Watch this HBO show on animal abuse!
Nancy Thuleen
>By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
>highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
>called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
>hour long and is set to replay on 4/14 at 1:50 am, 4/16 at 9:45 pm and
>4/24 at 11:30 pm.
>
>The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
>There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
>and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
>the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
>prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
>program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
>those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
>in this documentary along with the joys of those who do.
I second this recommendation, but I would also strongly suggest that you
take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously ... I was flipping
channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
the show. *Very* interesting, and very moving, and very informative, but
not for the weak of heart (or stomach) at all. Still, I may watch it
again, now that I know what I'm in for. But not the type of thing I was
expecting when randomly channel-surfing!
- Nancy.
Freelance
By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
for pleasure or profit will want to visit the places depicted.
I know nothing about the producers but think I caught the name Anthony
Thomas as the one who wrote, produced and directed it. HBO is to be
commended for the courage it took to air this. Watch it. Tape it. Commend
HBO.
And if anyone knows more about the people who made this, please post it.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
AlenSmithe
take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously ... I was flipping
channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
the show. *Very* interesting, and very moving, and very informative, but
not for the weak of heart (or stomach) at all
Interesting, sounds like one of those anti-porn films that shows hundreds
of disgusting sex scenes to show that such things are bad.
I think HBO is VIDEO ABUSE!!!!!
--------------------
AlenS...@aol.com <---Yes, I know AOL sucks; I'm working on getting rid
of it!
--------------------
There's nothing we wanna watch on TV tonight, but we're still gonna watch
something great- with our RCA VideoDisc player and VideoDiscs! Just flip a
switch, and on OUR TV we see Airplane or The Pink Panther, The Godfather
or Grease, Muppets, monsters, Mickey, MASH and 100 more, starting as low
as $15! And the player costs less than 500! Put it this way; we're
watching a GREAT MOVIE! And you're watching- us.
BRING THE MAGIC HOME ON RCA!
Alan and Linda Coffel
> >highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
> >called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
> >
> >The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
> >There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
> >and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
> >the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
> >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
> >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
> >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
> >in this documentary along with the joys of those who do.
>
>take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously ... I was flipping
>channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
>moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
>but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
>the show. *Very* interesting, and very moving, and very informative, but
>again, now that I know what I'm in for. But not the type of thing I
was
>expecting when randomly channel-surfing!
>
>- Nancy.
I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. This show was obviously (to me)
made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it? HBO
should be thoroughly CHASTISED for showing graphic commercials during
family viewing times, when children may be channel-surfing. I am not
blind to how cruel people can be, as I work with rescue groups, but if
it were up to me, the producers would be on trial!
Lorri Robinson
>
> >>I second this recommendation, but I would also strongly suggest that you
> take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously
All I saw was the promo for it, but I had already decided I would NOT be
watching it! It's not a case of "out of sight, out of mind"--it's a case of I
know it happens, why do you have to show me in brutal living color? Are you
trying to desensitize me so that eventually this will be ho-hum?
thank you, HBO, but I would rather not have graphic pictures replace the
horrors my own mind can dream up. I can censor my mind and tell it to stop
that.
When I read about the brutality to the cat, I got so upset, I had to go get
one of my cats and love on him until I calmed down. I'm still upset. And all I
did was READ a post.
Nope, won't watch it. You've gone a bit far this time.
Lorri
Morrison
Coffel ) wrote:
>In <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu> nthu...@students.wisc.edu
>(Nancy Thuleen) writes:
>>
>>In article <DprKB...@eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
<snip>
>> >the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
>> >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
>> >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
>> >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
>> >in this documentary along with the joys of those who do.
>
<snip>
>>channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
>>moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
>>but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
>
<snip>)
>made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
>would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
>likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
>they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it? HBO
Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
Ace
>
>By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
>highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
>called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
>
>The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
>There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
>and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
>prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
>program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
>those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
>for pleasure or profit will want to visit the places depicted.
>
>I know nothing about the producers but think I caught the name Anthony
>Thomas as the one who wrote, produced and directed it. HBO is to be
>commended for the courage it took to air this. Watch it. Tape it. Commend
>HBO.
>
>And if anyone knows more about the people who made this, please post it.
>
>Robert Young
>wri...@eskimo.com
>
China must be brought up to our modern standards. Do it any way
we can. They are the number 1 reason that so many animals are
endangered from poaching and the cruelty they do as a daily
routine makes me want to just drop the big one on them. I am a
hunter and I think that the AR community and the hunting community
would be better off joining forces against this REAL problem
rather than bickering with each other over hunting. That is where
the real cruelty is against animals. As a hunter I can say that
the Canned hunt scene in East Texas was also something that most
all hunters are also against but I fealt that the untrue
statement about why the hunter shot the ram in the butt ("to save
the trophy head") lost them some credibility. Any true hunter
knows that the guy was just a bad shot and shouldn't have been
allowed to shoot the breeze let alone a crossbow. As far as
taking a "head shot" with any type of archery equipment, the
producer of the show needs to educate himself on how archery
equipment kills. It kills by hemoraging and a head shot with an
arrow would cause too much undo suffering on the game. All in
all, I think the show really showed us all where the real problem
lyes, not as much here in the U.S. but in other countries. Ace
Diane Blackman
articles. I hope that if you are moved to respond that you will edit out
all newsgroups except your own. That way you can keep the discussion in a
group with which you are familiar, and won't be unfairly accused of
invading another newsgroup. The subject has been raised, now please let
each of us in our respective newsgroups decide for ourselves if we wish to
pursue it.
--
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
Companion of Tanith and Oso; Nox, Yoda, Lady Greystoke
and Mr. Doublestuff
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Be true to your own principles, and hold to them,
else complain not when the world runs contrary.
S.F. Jahn
Jim Powlesland (powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: "Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
: by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
: explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
: of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
: innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
: effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
: emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
: personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
And your own point is? That animal lovers are using ill-gotten funds to do
evils? That skinning a live cat is a "perceived inhumanity"?
Sarah Jahn
Brendan M Tuohy
has the address?
Love,
Colleen
Mishelle Fresener
>
> On 13 Apr 1996 02:55:48 GMT, cof...@ix.netcom.com(Alan and Linda
> Coffel ) wrote:
>
> >In <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu> nthu...@students.wisc.edu
> >(Nancy Thuleen) writes:
> >>
> >>In article <DprKB...@eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
> >> >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
> >> >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
> >> >in this documentary along with the joys of those who do.
> >
> >>channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
> >>moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
> >>but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
> >
> <snip>)
> >made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
> >would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
> >likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
> >they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it? HBO
>
> Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
I must say that while this type of show may have a place and maybe
someone will learn something or re-think there thoughts on animals, I
have to question HBO's use of such graphic images in its advertising.
I was reading in bed one night BEFORE the show aired and happened to look
up at the tv for a second, In about a ten second period of time I saw a
kitten struggling on a table while being experimented on, a cow being
dropped from a crane, a goat being thrown out of a window and a chicken
having its head cut off. I was speachless and sickened. I didn't even
have time to look away. The news gives you a warning before showing
graphic video so why couldn't HBO ? I'm still having a hard time dealing
with these images. I called my local cable company to complain and they
were very understanding and apologetic. I then called HBO to tell them
"Thanks for the warning" and the truth is they could give two shits about
what I think. Needless to say I no longer have HBO. If I made a choice
to watch the show then that's MY fault, If I stumble into it while it's
in progress then MY fault also, If I come across it in an ADVERTISMENT
then shame on HBO!!!
Just my thoughts,
Mishelle
AlenSmithe
would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it?
Actually this was probably taken from something that had already been
filmed a long time ago (I haven't seen the show since I don't have cable)
There is a "sadistic" film called "Faces of Death" which is an exploration
of death in general, and shows many deaths that were caught on film by
sheer coincidence. Of course I've read that some scenes like the electric
chair were actually faked.
I still think something like this shoving graphic violence in people's
faces to show that violence is wrong is a little sick-minded.
Eric Lorenzo
>I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. This show was obviously (to me)
>made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
>would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
>likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera.
I don't agree with that. I think a major point of this documentary
was the value different cultures put on animals. Take the Spain part for
instance, do you think the whole town staged throwing goats out of a tower
just for the stake of staging it? No, I don't think they staged any of the
footage they showed. They juxtaposed these images of cruelty with images of
how humans use animals for beneficial reasons to make their point, which I
think you missed.
I found the boiling of the cat part the most horrifying and the
sight of that skinned cat in the water still gasping for air gives me the
the worst case of goosebumps. However, if that's how certain Chinese value
animals, I'm not going to start an argument trying to impose my beliefs onto
them. On the other extreme, I did find the section about the group in India
that find all life sacred completely fascinating.
Anyway, I did wonder why this was on HBO and why it was part of the
"America Undercover" series. It seemed more appropriate for PBS or the
Discovery channel Anyway, I do prefer the undercover series they did with taxis in New York ;)
Eric
--
Eric.L...@Colorado.EDU cAPS lOCK? wHATs A cAPS lOCK?
<http://rintintin.colorado.edu:10000/> O-
Mishelle Fresener
>
> <<In response to Mishelle (sp)>>
>
> Sorry, but I did not have the will to copy the whole post... I
> just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
> either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
> is what the hell could one learn from boiling or skinning a cat?? I saw
> experiments on a cat where it's spinal cord was snapped.. humans know damn
> well what happens when a spinal cord is snapped.. so why did they do it to
> a cat (was a recent study). Some vivesection is completely pointless...
> probably most of it is... Maybe we could snap the researcher's spinal
> cords and see what happens...
>
> Angrily...
> Rojocito
I'm not sure what you meant by you "didn't have the will to copy the
whole post" as there was nothing wrong with my post!! I don't condone
these types of horrible crimes committed against animals. If you READ my
post I SAID I was sickened. But if people see these types of things it
may stir them into action or at the very least maybe they will be a
little kinder to their pets, or maybe someone who wasn't very fond of
animals will see them in a different light. We can only hope. I didn't
see the show, only an advertisment. I gather from the other posts that is
was more about how poeple in different cultures value animals and not
about vivesection. I think Americans on average value their pets more
than people in other countries, thank God!! So don't be angry at me, be
angry at those who are cruel to animals. I think you misunderstood my
post.
Mishelle
Mishelle
RojoCito
AlenSmithe
sight of that skinned cat in the water still gasping for air gives me the
the worst case of goosebumps. However, if that's how certain Chinese
value
animals, I'm not going to start an argument trying to impose my beliefs
onto them
Out of curiosity, were they doing that for food, or just for
experimentation or sadistic torture? It is true that different cultures
have different ways of eating and what is OK to eat. I would never eat a
cat or any other animal that I love, but if that's what they do in other
countries then that's their problem, just don't make me have anything to
do with it.
Freelance
then you either haven't seen the show or you don't know that cats (and
dogs) are eaten in the Far East, where it was filmed. It was as easy to
film it as going to an American restaurant and watch them plop a lobster
in a tank. Or a chicken.
