Miniature horse Star... I have no words.

Forums › Off topic › Miniature horse Star... I have no words.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Awrrr
19070 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16312

Lifetime subscriber

#2184026 19-Feb-2019 23:19

networkn:

I consider myself the natural predator to control the population of Sheep and Lambs, Beef, Chicken, Deer, Pigs.

The planet would be overrun with these creatures if not for me! You're welcome!

If only they could be trained to slaughter themselves and serve themselves up. They would have to do it humanely, of course.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19070 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16312

Lifetime subscriber

#2184028 19-Feb-2019 23:32

Lias:

Sorry been fairly busy today or i'd have replied sooner.

I just see them as a resource. The vast majority of people don't have issue with using animals as a companionship resource(pets), food resource, a fur/wool resource, etc. Varying amounts of people support sports/entertainments that involve animals (e.g. most people don't mind horse racing, plenty don't mind rodeo, some don't mind bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting etc.), hunting (often varying depending on how cute the animal is!), etc.

My brain just doesn't discriminate between animal vegetable or mineral, it's all something to be used as the owner sees fit. To me we either we stop all use of animals as resources that results in their death (e.g. we all become vegans), or we allow any use of animals. Allowing _some_ things that result in the death of animals and decrying others just feels hypocritical to me. I only really have one anecdotal experience with "animal abuse", when I was a kid I remember hearing about another kid at school nailing a bunch of kittens to a fence. I remember being a bit confused why someone would want to do that, but that was pretty much the only emotion.

Dunno if that gives you any insight..

Although I am not personally in favour of hunting or eating animals, I don't think that is the issue here. The issue is torture. Horses by nature tend to be fairly non-aggressive. One that has clearly been domesticated and raised as a pet will be docile and trusting of people. It does not expect some perverted sadist to come along and start stabbing it with a knife. The horse will be terrified, confused, in pain. It will be struggling to get away. Yet the despicable person or people keep stabbing it violently over and over. That is a far cry from the quick and clean slaughter of a sedated animal, or a quick bullet. That is the difference. Whoever did this was not seeing the animal as a 'resource'. They were seeing it as a victim. There is no way that is acceptable.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MadEngineer

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#2184031 19-Feb-2019 23:43

A resource they might be but that doesn’t mean we don’t give them a quick death. If a self respecting hunter can’t take a kill with a shot to the heart they won’t fire.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Ge0rge

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2060

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2184048 20-Feb-2019 06:47

MadEngineer: A resource they might be but that doesn’t mean we don’t give them a quick death. If a self respecting hunter can’t take a kill with a shot to the heart they won’t fire.

As a self respecting hunter, I prefer not to shoot animals in the heart - why risk ruining the front shoulders and wasting 1/4 - 1/2 of the resource you are trying to collect?

Rickles

3108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 446

Trusted

#2184064 20-Feb-2019 07:44

Not to make light of this terrible act -

A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beelebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadraped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.

“Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?”

It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.

PsychoSmiley

251 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 198

#2184154 20-Feb-2019 09:24

Lias:

Sorry been fairly busy today or i'd have replied sooner.

I just see them as a resource. The vast majority of people don't have issue with using animals as a companionship resource(pets), food resource, a fur/wool resource, etc. Varying amounts of people support sports/entertainments that involve animals (e.g. most people don't mind horse racing, plenty don't mind rodeo, some don't mind bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting etc.), hunting (often varying depending on how cute the animal is!), etc.

My brain just doesn't discriminate between animal vegetable or mineral, it's all something to be used as the owner sees fit. To me we either we stop all use of animals as resources that results in their death (e.g. we all become vegans), or we allow any use of animals. Allowing _some_ things that result in the death of animals and decrying others just feels hypocritical to me. I only really have one anecdotal experience with "animal abuse", when I was a kid I remember hearing about another kid at school nailing a bunch of kittens to a fence. I remember being a bit confused why someone would want to do that, but that was pretty much the only emotion.

Dunno if that gives you any insight..

The insight provided puts you across as a sociopath/psychopath and I sure hope you don't plan on procreating, given you'll own and control those 'resources' you produce.

As a species of creature with the ability to reason, empthathise and extert control over other species, it's in our interests to ensure the control we exert over other species is done in the best manner available. Even if an animal is merely stock, it's best to ensure it lives a comfortable content life before it's dispatched quickly and with little stress as possible before it hits the plate.

Stabbing/abusing a random animal to for fun and/or death for no valid reason (even if owned) is a red flag for deeper anti-social traits. History is littered with individuals who exhibited such precursor behaviour before they move on to big and bolder things.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

ShinyChrome

1603 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 686

ID Verified

Trusted

#2184155 20-Feb-2019 09:25

Since this thread has started to veer into a ethical debate of "Animals: What are they used for? Do they know things? Lets find out", I am going to propose that we can all agree that stabbing something 40 times is probably not a great character reference for the person who did this.

Otherwise we are going to just literally continue flogging this poor dead horse.

RIP Star, this one goes out to you

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2184197 20-Feb-2019 10:20

PsychoSmiley:

Lias:

Sorry been fairly busy today or i'd have replied sooner.

I just see them as a resource. The vast majority of people don't have issue with using animals as a companionship resource(pets), food resource, a fur/wool resource, etc. Varying amounts of people support sports/entertainments that involve animals (e.g. most people don't mind horse racing, plenty don't mind rodeo, some don't mind bull fighting, dog fighting, cock fighting etc.), hunting (often varying depending on how cute the animal is!), etc.

My brain just doesn't discriminate between animal vegetable or mineral, it's all something to be used as the owner sees fit. To me we either we stop all use of animals as resources that results in their death (e.g. we all become vegans), or we allow any use of animals. Allowing _some_ things that result in the death of animals and decrying others just feels hypocritical to me. I only really have one anecdotal experience with "animal abuse", when I was a kid I remember hearing about another kid at school nailing a bunch of kittens to a fence. I remember being a bit confused why someone would want to do that, but that was pretty much the only emotion.

Dunno if that gives you any insight..

The insight provided puts you across as a sociopath/psychopath and I sure hope you don't plan on procreating, given you'll own and control those 'resources' you produce.

As a species of creature with the ability to reason, empthathise and extert control over other species, it's in our interests to ensure the control we exert over other species is done in the best manner available. Even if an animal is merely stock, it's best to ensure it lives a comfortable content life before it's dispatched quickly and with little stress as possible before it hits the plate.

Stabbing/abusing a random animal to for fun and/or death for no valid reason (even if owned) is a red flag for deeper anti-social traits. History is littered with individuals who exhibited such precursor behaviour before they move on to big and bolder things.

As someone who spent the first 15 years of his life living off the land and being on a farm with "resource animals" I can agree with Lias. Not once did anyone suggest stabbing an animal to death is a way to dispatch them effectively or even any form of acceptable behavior. I feel @Lias gave more of an abstract overview and people took to the extreme conclusion that "Lias must mean it gives him the right to do what he wants even outside the law" . I think it goes without saying that anything said here would be with in the existing laws unless stated otherwise.

Just because your pretty little idea of perfect doesn't match someone elses opinion does not ever mean you go around suggesting that someone should not have children and that they have a mental disorder. Check yourself, low blow.

networkn

Networkn
32865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2184199 20-Feb-2019 10:27

Lias

I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but the only part I really find objectionable is that the stabber didn't own the horse

I think most people read that as "I don't have an issue with the horse being stabbed 40 times, so long as the owner was the one who did it"

I find that a pretty grim. I believe this is what they are objecting to, not that there is an issue with killing animals for food etc.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2184200 20-Feb-2019 10:29

networkn:

Lias

I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but the only part I really find objectionable is that the stabber didn't own the horse

I think most people read that as "I don't have an issue with the horse being stabbed 40 times, so long as the owner was the one who did it"

I find that a pretty grim. I believe this is what they are objecting to, not that there is an issue with killing animals for food etc.

I don't think anyone meant that you can do what ever, even outside the law.. More what you like with in the law.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2184231 20-Feb-2019 10:58

PsychoSmiley:

The insight provided puts you across as a sociopath/psychopath and I sure hope you don't plan on procreating, given you'll own and control those 'resources' you produce.

As a species of creature with the ability to reason, empthathise and extert control over other species, it's in our interests to ensure the control we exert over other species is done in the best manner available. Even if an animal is merely stock, it's best to ensure it lives a comfortable content life before it's dispatched quickly and with little stress as possible before it hits the plate.

Stabbing/abusing a random animal to for fun and/or death for no valid reason (even if owned) is a red flag for deeper anti-social traits. History is littered with individuals who exhibited such precursor behaviour before they move on to big and bolder things.

