wtf!!youthman said:This level of cruelty to dogs, led by gov't officials, is totally unacceptable in these times.
Last week, a county in southwestern Yunnan province killed 50,000 dogs, many of them beaten to death in front of their owners, after three people died of rabies.
SilviaGTO said:I heard about this from clients at work, and it remained hard for me to keep professional about my opinion on this.
Im sorry, someone tries to beat my dog to death in front me, theyre going to find they have a little bit of a problem. I dont care if it means my own death.
(goes back to lurking)
Mojobaggins said:3 Deaths by Rabies means 50,000 dogs need to be bludgeon'd to death? Digusting and sad.
lillytwig said:and then what? does your dog take care of its self? your sacrificing your own life for your dog's sounds noble, but really doesn't make sense, does it?? maybe i just can't connect.....
BeatrixKiddo said:Hm, Animal cruelty of course is wrong, but when they are a threat to humans isn't this justified? As for humane ways, I think we should do whatever's convenient, as long as we aren't purposely inflicting more pain then is nessesary.
Which more humane ways were you refering to? Brining the dog into a certified shelter and having a professional doctor inject it with poison? That sounds more dangerous then just letting the dog go free.
Kay, just my thoughts!
SilviaGTO said:well beating a dog to death, I would consider purposely inflicting more pain than what is necessary.
So yeah if you cant round up ten thousand dogs to euthanize properly (they probably dont have the resources for if they cant even vaccinate properly), I would think a gun shot to the head would be a little quicker than beating.
But on second thought shooting the dog would cause blood to be spilt which wouldnt be wise if youre trying to contain rabies.. but then you cant tell me none of the dogs that were beaten to death didnt bleed either.
BeatrixKiddo said:True! Maybe the point was to contain blood by causing internal bleeding?
SilviaGTO said:I figured my dog would extract revenge for my lost life by making an incredible journey to find the people responsible for the call to beat the dogs, thus along the way making incredible lifelong friends that consist of a food hungry black labrador with a voice similar to Michael J. Fox's and a sassy, dog hating, but lovable himalayan cat.
exlawgrrl said:Yeah, especially when there are more effective and more humane ways to deal with the situation.
lillytwig said:how about gassing them? that could work...i think trying to use terms like execution and humane in the same sentence is hard to do. i agree with beatrice. humans are superior and should be treated as such. in other words, if it came down to your life or your dog's, which is more important, keeping in mind that animals are very dependent on humans. smiles are appropriate for smiley people!! lighten up a little bit!
how about gassing them? that could work...i think trying to use terms like execution and humane in the same sentence is hard to do. i agree with beatrice. humans are superior and should be treated as such. in other words, if it came down to your life or your dog's, which is more important, keeping in mind that animals are very dependent on humans. smiles are appropriate for smiley people!! lighten up a little bit!
Honestly I also had troubles understanding this at first. How can you feel good about eating a royal dog? But then I read somewhere about a native tribe in New Guinea eating each other's body (e.g. mother's intestines...) after they die, it all starts to make sense now. To the ethnic people, cannibalism is a way to survive when food is rare, and it's not rare in the animal world either. It is disgusting, but it keeps the people alive.
...all depends on your perspectives. You said you also feel that human lives are more important than animal lives. So, some questions for you: was mass slaughtering of cows after only 1 case of mad cow disease in the US also necessary? Or do you only care about dogs and only attack "communist" governments?
As of the Chinese communists labeling dogs as "luxuries", were they wrong? We all know what Shih Tzu's and Pekinese can do. They don't serve humans any purpose other than pleasures as pets. As you said, only the royalties and the rich kept those animals, and the money they needed to keep them clearly came from various taxes or interests from poor laymen, many of whom were starving to death during the war. Was it necessary to kill all of them? Probably not in retrospect. But at the time, yes, to make the people happy. In 1949 the Chinese people embraced the Communists, and the decision to kill the dogs was not made by just 1 or 2 crazy dogmatists. This may be too long to explain, just know that I'm not a Communist, nor do I believe in Communism, but I know my people.
I think we are taking this way too off topic, so I will keep this short. Whether it were mad cow or rabies in the US, there are strict rules on how animals can be slaughtered, and a gang beating in the middle of the street would not meet those rules.
The English language also uses different forms of the word "dog" in a derogatory sense. Same with poultry and swine. I don't think it's a good enough excuse to slaughter dogs that way.
HorseyVet, communism in theory and communism in reality are 2 completely different things. I'm sorry but in reality communism is a system of oppression. The rich get rich while the poor starve to death. If they wanted to make their people happy they wouldn't be driving around in their Mercedes and investing millions of dollars of their personal funds in capitalist countries. I'll say it again. This is related to communism because the gov't can do what it wants without fear of the people.
Humans are superior and should be treated as such by whom? I don't see the correlation.
Animals are very dependant on humans? Well, yeah, only if we breed them to be . . .
The fact that you're saying "lighten up a little" in this thread is pretty arrogant. Is that what you mean by being treated as superior? If we can all show disconnection with this occurence, it is a sign of our superiority, right? Yeah, I think I got it now.
i find that not having such a naieve outlook about people caring for me helps me justify my not caring so much about them. don't get lost there. for example, the person who builds your home probably won't give a **** about you. they may seem to during the whole process, but at the end of the day, they don't. the people who you treat probably won't care if you are happy or not. they just want thier teeth fixed, and nothing more. go ahead and send christmas cards and do all that fun stuff, but its a dog eat dog world, lady, and i hope you survive! i really mean that. unfortunately, genuinely caring about others is a thing of the past....
Lookie what I found:
I guess you think it's a waste to care about animals OR people. So why even come in here but to troll? Get in there make your money and get out huh? Hey, I love to make money too. I know what it's like to be motivated by the almight dollar. But that never stopped me from caring about people or animals. You have issues dude, chick, bitch, or whatever the hell you are. Seems even the "non animal" people agree. BUH BYE.
honestly, nobody cares.
you're right, im not a little doggy being beaten to death in a third world, communist country, so why would anyone care?? nothing is more important than that!
Now, i am very curious: how do you people feel about animal testing, lab rats, and all of that??
Animals are not ours to eat, not ours for entertainment, and not ours to test on.
Animals are not ours to eat, not ours for entertainment, and not ours to test on.
I have to stand with PETA on this issue. it's downright cruelty to animals.
Er... Then what about that video you posted a link to in another thread? Almost all of those shots involved cats falling long distances and/or crashing into things. So they got hurt *and* you're entertained by it. Shame on you!
(If there's one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrites...)
PETA's Mission Statement
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the skins trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests," and the abuse and neglect of backyard dogs.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and direct action.
PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to usefor food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason.
The "or any other reason" is what I am talking about. PETA is an extreme animal rights organization. Their ultimate goal is to have animals live seperately from humans like if they were in the wild.)
Oh, and there was the thing last year where a couple of PETA head honchos were arrested for animal cruelty because they were picking up dogs from shelters and supposedly bringing them to rural places to find "good homes" - of course rural shelters are overcrowded too, but to make the program look successful they actually just killed the dogs and basically threw the bodies in a dumpster. They're interested in political influence, not animal welfare.FYI...If you're familiar with the IAMS scandal....the person who was in charge of over-seeing animal welfare at that off-site, contract facility (= not really directly under Iams to begin with) was an "under-cover" PETA member who instead of reporting problems, facilatated them to make a good scandal. The reason why Iams didn't know that there were problems in this contract-lab was b/c the PETA overative did not tell them. Way to go nut-jobs.