Wake up, folks, this stuff goes on and screaming at HBO for telling us is
like killing the messenger because you don't like the bad news.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Alan and Linda Coffel (cof...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. This show was obviously (to me)
: made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
: would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
: likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
: they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it? HBO
Freelance
: Interesting, sounds like one of those anti-porn films that shows hundreds
: of disgusting sex scenes to show that such things are bad.
: I think HBO is VIDEO ABUSE!!!!!
It is amazing how many ostriches there are who can make pronouncements on
matters that they have not inspected and scream "abuse" at the same time.
Watch the show and decide.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Freelance
Lorri Robinson (robi...@avana.net) wrote:
: > >>I second this recommendation, but I would also strongly suggest that you
: > take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously
: All I saw was the promo for it, but I had already decided I would NOT be
: watching it! It's not a case of "out of sight, out of mind"--it's a case of I
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it is.
: know it happens, why do you have to show me in brutal living color? Are you
: trying to desensitize me so that eventually this will be ho-hum?
The producers say what their purpose is: to get us to see that we need not
brutalize animals and that something needs to be done about it, which is
quite the opposite of what you said.
: thank you, HBO, but I would rather not have graphic pictures replace the
: horrors my own mind can dream up. I can censor my mind and tell it to stop
: that.
That we could do the same to those who kill.
: When I read about the brutality to the cat, I got so upset, I had to go get
: one of my cats and love on him until I calmed down. I'm still upset. And all I
: did was READ a post.
I agree that it is upsetting. Fully. Petting your cat helps you but it
doesn't help the other cats, I'm sorry to say.
: Nope, won't watch it. You've gone a bit far this time.
Who's gone too far, the people who are telling you this happens or the
people who are doing it?
I daresay your attitude is what the show also covers, how we have become a
society that we want our "meat" in little plastic packages (and they show
them) away from our eyes, to not know what goes on to make them, blinding
ourselves to facts that these are animals.
If we cannot face these facts because they are so brutal, at least support
others to do it for us. We hire police. We hire morticians. We
hire people to do work we can't or won't do. We don't yell at police to
not tell us about crime. Don't yell at people telling you that animals are
being brutalized. Support them. It took a lot of bravery to make
that film and to air it and many will watch it and be outraged enough to
help. Others will say, "No, no, don't tell me this! It upsets me!" Fine.
I'm sorry. We're sorry. If it upsets you, support others to make the
difference. Otherwise, it will continue.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Freelance
: Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
No more than prosecuting people who skin cows or rabbits or pluck
chickens. The point is that cats (and dogs) are eaten in the Far East,
where it was filmed. There is also film from other countries, including
the US. Take your pick.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Jonna Connelly
>
> In article <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu>,
> Nancy Thuleen <nthu...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> >channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
> >moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
>
> that the animal rights movement has grown. It is on the inability
> to face the harsh, and what appears to them, the cruelties of
> nature, that the animal rights movement flourishes today.
Animal rights movements aside, how the hell does skinning and boiling a
cat alive constitute a cruelty of nature? In which case, hey, wanna come
up to my place for dinner -- we can try nature's way of having a man for
dinner!
It is a
> movement not built on love of animals, but rather on a love of
> self. Animal rights followers do not want to protect animals,
> they want to protect their own tender feelings." [p.14]
>
> "Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
> by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
> explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
> of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
> innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
> effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
> emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
> personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
>
> Russ Carman. 1990. "The Illusions of Animal Rights". Krause
> Publications, Iola, WI. ISBN 0-87341-159-5
>
> --
> Jim Powlesland | OFFICE: 403-220-7937
> University Computing Services | MESSAGE: 403-220-6201
> University of Calgary | FAX: 403-282-9199
> Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4 | URL: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/
Gwen A Orel
I disagree. I know child abuse is wrong without having to watch
somebody hit, molest or strangle a child. I feel about cats
almost the way I do about children, and it would be far too
disturbing to watch one being tortured. What's next? Videos
of rape and murder?
Gwen
Freelance (wri...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Lorri Robinson (robi...@avana.net) wrote:
: Robert Young
: wri...@eskimo.com
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Deb Goldgehn
> Sorry, but I did not have the will to copy the whole post... I
>just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
>either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
>is what the hell could one learn from boiling or skinning a cat??
I still don't understand why people insist on commenting on productions or
publications that they haven't bothered to view/read. You might as well
discuss quantum physics with a third grader.
To answer your assumption - vivisection and/or experimentation was a very
small portion of the program. IMO, the program did not say that we
shouldn't eat meat, or hunt, or use animals for experimentation. What it
DID say was that these activities need to be carried out with compassion
and understanding for the animals' capacity for pain and suffering. In the
examples presented, this was NOT the major consideration (or even a distant
one, from what I could see).
The cat sequence took place in China, where cat meat, once mainly consumed
by the poor due to it's availablity, is now considered fashionable. Ok - I
couldn't eat a cat - but we eat plenty of things in this country that would
offend the sensibilites of other societies, so that's not the point.
I'm sure we're all familiar with that 'age old' tradition of picking out
the lobster in the tank that's going to be dinner? Well, in China even the
children pick out the dog or cat that's to be that evening's dinner. The
point of the cat sequence (I couldn't quite watch the whole thing) was that
the preparation was done with NO consideration for what the cat, a living,
breathing entity, went through. An animal can very easily be killed
quickly and relatively painlessly. The show pointed out that that is very
often not the case.
There was an analogy made in the show to the holocaust, and the attitude of
the German people at the time - that if they ignored what was going on, it
wouldn't affect them. Please understand that in no uncertain terms did
they attempt to equate the suffering of the animals with that of the
holocaust victims (they specifically stated that), but they did point out
similarities - and I would say "DON'T" Watch this HBO show on animal abuse!
qualifies.
There was one line in the show that pretty much summed it up for me -
(paraphrased) How a society treats it's animals mirrors how it treats it's
people. And our country is by no means exempt...
Deb Goldgehn
Rich Young
: gt5...@acmex.gatech.edu (RojoCito) wrote:
: > Sorry, but I did not have the will to copy the whole post... I
: >just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
: >either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
: >is what the hell could one learn from boiling or skinning a cat??
: I still don't understand why people insist on commenting on productions or
: publications that they haven't bothered to view/read. You might as well
: discuss quantum physics with a third grader.
AMEN!!!
: To answer your assumption - vivisection and/or experimentation was a very
: small portion of the program. IMO, the program did not say that we
: shouldn't eat meat, or hunt, or use animals for experimentation. What it
: DID say was that these activities need to be carried out with compassion
: and understanding for the animals' capacity for pain and suffering. In the
: examples presented, this was NOT the major consideration (or even a distant
: one, from what I could see).
[...]
: There was an analogy made in the show to the holocaust, and the attitude of
: the German people at the time - that if they ignored what was going on, it
: wouldn't affect them. Please understand that in no uncertain terms did
: they attempt to equate the suffering of the animals with that of the
: holocaust victims (they specifically stated that), but they did point out
: similarities - and I would say "DON'T" Watch this HBO show on animal abuse!
: qualifies.
The show was also a hatchet job on the human race...obviously filmed
from an animal "rights" standpoint. Though it was not as virulent
as many of the AR propaganda films that dot the social landscape, it
was nevertheless quite biased in its presentation. The only hunters
it showed, for example, were engaged in a "canned hunt" (using a
CROSSBOW rather than a rifle, for heaven's sake!) and the Hegins
pigeon shoot...neither of which is considered hunting by those who
hunt. The Boone and Crockett club says, for example:
===============================================================================
"FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is
the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any
free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the
hunter an improper or unfair advantage over such game animals.
Use of any of the following methods in the taking of game
shall be deemed UNFAIR CHASE and unsportsmanlike:
IV. Hunting game confined by artificial barriers, including
escape-proof fenced enclosures, or hunting game
transplanted solely for the purpose of commercial
shooting;..."
===============================================================================
Please note the phrase, "free-ranging."
This is not to say that the program did not raise valid points...if
we're going to eat animals, we might be a bit more careful about how
we keep them, kill them, and prepare them for consumption...but one
should not be so overwhelmed by the graphic scenes that one misses
the issue entirely: it was essentially pro-AR (and anti-gun) propaganda.
Please note followups.
--
- Rich Young
(E-mail will be posted publicly as I see fit. You have been warned.)
RojoCito
: RojoCito wrote:
: >
: > <<In response to Mishelle (sp)>>
: >
: > just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
: > either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
: > experiments on a cat where it's spinal cord was snapped.. humans know damn
: > well what happens when a spinal cord is snapped.. so why did they do it to
: > a cat (was a recent study). Some vivesection is completely pointless...
: > probably most of it is... Maybe we could snap the researcher's spinal
: > cords and see what happens...
: >
: > Angrily...
: > Rojocito
: I'm not sure what you meant by you "didn't have the will to copy the
: whole post" as there was nothing wrong with my post!! I don't condone
: these types of horrible crimes committed against animals. If you READ my
: post I SAID I was sickened. But if people see these types of things it
: may stir them into action or at the very least maybe they will be a
: little kinder to their pets, or maybe someone who wasn't very fond of
: animals will see them in a different light. We can only hope. I didn't
: see the show, only an advertisment. I gather from the other posts that is
: was more about how poeple in different cultures value animals and not
: about vivesection. I think Americans on average value their pets more
: than people in other countries, thank God!! So don't be angry at me, be
: angry at those who are cruel to animals. I think you misunderstood my
: post.
: Mishelle
: Mishelle
Mishelle, I am very sorry... you misunderstood what I said and it
is my fault... "I did not have the will to copy the post" just meant that
I did not want sit and scroll through alot of lines of text to get to
where I could type... LOL As for your beliefs I whole-heartedly agree
with you and the post was actually in support of you... Sorry for any
confusion friend! :)
-RojoCito
Deb Goldgehn
>
>Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
Probably not. That sequence was shot in China. You'd pretty much have to
take on most of the country.
Deb Goldgehn
Mishelle Fresener
I too am sorry for any confusion, Looks like I misunderstood. No harm
done. We are obviously on the same side : } !!
Take care,
Mishelle
Freelance
: <<In response to Mishelle (sp)>>
: Sorry, but I did not have the will to copy the whole post... I
: just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
: either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
No, it is about how humans treat animals. The vivisection part is a small
part and really quite tame, by comparison. What is chilling about it is
the actual experiment: injecting pig embryoes with human dna so human
bodies will accept the pig's organs in transplants. (Animals experiments
aside, this has been called a "time bomb" for the threat of inter-species
diseases. This is cited on the program.)
: is what the hell could one learn from boiling or skinning a cat?? I saw
The same as skinning a cow or plucking a chicken before you eat it. Food.
