the Jain religion (a bit like Buddhism) has a view of karma, and reincarnation that does not allow believers to kill or harm animals in anyway. this means believers cannot kill pests such as cockroaches and rats-with obvious implications for human health. But also it would be wrong in jainism for example to put an animal to sleep-even if it was very i'll and close to death. So a family pet-say a dog, with terminal cancer could not be put down, and one could only watch as the animal became more and more sick-powerless to intervene because of jainist philosophy .
These are the kind of unintended consequences that could arise from a right to life policy for animals-seeing animals as sacrosanct, rather than recognising the duties we have as moral agents.

I'm pretty much in tune with barrystar here, too. I don't think it's all that contradictory or even uncommon to feel there are some animals we might treat with contempt and maybe a slap with the newspaper, some we treat with loving care and some with treat we a little garlic and olive oil, before grilling. ;)

Thanks for being so nice about my stream of consciousness.

I am absolutely with you on animal rights. IMHO they cannot have a right to live, and if they cannot have a right to live, it is pretty pointless giving them other 'rights'.

I prefer the analysis that we owe them duties:
a. when in our care we owe them a high level of duty to look after them properly - a positive duty
b. when not in our care we owe them lesser duties, effectively not to cause them unnecessary suffering - a negative duty.

If something goes wrong for the animal the duty-based inquiry is what did the human do and, if there has been neglect or cruelty, what is the correct punishment?

In a rights-based inquiry the focus is not the wrong-doer, but whether the victim's rights have been infringed and how to compensate the victim.

Well, you can't really compensate an animal that has been harmed, you can only try and cure it or put it out of its misery - the latter being something you can't do to people.

Obviously, duties and rights are different sides of the coin, but I think that there is a difference.

I'll second that.

am totally with Wise on the frantic waving of arms should a wasp even come near me - and the day one actually stung me.... Mr Pebs had to talk me out of hyperventilating - I just have an over-riding fear of the little buggers.

And I dont care what you say - they serve no purpose other than to come round and spoil bbqs!

Well if it's poisonous fair enough. provided it is a direct threat. As far as I know we don't have many poisonous spiders here if any. What I do come accross a lot is people over here killing harmless house spiders for no good reason. I find it rather cowardly considering the size of the spider and the size of the person doing it. :rolleyes:

Spiders are safe in our house as long as the cat doesnt spot them... and the amount of wildlife I have rescued from him and released back outside is unbelievable - I am sure I have seen the same little fieldmouse three times now - we're becoming good pals!

Why can't an animal have a right to live? Who says so? Who decided? and who has the RIGHT to decide? And what gives humans the right to expect a right to life?

Answers on a postcard please ;)

I'm not sure if a wasp has any purpose or not. Hoeverflies do however and they look very much like wasps. I see loads around my plum tree and they are doin gus a favour by eating pests. they are totally harmless, yet plenty fo people go round killing them. People panicked last year when the weather got very hot and a load fo them appeared on a beach. roflmao

Wasps just like sugar, they are a threat to plums and the way to get rid of them is to hang up open jars of jam or sugar. I saw it in an orchard, it does work and the wasp if it dies dies happy stuffing it's face on all that jam. :D They say lime slices repel them, at least that is what they use in Tunisia, but I'm nto totally convinced as I still had a few round me, but less than the norm.

roflmao Yeah cats do tend to chase things for the sake of it dont; they? My neighbour's cat is always jumping up chasing flies and wasps. I guess when it gets stung or bitten ti wll stop.