Lowest of the low!!

That was random, how do you go from dead puppies to Scout master Kevin?

Not just scouts btw....and since the dawn of time...or you only kind of just realizing this?

 

This thread was created for each of us to post stories on what we consider the lowest of the low, and the boy scouts of America is a great example.

 

Actually, no... Scratcho was just talking about the puppies.

 

I can't watch the vid, so I am 1) not sure why I would want you to be wrong, and 2) if you were countering or criticizing what I said i am not sure how.
Actually, i am not sure at all what your point exactly is in this reply to my post. Maybe you can clarify?

 

Motive and details matter. Putting things in perspective can provide a different insight as well

You say: I don't see much difference cruelty wise in the practice between the action described in the OP and factory farming or eating veal. There is an obvious and blatant difference though.

And by stating there are gradations in cruelty in factory farming and how veal ends up on ones plate I am not denying or condoning animal cruelty in factory farming. I am simply pointing out its a generalized statement that distorts the truth: no, far from every calf (or lamb) that ends up on a plate before adulthood is subject to a kind of cruelty that equates with throwing 3 day old puppies alive in a dumpster. Wtf...

And here's another fact about cruelty and many calfs and lambs that shapes the perspective thing: life contains cruelty on itself. Nature is at least as cruel as the worst farmer. Most farmers are not cruel.
The life of a young wild sheep or cow is more prone to being subject to cruelty than the average lamb or calf on a farm. Like being eaten alive or not being put out of their misery (or cured) when sick or wounded, thus dying a very slow and miserable death.

In fact, when done right (and its done right quite regularly) such a farm lamb or calfs life is rather idyllic... but short. But their death is fast too. And can be done quite pain and stressless. So yeah, there are gradations and it is important to point out when an assertion like this is made:

 

While I don't disagree with most of your statements, I disagree that my statement "distorts" the truth. I will say that my statement fails to provide nuance, but that is the point. I think many of us fail to see the forest for the trees. Is a fast death less cruel than a slow one? Maybe. Is it still cruel to impregnate a cow or sheep, take its child, fatten the child, and then slaughter it so that you can eat something that might taste good for a few minutes? Absolutely. To be a kind executioner still involves pulling the trigger, and the result is still a body.

There a million reasons why people eat the things that they do, and I can't say that my opinion on this is the be all end all, but I cannot justify it to myself. I hate to be the preachy plant based person, because the discussion is not often a productive one.

 

I would generally use those terms (lack of nuance) too in these examples. Unfortunately though your initial description where you equate eating veal with throwing 3 day old puppies alive in a dumpster with eachother in terms of cruelty simply is a distorted truth.
It simply is not the same in a lot of cases. Not much is more cruel than what happened in what's described in the OP (from a human perspective about what other people do to animals. In wild nature cruel shit like this happens every day).
Now, in certain instances farm calfs and lambs are unfortunately subjected to cruelty during large parts of their (short) lifes and/or on their way to the slaughter process. And this happens more often (but not solely at all) on factory farms. We agree on that.
I'm not saying with certainty you made your initial comment to distort the truth (in fact i think you didn't) but the statement does it on itself either way.

Don't be! Our discussion can (still ) be.

 

The question was simply: what if you were the lamb?

Not terribly hard to understand.....unless you are just avoiding actually answering it

And there you have just given points as to what your opinion is

"There is an obvious and blatant difference though"....... No. not even farm animal makes it to a point where they are "humanely" slaughtered

And the animal is still dead anyway, eating lamb and veal is still eating baby sheep and cows, now matter how much you want to pretend how "humanely" dead they are makes a difference

If in the near future, we got conquered by an alien race, that thought we were all delicious and wanted to have us for dinner, i.e: YOU were the one going to end up on the dinner plate

Would you then except the kind of arguments you posted above? - Oh illustrious Zarcons ( thats the name of the race of our alien conquerors) yes, its much more fairer if you shoot me in the head, cook me and eat me .....rather than releasing me into nature, because nature is cruel....Oh illustrious Zarcons, it would be far less cruel if you shoot me than eat me rather than throwing me in a dumpster

You are just a human making up the rules in your own mind

 

Now, are you just playing devils advocate here? While I agree with you, I also know that you are an omnivore.

 

No, Im serious, dont eat lamb, veal, baby anything.

Bacon, a full grown pig, yummy yummy, hand me the BBQ sauce.....but Lamb, I cant, thats a liitle baby sheep. Cant sit there with a lamb cutlet, think of little cutsiey baby sheepies and not think sooo mean

 

^^^^...Until I Retired I Bred And Sold Thousands Of "Fat Lambs"......Topped The Sales Records Many

Times......Mmmmmmmmm......Lamb.....



Cheers Glen.

 

Big meanie

 

As I said I couldn't see the vid. I thought it maybe added more to what you were asking.

If I was a lamb I would be oblivious to this all.

I was looking at this from a natural perpective. Trying to be objective. Not primarily arguing on my own behalf or defending my practices, mindset or in favor of intensive farming. Or for mass consuming veal or lamb. It seems you perceive it like that?

Yes, there's an obvious and blatant difference between throwing 3 day old puppies alive in a dumpster to let them die there and eating veal or lamb.
I'm sorry you don't see or want to acknowledge that. Pretty weird too.

In the worst instances a life of a calf or lamb or how they die (and in some nasty instances probably even both) can be equated with the example in the OP.

Did I argue anything different or something? Although 'baby' does seem a misleading term if it has roamed the meadows for months.

Killing an animal quickly for a reason after it has a good but short life is just as cruel as throwing a bunch of baby animals away for no good reason and solely in order to let them die slowly?
This is merely what i was pointing out. One can not objectively equate the two and not expect someone to nuance it. YFM also acknowledged it was an unnuanced statement.

Even killing those puppies before throwing them in that dumpster would be less cruel and slightly more humane for Pete's sake. And so there's also many gradations in raising calfs for veal and intensive farming (I'm not in favor of either. I'm simply pointing out the, what i thought was an obvious, difference).
What I might think of this if i was a lamb or calf (likely not much) does not really change this. You somehow seem to act like that renders my point invalid or bogus (hypocritical perhaps?).

That I dragged wild nature into my example was merely to point out cruelty in the average life of a lamb or calf is not limited to or by definition at a peak in a farm existence.

Also, you're mispresenting my example. Releasing it in nature (if it would know how to live and protect itself there) compared to being slaughtered is less cruel indeed. We're obviously not in disagreement about that
It is commonly accepted that killing something fast and as painless as possible is less cruel than killing something by biting it to death or perhaps even get eaten alive, or slowly and very miserably die of a natural disease. This was (obviously) what i was referring to with that. You're free to disagree with it, but no need to distort my argument.

I hope you understand now I was not busy with human made rules. Or trying to validate my own dubious choices.
Aren't we all making rules in our mind in regards to this though? Veggie or omnivore?

 

I would also point out that both throwing a puppy in a dumpster and killing a lamb to eat it are both:. a. cruel, b. completely unnecessary. For most of us, there are an abundance of other things we could eat (I am going to assume that if you have regular access to internet and hipforums, then you are relatively privileged and have access to adequate food supply).

 

But in all objectivity: they're different levels of cruelty. Please keep in mind; these puppies were thrown away alive. Even if they were individually thrown against a wall first it would still be more cruel than killing the average lamb for meat consumption, but (i suspect) by most people considered less cruel than putting them in a sack and throwing it away to slowly die.
And yes, details matter also with the lamb or calf consumption. You already detailed it some more: so if people have the option to other meat it would already be slightly more cruel (from a human perspective, not a natural) than when they have not. But certainly less neccessary, yes.

An argument from farmers why killing a certain amount of calfs or lambs is considered kind of neccessary though is because there's less use for herds of male animals.

 

Explain how you are certain of that

Its just another little mistruth we all like to hide behind

 

Veal is cruel... you should refuse to eat it.
I lived not far from a veal farm.. they planted fast growing trees in the end... so people couldn't see those babies as they were driving past.
Daughters friend lived there, she said the mother gives birth, brings on her milk by feeding them a couple of days, she goes into the milking parlour, the baby goes the other way... cruel!
Then the cycle happens again...
Lamb... poor babies! I couldn't eat the babies, but neither could I eat their mum and dad.

 

So are you though. Is killing an adult animal for food really more cruel than killing a baby animal, or is it just that you think baby animals are cuter than adult animals and therefore dont want to eat them?

If it's the former, why? If the method of execution is the same, if both an adult animal and a baby animal feel the same pain at death and the result is the same, what makes one more cruel than the other?
Is it the intention? And if that's the case, why is raising a baby animal for slaughter more cruel than allowing it to live a year longer before slaughtering it? Both were still raised with the intention of slaughter

 

You mean that’s your interpretation of why he started this thread

see mamma didn't raise no dummy......

 

I actually read one day that livestock, i think specifically cows, knew exactly what was going to happen to them. Maybe not while they're roaming in the paddock, but when they get to the slaughterhouse, I've read... that they know what's happening. They can probably smell it. -shrug-

Anyway, Halal food is more brutal, you seen "authorised Halal preppers" do that shit? At least our livestock deaths are relatively pain free due to animal well-being surge, not for Halal though, that shit's just fucked up. I've seen a few videos, the one of a poor camel was just devastating. I didn't watch any more after that.