I could be mistaken, but neither dog looks alive to me.
thanx Monty…I find this whole topic really disturbing. Not so much the eating of animals, which is another subject (although i know factory farms need to be changed), but the torture of animals before death.
Dogs and cats have a very long working history with humans, on many levels. If they are going to be eaten, they should at least be given a compassionate death, meaning quickly.
Yes nature is cruel, to those who point that out, but humans seem to be the only species that enjoy torture, and can reflect on it. Tigers, sharks, bears? Probably not so much.
Hopefully the eastern nations growing middle class will apply some ethical pressure to put an end to this practice as they join the “barbarian” west.
Cats play with mice…something akin to torture. Killer whales play kickball with seals…
Do chimps ever pull the legs off lizards or something like that?
Meanwhile, a number of predators bite huge chunks out of their prey and then wait for them to die… Nature is nasty.
Yes, humans are the only ones who practice systematic, organized torture – because we’re the only ones who have the abstract thought talents it requires. Sort of like noting we’re the only ones who’ve been to the Moon.
And, yes, civilized people ought not to torture animals. It’s appalling that there is still a dog-fighting and cock-fighting industry. At least we’ve given up bear-and-bull fights and ratting.
Dogs and cats have been bred to interact with humans in a symbiotic way.
You can slaughter an animal in a restaurant in a humane manner, or a sadistic manner. The fact the animal is brought to the eatery alive is beside the point. If you’re going to eat meat at some point the animal has to be slaughtered.
As has been noted two wrongs do not make a right.
I would like the American meat industry to clean up its act too.
I am fine with eating meat (barring anything that is endangered). I just want that animal killed humanely.
I also understand that being killed “humanely” seems a bit weird. I do not want to be killed period and neither does any other animal. That said there are certainly better and worse ways to be dispatched.
Protip: You’re not supposed to leave them on a glue trap to starve to death, you should put them out of their misery.
The glue trap is banned from a lot of places.
And no, they don’t feel less pain than a dog and cat. People are just shit.
So?
That doesn’t make it right to torture a rat or make it suffer as much as possible. Quite frankly, if more people knew how glue traps work and see their cruelty first hand they’d be outlawed. There are more humane/less painful ways to kill animals. Use those instead of being a barbarian.
And another thing about those glue traps: If we ignore the glaring obvious moral implications of leaving a small mammal stuck on a piece of plastic to die slowly and painfully, there is the possibility that the animal may just as well escape. Added to that, the CDC aren’t too big on glue traps because animals out of fright will tend to pee and poop profusely on it. People just don’t use their brains.
A lot of stores don’t sell them, and a lot of people refuse to use them on the grounds of cruelty. And yes, that includes some pest control operators.
This “value” people assign cats or dogs over other animals should have no bearing on something like this. I value my dog over the possum living in my roof for example, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be acceptable for me to skin it alive, catch it in a cage and pour boiling water over it, or use a glue trap and just wait for it chew its leg off or rip its face off.
So when ever I see a glue trap in a store, I am reminded of how shit we can be sometimes to animals, that we’d consider using something unnecessarily painful or drawn out.
[QUOTE=GavinB]
So?
[/QUOTE]
Um…so, we value dogs and cats more than rats and mice. I don’t see ‘So?’ as a rebuttal to that, to be honest.
I can see you are really worked up and angst ridden about rats and mice being trapped and killed, but the point of traps, including glue traps isn’t to make the rat or mouse suffer as much as possible, it’s to kill a pest. The point of the article linked in the OP that we are presumably discussing is to kill and eat dogs, seemingly stolen (thus pet) dogs, and to do so in a manner so as to cause the maximum amount of anguish before consuming them. While I’m sure the plight of rats and mice is dire, I’m not seeing the analogue between killing them using traps and deliberately burning someones pet so as to get the maximum anguish out of said pet before consuming it.
Regardless, while I’m sure the Chinese don’t care about my horror of this practice you can feel the same way, as I’m not all that worked up about rats or mice being killed in traps, even glue traps. I’m sure someone will be along soon to trump you with the dire plight of the cockroach and the use of poisons and such, or the sad genocide against mosquito’s…
“So” is exactly what I mean. What is your point, and why does this matter?
Why is valuing cats and dogs more than mice and rats justification for unnecessary cruelty to the latter two? Your statement does not address the hypocrisy at all, in fact it makes it more hypocritical.
No, I’m not worked up about rats and mice being trapped and killed, I’m worked up by the method in which a specific trap (the glue trap) kills its victim. There is a pretty big distinction there, if you didn’t realise. A glue trap by design is a heinous thing - it doesn’t just trap the animal. It causes the animal to do some pretty terrible things to itself. The glue practically meshes onto the animal’s skin and if the animal tries to escape, it can rip off skin or an appendage. Trap instructions will frequently tell people just to dispose of the animal with the trap into the rubbish bin, without any recommendation at all of how to kill the animal humanely. The animal is left to die slowly for days, disfigured and eventually dying from dehydration in its own shit and piss. This is very apparent when these traps are set with minimal to no human traffic, or placed in hard to reach areas and conveniently forgotten about. A lot of people are squeamish with such traps and don’t have the balls to deliver a coup de grace.
This is in contrast to a whole plethora of alternatives that are designed to either kill the animal outright, or contain it without harm. So yes, I can very much speculate whoever invented them is a psychopath, and that the general design of the trap induces a lot of pointless suffering.
You don’t?
-
They are both examples of human beings causing unnecessary suffering to animals.
-
They are both extremely painful for the animal.
-
Generally people who put the animals through this are indifferent to their suffering.
-
Both of the animals involved are mammals.
The only difference here is the purpose, and perhaps even the level of pain/suffering inflicted. That the dog is a pet should not matter, it is cruel/evil/<whatever negative word you want to throw at it> either way.
I’m not sure if you’re serious here or if you’re joking.
Have you ever seen an injured animal on a glue trap before? Watched as a mouse was in the middle of chewing its limb off? Saw a bird twitch in agony with its wing almost ripped off from struggling? Unlike insects, mammals/birds are quite capable of experiencing physical and psychological suffering.
To deny this kind of cruelty, or to turn a blind eye to it, is just being disingenuous.
[QUOTE=GavinB]
“So” is exactly what I mean. What is your point, and why does this matter?
[/QUOTE]
My point is pretty obvious, since I, you know, said it outright. Whether it matters to you or not is, of course, up to you.
No, I don’t. Basically, traps are used to kill pests. If you feel that some of those traps are needlessly cruel then I’m fine with you crusading against them. Make the public aware of how cruel glue traps are and the market will fix the issue, basically…or, failing that, get the government to ban them by fiat. I’m fine either way. I don’t see trapping rats and mice as on par with deliberate torture of a pet with the intention of inflicting the maximum amount of pain before consuming them.
And thus, my comment about value judgements.
I’m both serious and making a joke as well.
I have seen both. I’ve seen cats play with mice/rats and birds for quite a long time before finally killing them. I’ve used various traps in my life, especially when I lived in less nice accommodations to what I live in these days. I, again, don’t think that using traps to kill pests is on par with torturing dogs/cats with the intent of getting the maximum amount of agony out of them prior to consuming them. I understand that I’m making a value judgement here, same as you are. I value rats and mice far less than I do dogs and cats, which have been bred for over 10,000 years to be our pets and companions, in many cases bred to KILL rats and mice which cause disease, damage crops and food stores and generally act in destructive ways that humans have disliked for probably longer than said 10,000+ years of dog/cat pets.
Mind, I’m not saying we should torture rats and mice as much as possible before we dispose of them…I’m not saying, oh, let’s burn them alive for hours on end before we toss them out. But then, I don’t think that traps, even glue traps generally are made with the INTENTION of causing as much physical pain and suffering as possible before killing the animal.
Well, it’s funny, because I’d say that it’s you that’s being disingenuous here. As well as wanting to hijack the discussion onto your pet peeve and personal crusade. Obviously YMMV and certainly does. Value judgements and perspective, no doubt. My guess is, that you DO actually understand my point, despite this ‘What is your point…’ bit, though…right? 
But why does it matter?
I can arbitrarily label you of less value than, say, my friend Steve. I can treat Steve like royalty and treat you like dirt. Would that be okay?
The end objective is irrelevant, much like the aim of eating the dog afterward is irrelevant. It is all about the level of cruelty involved. The process and the reason behind such a process is what’s important, well at least for animal cruelty cases like this.
I just find it a little bit gobsmacking that we point to other cultures how cruel they are to animals, when we do pretty heinous stuff too.
And how did you feel about it?
Thank you. That is the crux of it. I am going to speculate here so bear with me. You are against unnecessary suffering to an animal not merely because you value it highly. There is a more deeper, more fundamental reasoning behind it, isn’t there?
Yet a glue trap can cause exactly that. Look at how it’s designed - the glue is industrial strength. It takes a lot of effort to get out of one if you step in it, and if you stick your skin there it hurts a lot when you try and peel it off. Animals like sparrows and mice, to use an example, have very thin and delicate skin. It’s a lot more damaging for them. No thought is made to how the animal suffers in it. It’s diabolical and gruesome, a pretty horrible way to kill something. At least the designer of the snap trap had the courtesy of giving the animal a quick death (well, most of the time).
Actually, I did not bring the point about glue traps up, I was just reinforcing what another poster said. And I find it a very good point.
Well yes, I do understand the value judgements but I think it is interesting to expand on. Are we against the pain and suffering of a dog because we know it can feel those sensations, and therefore are sympathetic because we imagine ourselves in its position? Or is it because it is cute? Or because there’s no benefit to it at all? Or because the mindset to do that is potentially dangerous? Or a bit of A and a bit of B?