I'm far from a sociopath or psychopath (albeit I do have low empathy), and sadly for you I already have kids who are loved and cherished.

I don't disagree that people who stab random animals for fun probably have some fairly serious mental health issues going on, but I don't have any moral objection to "doing something to an animal that kills/harms it", and don't see the need to differentiate between eating one, riding one, racing one, hunting one, fvking one, fighting one, or stabbing one for fun. You wan't to race horses even though they sometimes die or need to be euthanized ? Cool be my guest. Want to shoot deer? Go for gold? Shag a sheep? You must be from Waimate but whatever floats your boat.. I don't really see how this is different. It's an excessive and inefficient way to kill an animal, but the end result is still a dead animal.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2184232 20-Feb-2019 11:00

Coil:

networkn:

Lias

I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but the only part I really find objectionable is that the stabber didn't own the horse

I think most people read that as "I don't have an issue with the horse being stabbed 40 times, so long as the owner was the one who did it"

I find that a pretty grim. I believe this is what they are objecting to, not that there is an issue with killing animals for food etc.

I don't think anyone meant that you can do what ever, even outside the law.. More what you like with in the law.

I meant more morally than legally.. If thing A and thing B and thing C all result in the death/injury of an animal, to me they are morally equal, even if one's eating it, ones racing it, and one's stabbing it 40 times.

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#2184238 20-Feb-2019 11:13

Lias:

Coil:

networkn:

Lias

I realize this won't be a popular opinion, but the only part I really find objectionable is that the stabber didn't own the horse

I think most people read that as "I don't have an issue with the horse being stabbed 40 times, so long as the owner was the one who did it"

I find that a pretty grim. I believe this is what they are objecting to, not that there is an issue with killing animals for food etc.

I don't think anyone meant that you can do what ever, even outside the law.. More what you like with in the law.

I meant more morally than legally.. If thing A and thing B and thing C all result in the death/injury of an animal, to me they are morally equal, even if one's eating it, ones racing it, and one's stabbing it 40 times.

To get this right, you don't discriminate between the most humane and effective way to kill something rather as long as its dead in the end its OK?

I personally draw the line there, if you go to an animal with the desire to kill it, you do it in the most effective easiest way possible for you and it. This is how I was brought up, any I did kill a lot of sheep/chickens/pigs.
There are no reasons that support a drawn out killing on an animal for any useful reason. It doesn't make the meat more tender - it actually ruins it. It will probably struggle and make annoying loud noises as well. Makes it harder for all.

PsychoSmiley

251 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 198

#2184255 20-Feb-2019 11:49

Coil:

To get this right, you don't discriminate between the most humane and effective way to kill something rather as long as its dead in the end its OK?

I personally draw the line there, if you go to an animal with the desire to kill it, you do it in the most effective easiest way possible for you and it. This is how I was brought up, any I did kill a lot of sheep/chickens/pigs.
There are no reasons that support a drawn out killing on an animal for any useful reason. It doesn't make the meat more tender - it actually ruins it. It will probably struggle and make annoying loud noises as well. Makes it harder for all.

This is more along the lines of what I was trying to outline in a not so succinct manner.

Animals can be a means to an end and a tool but you treat them with a certain level of care and respect and dispatch them if need be in a quick manner. There is no justifiable reason why somebody should be allowed to stab something to death 40 times even if was for slaughter, it is plain inhumane.

networkn

Networkn
32865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2184257 20-Feb-2019 11:54

PsychoSmiley:

Coil:

To get this right, you don't discriminate between the most humane and effective way to kill something rather as long as its dead in the end its OK?

I personally draw the line there, if you go to an animal with the desire to kill it, you do it in the most effective easiest way possible for you and it. This is how I was brought up, any I did kill a lot of sheep/chickens/pigs.
There are no reasons that support a drawn out killing on an animal for any useful reason. It doesn't make the meat more tender - it actually ruins it. It will probably struggle and make annoying loud noises as well. Makes it harder for all.

This is more along the lines of what I was trying to outline in a not so succinct manner.

Animals can be a means to an end and a tool but you treat them with a certain level of care and respect and dispatch them if need be in a quick manner. There is no justifiable reason why somebody should be allowed to stab something to death 40 times even if was for slaughter, it is plain inhumane.

Not to mention some of the things he "has no issue with, or makes no distinction between" are illegal.

Dead animal via 40 stab wounds, vs Bolt of electricity though the brain or shot to the head isn't different either was kind of disturbing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6