"Non- Human Animal Violence"

Teh_DarkJokerWolf · Post by **Teh_DarkJokerWolf** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:36 pm

Oh I couldn't watch it all...I couldn't help but cry over seeing this..The lot of humans make me sick.. Sadly no one person even a community can really stop this chaos..

How the hell can you throw a live dog into a trash truck?! WTF?!

Anónimo Juan · Post by **Anónimo Juan** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:22 am

All the people I have showed it to say the same, that they feel like crying when they see it; and after the first 30 mins it gets worse, since then, I eat less meat, and don't buy chicken from the fast food stores, as they explain it can also affect your health.

I think this a problem that is not really seen as cautiously as it should be, to pay more attention how the stores produces their product, and the most important, to just leave those poor animals live in peace, those people are sick for torturing them before killing them, they wouldn't like that to happen to them and the excuse of saying animals have no feelings and so, the don't feel pain it's pathetic.

cumulusprotagonist · Post by **cumulusprotagonist** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:30 am

The poor dolphins

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 2:15 am

I watched some of it and let me tell you that is some of the most horrific things I have ever seen next to the holocaust. I say we should have an eye for an eye, they like slicing throats while dangling upside down, then they should die that way too.

lone-wolf · Post by **lone-wolf** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:52 am

Urgh, how can some people be so cruel, I struggled to watch more than half hour of that, it makes me so sad and angry, its just not right

Morkulv · Post by **Morkulv** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 5:38 am

cumulusprotagonist · Post by **cumulusprotagonist** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:02 pm

cumulusprotagonist wrote:The poor dolphins

The poor everything

John Wolf · Post by **John Wolf** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:17 pm

I watched all of that, the things that hit me hard enough, were the dolphins slaughter, the fur farms and the living canine recycle dumpster.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:22 pm

...can anyone say propaganda film?

Just because we're on a run, here's a rant from Penn & Teller about the Animal Rights Movement...

Don't watch it unless your old enough - P&T have potty mouths.

IndianaJones · Post by **IndianaJones** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:39 am

*puts hat on*

Earthlink is not therefore related to any PETA groups or any animal rights activists. The documentary runs fine on it's own. I have seen most of the video. I don't really respect the conditions of the human race. God, it's sick yes? It's sad and negative that humans themselves don't feel the pain of animals and their human selves, the only problem is that WE HUMANS ARE f*** RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!!!!! Those PETA protesters need to get a life and stop the violence, instead protesting! Mind-control s***, just don't stand there and watch the Horror. We can stop it, don't donate to Peta, save animals without donating stupid money to the evil world government or organization groups. Can humans can be so irresponsible or responsible at the same time! We are the cause of this negative mess. PETA should f*** off. Those emotionless laughing human who enjoys slaughtering animals shall feel the suffering of the animal that they are torturing! But, not all humans are like that........some are connected to the animal spirit or nature.

*puts hat off*

MoonKit · Post by **MoonKit** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:27 pm

Im pretty sure somebody posted this a while back.

RedEye · Post by **RedEye** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:37 pm

Something everybody should keep in mind: the U.S. Government cites as the most dangerous terrorists- the "Animal Rights Extremists"-not the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.
I really don't think that its an attempt to discredit groups like the ASPCA or other people who legitemately work for the betterment of all animals, since the same Government allows them a Tax-Exemption as a Charity or Charitable group.
These activists plant bombs and assassinate people, proven. They are not the friends of animals the claim to be, since they validate all the counter-claims saying that even the ASPCA is a "fringe" group and isn't to be trusted.
It's a sad fact that YES, we kill animals for Food and Supplies. Most of these animals have been bred to be just that: Food and Leather and other biological items. They are put down in the most humane way we know of, for the most part. That bit is the product of people like the ASPCA and similar groups, not the extremists.

The tape(?) shows aberrant behaviour; not the norm. Yes, it's Propaganda, but it's also a wake up call: We need to take care that we don't support or enable people who do this.
Humane treatment of the creatures we are responsible for is everyone's responsibility, not just the people who actually raise them-or the people who have custody of them.
Animal Cruelty is a crime, and prosecutable. If you see it; report it and try to stop it until the police or animal control officers arrive. Let the System deal with the offenders; that strengthens the actual people who protect and care for abused and neglected animals.
Responsibility = the ability to respond. Be responsible!

