View Single Post
Old November 16, 2012, 10:42 PM   #20
Junior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2012
Posts: 7
Higher mammals like coyotes, wolves and bears don't think like humans and can't use a keyboard, so we should kill them by any means? Anthopomophic? Animals that prey on the cows and sheep should be killed no matter what the method or suffering imposed? Coyotes are hard to hit so just shoot away -- hey, you can't eat them anyway. These are common beliefs, passed down by the varmint industry and unscientific and untruthful ranchers -- the same ranchers who won't let the public on their land to shoot all the varmints eating up their cattle. We all have dogs, so I noticed no one tried to say coyotes don't have fun or don't enjoy life. I think we were all born with a conscience that told us that inflicting unnecessary suffering was bad. What is wrong with allowing that conscience to take root again, even though all the unscientific, biased, knee-jerk reactionarys try to convince us that having a conscience is for fairyland. Am I anti-human? No. I've heard that term from unscientific, creationist zealots who point to their god after killing an animal. I'm not anti anything but meaness and stupidity. When humans say and do things I'm ashamed of, I'm entitled to call them what they are. Who do the animals have advocating for them? Why is it so bad that some humans will acknowledge the reckless stewardship that defines the European relationshp with nature and animals. When humans wise up and take responsibility, I'll stop advocating for ethical shots. I'm not anti-hunting. In fact, I believe hunting results in "ethical meat", which is the opposite of "unethical meat". Ethical meat comes from animals killed quickly and humanely after having an opportunity to have a decent quality of life. An elk shot through the lungs, which dies within minutes, creates ethical meat. A pig forced to live in a metal cage in which it can not turn, artificially inseminated, fed hormones and antibiotics and having its teeth and hooves cut to prevent it from hurting itself when it is driven insane, is an example of an unethical meat source. A pig raised in a barnyard where it sees the sun, socializes with its own kind, and has a decent quality of life before being butchered is a source of ethical meat. We allowed a class of Harvard 1970s-80s consultants (I can point to the actual names of the consulting companies) convince us that "sum zero" (profit above all else) ethics were good for us. This created State Farm, Enron, and Exxon-type companies. Those in the goods market, like Walmart, not only sold Chinese goods, but affirmatively went to China to make everything they could get made there, abusing the people already working for slave wages in the process. But the sum zero mentality flowed over into mechanized meat production, fogetting that we were dealing with living, feeling fellow creatures with no natural defense against greed. If we paid an extra nickel or two a pound so that creatures did not have to suffer, would we be so financially devastated. Would it be so bad if we ate 20 lbs less of unethical pork every year. I advocate for any higher mammal made to suffer by human meaness and greed.
sissyhunter is offline  
Page generated in 0.03430 seconds with 7 queries