Killing Animals for "Sport"

[severus68]

I think that was just a joke about my dog who wanted to play yesterday…

If the bred to hunt was a joke, my apologies to all.

 

[4elise]

If the bred to hunt was a joke, my apologies to all.

It can be difficult to judge on the threads sometimes — and I know I’ve taken things too seriously at times - it can be difficult not to be sensitive when something matters to one so much.

 

[severus68]

It can be difficult to judge on the threads sometimes — and I know I’ve taken things too seriously at times - it can be difficult not to be sensitive when something matters to one so much.

That is true.

 

[vz71]

I dont follow how the more emotion there is appealed to the less fact.

I am uncertain why the correlation is there either.
But I cannot ignore it. I see it fairly often.
From pro-death/pro-life arguments to legislation to school events. I find that when the facts are scarce, the emotions are dragged out.

Of course, in the commercials addressed, they showed some fairly graphic pictures of animals that were abused and included a caption “What did I do wrong?”
This is deceptive at best, malicious at worst. And actually costs the animal rights side a great deal in my eyes.

 

[severus68]

I am uncertain why the correlation is there either.
But I cannot ignore it. I see it fairly often.
From pro-death/pro-life arguments to legislation to school events. I find that when the facts are scarce, the emotions are dragged out.

Of course, in the commercials addressed, they showed some fairly graphic pictures of animals that were abused and included a caption “What did I do wrong?”
This is deceptive at best, malicious at worst. And actually costs the animal rights side a great deal in my eyes.

I don’t understand why you find them deceptive and malicious. All such adverts appeal to emotions. The facts would pobably be found in pamphlets, websites. Adverts must attract attention within a short time. Advert time especially on television, is costly.

 

[vz71]

I’m not familiar with this correlation - can you give an example so I can better understand what you are comparing this to?

Sure. The commercial doesn’t list a single fact, just generalities.
But it sure does crank up emotional response.
Pictures of abused animals with captions underneath asking a bunch of very human sounding questions is very deceptive.

I am sure that the reason that they do fundraising this way is because it is most effective…

And higly insulting.

a 60 second listing facts could also be accused of trying to use emotionalism

It could, but it would also have the advantage of presenting real fact.

This summer we had a priest come to speak about the missions - he told stories of individuals in Malawi who were in need of assistance, he told stories of individuals because it helped him raise money for the missions, some of the stories were very sad, and could be said to be trying to appeal to emotionalism, but I certainly don’t doubt the need.

No, but I bet he also gave a good dosage of facts, and did not attempt to deceive.
Something I have not seen in the commercials shown the other night.

 

[vz71]

I don’t understand why you find them deceptive and malicious.

Emotions are being manipulated artificially.
Dogs and cats do not ask questions.

 

[4elise]

Sure. The commercial doesn’t list a single fact, just generalities.
But it sure does crank up emotional response.
Pictures of abused animals with captions underneath asking a bunch of very human sounding questions is very deceptive.

And higly insulting.

It could, but it would also have the advantage of presenting real fact.

No, but I bet he also gave a good dosage of facts, and did not attempt to deceive.
Something I have not seen in the commercials shown the other night.

I guess this is really a bit off topic, but I hope you will allow me to continue to explore this with you…

I still do not understand the inference that there is an attempt to deceive, and why you find these so insulting? Is it possible that these commercials from HSUS or ASPCA annoy you so much because you already have a belief that people people pay too much attention to animals?

The appeal to emotion is the way they raise funds to stop puppy mills, to respond to cases of dog fighting, to provide medical care for abused animals - you can chose not to support this charity of course, but it is the strong response I don’t understand, and why you seem to assume a negative motivation i.e. - accusing them of attempting to deceive the public about the need because they utilize this in a 60 second commercial - no dogs or cats don’t ask questions - they can’t talk, but that doesn’t diminish the needs.

I have a strong reaction when I see ads on the web or TV from World Vision also short on facts and long on emotion - but this isn’t the reason it rankles me so much - it is because I think they are exploiting children in Africa to raise money - BUT the reason this group rankles me so much is because I have personal knowledge of this group over the past 30 years - and this is why I tell everyone I know who wants to support a disaster in the world to give money to CRS instead - CRS is an organization that can make every Catholic proud…

Sorry - to go so far off the topic - but I think if you watch all commercials through a filter of ‘they are trying to appeal to emotion - so they are trying to deceive’ - most commercials would be judged guilty - it is just the medium that dictates the desire to get a response so quickly.

Blessings,

 

[vz71]

I guess this is really a bit off topic, but I hope you will allow me to continue to explore this with you…

I don’t mind at all going into this. Assuming the author of the thread has no objections…Marfran? We haven’t heard from you in a while.

I still do not understand the inference that there is an attempt to deceive, and why you find these so insulting? Is it possible that these commercials from HSUS or ASPCA annoy you so much because you already have a belief that people people pay too much attention to animals?

Not at all.
I see an attempt to deceive because they are placing words along side these photos that portray the animal as having a human capacity to reason and emote.
I believe I went around this point on a different thread, we cannot know what an animal feels or thinks. There is no common frame of reference with which to draw a comparison. Placing words and emotions along side these creatures is highly deceptive.

The appeal to emotion is the way they raise funds to stop puppy mills, to respond to cases of dog fighting, to provide medical care for abused animals - you can chose not to support this charity of course, but it is the strong response I don’t understand, and why you seem to assume a negative motivation i.e. - accusing them of attempting to deceive the public about the need because they utilize this in a 60 second commercial - no dogs or cats don’t ask questions - they can’t talk, but that doesn’t diminish the needs.

If one must use deceptive practices (as outlined above) to raise funds, then perhaps the needs are not at all what they portray them to be.
From the first act of deceit, I doubt it all.

I have a strong reaction when I see ads on the web or TV from World Vision also short on facts and long on emotion - but this isn’t the reason it rankles me so much - it is because I think they are exploiting children in Africa to raise money - BUT the reason this group rankles me so much is because I have personal knowledge of this group over the past 30 years - and this is why I tell everyone I know who wants to support a disaster in the world to give money to CRS instead - CRS is an organization that can make every Catholic proud…

I give when I can to CRS because I know where exactly the money is going.
Also, the presentations I have seen yield an emotional response, but are also filled with fact and no attempt at all to deceive.

Sorry - to go so far off the topic - but I think if you watch all commercials through a filter of ‘they are trying to appeal to emotion - so they are trying to deceive’ - most commercials would be judged guilty - it is just the medium that dictates the desire to get a response so quickly.

You know, you are absolutely right. Every commercial on the television starts off at a disadvantage with me. Not just the animal rights commercials, but all of them.
In fact, when I think about it, nearly everything I see coming from the TV gets this treatment. I start off with doubt. There is a foreknowledge that they want something from me that is not necessarily in my best interests…then we proceed.
I check facts before I buy into most of what I see on TV.
When there are no facts to work with, or I see outright attempts to manipulate me, I become fairly irate about it.
Given the insidious nature as well as the cumulative effect that what is seen on TV has, it is probably best.
you think my reaction to animal rights commercials to be strong, you should see what happens in my house during election years.

 

[severus68]

I guess this is really a bit off topic, but I hope you will allow me to continue to explore this with you…

I still do not understand the inference that there is an attempt to deceive, and why you find these so insulting? Is it possible that these commercials from HSUS or ASPCA annoy you so much because you already have a belief that people people pay too much attention to animals?

The appeal to emotion is the way they raise funds to stop puppy mills, to respond to cases of dog fighting, to provide medical care for abused animals - you can chose not to support this charity of course, but it is the strong response I don’t understand, and why you seem to assume a negative motivation i.e. - accusing them of attempting to deceive the public about the need because they utilize this in a 60 second commercial - no dogs or cats don’t ask questions - they can’t talk, but that doesn’t diminish the needs.

I have a strong reaction when I see ads on the web or TV from World Vision also short on facts and long on emotion - but this isn’t the reason it rankles me so much - it is because I think they are exploiting children in Africa to raise money - BUT the reason this group rankles me so much is because I have personal knowledge of this group over the past 30 years - and this is why I tell everyone I know who wants to support a disaster in the world to give money to CRS instead - CRS is an organization that can make every Catholic proud…

Sorry - to go so far off the topic - but I think if you watch all commercials through a filter of ‘they are trying to appeal to emotion - so they are trying to deceive’ - most commercials would be judged guilty - it is just the medium that dictates the desire to get a response so quickly.

Blessings,

Well said 4elise and thank you for the info on World Vision

 

[4elise]

You know, you are absolutely right. Every commercial on the television starts off at a disadvantage with me. Not just the animal rights commercials, but all of them. In fact, when I think about it, nearly everything I see coming from the TV gets this treatment. I start off with doubt. There is a foreknowledge that they want something from me that is not necessarily in my best interests…then we proceed.I check facts before I buy into most of what I see on TV.When there are no facts to work with, or I see outright attempts to manipulate me, I become fairly irate about it.

Given the insidious nature as well as the cumulative effect that what is seen on TV has, it is probably best. you think my reaction to animal rights commercials to be strong, you should see what happens in my house during election years.

This made me smile and made me feel like I understand you more vz!!
I think you tend toward scpetism - I am married to someone just like you for 33 years!

Sometimes if we are watching TV together he argues with every commercial, like “Yea, right you can save me time and money!” And I agree it is healthy to be sceptical about things that are on TV, but I think that it is possible to move from sceptical to synical without noticing the slip in that direction - and perahps I give a little more leway to those in the non profit field considering that they aren’t necessarly out for the ‘big bucks’ but working to address a need - even if one judges that the need is not something that they necessarly want to support

 

[Brendan]

“Retriever” does refer to hunting. They retrieve what was shot by the hunter. The other hunting type dogs are “pointers”. They find the prey for the hunter.

You forgot to mention the third class of hunting dogs, Hounds. They track moving prey and give chase.

And the fourth would be Setters, which flush stationary prey.

All of these are, of course, simply specializations on the original wolf type natural behavior.

 

[tweetymom]

Well I for one love to go hunting. We always ate whatever we killed. My 34 year old granddaughter goes hunting with her husband and this year killed her first buck, which they all eat. Also love to fish and eat all we catch. What a great sport!!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

All of these are, of course, simply specializations on the original wolf type natural behavior.

It is passingly interesting, perhaps, to note that, among all dogs that are not afraid of large vegetarian animals (like cattle), some are ingrained “headers” and some are “heelers”. It’s very difficult to change a dog from being one way to being the other way. In other words, some instinctively try to drive an animal by going to its head, while some instinctively yap and nip at the heels. “Headers” are considered worthless as herding dogs by ranchers, because they only confuse the animals, while “heelers” are valued, as they drive the animals relentlessly forward.

If one observes wolf behavior, it seems some attack from the front and some from behind. It seems an effective way to bring an animal down. Likely, in any pack, some are “headers” by nature and some are “heelers”, and always serve the same role in hunting.

It may be observed that one of the most valued herd dogs is the breed known as the “Australian heeler” or “Blue heeler”.

 

[coach1299]

I hunt and I eat what I kill, or make sure I can give it to someone who will eat it. I teach my kids the same hunting ethics. Exceptions include IMO; Animals/wildlife that threaten safety, nussiance animals or pests that create hazards or damage, and wildlife management objectives for overall better and heathier animal poulation, but I agree that killing animals for the sheer fun of it is sinfully wrong.

 

[chain]

Just thought I would post my thoughts on the Humane Society. On it’s face it is a good organization, and I have worked with them for several hundred hours over the years. Since I worked with them as a professional (rather than a volunteer) I dealt quite often with the local Executive Directors.

From a Human Society’s ED’s point of view - the No Kill policy is all about contributions - not animals. It brings in donations at the expense of saving animals. The push to turn city shelters in to no kill was not economical it was completely “unworkable”. The ED said they could save a lot more animals if they could kill a small percentage (the non-adoptable animals). That small percentage uses a lot of resources - and a large percentage of probably adoptable animals must be turned away to keep the non-adoptable animals minimized. (example - at one point they turned away all black dogs - black dogs were not adopting out well at that point).

Radical environmentalists take of kill/limit the baby’s to save the planet puts the entire movement in a bad light.

 

[4elise]

Just thought I would post my thoughts on the Humane Society. On it’s face it is a good organization, and I have worked with them for several hundred hours over the years. Since I worked with them as a professional (rather than a volunteer) I dealt quite often with the local Executive Directors.

From a Human Society’s ED’s point of view - the No Kill policy is all about contributions - not animals. It brings in donations at the expense of saving animals. The push to turn city shelters in to no kill was not economical it was completely “unworkable”. The ED said they could save a lot more animals if they could kill a small percentage (the non-adoptable animals). That small percentage uses a lot of resources - and a large percentage of probably adoptable animals must be turned away to keep the non-adoptable animals minimized. (example - at one point they turned away all black dogs - black dogs were not adopting out well at that point).

We had heard that and that is why we adopted the supper cute black lab mix - Maggie - now 9!

Radical environmentalists take of kill/limit the baby’s to save the planet puts the entire movement in a bad light.

Radical anything puts the entire movement in a bad light - I was on a thread here with people who would not say it was wrong to kill the abortionist - IMHO this kind of gives pro life people a bad name —

But we’ve gotten way off OP I guess - but it would be a good point about radical hunters / who feel they can justify anything - and radical anti hunters who can not justify anything.

 

[fultonfish]

The whole issue of animal rights generates from Marxist notions intended to water down human rights and sow confusion among well-meaning, but not critically-thinking Christians. Which leads to reduced regard for human life. Which leads to the idea of the state owning the individual. Which leads to abortion, euthanasia, and ultimately to the death camps [gulags]. Which takes us right to the death panels and the sneaky way that the weakest among us will be given the pain pill under the upcoming nationalized health care.

Some might even say it’s a seamless garment.

 

[4elise]

The whole issue of animal rights generates from Marxist notions intended to water down human rights and sow confusion among well-meaning, but not critically-thinking Christians. Which leads to reduced regard for human life. Which leads to the idea of the state owning the individual. Which leads to abortion, euthanasia, and ultimately to the death camps [gulags]. Which takes us right to the death panels and the sneaky way that the weakest among us will be given the pain pill under the upcoming nationalized health care.

Some might even say it’s a seamless garment.

While there may be individuals who have hidden behind this issue for some anti Christian motive - people with bad motives can hid behind anything if they think it can shied their real motives — However, I had made a distinction previously between animal rights and animal welfare - believe our Catholic Catechism supports animal welfare:

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

These sections move me to chose a vegan diet - while it is allowed to eat meat, given the way animals are raised today for the masses (not those who raise their own) and since I don’t NEED meat - the impact on the environment / resource issues - well it makes sense to me - and no, no Marxist plan here.

 

[CWBetts]

While there may be individuals who have hidden behind this issue for some anti Christian motive - people with bad motives can hid behind anything if they think it can shied their real motives — However, I had made a distinction previously between animal rights and animal welfare - believe our Catholic Catechism supports animal welfare:

These sections move me to chose a vegan diet - while it is allowed to eat meat, given the way animals are raised today for the masses (not those who raise their own) and since I don’t NEED meat - the impact on the environment / resource issues - well it makes sense to me - and no, no Marxist plan here.

Some people see a Marxist agenda wherever they look…