Anónimo Juan · Post by **Anónimo Juan** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:24 pm

MoonKit wrote:Im pretty sure somebody posted this a while back.

Ehm, sorry if it has been posted already, I am kind of new to this and forgot to check that.

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:07 pm

I am against any forum of cruelty toward animals, I also disagree with breading animals for the sole purpose of fur, it is not needed, using everything from animals that are eaten is not being wasteful. Against cosmetics being tested on animals.

Just because we're on a run, here's a rant from Penn & Teller about the Animal Rights Movement...

Don't watch it unless your old enough - P&T have potty mouths.

Both sides go too far while maintaining a few good points.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:46 pm

Xiroteus wrote:I am against any forum of cruelty toward animals, I also disagree with breading animals for the sole purpose of fur, it is not needed, using everything from animals that are eaten is not being wasteful. Against cosmetics being tested on animals.

Just because we're on a run, here's a rant from Penn & Teller about the Animal Rights Movement...

Don't watch it unless your old enough - P&T have potty mouths.
Both sides go too far while maintaining a few good points.

Well, if you're aware of that fact you should be able to understand the medium ground that is more reasonable - which is P&T's point and why they have a show called 'Bullshit'. They aren't hiding the fact they are being over the top... I mean, look again at the title of the show! They don't want you to agree with them110%, they're making a point as to how ridiculous a short stint on TV is - and a statement at the radicalism of PETA.

And, for awhile I thought about the fur argument, but - honestly - I like how Mad Bomber's fur hats puts it:

"Fur vs. Synthetic
Mad Bomber believes in a balanced use of our natural resources. Fur (or leather or wool) is a natural non-polluting, biodegradable and renewable resource. Mother Nature gave us fur. Man gave us synthetics which pollute the sky, water and earth. Excessive dependency on synthetics will continue to damage the earth and life on it. We have a responsibility to limit that damage. Cotton, wool, fur, leather, silk. The person who brings you these renewable products knows the land. They will not destroy their environment or they destroy their means of supporting their family. They must make wise use of the land and not pollute or abuse it. They raise animals for food; the skins are used for clothing, such as hats; and the by-products are used as fertilizer. Nothing is wasted.

We hear the anti-fur people and appreciate their concern for animals. They counter-balance people in the fur and other industries who would go too far; but, we are against extremists dictating which natural resources we can responsibly use. These people would remove us from our natural and critical connection to the earth.

We rely on the earth for our food, clothing and shelter. By living here, all of us displace animals that would live where we live, eat what we eat. We rely on and take from the earth. It is our responsibility to give back as well. We should all make careful selection of the materials we use daily. Fur, synthetics, leather and natural fibers are all important if used in a balanced way. We should not exclude one or another or we create an imbalance. Good management, conservation, recycling and common sense are all part of the answers to the environmental problems we face today."

- MadBomber.com

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Well, if you're aware of that fact you should be able to understand the medium ground that is more reasonable - which is P&T's point.

I will always be harsh on cruelty, (which most people are) however, unless I do not eat meat I cannot say anything against those who hunt for food . No one wants to look like a hypocrite.

Penn and Teller went too far with the monkey comment if he was being serious.

I like animals, even so, I try to maintain medium ground with these issues, if the only way to get meat was to hunt myself, I would not eat any.

And, for awhile I thought about the fur argument, but - honestly - I like how Mad Bomber's fur hats puts it.

I will always disagree with animals for the sole purpose of fur, utilizing an entire animal that is for food sounds far less wasteful.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:11 pm

Xiroteus wrote:
Well, if you're aware of that fact you should be able to understand the medium ground that is more reasonable - which is P&T's point.
I will always be harsh on cruelty, (which most people are) however, unless I do not eat meat I cannot say anything against those who hunt for food . No one wants to look like a hypocrite.

Penn and Teller went too far with the monkey comment if he was being serious.

I like animals, even so, I try to maintain medium ground with these issues, if the only way to get meat was to hunt myself, I would not eat any.

And, for awhile I thought about the fur argument, but - honestly - I like how Mad Bomber's fur hats puts it.
I will always disagree with animals for the sole purpose of fur, utilizing an entire animal that is for food sounds far less wasteful.