: experiments on a cat where it's spinal cord was snapped.. humans know damn
: well what happens when a spinal cord is snapped.. so why did they do it to
For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some auto
manufacturers in auto crash tests.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Freelance
: >>I found the boiling of the cat part the most horrifying and the
: the worst case of goosebumps. However, if that's how certain Chinese
: value animals, I'm not going to start an argument trying to impose my
: beliefs onto them
I don't think that is the only alternative or a reason to back away. We
cannot simply say, well, that's there way and shrug and walk off. There
are many alternative actions.
: Out of curiosity, were they doing that for food, or just for
For food. Gourmet dining at that.
: experimentation or sadistic torture? It is true that different cultures
: have different ways of eating and what is OK to eat. I would never eat a
: cat or any other animal that I love, but if that's what they do in other
I suspect it is because you wouldn't want to harm them. That is called
compassion. That is all one asks for the other animals, that same
compassion.
: countries then that's their problem, just don't make me have anything to
: do with it.
I hate to put it this way, but it's too late: your choosing to walk away
from it is doing something about it.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Freelance
.
This is an incredible volitile subject. It evokes enormous emotions from
all sides, including those who scream they don't want to hear of it. And I
include myself as being emotionally involved. I just wanted to say that
you made your point calmly and I admire you for it. I was going to do it
by private e-mail but I figured, what-the-heck.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Ace (txou...@hilconet.com) wrote:
: wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
: >
: >By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
: >highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
: >called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
: >hour long and is set to reply on 4/14 at 1:50 am, 4/16 at 9:45 pm and 4/24
: >at 11:30 pm.
: >
: >The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
: >There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
: >and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
: >the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
: >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
: >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
: >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
: >in this documentary along with the joys of those who do. Those who kill
: >for pleasure or profit will want to visit the places depicted.
: >
: >I know nothing about the producers but think I caught the name Anthony
: >Thomas as the one who wrote, produced and directed it. HBO is to be
: >commended for the courage it took to air this. Watch it. Tape it. Commend
: >HBO.
: >
: >And if anyone knows more about the people who made this, please post it.
: >
: >Robert Young
: >wri...@eskimo.com
: >
: China must be brought up to our modern standards. Do it any way
: we can. They are the number 1 reason that so many animals are
: endangered from poaching and the cruelty they do as a daily
: routine makes me want to just drop the big one on them. I am a
Freelance
: Actually this was probably taken from something that had already been
: filmed a long time ago (I haven't seen the show since I don't have cable)
I can't speak to it but it is unlikely. Most of the footage would be very
easy to take. Most of the events were quite public, such as the killing of
the tortured bull on the steps of a church before throngs of
"worshippers."
: I still think something like this shoving graphic violence in people's
: faces to show that violence is wrong is a little sick-minded.
I tend to agree with those who objected to HBO's use of the violence in
the previews as one does not have a choice. But as to the show, the
violence is quite public and some disturbing scenes are not even violent,
such as the little boy pointing to the puppy in the cage, where you get to
select your food at the restaurant, the way people select live lobsters or
fish in a market.
Oh, sorry. They're okay to eat, aren't they?
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Alan and Linda Coffel
Powlesland) writes:
>
>In article <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu>,
>Nancy Thuleen <nthu...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very
brutal
>>moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry
easily,
>
>"It is on this selfish protection of their own tender feelings,
>that the animal rights movement has grown. It is on the inability
>to face the harsh, and what appears to them, the cruelties of
>movement not built on love of animals, but rather on a love of
>self. Animal rights followers do not want to protect animals,
>they want to protect their own tender feelings." [p.14]
>
>"Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
>by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
>explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
>of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
>innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
>effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
>emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
>personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
>
>Russ Carman. 1990. "The Illusions of Animal Rights". Krause
>Publications, Iola, WI. ISBN 0-87341-159-5
>
>--
>Jim Powlesland | OFFICE: 403-220-7937
>University Computing Services | MESSAGE: 403-220-6201
>University of Calgary | FAX: 403-282-9199
>Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4 | URL:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/
Jim,
There is a great difference between "man's perceived inhumanities
towards animals" (veal) and skinning a small cat alive (an unnecessary
act of cruelty). If my cat catches and brings home a dead rabbit,
that's nature, the food chain, etc. If I catch a kid who has tied a
rabbit to a fence and a slowly stoning it to death--that's inhumane.
In some parts of the world they eat dogs and monkeys. Although this
turns my stomach, I accept it as part of their food chain. Hindus
believe the cow is sacred and would likely starve before eating one.
When I eat meat, I prefer to eat kosher meats because they are killed
more humanely. If one's culture allows the eating of animals--fine,
but don't torture it in life or "boil it alive." (No, I don't eat
lobster, crab, etc.)
I (almost) accept my in-laws hunting dear because I know that deer are
overpopulated (and sometimes starve to death) in their region, they
don't shoot unless they can make a clean kill, and that they eat the
meat. On the other hand, when Florida opened up hunting for cougar and
Key deer in the Everglades, drunken hunters were running over them with
airboats and letting them drown.
If animal testing is necessary for developing a drug that will cure
cancer, I accept that, as long as the animals are treated well, played
with, not permanently caged, etc. Using animals to test cosmetics is
not acceptable.
For me, it boils down to this: killing for food is acceptable, as long
as it is done humanely. Killing for sport (trophies) or for pleasure
(sadism) is very, very rarely acceptable. Is this rationalization?
Maybe, but I don't care. It keeps me sane.
Linda
Sara Del vecchio
from an animal rights' standpoint. We are all human Americans and not as
an animal rights' activist did I see the horror portrayed in the videos.
What makes me think is the purpose of someone to watch this program. Why
is is that we are intrigued by what disgusts us? Perhaps I am getting
into a moral issue that I do not wish to open up to the floor (and I
should learn that I should watch what I say on this thing...) but it is a
good question. Why are we facinated by this. We know it is horrid and
inhumane, but who are we to judge as a race? We are the only living
creatures on Earth that kill our own race. We fear owr own kind. Do
cats fear other cats? I doubt it. Please dont get me wrong. I love my
animals and I would die to save them, but humans are so different, they
can not be compared.
Sara
Patrick Hickey
FROM
SANTA'S LITTLE HELPER!
HO HO HO HAPPY CHRISTMAS
ali...@nicom.com
> > "Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
> > by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
> > explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
> > of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
> > innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
> > effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
> > emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
> > personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
Animal rights groups that use disturbing photos of animals being harmed
are not using emotional blackmail--they are merely showing you what's
out there. Most people don't know. If you find what's shown in those
pictures so disturbing, perhaps you should think about whether they
might be right in protesting it. It seems animal rights groups are
damned if they do and damned if they don't=--if they don't show
pictures, people accuse them of making up stories. If they do show
pictures, people accuse them of playing to people's emotions. Animal
rights groups are merely the messengers--how about getting mad at what
they're telling you, rather than the people doing the telling?
Kelly Moss
: I must say that while this type of show may have a place and maybe
: someone will learn something or re-think there thoughts on animals, I
: have to question HBO's use of such graphic images in its advertising.
If we werent doing this to animals there wouldnt be a need for this being
made and shown. On the other hand i have it on tape and i dont know if i
will watch it(i saw a part of it and ended up in tears).
maybe people have to see to believe that this sort of stuff goes on?
I did read one post in another newsgroup from a hunter and he was
horrified himself by the crossbow hunters and thinks the AR people and
hunters should get together and put a stop to some of this stuff.
well it is a start anywaze ;-)
well i am glad it was made,i dont always like it though...
kelly
kel...@zipnet.net
--
*********************************************************************
kellym at her own organisation
minds are like parachutes
they only function when they are open
*********************************************************************
Richard and Nora
>In <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu> nthu...@students.wisc.edu
>(Nancy Thuleen) writes:
>>
>>In article <DprKB...@eskimo.com>, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
>>
>> >By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
>> >highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
>> >called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
>> >hour long and is set to replay on 4/14 at 1:50 am, 4/16 at 9:45 pm and
>> >4/24 at 11:30 pm.
>> >
>> >The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
>> >There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
>> >and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
>> >the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
>> >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
>> >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
>> >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
>> >in this documentary along with the joys of those who do.
>>
>>I second this recommendation, but I would also strongly suggest that you
>>take that "graphic violence" warning very seriously ... I was flipping
>>channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
>>moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
>>but within seconds, I was both sobbing and nauseated and had to turn off
>>the show. *Very* interesting, and very moving, and very informative, but
>>not for the weak of heart (or stomach) at all. Still, I may watch it
>>again, now that I know what I'm in for. But not the type of thing I
>was
>>expecting when randomly channel-surfing!
>>
>>- Nancy.
>I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. This show was obviously (to me)
>made by a sadistic, sick bunch of people. Do you really think someone
>would invite the producers and a camera to film skinning a cat? More
>likely, it was staged BY the producers FOR the camera. Otherwise, if
>they were such humanitarians, why didn't they try to stop it? HBO
>should be thoroughly CHASTISED for showing graphic commercials during
>family viewing times, when children may be channel-surfing. I am not
>blind to how cruel people can be, as I work with rescue groups, but if
>it were up to me, the producers would be on trial!
this is the 3rd time that im trying to send a reply but i still dont
know how this works. i lost all my thoughts, except that i think
that everyone that hurts animals just for the pleasure of it, should
be condemmed and punished accordingly. i got sick to my stomatch
watching part of this program. i couldnt watch it all. it was too
descriptive for my taste.
Hunter
>If you think that the killing of the animals was staged by the producers
>then you either haven't seen the show or you don't know that cats (and
>dogs) are eaten in the Far East, where it was filmed. It was as easy to
>film it as going to an American restaurant and watch them plop a lobster
>in a tank. Or a chicken.
Please explain further about exactly which part of the Far East you're
talking about. If you are going to come up with wild slander like
this, can you back it up? OK, so Koreans eat dog. I understand from
other comments, which were more specific and therefore more
believable, that cats may be considered food in China. On that basis,
are you accusing every country in the Far East of routinely torturing
or eating domestic pets? That's like saying that all Westerners like
putting cats in bags and beating them to death, just because there has
been a recent incident of this in Texas.
If you are a responsible person, who just didn't think before you
wrote, I would like you to retract your comments. If not, then I hope
that nobody else believes any further comments you make.
Beth
in Singapore
John Herold
>For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some auto
>manufacturers in auto crash tests.
>
>Robert Young
>wri...@eskimo.com
Would you prefer that your mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, or
child be used instead?
Gwen A Orel
in China, and would like to know the source of your information.
I know of too many children's stories and folktales in which cats
are beloved pets, and too many scrolls with paintings of cats, to
believe this.
Gwen
Hunter (hun...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
: Beth
: in Singapore
--
Cynthia Wood
(Hunter) wrote:
> wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
>
> >If you think that the killing of the animals was staged by the producers
> >then you either haven't seen the show or you don't know that cats (and
> >dogs) are eaten in the Far East, where it was filmed. It was as easy to
> >film it as going to an American restaurant and watch them plop a lobster
> >in a tank. Or a chicken.
