Accidental animal cruelty
I once invented a brilliant game - I'd sit at the top of the stairs and throw cat biscuits to the bottom. My cat would eat them, then I'd shake the box, and he would run up the stairs for more biscuits. Then - of course - I'd throw a biscuit back down to the bottom. I kept this going for about half an hour, amused at my little game, and all was fine until the cat vomited. I felt absolutely dreadful.
Have you accidentally been cruel to an animal?
This question has been revived from way, way, way back on the b3ta messageboard when it was all fields round here.
( , Thu 6 Dec 2007, 11:13)
I once invented a brilliant game - I'd sit at the top of the stairs and throw cat biscuits to the bottom. My cat would eat them, then I'd shake the box, and he would run up the stairs for more biscuits. Then - of course - I'd throw a biscuit back down to the bottom. I kept this going for about half an hour, amused at my little game, and all was fine until the cat vomited. I felt absolutely dreadful.
Have you accidentally been cruel to an animal?
This question has been revived from way, way, way back on the b3ta messageboard when it was all fields round here.
( , Thu 6 Dec 2007, 11:13)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Well,
The difference between human exploitation and animal testing is that the humans have a choice. They aren't kept in a cage and forced to make Nike trainers.
In anticipation of someone saying "Well their sociological conditions force them into it. They may not literally be in a cage, but they cannot escape from their situation". Well, although i have sympathy for them, this is not true.
They ARE able to leave whichever town it is where they are working in a sweatshop, and they are able to move, perhaps to the country to become a fisherman or something. Just an example. Although they may have been initially pressured or forced into a cruel situation, their lives aren't actually owned by someone.
It is this casual slavery of animals which needs to be addressed. Back in the 1700s, African people were not considered to be people, and were not treated with humanity, hence why the majority of people had no problems with slavery.
How much has that attitude changed now? It's just moral evolution, and i fully expect that in 100 years time or so, people will look back and say "How could people have farmed and eaten our brother animals? How could they have performed vile experiments on them?"
( , Fri 7 Dec 2007, 13:14, Reply)
The difference between human exploitation and animal testing is that the humans have a choice. They aren't kept in a cage and forced to make Nike trainers.
In anticipation of someone saying "Well their sociological conditions force them into it. They may not literally be in a cage, but they cannot escape from their situation". Well, although i have sympathy for them, this is not true.
They ARE able to leave whichever town it is where they are working in a sweatshop, and they are able to move, perhaps to the country to become a fisherman or something. Just an example. Although they may have been initially pressured or forced into a cruel situation, their lives aren't actually owned by someone.
It is this casual slavery of animals which needs to be addressed. Back in the 1700s, African people were not considered to be people, and were not treated with humanity, hence why the majority of people had no problems with slavery.
How much has that attitude changed now? It's just moral evolution, and i fully expect that in 100 years time or so, people will look back and say "How could people have farmed and eaten our brother animals? How could they have performed vile experiments on them?"
( , Fri 7 Dec 2007, 13:14, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread