Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Animal Rights

This is a video of canine and feline torture in China. They torture them before they die so that they can get their fur and sell it!

You can always tell the true nature of a society by how they treat their animals. This is how people would treat each other if they could get away with it...

watch the video, share them with people!!!
(warning: video is extremely graphic)

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=trent_fur
«1

Comments

  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    i like steaks, porkchops, and fried chicken.
  • I have dogs and I got weely sad.

    Can't believe they're using domesticated animals for fur.
    Postmortem wrote:
    You can always tell the true nature of a society by how they treat their animals. This is how people would treat each other if they could get away with it...

    Some Pinoys are even worse.

    They don't even use them for food
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    i have a problem with this statement:
    This is how people would treat each other if they could get away with it...

    can anybody please substantiate?
  • i like steaks, porkchops, and fried chicken.



    me too. im actually a pure meat eater. but i prefer my cattle to be comfortable when they pass on to the "afterlife"...like the Shinto and Native American practice of making sure they pass away comfortably and taking their life humanely as possible, then the Indians for example thank the animal. i mean we need meat, what are our canine teeth for?

    but this is just totally sick and meaningless. who needs fur? tapos na ang ice age. fashion? BS!

    Im just really sentimental because my cat just didn't come home two weeks ago.
    when I watched the video, i really wished he was fine. id rather him be hit with a jeepney than to be tortured like this.
  • if you're an animal rights enthusiast and a pure meat eater, then i guess you've never seen how they process meat here in the philippines.
  • ^^^i actually do. Im a filmmaker and i tested myself once and made a documentary of butchering houses around manila, san juan and qc. its really cuel, they drive stakes on their heads. the pigs were slit on their throats. its old skul butchering. (Unlike butchering in Monterey) i filmed one cow peeing in fear while waiting for his turn to die, his eyes were really fearful. i knew they were sentient. it was an enlightening experience. I chose to be vegan after that. two months after eating purely fruits and vegies, i felt significant weakness. my body was starting to reject vegies. i went to a doctor and i was forced to eat a purely meat diet to regain strength. Iam an athlete so it was of concern. eating meat has become a choice. even now, my body rejects some vegies and some fruits. So now i sit on the middle of things with the whole animal rights thing. I just search for better, humane ways to have meat on our tables.

    Ow yeah, when the film was shown in Berlin, 2 mins through the film. half of the gallery was gone. same thing when it was shown in UP and CCP.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    im curious, it seems u allow humanely slaughtering of cows and other animals. what is so humanely about killing other animals for those yummy T-bones? it is not of neccesity that we eat meat, it is by choice. No doctor will recommend red meat-- what your body need is protein, and u can get lots of that in tofu. it is not your body that rejects certain food groups, but rather your taste buds... because some do taste aweful.

    By standing in the middle of the fence, that is, by not making a stand on the animal rights issue, perhaps that is why the audience left. because ur synthesis on things is somewhere right in the middle: its ok to enjoy life, its ok to kill animals, but make sure either i dont know about it, or make sure put it to sleep first. You hve to take a stand! if u dont like animals being slaughtered, then make the sacrifice, stop eating animal products-- if u cant, then dont say anything about it.
  • what's wrong with taking the middle path to things? i don't always have to take a side.

    regarding the film, it was an observational docu. it did not take any side. nor sat on the fence. have you seen it? how do you know my synthesis? it was not even like that at all.

    the middle path is a stand by itself. with these things, there's no black or white. so, does it render me unable to say things about the issue? no. your opinion is as good as mine.

    besides the video link i posted is not about cattle. (if you haven't seen it, what are you doing here?) its about fur products and how these people steal someone else's pet so that something can hang on paris hilton's shoulders.
  • Sometimes, they're overdoing it. Like in In Rome :

    The municipal government of Rome has entered waters where few city halls dare tread. Under a new ordinance, the city's goldfish are entitled to a proper, full-sized aquarium, and they can no longer be given out as contest prizes.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    The rules were drafted by the city of Rome's Office for Animal Rights. The 59-point statute ordering better treatment for all pets, from cats and dogs to birds and lizards, was approved by the City Council last month and will go into effect today.

    The unusually strict measure is winning plaudits from animal rights activists, snarls from pet shop owners and puzzlement from all quarters about whether it can be enforced. City officials, though, said it was time to take a stand.

    "We needed to send a strong message: Pets are not objects," said Cristina Bedini, an 11-year veteran of the animal rights office. "We are saying that owning a pet is a joy, but it is also a duty. Responsible ownership is the only way to fight cruelty."

    The fish-bowl rule may win Rome a humanitarian award from the Fish Empathy Project of PETA, the international animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

    "Rome has gone above and beyond anything we've seen anywhere else," spokeswoman Karin Robertson said in a telephone interview. For all animals, the Italian capital's new ordinance is more restrictive than anything in the United States, PETA said in a statement.
  • slaughtering 'humanely' is an oxymoron statement, you know.
  • it will greatly ease the emotional burden of animal rights people if only they will learn to accept things that they cannot change - at least in our time.

    take this case, for example: the butcher of animals, say, of dogs, by the natives of the mountain province and related areas is not merely a whim or caprice. it is a centuries-old tradition from the time their olden warriors are mandated to eat meat - not just any but of dogmeat as they come back after a great war.

    according to their ancient faith, they also commit sin in murdering or killing even their enemies in battle. dogmeat cleanse their spirits.

    there might be a more understandable reason why they actually crave for meat after battle, say, it better brings back their strenght or it is their natural urge to celebrate with meat stuffs at the end of battles.

    as far as these people are concerned, this tradition from antiquity was carried on from generation to generation throughout the centuries - to its present form of including dogmeat in the usual menu to enjoy as they are back from daily life's battles or simply to celebrate with people.
  • ^^that's why arguing about killing animals for food is not as easy as having a pro or con position. we have to consider culture, religion, demographics, as well as social class.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Postmortem wrote:
    what's wrong with taking the middle path to things? i don't always have to take a side.

    regarding the film, it was an observational docu. it did not take any side. nor sat on the fence. have you seen it? how do you know my synthesis? it was not even like that at all.

    the middle path is a stand by itself. with these things, there's no black or white. so, does it render me unable to say things about the issue? no. your opinion is as good as mine.

    besides the video link i posted is not about cattle. (if you haven't seen it, what are you doing here?) its about fur products and how these people steal someone else's pet so that something can hang on paris hilton's shoulders.

    1. there is nothing wrong with taking the middle path; however in the case of animal rights there is. You cannot be for animal rights and allow them to be slaughter for consumption, given that, there are substitute for meat protein. It is comparable to someone who argue against segregation, but claims that segration can be allowed due to cultural tradition, as long as, the minority is treated with the same seperated aircondition room as the majority.

    2. a documentary without an opinion? I dont know much about cameras, and making movies, but i do know that films including documentaries have montage-- hence any film that portrays a realism without any direction is i suppose avant garde, but yet is useless.

    2a. Ah so, u claim that it is alrite to slaughter them for their tenderloin steak, but not for their fur-- how is ur opinion on commercialize sheep fur?
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    perkins wrote:
    it will greatly ease the emotional burden of animal rights people if only they will learn to accept things that they cannot change - at least in our time.

    take this case, for example: the butcher of animals, say, of dogs, by the natives of the mountain province and related areas is not merely a whim or caprice. it is a centuries-old tradition from the time their olden warriors are mandated to eat meat - not just any but of dogmeat as they come back after a great war.

    according to their ancient faith, they also commit sin in murdering or killing even their enemies in battle. dogmeat cleanse their spirits.

    there might be a more understandable reason why they actually crave for meat after battle, say, it better brings back their strenght or it is their natural urge to celebrate with meat stuffs at the end of battles.

    as far as these people are concerned, this tradition from antiquity was carried on from generation to generation throughout the centuries - to its present form of including dogmeat in the usual menu to enjoy as they are back from daily life's battles or simply to celebrate with people.


