Post Reply
Page 3 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat
3 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 4:44PM #21
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Appy wrote


I do love squirrels in my yard. Unfortunately, my dog hates them and will kill them.  I have worked and will always work with breaking her of that.  She does leave birds at the feeder alone now so one day, I suspect, she will leave the squirrels alone


Smart dog. Squirrels are like humans on welfare.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 4:46PM #22
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Oct 22, 2010 -- 4:44PM, Marcion wrote:


Appy wrote


I do love squirrels in my yard. Unfortunately, my dog hates them and will kill them.  I have worked and will always work with breaking her of that.  She does leave birds at the feeder alone now so one day, I suspect, she will leave the squirrels alone


Smart dog. Squirrels are like humans on welfare.





Marcion!!! ROTFL.  Well, I lean liberal, so they are welcome in my yard, or, ahem, welfare "estate."

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 6:10PM #23
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Oct 22, 2010 -- 4:46PM, appy20 wrote:


Oct 22, 2010 -- 4:44PM, Marcion wrote:


Appy wrote


I do love squirrels in my yard. Unfortunately, my dog hates them and will kill them.  I have worked and will always work with breaking her of that.  She does leave birds at the feeder alone now so one day, I suspect, she will leave the squirrels alone


Smart dog. Squirrels are like humans on welfare.





Marcion!!! ROTFL.  Well, I lean liberal, so they are welcome in my yard, or, ahem, welfare "estate."




Our older Cairn, Bambi, hated squirrels and cats. She kept our yard squirrel free. Our younger Cairn,Lexi, loved all animals so the squirrels returned.


We feed the squirrels in the winter and that prompted my comparing them to people on welfare. Once you feed them, they expect it, and if the nuts aren't there they will knock on the window.  If you still don't reply they will shred your window screen. They are just rats with bushy tails.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 9:25PM #24
jane2
Posts: 14,288

When I was a teen my father built a bird-feeder for small birds--using an inverted salad bowl painted red as the top. Squirrels would leap from trees onto the top and pilfer seed from the feeder. My dad greased the top and the squirrels went flying with no harm to them and no bird seed either.


 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 22, 2010 - 11:46PM #25
Ceren
Posts: 1,430

Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The "moral code" of the animal world is, "Me and mine, *&%$# the rest of y'all!"



First of all that's not true, but it's beyond the point. Many animal species have been studying (including dogs) where the concept of self-sacrifice gets elicited when forming bonds, either with the pack or with humans.


The truth of the matter is that we don't know if they have a moral code or not and how it works (but again that's besides the point)


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Furthermore, the notion that animals are some sort of great environmentalists is really bunk. A herd of elks exists only to reproduce and eat. It will do so without thinking or regard. And left to its own, it will do so with disasterous effects to the environment around it. Likewise, a pack of wolves will hunt, kill and eat until all available game is gone in an area, and then simply move on.


It is only nature's brutality that keeps such things in check -- through disease, predation, winter kill, and so on.



I personally (and in this solfeggio and I differ I think) don't have a problem killing animals or even eating animals. I would not have a problem having chickens in my backyard and killing one from time to time to eat.


I DO have a problem of torturing animals while we raise them just to eat them, when in reality we don't need to eat meat, and for SURE we don't need to have the huge production of meat we have.


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


And finally, I'll again note that any notions of animals being our "equals" always seems to come wrapped in some sort of misanthropy or a very dim view of humanity. The statement "we are nature's mistake" clearly illustrates this mentality. 



I agree with you but not being equals does not mean that we have the right to torture them.




Oct 22, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Have you ever asked yourself why plants have analgesic and other effects?  Surely it's not for our benefit ... that would be anthropocentric, right?  If plants can feel pain too, then under your logic we really should just go ahead and starve to death, considering that pretty much gets rid of all available food sources.  How can "eating plants is okay because they don't really feel anything/aren't sentient" any different from "eating animals is okay because they don't really feel anything/aren't sentient"?



EVEN IF plants could feel pain, the analgesics they produce that we use would not work for them. The analgesics that some plants produce are good for us because we have certain neuronal pathways with certain cell receptors that get blocked, or less inflammatory cytokines get produced with that analgesic. That does not happen with plants. They don't produce those cytokines, they have different cell receptors.


We are supposed to act on knowledge, not on ignorance. So far, the knowledge indicates that plants do not feel pain or have any nervous system that would be able to interpret stimuli as "pain".

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2010 - 12:20AM #26
jane2
Posts: 14,288

Oct 22, 2010 -- 11:46PM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The "moral code" of the animal world is, "Me and mine, *&%$# the rest of y'all!"



First of all that's not true, but it's beyond the point. Many animal species have been studying (including dogs) where the concept of self-sacrifice gets elicited when forming bonds, either with the pack or with humans.


The truth of the matter is that we don't know if they have a moral code or not and how it works (but again that's besides the point)


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Furthermore, the notion that animals are some sort of great environmentalists is really bunk. A herd of elks exists only to reproduce and eat. It will do so without thinking or regard. And left to its own, it will do so with disasterous effects to the environment around it. Likewise, a pack of wolves will hunt, kill and eat until all available game is gone in an area, and then simply move on.


It is only nature's brutality that keeps such things in check -- through disease, predation, winter kill, and so on.



I personally (and in this solfeggio and I differ I think) don't have a problem killing animals or even eating animals. I would not have a problem having chickens in my backyard and killing one from time to time to eat.


I DO have a problem of torturing animals while we raise them just to eat them, when in reality we don't need to eat meat, and for SURE we don't need to have the huge production of meat we have.


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


And finally, I'll again note that any notions of animals being our "equals" always seems to come wrapped in some sort of misanthropy or a very dim view of humanity. The statement "we are nature's mistake" clearly illustrates this mentality. 



I agree with you but not being equals does not mean that we have the right to torture them.




Oct 22, 2010 -- 12:51PM, Iwantamotto wrote:


Have you ever asked yourself why plants have analgesic and other effects?  Surely it's not for our benefit ... that would be anthropocentric, right?  If plants can feel pain too, then under your logic we really should just go ahead and starve to death, considering that pretty much gets rid of all available food sources.  How can "eating plants is okay because they don't really feel anything/aren't sentient" any different from "eating animals is okay because they don't really feel anything/aren't sentient"?



EVEN IF plants could feel pain, the analgesics they produce that we use would not work for them. The analgesics that some plants produce are good for us because we have certain neuronal pathways with certain cell receptors that get blocked, or less inflammatory cytokines get produced with that analgesic. That does not happen with plants. They don't produce those cytokines, they have different cell receptors.


We are supposed to act on knowledge, not on ignorance. So far, the knowledge indicates that plants do not feel pain or have any nervous system that would be able to interpret stimuli as "pain".




I can't find much to disagree with in mtm's post presented here.


We've done the dog thingy  here and many of us love our dogs. They love us back, however that is described. Maybe they do think we are part of their pack--why not?


Most of us will do our best to avoid factory-farmed animals : this will be a long educational project, one that will be fought tooth and nail by agri-business.


I have little problem with those who hunt for food. Many are well-trained in tryng to cause the least pain to animals. My husband's family were hunters--hired a pontoon plane to fly them into a private camp in Maine; my husband found hunting was not for him. We didn't like game meat, even venison.


Actually I feel badly for the deer who find their way to my suburbs : they are a danger to motorists and there are few plans to help these deer. I used to chuckle at the bold bunnies who showed up at our former home. Our dog, a Norwegian Elkhound kept them in order as well as the squirrels and he never harmed one. His favorite game was chasing the squirrels up trees. His other fave game was getting out of our fenced back yard to visit his dog friends : we always got a call and usually he would be in our drive-way grinning. (He had plenty of running room in that yard, but he could be a trickster.)


