Malachy Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Brian, I would strongly argue that I am not confusing cruelty and efficiency. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you've come to that conclusion at all. I would say that to inflict death is not in itself cruel, but to knowingly inflict suffering is. This is why you would use a humane killer to kill a lamb, rather than some slow, painful method. (Now, clearly some people will say that to kill any animal at all, for whatever reason, is 'cruel', and if that is your point then I suppose I would have to concede that we are unlikely to find common ground on this, either ideologically or semantically.) To try and clarify...if I found a rabbit that was suffering from myxomatosis I would knock it on the head to put it out of its misery. I'd do that because I think that hitting something on the head is a quick and hopefully painless way to kill it. That would not, I assume, be cruel from your perspective, no? So the act of hitting something on the head to kill it is not inherently a cruel act. Unlike, for instance, skinning something alive. Do you agree?If so then the cruelty you are highlighting presumably is a matter of intention, motive or mindset, ie, the fact that Mr Stewart had no defensible reason for killing the animals. I am guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you wouldn't call an Inuit hunter cruel for killing a seal to eat, no? Well if I have read this right then we do indeed disagree only on the matter of the definition of cruelty. I define it a deliberately inflicting suffering (as does my dictionary), and using that definition I would say that this act we're discussing does not qualify. I can think of several words I would use to describe it, but cruel is just not one of them. Your comment about the history of the 20th century is a bit of a cheap shot, which is easy to do on a forum like this but isn't the kind of argument you'd choose to use face to face. I presume you're not accusing me of being some kind of nazi sympathiser because I fail to be horrified by somebody killing seals? The word 'cruelty' certainly becomes more complex within the context of killing people, but that isn't really the subject of this thread, so I'll just leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 ^^Utter tosh. If you found a healthy rabbit and smashed it's head in for no reason it'd be cruel in my book. Try comparing apples with apples if you want to make a real comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 hang on a sec. it was said in court and no one argued that the pups had inhaled blood which was evidence they hadn't died straight away. so what's all this about no cruelty? seems as tho if a animal died of being systematic beating to death instead of one mighty blow that seems cruel to me. but thankfully I'm not an expert on cruelty which seems to me a matter of viewpoint. funny thing is JJS is a big lad and you'd think if he wanted to hit something with a fencepost he'd kill it straight off. especially a seal pup. or 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 >>At the moment of death no further "cruelty" can possibly be performed, therfor if death was immediate, when did the alleged "cruelty" occur? Maybe Ghostrider would like to volunteer as a guinea-pig? "He who resorts to personal insults has just lost the debate". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 hang on a sec. it was said in court and no one argued that the pups had inhaled blood which was evidence they hadn't died straight away. so what's all this about no cruelty? seems as tho if a animal died of being systematic beating to death instead of one mighty blow that seems cruel to me. I don't recall reading that "fact" in the various reports of the case published online by both Shetland News and The Shetland Times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Brian, I would strongly argue that ....It is very rare that I find myself disagreeing with Brian, but in this case I think Malachy is spot on. Very well presented too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Sorry JAStewart? “Nay; ability†Are you implying that’s something for the human race to be proud off. I was just pointing out that maybe we have come to the end of the line. And that in the natural evolution of any species that ours may be meant to end over the next 100 years and something better is due to replace us. If you accept that everything in the universe is made of atoms and some are still arguing about it. Then our universe might be just a small atom in someone’s bedside cabinet. And just because we can’t hear a cow or a pig speak, that does not mean that they can’t think for them selves , It’s just that we are arrogant enough to think otherwise. And that arrogance may well be our own undoing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 ^^done some checking online and with a friend up there and your right and I'm wrong, it seems GR. learned a lesson today. don't listen to rumour and always check your facts. that'll learn me to open me gob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 If you accept that everything in the universe is made of atoms and some are still arguing about it. What do you mean by this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 don't listen to rumour and always check your facts. It is always nice to see people clarifying misunderstandings. Personally I do indeed listen to rumours, AND try to check whether the rumoured information is true or not . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 ^^done some checking online and with a friend up there and your right and I'm wrong, it seems GR. learned a lesson today. don't listen to rumour and always check your facts. that'll learn me to open me gob. No bother, it could as easily have been the boot on the other foot. The media unfortunately isn't always to be relied upon to get it right, or tell the full story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 still and all I think I'll avoid posting on topics where folk we know are involved. too close to home. too easy to judge. and get it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 The Countryfile report was an interesting and balanced report on the situation regarding the control of seal populations by the salmon industry. One thing that was perhaps a little misleading was the salmon farmers representative displaying a photo of a seal hauled out on a cage walkway in a manner said to stress and ultimately kill hundreds, even thousands of fish through stress, but the seal in question appeared to be hauled out on an empty cage with no nets, predator or otherwise, visible. Tour operators in the featured area providing anecdotes of how the seals had disappeared from areas where farms had been located can only be echoed here, for whatever reason and whether right or wrong. The predator net shown, "stronger than steel", as a potential solution would presumably be made of a dynon type material and as such may be effective but also very expensive. The sonic scarers might be also be effective, but would need to compare favourably with the cost of a rifle and some bullets if competing on a level playing field under current legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 The sonic scarers might be also be effective, but would need to compare favourably with the cost of a rifle and some bullets if competing on a level playing field under current legislation. If the acoustic scarers work, they are better than a marksman, because they run 24/7 (assuming the batteries are kept charged) However, I seem to remember something about environmental groups not being keen on the seal scarers because they also affect cetaceans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Would you not want to keep whales away to. I'm sure that a fish seeing a dolphin shaped object heading there way would become stressed. But were all those salmon fished out of the cage stressed. i thought salmon were tough predators Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.