>
> Please explain further about exactly which part of the Far East you're
> talking about. If you are going to come up with wild slander like
> this, can you back it up? OK, so Koreans eat dog. I understand from
> other comments, which were more specific and therefore more
> believable, that cats may be considered food in China. On that basis,
> are you accusing every country in the Far East of routinely torturing
> or eating domestic pets?
In some other countries/cultures cats and dogs are no more considered to
be domestic pets than cows, chickens, and lobsters are in the US.
4332070480283609Susan Wolcott
>
>If you think that the killing of the animals was staged by the producers
>then you either haven't seen the show or you don't know that cats (and
>dogs) are eaten in the Far East, where it was filmed. It was as easy to
>film it as going to an American restaurant and watch them plop a lobster
>in a tank. Or a chicken.
>
>Wake up, folks, this stuff goes on and screaming at HBO for telling us is
>like killing the messenger because you don't like the bad news.
>
>Robert Young
>wri...@eskimo.com
Are you nuts? Someone who documents violence to animals (as the Mich Humane
Soc. has) documents violence after it is done. Anyone who films it WHILE it
is being done is guilty of allowing it to happen and should be PROSECUTED!
>
>
>Alan and Linda Coffel (cof...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. This show was obviously (to me)
4332070480283609Susan Wolcott
>
> >>I found the boiling of the cat part the most horrifying and the
>sight of that skinned cat in the water still gasping for air gives me the
>the worst case of goosebumps. However, if that's how certain Chinese
>value
>animals, I'm not going to start an argument trying to impose my beliefs
>onto them
>
>Out of curiosity, were they doing that for food, or just for
>experimentation or sadistic torture? It is true that different cultures
>have different ways of eating and what is OK to eat. I would never eat a
>cat or any other animal that I love, but if that's what they do in other
>countries then that's their problem, just don't make me have anything to
>do with it.
>
Are you nuts? This is INHUMANE? Even if they ATE cats, to skin it and boil it
alive?!!
The Mighigan Humane Society showed anti-cruelty films at one of their yearly
meetings. They did not film anything in action because they woul dhave responsibly
stopped such action. Anyone who filmed such cruelty in action should be prosecuted
since by not stopping it, one is participating in allowing it to happen. The things
people do to their pets are gruesome to behold... I hope our anti-cruelty laws get
tougher and tougher.
Ray Bergeron
Don't you just hate multiple question test? :)
Laura Dietrick
A vet in the show made some comments to the affect that he doesn't neccessarily
agree with what was done to the animals but there is no other choice.
I sat there watching this crying and not being able to believe that some people think
treating animals like this is right. They made the point also that if we had to test on
humans that it would never happen. We always think we are the only ones that are
worth anything. We have to do everything to save every person we can.
We dont think about how much pain those animals go through. I just wish
that we could do more about this but it wont happen without a change in
attitude from government and "big" business. I completely agree with you
Rojocito. If it was there animals in the restraints maybe researchers would have a
change of heart. I do realize that without testing we would not have cures and medicine.
Sometimes things get out of hand and insane and what that HBO special showed was just that.
Something that has gotten out of hand.
Laura Dietrick
gt5...@acmex.gatech.edu (RojoCito) wrote:
> <<In response to Mishelle (sp)>>
> Sorry, but I did not have the will to copy the whole post... I
>just have one question. I did not see this program, but I assume it was
>either about vivsection and/or experimentation.. And all I want to know..
>is what the hell could one learn from boiling or skinning a cat?? I saw
>experiments on a cat where it's spinal cord was snapped.. humans know damn
>well what happens when a spinal cord is snapped.. so why did they do it to
Sleight of Hans
On Wednesday, April 17, 1996, Susan Wolcott wrote...
>
> Are you nuts? This is INHUMANE? Even if they ATE cats, to skin it and
boil it
> alive?!!
>
Do you eat lobster?
How is this any different? I just hope you aren't hippocritical. I don't
sense that you are, but
it's a thin line.
Just my $.02 worth.
> The Mighigan Humane Society showed anti-cruelty films at one of their
yearly
> meetings. They did not film anything in action because they woul dhave
responsibly
> stopped such action. Anyone who filmed such cruelty in action should be
prosecuted
> since by not stopping it, one is participating in allowing it to happen.
The things
> people do to their pets are gruesome to behold... I hope our
anti-cruelty laws get
> tougher and tougher.
Agreed. But will you still eat lobster?
I certainly will. And the kitties get the scraps!
- Hans
Joseph Askew
>I still don't understand why people insist on commenting on productions or
>publications that they haven't bothered to view/read. You might as well
>discuss quantum physics with a third grader.
Well oddly enough it wasn't shown here and I notice that you
did not sit through it all either. As you admit below.
>The cat sequence took place in China, where cat meat, once mainly consumed
>by the poor due to it's availablity, is now considered fashionable. Ok - I
>couldn't eat a cat - but we eat plenty of things in this country that would
>offend the sensibilites of other societies, so that's not the point.
Chinese people do not eat cat by and large. It may be found in
Guangdong but the meat is awful and people have better things
to eat. Dog is a delicacy but cats aren't. If the producers of
this show have any evidence to the contrary I hope they produced
it as I would like to see it.
>I'm sure we're all familiar with that 'age old' tradition of picking out
>the lobster in the tank that's going to be dinner? Well, in China even the
>children pick out the dog or cat that's to be that evening's dinner.
Which is probably true to a certain extent. So what? Not that letting
children pick out the dinner is common. Most people like to see their
food is fresh and to chose a nice one. Big deal. What is the problem
here?
>The
>point of the cat sequence (I couldn't quite watch the whole thing) was that
>the preparation was done with NO consideration for what the cat, a living,
>breathing entity, went through.
So your objection is that they were cruel to the cat not that
they ate it? It would have been alright if it was put down nicely?
>An animal can very easily be killed
>quickly and relatively painlessly. The show pointed out that that is very
>often not the case.
In both the West and China. So what?
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>> are you accusing every country in the Far East of routinely torturing
>> or eating domestic pets?
>In some other countries/cultures cats and dogs are no more considered to
>be domestic pets than cows, chickens, and lobsters are in the US.
This will come as news to my former Landlady in Taiwan who kept
both a yappy little runt of a dog and a spoilt cat. Besides my
brothers and I used to keep pet chickens. And a pet yabbie which
is close enough to a lobster.
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>>Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
>Probably not. That sequence was shot in China. You'd pretty much have to
>take on most of the country.
On the other hand the number of faked sequences shot in East
Asia is huge. Did they show a live monkey brain scene? It is
far more likely that the producers paid someone to skin a live
cat than that such things happen on a regular basis. In which
case there is a good chance for a prosecution.
Joseph
MACE LOFTUS
> This is an incredible volitile subject. It evokes enormous emotions from
> all sides, including those who scream they don't want to hear of it. And I
> include myself as being emotionally involved. I just wanted to say that
> you made your point calmly and I admire you for it. I was going to do it
> by private e-mail but I figured, what-the-heck.
>
> Robert Young
> wri...@eskimo.com
>
>
> Ace (txou...@hilconet.com) wrote:
> : >
> : >By a complete accident, I caught an HBO program last night (4/12) that I
> : >highly recommend to anyone concerned with the treatment of animals. It is
> : >called "America Undercover: To Love or Kill: Man v. Animal." It is one
> : >
> : >The program deals with how our species sees animals and how we treat them.
> : >There are amazing scenes of how animals offer their help and their love
> : >and then there are scenes that... Let me put it this way: The warning at
> : >the start of the program that it contains "graphic violence" will not
> : >prepare you for the sheer brutality of our species. Be prepared for a
> : >program that will hit your heart and your stomach, unless you are one of
> : >those who delights in killing for pleasure, which is graphically depicted
I would like to also complement Ace's comment well done.I also want
to say everyone is entitled to their opinion and here is mine.I dont
hunt just because I dont feel the need to but I dont critisize people
who hunt either especially if they eat what they kill because the
animals hunters kill usually have the quality of life God intented
for them they are free until the moment of death.Also I dont even
have a problem with people eating cats or dogs or whatever animal
they want but when it comes to animals being tortured before they
are eaten or killed in a slow process this really makes me angry.
After seeing that seen on HBO with the cat I could have killed
that guy.Did anyone notice the smile he had on his face while
he was beating it over the head.If this is how all of China
is I agree with Ace I feel like dropping the big one too. I am
not going to jump to any conclusions and I have never judged
a race of people for one groups actions but I feel like the world
is going down the toilet and alot of people dont give a damn what
suffers or gets tortured including people and this has got to change.
And as for our own back yard I had no Idea that our own cattle,pork,
and poultry were slaughtered in that way.I guess its time for me to
get educated and become aware.It makes me wonder how many scared
and tortured animals I may have unknowingly consumed And how many
of these animals still had a breath of life in them while they were
being processed into steaks or whatever.I think it was good that
HBO aired this program because there are probably alot of people like
myself who had no idea that these things even happened.
Mishelle Fresener
I'm just wondering Joseph, Do you have a point?
Mishelle
susanh
turned it on, since I'd seen a few minutes of the show two nights
before, I explained to her that she might be very upset, and could at
any time ask me to switch channels.
We felt the program was rather well balanced -- besides the violent,
brutal, and upsetting segment about the cats slaughtered for the
"yuppie" Chinese restaurant (eating cats, the reports contends, is a new
favorite of young rich Chinese, and cat meat is supposed to enhance the
sex drive -- eating dog meat, is thought to improve brain function), the
producers also spent several minutes showing veterans honoring the dogs
of WWI that gave their lives helping US and other soldiers, interviewing
a woman who visits the grave of her dog (dead since 1986) every other
day, and also pointed out the opposite extreme attitude towards animals
- the Indian religious sect that reveres all living things, even
insects, provides grain for insects (!), drinks milk after the rats
have first drunk their fill and walked through the milk, and won't allow
euthanization of animals in extreme pain.
The rabbi who was interviewed, as well as Roger Karas, were eloquent,
and spoke calmly, intelligently, and rationally about ethical
considerations. I would appreciate the tname of the rabbi -- it's
heartening to hear an activist speak who has such a logical mind that
one cannnot help but see the "sense" of his observations and statements.
If one were to report only about the horrific moments in the film, not
the heartwarming moments, or the quite interesting interviews, one would
be skewing a report of the film's contents. While it was evident the
sympathies of the producers were with animal rights activists, the
producers made an effort to present a balanced report.
A long time ago, when i was more active in animal welfare and animal
rights activities, I wrote a freelance story for a major newspaper on
the veal farming industry. I visited many farmers who raised the calves
for veal, walked through their barns, sat at their kitchen tables and
drank their coffee. I talked to local and national leaders in animal
rights, including Peter Singer. What I came away with, after this
attempt at objective reporting, was that conditions weren't quite as
bad, all the time, as some animal rights activists may think or state in
their publications, but moreso that economic need and opportunities for
profit outweigh ethical considerations. Both sides rationalized in order
to defend their opinions, but I did feel that the *lure* of profit
swayed the farmers beyond any reasonable ability to *see* how the young
calves, in wooden crates, unable to move, were suffering. I'll never
forget their eyes -- and when I reached out to them, their mouths
grasped my arm, attempting to suckle. They were, really, infants.
Infants who needed their mothers.
Jim Powlesland wrote:
>
>ht and came in on the middle of this, at a very brutal
> >moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry easily,
>
> "It is on this selfish protection of their own tender feelings,
> that the animal rights movement has grown. It is on the inability
> to face the harsh, and what appears to them, the cruelties of
> nature, that the animal rights movement flourishes today. It is a
> movement not built on love of animals, but rather on a love of
> self. Animal rights followers do not want to protect animals,
> they want to protect their own tender feelings." [p.14]
>
> "Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
> by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
> explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
> of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
> innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
> effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
> emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
> personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
>
Stephen Barnard
>
> China must be brought up to our modern standards. Do it any way
> we can. They are the number 1 reason that so many animals are
> endangered from poaching and the cruelty they do as a daily
> routine makes me want to just drop the big one on them. I am a
> hunter and I think that the AR community and the hunting community
> would be better off joining forces against this REAL problem
> rather than bickering with each other over hunting. That is where
> the real cruelty is against animals.
Ace, you've really got it pegged on this one. I just get sick to my
stomach whenever I hear about how China's economy is booming. More
money to spend on tiger bones and penises, bear gall bladders, rhino
horns, and God knows what other superstitious crap that they believe
in.
Steve Barnard
Susan Duncan
>
>>snip<<
>We know it is horrid and
>inhumane, but who are we to judge as a race? We are the only living
>creatures on Earth that kill our own race.
>
>
You're kidding, right? Where did you ever get the idea that humans
are the only animals who kill their own kind?
Susan
KAOS - Jason A. Cortright
>Actually this was probably taken from something that had already been
>filmed a long time ago (I haven't seen the show since I don't have cable)
>of death in general, and shows many deaths that were caught on film by
>sheer coincidence. Of course I've read that some scenes like the electric
>chair were actually faked.
>I still think something like this shoving graphic violence in people's
>faces to show that violence is wrong is a little sick-minded.
I agree with this, showing violence of a "real life" nature is a
little much even for cable TV. It's just seems a little sick in a way
to produce it, display it and even watch it...
I never would watch those Faces of Death movies just for the reason
that seeing an actual death just didnt seem like a good thing to
mentally take into my psyche and deal with (not for fear of death, but
the idea of WANTING TO SEE IT)... So, for similar reasons, I would
pass on this one too...
KAOS
KAOS - Jason A. Cortright
>society that we want our "meat" in little plastic packages (and they show
>them) away from our eyes, to not know what goes on to make them, blinding
>ourselves to facts that these are animals.
Now, I have gone to see shows by my favorite band (Skinny Puppy), and
they used to do anti-vivisection performances and such, and we would
see alot of film and such right up on stage, we chose to go to a
concert, little did we know of the message we would see that might.
So, I have seen this type of film footage before (operations on dogs,
experiments on monkeys, animal cruelty) perhaps not the same as his
show, I don't know, I dont care, I have already seen things as bad as
they could be shown...
>If we cannot face these facts because they are so brutal, at least support
>others to do it for us. We hire police. We hire morticians. We
>hire people to do work we can't or won't do. We don't yell at police to
>not tell us about crime. Don't yell at people telling you that animals are
>being brutalized. Support them. It took a lot of bravery to make
>that film and to air it and many will watch it and be outraged enough to
>help. Others will say, "No, no, don't tell me this! It upsets me!" Fine.
>I'm sorry. We're sorry. If it upsets you, support others to make the
>difference. Otherwise, it will continue.
We do not make information to help fight these kinds of actions
available enough to make a diference... I remember at the shows I saw,
info was passed out that told us how to take action. I liked that...
It was cool because not only did we see a little bit about what
vivisection was and decide in our own minds durring the show how we
felt about it, we were also givin information that would help us have
a voce in the matter IF WE CHOSE TO, I always have ever since then...
So, what do I think? I wont watch it (For personal reasons mentioned
before, AND) I've seen enough to make up my mind to help (and I do),
but I think maybe everyone should watch the film and decide for
themselves what they think about it... no one will hurt you to sit and
take in information and decide what it meant to you, after all, that's
what the whole show is for right?
KAOS
Santina Mongold
John Herold
(4332070480283609Susan Wolcott ) wrote:
>In <DpyJ8...@eskimo.com> wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) writes:
>...
>Are you nuts? Someone who documents violence to animals (as the Mich Humane
>Soc. has) documents violence after it is done. Anyone who films it WHILE it
>is being done is guilty of allowing it to happen and should be PROSECUTED!
Fer Pete's sake, lighten up and get in context. The "horrible" scenes
were filmed of legal activity in the places where they were taking
place. It's legal (and sanctioned) to torment bulls to death in
Spain, to throw goats out fo towers in Portugal, and to boil and skin
live cats in China.
Regarding the latter, which has evoked appropriate outrage in
rec.pets.cats, the narrator emphatically made the point that in poor
societies, just about everything and anything edible found its way
into the cooking pot. Sure, we in America recoil from such tings as
Kitty being boiled and skinned an eaten... but for poor folk it's
Dinner.
Geeze, the whole film was just a combination of documentary and
editorial. Everyone will have a different take on it. For my part,
taking it in context, the only thing that disgusted me was the captive
hunt where Hawaiian goats were shot as trophies - I thought the guys
who said they were proud of thier kills were wimps, and I say this as
a goose hunter who wouldn't think of a captive hunt.
Bah on the whole argument. :-)
-John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditional Siamese)
John Herold
>I find it difficult to believe that cats are routinely considered food
>in China, and would like to know the source of your information.
>
>I know of too many children's stories and folktales in which cats
>are beloved pets, and too many scrolls with paintings of cats, to
>believe this.
Ask any Asian friend you migh thave. I asked aquaintances of Chinese,
Korean, Malaysian, and Vietnamese origin if it were true, and they all
said Yes. I asked, "Would you eat my cats?" and one guy flat-out told
me if it was the last thing available, yes, he would - and opined that
if I were that hungry I would, too. And you know what... he mihgt be
right about that, far-fetched as it seems to me now. I've never
experienced that kind of hunger, and hope I never have to.
John Herold
Cortright) wrote:
>>I still think something like this shoving graphic violence in people's
>>faces to show that violence is wrong is a little sick-minded.
>
>I agree with this, showing violence of a "real life" nature is a
>little much even for cable TV. It's just seems a little sick in a way
>to produce it, display it and even watch it...
It's called ratings. And on the additional premise that any publicity
is good pulicity (including controversy) , the program seems to have
been successful.
Deb Goldgehn
>>
>> Deb Goldgehn <de...@ocn.com> writes:
>>
>> >I still don't understand why people insist on commenting on productions or
>> >publications that they haven't bothered to view/read. You might as well
>> >discuss quantum physics with a third grader.
>>
>> Well oddly enough it wasn't shown here and I notice that you
>> did not sit through it all either. As you admit below.
I did HEAR the entire show - I just had to turn my head a few times.
>>
>> Chinese people do not eat cat by and large. It may be found in
>> Guangdong but the meat is awful and people have better things
>> to eat. Dog is a delicacy but cats aren't. If the producers of
>> this show have any evidence to the contrary I hope they produced
>> it as I would like to see it.
As was stated in the program, cats were primarily eaten by the poor due to
their availablity. Only recently (I don't have the time frame) have they
become more fashionable. The instance they used (I don't know if they
mentioned a city or not) stated that approximately 2,000 pounds of cat meat
was sold per week (I don't remember exactly - I want to say per day, but
that seems totally excessive). They showed people in a restaurant being
served cat. You'll have to take it up with the producers.
You seem to convey that eating a dog is fine, but the thought of eating a
cat is somehow repulsive. Why? What's the difference?
>> Which is probably true to a certain extent. So what? Not that letting
>> children pick out the dinner is common. Most people like to see their
>> food is fresh and to chose a nice one. Big deal. What is the problem
>> here?
I don't think I said that there was ANY problem with the practice. I used
the illustration to show how pervasive and ordinary the practice of eating
dogs and cats is there, It seems just to be an regular part of these
people's lives, For them, that's fine. I'm not about to judge their
lifestyles. My only problem (and that of the producers) was how cruelly
the whole thing was done, not the actual practice itself.
>>
>> So your objection is that they were cruel to the cat not that
>> they ate it? It would have been alright if it was put down nicely?
We have a number of eating practices in this country that would be
considered abhorrent to others around the world. Yes, if they had just
quickly and mercifully slit the poor animal's throat, or whatever method
would provide the quickest death, it would have at least shown (to me) that
they did have some respect for the life that was being given up for them to
eat.
>>
>> >An animal can very easily be killed
>> >quickly and relatively painlessly. The show pointed out that that is very
>> >often not the case.
>>
>> In both the West and China. So what?
That was the point of the show! That cruel, inhumane practices do NOT have
to, and SHOULD not take place. I certainly did not mean to imply that this
practice was unique to China...in fact I believe I mentioned that
specifically. "Our country is by no means exempt" means that things are no
better here than anywhere else. We're just much better at hiding it.
Deb Goldgehn
David Leach
> >point of the cat sequence (I couldn't quite watch the whole thing) was that
> >the preparation was done with NO consideration for what the cat, a living,
> >breathing entity, went through.
>
> they ate it? It would have been alright if it was put down nicely?
With this particular scene, you are right (though I wasn't the original poster).
My main objection was the undescribable torture that was administered to a live
animal period. I'm a cat lover and could no more eat a cat than I could kill a
cat. I think a part of the message of the movie was that we like to eat our meat
while being spared the gory details of it's processing. As a young teenager I
remember watching video taken in a slaughterhouse and being disgusted. But just
last night I had tacos and it's pretty easy to disassociate ground up meat with
cows being killed and cut up.
So yes, Joseph. If people want to eat monkeys or cats or dogs or goats or cows,
that's OK with me. Just see the following three lines.
>
> >An animal can very easily be killed
> >quickly and relatively painlessly. The show pointed out that that is very
> >often not the case.
>
> In both the West and China. So what?
So it's wrong and arrogant.
David
Mishelle Fresener
Are you trying to tell us that you think the cat skinning scene was
fabricated for the benefit of the show?!? Oh come on get real!!
Mishelle
Christie Ollis
it through this newsgroup. We weren't going to watch it at first because
we thought it would make us too mad, but we started and couldn't help but
watch most of it. When it got to the part about people in China eating
dogs and cats and showing how they are prepared we immediately changed the
channel for a few minutes and went back to it. We caught the part where
they skinned the cat. It was so sad. They were so nonchalant about it.
I work with someone who is from China and she says that alot of the poor
people eat cats and dogs out of necessity. But the commentator on this
show said that for the newly rich in China 'old habits die hard' and cats
and dogs are becoming a delicacy in some restaurants. They said crates
and crates of these animals are delivered to these restaurants every day.
My question is where do these animals come from? Chinese people obviously
don't normally keep family pets like other cultures do, so are these
animals being bred for feeding people?
Christie
col...@choctaw.astate.edu
Gwen A Orel
starvation and eating one as a delicacy.
I just saw the Imperial Treasures exhibit at the Met and there
were several scrolls with paintings of kittens, and children
with kittens, as *loved pets*.
Gwen
p.s. I lived at EAST house (Asian Studies Theme House) at Stanford
for two years and never *once* heard anything to support this.
John Herold (j...@clark.net) wrote:
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
MACE LOFTUS
>
> Deb Goldgehn <de...@ocn.com> writes:
>
> >>Any chance of prosecuting the people who skinned the cat?
>
> >Probably not. That sequence was shot in China. You'd pretty much have to
> >take on most of the country.
>
> On the other hand the number of faked sequences shot in East
> Asia is huge. Did they show a live monkey brain scene? It is
> far more likely that the producers paid someone to skin a live
> cat than that such things happen on a regular basis. In which
> case there is a good chance for a prosecution.
>
> Joseph
>
>
that cat seen was shot at a $#@$$ Chinese restaurant.And nobody
has even mentioned that poor animal (couldnt even tell what it was)
that had been skinned and was laying on the market table.NOW SO
NOBODY MISSES THE POINT THIS ANIMAL WAS SKINNED LAYING ON THE TABLE
AT THE MARKET AND IT WAS STILL BREATHING.Another point that someone
else made was why didnt the producers stop this.How are producers
from another country going to stop a restaurant in China from doing
buisness as usual.I dont think most people have a problem with the
Chinese eating cats and dogs.The problem is that these @%#@%#@ people
have not one ounce of compassion or feeling in them.Look at how
they run their orphanages and their slave labor camps.These are
other issues I wont get into but China needs some serious help.
Nancy
> China must be brought up to our modern standards. Do it any way
> we can. They are the number 1 reason that so many animals are
> endangered from poaching and the cruelty they do as a daily
> routine makes me want to just drop the big one on them. I am a
> hunter and I think that the AR community and the hunting community
> would be better off joining forces against this REAL problem
> rather than bickering with each other over hunting. That is where
[edit text]
Ace --
I must commend you on your thoughtful and inciteful phrasing.
I didn't see the HBO show, but from reading some of these posts, it sounds
like people are realizing the impact of a culture with a diffrenet slant
on "fine dining" and "health foods". It's hoped I'll never have to decribe
the preparation of delicacies of northern Chinese cuisine [as related by
exchange students from Hong Kong], such as "Monkey Brain" and "Bear's Paw"
in any posts. These dinners, along with the graphic description of the
cat, are available in epicurean restaurants of Hong Hong, with about a
day's advance notice for preparation.
China is not alone in these food practices. Some business associates
supplied these comments mixed with their own disbelief, upon returning to
the offices here in N.A., "if you're a westerner, you don't want to be
taking your pets to Malaysia. If you take your eyes off your dog for even
a moment -- it'll wind up in a pot for dinner and they just might feed it
to you -- and with cats it's even worse." An April '95 feature article in
Equinox titled, "Secrets of the Lost Forest, Vietnam's Rainforest; Animals
just newly discovered, are being sold on black-market for Chinese
medicines and aphrodesiacs", pp.37-46, illustrates Vietnam's
participation.
For those individuals who believe these practices are supported by certain
provinces in China, pockets throughout Asia or the Pacific Rim, I'm sad to
say they're tragically wrong. North America supports and contributes to
the false belief of Asian peoples by exporting animal parts; compromising
the principles of our culture, and our cultures' growing respect toward
wildlife. Exampled by a situation here in Canada, the following is an
extract about the Canada seal hunt, written by Todd Southgate, of CityTV,
Toronto. The quoted extract and abbreviated version *are not* meant to be
looked on from the perspective or debating of the hunt itself -- it's
about how our governments sacrifice principles for $$:
"The Canadian government is trying to find new markets for mature (six
weeks or older) seal parts. At Memorial University, St. John's,
Newfoundland, researchers are looking into methods of making seal meat
palatable. They are hoping to broaden the consumer market for seal meat by
injecting a myriad of chemicals into the flesh in an attempt to alter its
appeal. Untainted seal is an "acquired taste". Other markets for seal are
also being sought. From fox feed to oil extract Omega 3, an experimental
cholesterol-fighting agent, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has
embarked on funding what they call a "full utilization" program of
marketing seal products. The environmental, as well as moral concern over
this "full utilization" concept is that the material is not in demand.
Sadly there *is* one exception: seal penises."
In 1994, it was reported that 50,000 seal penises were leaving Canada en
route to the Far East, and on February 10, 1995 the government announced
it would provide a subsidy of $0.20 per pound for landed seal meat, while
the penis [if memory serves] gets $25. Like bear gallbladders, ground
tortoise shells and shark fins, seal genitals are heading to the Orient
supposedly to improve the vitality of rich men. It is a disturbing trend
where majestical animals of all sorts are being sentenced to death, and in
some cases extinction, for a belief that their parts can aid in enhancing
a male's sexual drive.
It doesn't do us much good to be shocked, then do nothing.
It doesn't stop this way. We don't earn higher principles by turning our
backs and we can't "teach to respect" that which isn't respected here.
Ace, your thought and suggestion of individuals combining efforts,
irrespective of differing reasons to achieve a positive outcome, is one
of the finest I've read and, from my position as a person who chooses
*not to* hunt, what I've been waiting many years to hear -- from a person
who chooses *to* hunt.
I'd like to see it get some fruition.
Perhaps individuals in these groups can suggest a constructive, yet simple
starting point -- based on "principle" understanding -- one which can be
debated toward an all-round beneficial perspective for all to participate.
I'll even provide an example:
The Southern Flying Squirrel:
In large expanses of the north american continent, the Southern Flying
Squirrel is endangered or extinct in an area, and biologists,
conservationists and game preserves are working toward trying to
re-introduce it into areas. Yet, a pet shop is breeding and selling them
for $300-600 as pets -- meaning we won't enjoy them in the wild, and many
'captives' will die early deaths from lack of behavioural knowledge. I
have biological/behavioural/habitat info that can be contributed.
Additional suggestions for candidacy, anyone?
Regards,
Nancy
Michael Olin
>If we cannot face these facts because they are so brutal, at least support
>others to do it for us. We hire police. We hire morticians. We
>hire people to do work we can't or won't do. We don't yell at police to
>not tell us about crime. Don't yell at people telling you that animals are
>being brutalized. Support them. It took a lot of bravery to make
>that film and to air it and many will watch it and be outraged enough to
>help. Others will say, "No, no, don't tell me this! It upsets me!" Fine.
>I'm sorry. We're sorry. If it upsets you, support others to make the
>difference. Otherwise, it will continue.
OK, you've made a good point... Now tell me what the average net-surfing
American can do to stop the Chinese from eating/torturing cats.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-= mo...@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|||
Keep up the fight ||| I love my country
or lose the right... / | \ but I fear my government
Raymond F Herrera
Did anyone watching this show forget to watch the people in India that
allow humans to die pittiful deaths of starvation and disease,but save
cows and rats... Ah hello that is cruel.. forget those rats and cows
HUMAN life is sacred.HUMAN life must be preserved at ANY cost. this is
not a flame troll, but my real fealings on this subject.
I do recogize that there extreme behaviors that certain people cry over
and thats cool, but IF a pig's death allows the life of a human to
continue WHY would any HUMAN oppose it?
When replying do ot include horror stories about cats deaths due to soap
testing, because thats not included in my statements. Those acts of
violence are not needed or supported by myself.
--
Have A GOOD ONE. :)
d001...@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
alanhess@erols.com@erols.com
>On 17 Apr 1996 14:03:49 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
>
>Ask any Asian friend you migh thave. I asked aquaintances of Chinese,
>Korean, Malaysian, and Vietnamese origin if it were true, and they all
>said Yes. I asked, "Would you eat my cats?" and one guy flat-out told
>me if it was the last thing available, yes, he would - and opined that
>if I were that hungry I would, too. And you know what... he mihgt be
>right about that, far-fetched as it seems to me now. I've never
>experienced that kind of hunger, and hope I never have to.
>
> John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditional Siamese)
Different cultures consume different creatures, and thus see those creatures differently. I agree that if my only source of meat was cat or dog, I'd quite possibly kill and eat them (not my pets, though - any more than I'd eat a family member.) Remember how members of the Donner party ate their dead comrades - they had no other choice if they wished to survive.
Essentially, there's no difference between a Chinese person boiling a cat, and us boiling a lobster or steaming crabs. Our society views cats and dogs as human companions (save for a few morons, who should be skinned themselves and fed to vultures), so naturally we're appalled at skinning and boiling a live cat. Of course, there is probably a less cruel way of doing things. However, has anyone considered what Hindus must think about how we kill and eat sacred cows?
*adh*
Joseph Askew
>> On the other hand the number of faked sequences shot in East
>> Asia is huge. Did they show a live monkey brain scene? It is
>> far more likely that the producers paid someone to skin a live
>> cat than that such things happen on a regular basis. In which
>> case there is a good chance for a prosecution.
>Are you trying to tell us that you think the cat skinning scene was
>fabricated for the benefit of the show?!? Oh come on get real!!
There are no end of precedents for this. Most American wild
life programs routinely fake scenes. My favourite was the
Disney program on lemmings. Lemmings don't actually throw
themselves off cliffs but Disney wanted a shot so they filmed
one. Six guys threw them off as they so stubbornly refused
to go themselves. The Chinese do not eat monkey brains from
still living monkeys despite the fact that this is "documented"
in any number of films. For some reason China has been the
flavour of the month for these quasi-racial smears with rumours
of baby eating early this year.
In short, if Lorne Greene can do it why not HBO?
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>My husband and I watched this show the other night. I first heard about
>it through this newsgroup. We weren't going to watch it at first because
>we thought it would make us too mad, but we started and couldn't help but
>watch most of it.
You see, you got sucked in by HBO. This is the real crass exploitation
here. Not the people who eat dogs but the TV execs who know that they
can get rating with pictures of being cruel to animals. You should've
stuck with your first impluse and NOT allowed them to profit out of
your purient interest in animal suffering.
>When it got to the part about people in China eating
>dogs and cats and showing how they are prepared we immediately changed the
>channel for a few minutes and went back to it. We caught the part where
>they skinned the cat. It was so sad. They were so nonchalant about it.
They were probably paid well to be so. It is true that some Chines
people eat cats. And quite a lot of them eat dogs. So what? So do
Basques. When you condemn them for that too and explain the difference
between eating a cat and eating a sheep I'll start to think racism
isn't the cause of this condemnation.
>I work with someone who is from China and she says that alot of the poor
>people eat cats and dogs out of necessity.
Dogs are actually delicious and are claimed to be good for the
health. So what? My uncle used to eat cats during the War. So
what? What is the difference between eating a cat and eating
any other animal?
>But the commentator on this
>show said that for the newly rich in China 'old habits die hard' and cats
>and dogs are becoming a delicacy in some restaurants.
Why should old habits die at all? There is nothing wrong in themselves
with eating either dog or cat. It is your problem that you think so.
Deal with it. Dogs are a delicacy in some places. Because they taste
very nice. You have a problem with this?
>They said crates
>and crates of these animals are delivered to these restaurants every day.
No doubt. There are whole dog markets in northern China. So what?
>My question is where do these animals come from? Chinese people obviously
>don't normally keep family pets like other cultures do, so are these
>animals being bred for feeding people?
Chinese people most emphatically do keep pets like other cultures
do. And love them. But so what? My brother had a pet sheep that
we refused to eat. Well him and my Mother refused for me, I was
game. There are places that raise dogs and cats for the purposes
of eating them. Again what is your problem?
Joseph
John Herold
>But there is a BIG difference between eating an animal out of
>starvation and eating one as a delicacy.
Certainly. But it's THEIR culture, not ours.
>I just saw the Imperial Treasures exhibit at the Met and there
>were several scrolls with paintings of kittens, and children
>with kittens, as *loved pets*.
So what? There are paintings of children with pet geese, for example,
and hunters shoot that same bird for food and sport.
>Gwen
>p.s. I lived at EAST house (Asian Studies Theme House) at Stanford
>for two years and never *once* heard anything to support this.
Two thoughts: 1) if you're claiming that something doesn't exist
because you haven't heard of it, you may have a lot more surprises
from life before you're done with it; and/or 2) your hosts may have
spared your sensibilities out of kindness. Eh?
Gwen A Orel
: On 18 Apr 1996 21:20:46 GMT, gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) wrote:
: >But there is a BIG difference between eating an animal out of
: >starvation and eating one as a delicacy.
: Certainly. But it's THEIR culture, not ours.
John, in the post I was answering, eating cats was referred to as
something the Chinese did during the war, out of starvation.
: >I just saw the Imperial Treasures exhibit at the Met and there
: >were several scrolls with paintings of kittens, and children
: >with kittens, as *loved pets*.
: So what? There are paintings of children with pet geese, for example,
: and hunters shoot that same bird for food and sport.
I saw no scrolls of pet geese aat the exhibit.
: >Gwen
: >p.s. I lived at EAST house (Asian Studies Theme House) at Stanford
: >for two years and never *once* heard anything to support this.
: Two thoughts: 1) if you're claiming that something doesn't exist
: because you haven't heard of it, you may have a lot more surprises
: from life before you're done with it; and/or 2) your hosts may have
: spared your sensibilities out of kindness. Eh?
i'm making no such claim; I'm merely suggesting that this trait is not
widespread. Education and "kindness" are like oil and water. My
"hosts"? Have you ever lived in a dorm?
I guarantee my "hosts," uh, my housemates (sheesh) would have been
as appalled by this slander against Chinese culture as I am.
It may be true that eating cats is now considered a delicacy by
some Chinese people. But that is a far cry from calling it a normal
dietary habit of the Chinese.
Gwen
Michele-Daniele V. Patin
|> On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:23:50 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
|>
|> >For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some auto
|> >manufacturers in auto crash tests.
|> >
|> >Robert Young
|> >wri...@eskimo.com
|>
|> Would you prefer that your mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, or
|> child be used instead?
|>
Personally, I prefer that they use computer-attached crash dummies that
provide far more useful feedback on the effects of a crash. I'm willing
to bet that Robert does, too.
--
Michele Patin INTERNET: pa...@tibco.com
TIBCO Inc. (formerly Teknekron Software Systems), a Reuters company
The above are my personal opinions, and in no way represent TIBCO.
Ce message represente uniquement l'opinion de son auteur et
n'engage en aucune facon TIBCO Inc.
Freelance
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Distribution:
j...@clark.net (John Herold) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:23:50 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
>
>>For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some auto
>>manufacturers in auto crash tests.
>>
>>Robert Young
>>wri...@eskimo.com
>
>Would you prefer that your mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, or
>child be used instead?
>
I was going to say, no, I'd prefer they use you. And then I decided that
there was no sense in matching your rudeness.
I take it you are not aware of the use of crash dummies for years? (They
even appear in commercials.) Dogs and chimps don't have the structure or
even weight proportion of a human body. So why are they used? Ask the car
manufacturers, who are vague on the matter.
The point is that it has been shown that most animal testing turns
out to be completely meaningless, that we (humans) simply put the animal
into the situation thinking this is a valid test, that a dog in a
crashed car is a person, that a rabbit smoking cigarettes is a person,
etc. And citing a singular instance of what might be construed as valid
testing does NOT refute the wide abuse.
If you will note the growing use of "No Animal Testing" on products today.
Why is that? Yes, because of protests. But more than that, because of the
protests, alternatives have been found and more and more manufacturers of
various products are finding that they CAN use other methods of testing
and many are finding that these alternatives are proving to be MORE
reliable.
This is not a call for an end to animal testing (althogh I reserve that
right) as much as it is a call for a continued search for alternatives.
Great strides have been made and it should continue.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Freelance
Who is this Russ Carmen and what is this anti-animal rights book? Any
information? (E-mail accepted.)
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Jonna Connelly (conn...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Jim Powlesland wrote:
: >
[Jonna snipped]
: It is a
: > movement not built on love of animals, but rather on a love of
: > self. Animal rights followers do not want to protect animals,
: > they want to protect their own tender feelings." [p.14]
: >
: > "Animal rights groups have made very effective use of this fact,
: > by constantly assaulting people's tender feelings through
: > explicit visual advertising, and grotesque written descriptions
: > of man's perceived inhumanities towards animals. The more
: > innocent and vulnerable they can portray the animal, the more
: > effective the campaign. In a very true sense they are using
: > emotional blackmail to promote their cause, using a sense of
: > personal guilt to encourage donations to each group." [p.15]
: >
: > Russ Carman. 1990. "The Illusions of Animal Rights". Krause
: > Publications, Iola, WI. ISBN 0-87341-159-5
: >
: > --
: > Jim Powlesland | OFFICE: 403-220-7937
: > University Computing Services | MESSAGE: 403-220-6201
: > University of Calgary | FAX: 403-282-9199
: > Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4 | URL: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/
Sharla Shipley
that we don't want to believe is going on. While this show was sickening,
it was also eye-opening. Some may believe it to be "sick", but which is
worse, bringing this type of abuse out in the open to be discussed and
hopefully inflame people to get involved on behalf of the animals or to
sit idly by and try to block out all that we don't agree with? I was
prone to do just that until I saw that show. While it was very graphic,
it made me stop and think. I know animal abuse goes on, but it never
really affected me before. So if HBO was trying to take animal abuse out
of the darkness, then I say "Good for them." It's about time someone
stopped sugar-coating the truth about life. Sorry it doesn't fit in with
the picture-perfect world you're in.
Kim Dyer
>Why is that?
ads for "low fat" Hershey chocolate syrup.
>This is not a call for an end to animal testing (althogh I reserve that
>right) as much as it is a call for a continued search for alternatives.
>Great strides have been made and it should continue.
Many cases where animal research has brought about,and will continue to
bring about, genuine good.
Alan and Linda Coffel
<conn...@gold.tc.umn.edu> writes:
>
>Jim Powlesland wrote:
>>
>> In article <nthuleen-120...@f183-130.net.wisc.edu>,
>> Nancy Thuleen <nthu...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >channels last night and came in on the middle of this, at a very
brutal
>> >moment (a small cat being skinned and boiled alive). I don't cry
easily,
>>
>> "It is on this selfish protection of their own tender feelings,
>> that the animal rights movement has grown. It is on the inability
>> to face the harsh, and what appears to them, the cruelties of
>> nature, that the animal rights movement flourishes today.
>
>Animal rights movements aside, how the hell does skinning and boiling
a
>cat alive constitute a cruelty of nature? In which case, hey, wanna
come
>up to my place for dinner -- we can try nature's way of having a man
for
>dinner!
>> --
>> Jim Powlesland | OFFICE: 403-220-7937
>> University Computing Services | MESSAGE: 403-220-6201
>> University of Calgary | FAX: 403-282-9199
>> Calgary, Alberta CANADA T2N 1N4 | URL:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/
Jim,
A creulty of nature is when a hound catches and kills a rabbit. Man is
*supposedly* a civilized species. Does the cat taste better if it is
cooked alive? I doubt it. I've spent enough time overseas (including
Korea) to know what goes on. I do rescue work--I know what goes on. I
saw parts of the show three times just while channel grazing. A
friend's 4 and 6 year olds also found it. It is impossible to explain
"cultural differences" to young children. They thought the neighbors
were doing it (especially the foreign-born ones).
I got the same sick feeling as I get when I hear, for example, about a
wife/girlfriend being beaten/burned/etc to death. If the film was
screened privately, for a club, or whatever--FINE. But don't show it
where people--and children--can unwittingly see it.
I know that it happens, and I do what I can with rescue work to pick up
the pieces. I don't need to be graphically reminded.
You just don't get the point.
Linda
lulu
AMERICA UNDERCOVER, therefore is not responsible for much of the
content. It seems hard for many people to accept man's inhumane behavior
toward animals even when it is shown unedited on television. Why is this
hard for you to accept? True, it is difficult for us to take
responsiblity for our species cruelty but it does happen and this
documentary is just one of many filmed truths. The difference between
how we treat animals and how animals treat animals is we have the
capacity to understand the difference and the power to enforce it.
I suggest you take a good hard look at the state of affairs that
surround you. This isn't a Disney movie about lemmings--this is a
documentary about man's disregard and lack of compassion for animals.
kathy
Raymond F Herrera
: Jim,
snip
: turns my stomach, I accept it as part of their food chain. Hindus
: believe the cow is sacred and would likely starve before eating one.
: When I eat meat, I prefer to eat kosher meats because they are killed
: more humanely. If one's culture allows the eating of animals--fine,
Kosher meat... Are the cows not bled to death????
: If animal testing is necessary for developing a drug that will cure
: cancer, I accept that, as long as the animals are treated well, played
: with, not permanently caged, etc. Using animals to test cosmetics is
: not acceptable.
: For me, it boils down to this: killing for food is acceptable, as long
: as it is done humanely. Killing for sport (trophies) or for pleasure
: (sadism) is very, very rarely acceptable. Is this rationalization?
: Maybe, but I don't care. It keeps me sane.
: Linda
No one will ever be happy w any answer given to any question...
Deb Goldgehn
>It may be true that eating cats is now considered a delicacy by
>some Chinese people. But that is a far cry from calling it a normal
>dietary habit of the Chinese.