Can't wait to get the movie SECRETARIAT on dvd. I still remember watching him win the Belmont on tv. I grew up 30 miles from the Saratoga flat track and the August meeting there. Some don't think thoroughbreds should race, but it is in their blood and genes.


Just some musings..................


Jane




discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2010 - 1:55AM #27
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Oct 21, 2010 -- 6:27PM, Guessses wrote:


I worked with Navy Divers. Their motto was "If you think we are the top of the food chain, dive a couple hundred feet"





Actually, humans' most effective predators are microbes. Bacteria and viruses.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2010 - 1:59AM #28
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,767

Oct 22, 2010 -- 11:46PM, Ceren wrote:


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The "moral code" of the animal world is, "Me and mine, *&%$# the rest of y'all!"



First of all that's not true, but it's beyond the point. Many animal species have been studying (including dogs) where the concept of self-sacrifice gets elicited when forming bonds, either with the pack or with humans.


The truth of the matter is that we don't know if they have a moral code or not and how it works (but again that's besides the point)


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Furthermore, the notion that animals are some sort of great environmentalists is really bunk. A herd of elks exists only to reproduce and eat. It will do so without thinking or regard. And left to its own, it will do so with disasterous effects to the environment around it. Likewise, a pack of wolves will hunt, kill and eat until all available game is gone in an area, and then simply move on.


It is only nature's brutality that keeps such things in check -- through disease, predation, winter kill, and so on.



I personally (and in this solfeggio and I differ I think) don't have a problem killing animals or even eating animals. I would not have a problem having chickens in my backyard and killing one from time to time to eat.


I DO have a problem of torturing animals while we raise them just to eat them, when in reality we don't need to eat meat, and for SURE we don't need to have the huge production of meat we have.




I personally (and in this solfeggio and I differ I think) don't have a problem killing animals or even eating animals. I would not have a problem having chickens in my backyard and killing one from time to time to eat.


I DO have a problem of torturing animals while we raise them just to eat them, when in reality we don't need to eat meat, and for SURE we don't need to have the huge production of meat we have.




I personally (and in this solfeggio and I differ I think) don't have a problem killing animals or even eating animals. I would not have a problem having chickens in my backyard and killing one from time to time to eat.


I DO have a problem of torturing animals while we raise them just to eat them, when in reality we don't need to eat meat, and for SURE we don't need to have the huge production of meat we have.


Oct 22, 2010 -- 1:10PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I've never advocated the torture of animals. Or even the mistreatment of them.


While I see no fact, logic or truth in the philosphy of animal rights, I consider myself a strong advocate of animal welfare. Meaning, I advocate the best possible care and treatment for the animals we keep in domestication, and the utmost respect for wild creatures.


Animals are innocent. They are not culpable for their actions. We are.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2010 - 9:33AM #29
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Oct 22, 2010 -- 9:25PM, jane2 wrote:


When I was a teen my father built a bird-feeder for small birds--using an inverted salad bowl painted red as the top. Squirrels would leap from trees onto the top and pilfer seed from the feeder. My dad greased the top and the squirrels went flying with no harm to them and no bird seed either.


 




We get running reports on our friends battle with the squirrels over the bird feeder. Whatever they come up with, including electrifying the pole, the squirrels will come up with a countermeasure. It's just amazing how clever and resourceful they are.


I would love to see a contest between squirrels and Ravens.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 23, 2010 - 10:02AM #30
appy20
Posts: 10,165

Jane,


The problem with racing is that they race them too young.  Two year olds should not be trained and raced in the manner they are.  Their legs are not fully developed and almost all race horses end up with permanent disabilities.  My vet has a cow if anyone of his clients jumps or runs a horse under saddle under the age of 4.  Many equine vets don't like a horse ridden until they are 4.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 12  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook