FACTORY FARMED ANIMALS TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED TO FEED SO CALLED "COMPANION ANIMALS"

[Nath Miles]

It is becoming clear that as a society we are becoming more and more speciesist.

 

What do you think about those who feel it is completely ok to factory farm, torture and slaughter animals so as to feed them to sustain so called companion animals (dogs and cats) rather than having them put to sleep?

 

 

Does this not seem to be completely hypocritical?

 

Many prominent animal rights advocates struggle with this question.

With many feeling the best way forward is the one with the "least harm" to ALL animals.

If this is the case then it would appear that the "least harm" would then be to humanely put the huge over population of excess companion animals to sleep as to keep them alive and sustain them hundreds of animals would have to suffer and  die.

 

So why is it that our society has become so speciesist?

 

[Nath Miles]

Sorry i support mandatory desexing, mandatory microchipping and pet licences. I am sick of our society overall treating animals as throw away items. If they cant afford to desex or microchip they shouldnt own the pet.

 

Microchipping costs 30$ if they cant afford that how can they even afford to feed the animal?

[Nath Miles]

It was started as a discussion Tim.

[red dog]

Go away, troll.

[red dog]

Unfortunately a lot of people do, and it's frustrating to have to restate my position here on ARZone where it should be self-evident.

[red dog]

Well, the word "welfarism" is derived from "welfare," so that distinction is going to require lengthy and ongoing explanations. I'm not sure why it is you've chosen to explain this to me, in any case--I agree with your position on welfare reforms in the slaughter/vivisection/other exploitation industries but I'm really confused as to what "campaign" you're criticizing in this thread. Is it the regulation of puppy mills--setting limits on breeders as opposed to banning breeding altogether? Or are you against the whole "campaign" to reform shelters and get them to do their job properly?

 

This discussion really offends me, for many reasons--not the least of which is that some troll is allowed to keep calling me Tim when it couldn't be more obvious that I'm not Tim.

[red dog]

I agree. But this thread is focused on animals who are bred and sold as "pets" and then discarded in "shelters." Usually but not always dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets, etc. And it was suggested that a member of this board was wasting money by spending it on vet bills to treat sick animals who had been rescued. That's a very offensive accusation.

[red dog]

I've seen that blog post. I knew Francione had dogs, and it's nice that he rescued them. Presumably he's had to pay some vet bills in all the time he's had his dogs, when he could have used the money to print up leaflets?

[red dog]

I'm really missing the relevance of Francione's dogs to your criticism of Den Friend.

[red dog]

It sure isn't, and I think Roger also isn't taking into account the fact that people are good at different things, and people want to do different things. And sometimes organizations that run shelters can benefit from the involvement of animal rights supporters--Nathan Winograd seems like a great example. If Winograd and others who think like him boycotted non-AR shelters, there would be no pressure on the shelters to change, would there?

[red dog]

Also, in my experience, rescue groups need as much help as they can get--from AR supporters and anyone else who is willing to help.

[red dog]

I don't blame Den Friend for attacking you after you attacked him for spending money on vet bills, and then went on to confuse the issue of rescue with the issue of campaigning for "welfare" reforms. You make the distinction here, but you're the one who attacked rescuers in the first place and suggested they have no right to use their time and money however they want. 

 

If you're opposed to a campaign to regulate breeding, or to a campaign for other legislation (such as shelter reform legislation)--well, I might agree if you made a convincing and non-insulting case for it--but to just lump all rescue-related issues together with animal agriculture reforms and then deny having done so is really disrespectful and disgusting.  

[red dog]

Considering the context of this discussion, he's probably not referring to any such "victories" OR to the illegal rescue of farmed animals (which I support, but which most people aren't in a position to carry out). He probably means things like conventional rescues, walking dogs at shelters, adoption, fostering, giving money to a rescuer to help them spay or neuter an animal, etc.

 

I agree with everything you've said about animal agriculture reform legislation, Carolyn, but I'm not sure what connection you're making between it and the issues that are the main topic of this thread.