>
I think we're missing a point here. There have been a number of posts defending the
Chinese people, and controversy over whether or not they eat cats. The fact of the
matter is - that gruesome footage of the cat was NO WORSE than what is done in this
country on a daily basis in the name of food preparation, and I would suspect that
it's done here on a much larger scale. Yes, it's harder for us to watch it happen to
a cat, since they are considered domestic pets in this country. But the same things
happen every day here to cows, pigs, chickens...whatever is available in your local
meat cooler! It's just that - by the time we see it - we don't have to identify with
the pain and agony that animal was forced to endure in the name of a hamburger.
Why didn't they have more footage of what happens in this country? Because most of
the larger slaughter houses are protected by sophisticated security systems, armed
guards, and razor wire. They don't want us to know what's going on because they
might have to modify their techniques, and that would cost them money!
This wasn't an isolated attack on the Chinese people - it was just another example of
the pain and cruelty inflicted upon the animal population by human beings.
Deb Goldgehn
Jack Shollenberger
>
>On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:23:50 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Freelance) wrote:
>
>>For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some
auto
>>manufacturers in auto crash tests.
>>
>>Robert Young
>>wri...@eskimo.com
>
>Would you prefer that your mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, or
>child be used instead?
>
This comment upsets me...What right do we as human beings have to do
such things? To think that this is okay..well I am sorry but that is
something that I will never agree with. It is wrong..and we all know
that.
Jack Shollenberger
Personally, I don't feel that ANY animal testing should be going on..I
am fully aware that this is most likely setting me up to get flamed..I
would like all of you before doing so take a long hard look at your
pets and tell me..would you allow them to be tested on? Hopefully the
answer would be no. Personally I would much rather have them use these
sicko's that are spending life in prison..obviously they have no
problems with taking a life..so why not donate theirs.
Lorrie
Mike Edgar
writes
>>If you will note the growing use of "No Animal Testing" on products today.
>>Why is that?
>
>Most times because it sells. It's usually about as valid as the
>ads for "low fat" Hershey chocolate syrup.
>
>>This is not a call for an end to animal testing (althogh I reserve that
>>right) as much as it is a call for a continued search for alternatives.
>>Great strides have been made and it should continue.
>
>Exactly. Too many people want to toss the baby with the bathwater.
>Many cases where animal research has brought about,and will continue to
>bring about, genuine good.
......"genuine good"....... for whom exactly...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edgar (Email may be publicly posted)
It's nice to be important, but more important to be nice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Edgar
<powl...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes
>In article <4l21ps$3...@zip0.zipnet.net>, Kelly Moss <kel...@zipnet.net> wrote:
>>Mishelle Fresener (mish...@usscreen.com) wrote:
>
>>I did read one post in another newsgroup from a hunter and he was
>>horrified himself by the crossbow hunters and thinks the AR people and
>>hunters should get together and put a stop to some of this stuff.
>
>I don't know where they dug up their "horrified hunter" but he
>should have known that crossbows are already illegal for hunting
>in most parts of North America.
>
>(Here, they are allowed only for *** severly disabled bowhunters*** and
>a special license is required).
>
***... that must mean mentally disabled surely..?
rath...@aladdin.co.uk
Some people eat cats, dogs, fish, lobster, crab, gosse , duck, chicken,
pidgeon, ostrich.
Tell me has anyone out their eaten human? No?
Strange, it's just another animal.
Its not what you kill and eat its how its done that gets me.
Kill humans and it's murder, no matter how its done. Kill animals and
its food, no matter how its done.
Far East: Why do some animals have to be alive when they are skinned?
Paddy
rath...@aladdin.co.uk
>Why should old habits die at all? There is nothing wrong in themselves
>with eating either dog or cat. It is your problem that you think so.
>Deal with it. Dogs are a delicacy in some places. Because they taste
>very nice. You have a problem with this?
>
>
Some people eat cats, dogs, fish, lobster, crab, gosse , duck, chicken,
pidgeon, ostrich.
So old habits should't die, why hell lets bring back good old, bear
baiting in the streets, hanging, public floggings.
Like it used to be in the "good old days"
Paddy
Ace
>I think we're missing a point here. There have been a number of posts defending the
>Chinese people, and controversy over whether or not they eat cats. The fact of the
>matter is - that gruesome footage of the cat was NO WORSE than what is done in this
>country on a daily basis in the name of food preparation, and I would suspect that
>it's done here on a much larger scale.
Having seen first hand both the Orient and the U.S food
preparation practices I have to totally disagree with you on this
point. It is a matter of fact that most of the animals prepared,
for lack of a better way to put it, by the Orientals is killed at
the time or during preparation. Sometimes even the blood is
drained from the animals and offered as a drink to the waiting
customer. I doubt if you will ever find that behaviour at your
local grocery.
Ace
Freelance
: I agree with this, showing violence of a "real life" nature is a
: little much even for cable TV. It's just seems a little sick in a way
: to produce it, display it and even watch it...
Take note that this person is outraged at the messager, not the message.
Yes, there is gratuitous violence the way there is gratuitous sex. But
let's also get the message: the crime is in what is being done to the
animals, not that someone documents it. "Don't tell me about it" is what
lets it continue.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
Ronda M Devold
DO NOT RESPOND to this tread in the rec.animals.wildlife group. It is
not on topic for our group and is disruptive.
If you are reading this in another newsgroup, DO NOT CROSSPOST to
rec.animals.wildlife.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Ronda DeVold, BS, LVT email: dev...@badlands.nodak.edu
North Dakota State University
diagnostic microbiologist, licensed veterinary technician,
licensed wildlife rehabilitator
rec.animals.wildlife creator/moderator
Ronda M Devold
Freelance
: >If you will note the growing use of "No Animal Testing" on products today.
: >Why is that?
:
: Most times because it sells. It's usually about as valid as the
: ads for "low fat" Hershey chocolate syrup.
Yes, it does help in sales but before we toss it out consider this. First,
it is closer to a fact than "low fat" which has a lot of leeway as to what
is "low." ("Fat" is pretty well defined by now.) "No animal testing" has a
harder edge. Second, the presence of such labels on foods do accomplish
something else: they remind us that it is something to consider and to
remember. Yes, some will abuse it and flat out lie but that is another
issue, truth in marketing.
Robert Young
wri...@eskimo.com
John Herold
Shollenberger) wrote:
>In <3174e53...@news.clark.net> j...@clark.net (John Herold) writes:
>>>For your information, live dogs and chimps are still used by some auto
>>>manufacturers in auto crash tests.
>>>
>>Would you prefer that your mother, father, sister, brother, spouse, or
>>child be used instead?
>>
>This comment upsets me...What right do we as human beings have to do
>such things? To think that this is okay..well I am sorry but that is
>something that I will never agree with. It is wrong..and we all know
>that.
Well... as the HBO show noted, the biblical basis is man having been
given dominion over all the animals.
And at that point we have a divergence. Some would say that
'dominion" includes a responsiblity for their care, perhaps even a
care equal to that of fellow men (as in mankind, nothing sexist
meant).
Others might say that the humane use of animals in crash testing saves
human lives with the information thus gleaned (in the absence of crash
dummies that can accurately record the internal effects of a crash).
If you have ever had someone close to you saved in a trauma center,
you might tend to the latter view. Gruesome, but... <sigh>.
Ace
>Personally, I don't feel that ANY animal testing should be going on..I
>am fully aware that this is most likely setting me up to get flamed..I
>would like all of you before doing so take a long hard look at your
>pets and tell me..would you allow them to be tested on? Hopefully the
>answer would be no. Personally I would much rather have them use these
>sicko's that are spending life in prison..obviously they have no
>problems with taking a life..so why not donate theirs.
>
>Lorrie
You have a right to your opinion and I even agree on using inmates
for testing on a voluntary basis but, the bottom line is that
many of todays drugs and cures for human diseases came with animal
testing. If your daughter ever gets bit by a venemous snake, you
can thank a horse for the anti-serum. I don't believe in testing
with animals on cosmetics or cigarettes or that type of stuff but
as Denniss Miller so wisely said, "if we can find a cure for Aids
using a monkey and save thousands of lives, Sorry KOKO". We have
to draw a line for sure but we must not stop life saving research
as well. Ace
Gwen A Orel
tell me about it" and please don't show me a film about it.
I don't want to see videotapes of child molestation or murder,
either, even if there were some culture where such activities
were acceptable. I do think that showing such film is meant
only to shock and is not the best way to disseminate the message!
Gwen
Freelance (wri...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Robert Young
: wri...@eskimo.com
--
Tory Klementsen
> Ace wrote:
> >
> > China must be brought up to our modern standards. Do it any way
> > we can. They are the number 1 reason that so many animals are
> > endangered from poaching and the cruelty they do as a daily
> > routine makes me want to just drop the big one on them. I am a
> > hunter and I think that the AR community and the hunting community
> > would be better off joining forces against this REAL problem
> > rather than bickering with each other over hunting. That is where
> > the real cruelty is against animals.
>
> Ace, you've really got it pegged on this one. I just get sick to my
> stomach whenever I hear about how China's economy is booming. More
> money to spend on tiger bones and penises, bear gall bladders, rhino
> horns, and God knows what other superstitious crap that they believe
> in.
Just because a culture is different from your culture does not mean it is
full of superstitious crap. You say you want the Chinese to respect
animals, and you don't even respect their right to their own culture. The
cultures of the Orient have been around one hell of a lot longer than our
"American" culture. Perhaps if we tried to understand their reasons for
doing things, instead of condemning them, we might become more enlightened
people.
I saw the show and the scene of the cat made me cry like a baby. However,
as the rabbi pointed out, it makes a lot more sense to them to eat all
things that move, rather than just the select few that we eat. Either
what's good for the goose is good for the gander, or it isn't. We may be
the ones that make no sense. We eat the pig, but we don't (thank heavens)
eat the cat. We slaughter cows, but we revere dogs. In China they simply
eat all of the animals; including bugs, eels, cats, and dogs. A lot of
this is due to the overcrowded conditions in China. They don't have the
food banks and welfare that we have in our country. They must eat to
survive. Now, the scenes of the newly rich Chinese still eating cats upset
me, but then again it is a cultural thing. To them cats aren't Fluffy,
Baby, and Mickey, but simply meat...just like we don't open the freezer
and get out "Bossy" for dinner, we take out hamburger.
So instead of condemning, learn from them and about them. I think it is a
pretty darn presumptious of us "baby" Americans to point fingers at a
culture that has survived for centuries without our "help".
--
Tory Klementsen () () A Dream is a Wish
To...@Eskimo.Com ( ) Your Heart Makes...
Disney on the IRC
Mishelle Fresener
I think what most people object to is their total lack of humane
treatment for these animals. Causing an animal to needlessly suffer is
just plain WRONG in any culture, including ours. If they want to eat cat
then fine, I don't think there is anything we can do to stop them, But
they could at least have been kind enough to kill it BEFORE they skinned
and boiled it.
Mishelle