My brother had a pet snake before and never had to feed him live mice. He was quite happy with pre-killed mice. I do realise though, some snakes are so fussy that they will refuse dead food, despite many attempts to ‘wean’ them off live.
A lot of carnivorous predators actually don’t require live food in captivity. Certainly not the larger land based animals. I’ve had ferrets before but I’d never think of throwing them a live mouse. I have seen videos of it on YouTube though, but these are done as a form of selfish pleasure with no real educational benefit. Sometimes accompanied with loud rock music, at other times cheering and laughing. Sometimes the animal would do a bad job and not end up killing the animal at all, making the owner poke at it with a stick to entice the predator further, as the animal writhes in agony.
Worst one was a snapping turtle vid where rats and hamsters were playing around in toys, looking all friendly and curious - suddenly extreme slo-mo, close up shots of carnage, half a rat swimming away, heavy metal music, etc. My personal opinion is that these sort of people shouldn’t be owning an animal of any kind. In fact they should be prosecuted for animal cruelty.
In the west, any cruelty to animals is incidental to their processing. The overwhelmingly common belief is that quality of meat is directly correlated with lowering of cruelty and things like free range, natural diets, avoidance of growth hormones and reduced stress on the kill floor make for the best quality meat. As a result, cruelty is largely caused by an avoidance of cost or incompetence rather than a thing to be sought after. This appears to be largely empirically true but also morally convenient as the desire for quality and desire for lower cruelty are never in conflict with each other and so we’ve never had to confront that moral question. Furthermore, it allows us to subscribe to beliefs about arbitrary agency and empathy for animals and we can always find a product and practice that fits that belief.
China, coming from a different tradition of moral thought, has placed these two in direct conflict and generated a moral quandary unfamiliar to western thought. Whether it’s true or not, if you believe suffering does result in higher quality meat, how do you balance out these two competing desires? In both the east and the west, there’s an agreement that vegetables have no sentience and you can perform arbitrary mutilations on them while they are still alive with no ethical quandary. On the one hand, you could give no agency to the animal and torture it in the same way you would “torture” wheat to make the best bread. On the other hand, you could ascribe a limited degree of agency to animals but argue that your desire for better meat outweighs the animal’s desire for less suffering. Finally, you could ascribe enough agency to animals that you say no desire for meat quality can overcome the intrinsic degradation of cruelty.
About the only area in the west this conversation takes place is over the production of foie gras and you can see every various narrative play out and previously coherent groups fracture based on their innate moral understanding of the issues surrounding foie gras. A similar conversation is happening in China right now over torturing dogs (which is a separate discussion from eating dogs which is also happening). Ultimately, I think everyone will take the morally expedient solution which is to declare that cruelty actually makes for worse meat which resolves the tension without actually answering the question.
I actually don’t think most Chinese believe in that at all. I know several Chinese nationals who are just as appalled, if not moreso than people on this thread. There are plenty of activists there who bring these sort of activities to attention, it’s not some kind of national thing. Merely isolated pockets of severely undereducated or sadistic people.
I’m not very convinced that a significant number of these animals are kidnapped pets. In urban and suburban areas, homes with yards are vanishingly rare. I think I met exactly one person who lived in one. Pets simply don’t roam free. And the logistics of kidnapping tens of thousands of pets from rural areas seems pretty daunting. Given that dog meat is an existing, if low-volume trade, I’m sure there are normal channels for procuring it.
I don’t think most Chinese people associate some kind of magical belief with torturing animals, and most dog meat is killed as humanely as any other meat (and none of the butchering was unusually cruel.) But it’s a big country with lots of people and a pretty complex sets of belief systems around the health properties of foods, so maybe some people do believe it. It’s definitely not a common thing.
This makes absolutely no sense; Steve is a total prick.
ETA: assuming we’re talking about the same Steve.
No. I am going to argue that ethics, and concepts such as “cruel” are products of convention and agreement.
They are not absolutes, and there is no standard in nature against which to appeal a position.
Before you get to what China should do about their cruelty, you have to get to why cruelty should factor into decision making, and why A gets to decide what is appropriate for B.
Anyone?
I know, it hurts. But many would throw it back and say what about what goes on in American slaughter houses?
What I do about all this animal cruelty is ask The Good Lord Jesus to somehow lesson their suffering, as well as ask Him to see that in the next world those beautiful creatures get some truly wonderful rewards for what suffering people lay on 'em. (I might be flamed for “preaching” but that’s who I am, prayer matters to me.)
Of course I also try and help them, the suffering animals, when and where I can via practical methods, though my little help is so tiny compared to the vast ocean of what we’re talking about.
FWIW, about 3 years ago I got the annual call from the rodeo yahoo dope asking for some more dough so that tickets to support their animal abusing ways could be used towards helping the policeman’s somethingoranother. But I got the nerve to tell them no and why. The duffus then proceeded giving me guff by asking me if I ate meat. All I could do was hangup on him, as I feel nothing but anger trying to make sense to such mindless bullies.