The rest of them is used for fertilizer and in some cases (usually in other countries) they are utilized for food (often canine species and felines).

The fertilizer industry is a highly valued one especially for ground carcasses. It is highly regulated in areas. It also goes to farms for timber and farm fertilizers - just like cake from waste water treatment plants.

I am under the suspicion P&T made that comment in regards of the equally radical opposition to PETA's commentaries like that of Michael Fox - in which he made a notation that a single ant's life should have the same standing as that of a newborn child, in particular his newborn child:

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." - Michael Fox, Vice President, Humane Society of the United State

But I do believe that P&T value the lives of humans more than your cat, dog, monkey or cow, etc...

However, in your personal life: To each their own.

Remember, denying the industry leads us into a further black hole, farther removed from what we are and the ooze that spawned us. If you can't understand the cycle of life and death, you cannot understand the bittersweet cull of Mother Nature - in her greatest horrors and most beautiful scenarios. We, simply because of the human condition, are not removed from our involvement in nature - we, as humankind - are bound to it.

EDIT: Please note, I do not condone torturing other living things. I do not believe the industry in the US is cruel as depicted. Simply having worked in a slaughter house I am particularly familiar with the VERY straightforward legal measures taken (we have a Humane Inspector from the USDA coming this week to monitor and inspect - and every slaughter day we have an on staff Inspector who has the power to shut down a plant - there are laws that protect animals and they ARE in the system working to keep the industry from going too far - as Mad Bomber put so nicely).

Commercial fur farms you must under stand do not tend to 'waste' because the carcass is often in more mass than fur - there are huge investments here, people do not A.) Want damaged fur (so they do not want sick, injured, or poorly coated animals), B.) They have to make a profit which means waste is something they try NOT to do.

To think that capitalistic nature implies these companies are cruel is, above all, a shortsighted assumption. It's a very-very complex market. However, anyone who IS guilty of such acts should be dealt with as the law sees fit.

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:26 pm

The rest of them is used for fertilizer and in some cases (usually in other countries) they are utilized for food (often canine species and felines).

Even so, not something I can place my support in.
At least there is no waste.

I am under the suspicion P&T made that comment in regards of the equally radical opposition to PETA's commentaries like that of Michael Fox - in which he made a notation that a single ant's life should have the same standing as that of a newborn child (in particular his newborn child. But I do believe that P&T value the lives of humans more than your cat, dog, monkey or cow, etc...

That is rather extreme, I am not able to say that an ants life has the same standing as a new born baby.
I place animal life above humans with no worth, the most extreme evil this world has.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:35 pm

Xiroteus wrote:
The rest of them is used for fertilizer and in some cases (usually in other countries) they are utilized for food (often canine species and felines).
Even so, not something I can place my support in.
At least there is no waste.

I am under the suspicion P&T made that comment in regards of the equally radical opposition to PETA's commentaries like that of Michael Fox - in which he made a notation that a single ant's life should have the same standing as that of a newborn child (in particular his newborn child. But I do believe that P&T value the lives of humans more than your cat, dog, monkey or cow, etc...
That is rather extreme, I am not able to say that an ants life has the same standing as a new born baby.
I place animal life above humans with no worth, the most extreme evil this world has.

Again, to each their own, no problems with your personal decisions.

However, in your last statement I am curious - what defines worth and who would you be to pass such judgment on another human being? What if you just don't like that person?

Now, I am simply saying this on the terms that, during one movie I saw a scene where a young man is going to kill either a woman or a kitten.

When he blows away the old lady the crowd went WILD (and I left the theater) ... What is the worth of that old lady, a drain on Social Security, a non-laborer, someone who's medical bills will probably exceed her savings account?

What is her worth if her mind is gone?

What if she has no family either?

Where is her worth to us in society? Probably nothing... so, Could you make the decision to blow her away, verses the kitten?

And what is the kitten's worth?

Even when applied to just the extreme cases - like pedophiles, molesters, rapists, and serial killers - when can you limit the judgment beyond, where do you draw the line on the worst human?

Especially when each of these types of offenders are often suffering from severe mental illness that can never be resolved or rehabilitated (pedophiles, molesters, repeat rapists, and serial killers most noted).