    but would u also consider that certain traditions are obsolete? that is, if a tribe in the mountain provinces is into cannibalism, would we reconsider the position of cannibalism is morally wrong? Im curious.
  • JaywalkerJaywalker PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    i filmed one cow peeing in fear while waiting for his turn to die, his eyes were really fearful. i knew they were sentient.
    interesting premise ...if you believe animals like cattle are sentient is it ok to butcher them because you like how they taste. or because eating beef is part of your traditions. If you were stuck in an island without food with a profoundly retarded friend, would you eat him? Good subject for a debate I think.
  • yes, certain traditions may be obsolete, but i am sure dog eating is not obsolete - just like pork eating, chicken eating, cow eating, lamb eating etc. etc. it is just the icky westerner bourgoise and their wacky sauce fiefs that considers so.

    we rarely know of cannibalism among humans these days because the practice is already obsolete. the reason for it is the natural urge of for self-preservation - human cannibals will be reasonably be subjects of retaliation or genocide in these modern times of high-powered defenses.

    finally, there is no moral issue about dog eating.

    i am not sure about cannibalism though.
  • perkins wrote:
    it will greatly ease the emotional burden of animal rights people if only they will learn to accept things that they cannot change - at least in our time.

    if you don't start now, then when?

    by saying that you can't change things, then you won't! because you immediately thought you can't do anything to change things.

    if our ancestors kept on insisting that now is not the time to fight back against the spaniards, japanese and americans; do you think we'll have our freedom?
    perkins wrote:
    finally, there is no moral issue about dog eating.

    tell that to an animal rights activist. dogs are man's bestfriend. they're not supposed to be man's dinner. i don't actually know of anyone who has a pet dog who could bear the thought of eating dogs!

    i'm actually very saddened about the lack of backbone of our animal rights in this country... i mean, last night i watched this show on tv where there were wannabe actors and actresses doing some mini-movie... and they were throwing LIVE chickens around!!! when i said i pitied the chicken, our maid and my family members simply laughed at me. so, again, i doubt i'll be watching local channels for some time.

    at least in other countries, the movie makers and producers don't throw animals around just so they could stress the point that a person is a probinsyano! :grrr: :grrr:
  • ms. ayane, consuming animals for food is different from consuming animals for play, vices or just blatant cruelty.

    the first is a basic human need - we cannot teach morality on empty stomach.

    all the other uses i mentioned could be called human indiscretions. there maybe moral issues concerning consumption of animals without discretion.

    which of these do you pity?:

    1. fish caught on a net or hook.
    2. horse in a kalesa repeatedly whipped by its master.

    please answer so we could know your current state of mind.
  • SpellbindMediaSpellbindMedia PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    I shudder at the thought of bears in China being caged with hoses sticking out of their sides to fill up containers with their bile secretions. I'd cry at the scene of an eskimo butchering a helpless white seal.

    But I am not a vegan. I like my steak medium well, thank you very much.

    Do these make me a hypocrite? I hope not. :(

    I really am confused - does differentiating between killing for sustenance and killing for game change the way we view animal killing in general? I like to eat meat and I should for protein, but there's tofu! Am I irresponsible for not taking time to try out a substitute?

    And how about cultural differences? How does someone who champions cultural acceptance (not tolerance as a friend told me) and at the same time opposes animal cruelty tell the Japanese not to eat their native delicacy of shark/dolphin meat because these are on the endagered species list?

    <Sighs> :( Sometimes it is difficult not take the middle ground, especially when talking about absolutes. I do agree, moderation is in order.
  • perkins wrote:
    ms. ayane, consuming animals for food is different from consuming animals for play, vices or just blatant cruelty.

    the first is a basic human need - we cannot teach morality on empty stomach.

    all the other uses i mentioned could be called human indiscretions. there maybe moral issues concerning consumption of animals without discretion.

    which of these do you pity?:

    1. fish caught on a net or hook.
    2. horse in a kalesa repeatedly whipped by its master.

    please answer so we could know your current state of mind.

    actually, both.

    i have always thought that i have a bigger chance of being an animal rights activist than a human rights activist.

    i believe that we, as humans, could change the course of our lives. poverty is not an excuse. if we choose, we could reach our full potential even against adversity. probably why i don't have much patience with the people around me. especially those whom i feel does not reach their full potential.

    while animals don't have that choice. their current plight is even mostly brought about by human activities...
Sign In or Register to comment.