People really more dynamic than just 'evil' and I am very weary of just passing labels, because then we have to make rules about worth and rights defining something completely and utterly intangible and illogical - in either case of worth for animal or human.

In the end, we still are animals and yet I feel if we concentrate on ourselves and our futures, and admittedly place more worth on each other as any other species does in some way for its own, we place ourselves at the threshold of understanding our position, right along our furry neighbors. From that vantage point we can carefully step forwards for a better world without abandoning either the natural world or the human condition.

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:54 pm

Again, to each their own, no problems with your personal decisions.

Smile

Of course, I see this as a harmless conversation of different ideas and options.

However, in your last statement I am curious - what defines worth and who would you be to pass such judgment on another human being? What if you just don't like that person?

I can pass judgment on the actions of others with ease, as it is only my opinion, Just not liking someone is not enough, even if I had the power to judge someone I did not like, one cannot cause harm or remove their freedom just because they dislike them for whatever reason.

Now, I am simply saying this on the terms that, during one movie I saw a scene where a young man is going to kill either a woman or a kitten.

When he blows away the old lady the crowd went WILD ... What is the worth of that old lady, a drain on Social Security, a non-laborer, someone who's medical bills will probably exceed her savings account. What is her worth? Even if her mind is gone, then what, is she not worth something?

They are both innocent, those who are innocent of harmful acts on another.

Those with no worth are those who have killed or caused extreme pain to innocent people, worse is when they have no remorse for the actions they took upon the people they hurt. I will place all life above such people without a second thought.

What is her worth if her mind is gone?

What if she has no family either?

Where is her worth to us in society? Probably nothing... so, Could you make the decision to blow her away, verses the kitten?

Does not matter, guessing she is still an innocent person that does not need a great purpose to live.

Even when applied to just the extreme cases - like pedophiles, molesters, rapists, and serial killers - when can you limit the judgment beyond, where do you draw the line on the worst human?

I have no trouble drawing the line on who ranks among the worst type of humans.

Especially when each of these types of offenders are often suffering from severe mental illness that can never be resolved or rehabilitated (pedophiles, molesters, repeat rapists, and serial killers most noted).

Many do have mental illness and they are put away because they are dangerous. I also believe there are those who are just bad.

People really more dynamic than just 'evil' and I am very weary of just passing labels, because then we have to make rules about worth and rights defining something completely and utterly intangible and illogical - in either case of worth for animal or human.

Too a point, I do believe some people are dark, they have no desire other then to cause pain to others in whatever way they can.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:05 pm

Well, it's been a good run. I know I haven't changed your mind, and you haven't changed mine, but I am glad at least someone can have a nice solid opinion, and realize both it's faults and strengths.

Good talk on the subject!

(And, I am really glad you don't believe babies are worth the lives of ants!)

Xiroteus · Post by **Xiroteus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:12 pm

We both have strong opinions with what we believe in, I see this as a posting of ideas and opinions, not really trying to change anyones mind on how they believe.

The baby ant issue was too far out there, I do not harm ants, babies do rank much higher.

MoonKit · Post by **MoonKit** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:08 pm

Anónimo Juan · Post by **Anónimo Juan** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:31 pm

I think it just depends on the person, most people know when they are going the wrong way, you can do bad things knowing this, and it's your decision to stop it or not, that's what makes the difference

Oh, and the baby equals ant example was way too extreme, and considering it's just the opinion of one person who sounds like a crazy fanatic, those who have propensity to violence before anything, it kind of lacks as a really valuable example; I don't even like ants, they raid everything including my room, and it's really annoying when to do it; that doesn't sounds such a huge deal to deserve death? I don't know, I just block their way, reading this full paragraph looks like it had no sense at all, and that's what I am trying to say.

I consider comparing who has more right to live is not correct in this cases, it's hard to explain, but I'll try to write it in an understandable form. As an ant can randomly die being step by someone walking or a baby can die being hit by someone, both are totally different, and not because one includes more pain, instead because they are two separate living beings living two different lives. It's unfair to compare for both.

edit: good point, MoonKit. I really wanted to see opinions about the video, I find it very controversial and gives good chunks of info.