Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 85 comments are related to the topic:
Leather
Leather
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 85
|
By:
Typical hypocritical pet owner Kenny. Quite happy with animal cruelty if it suits their lifestyle. Bangs on non stop about one thing but won't conversate about any cruelty which might have an affect on their life.
|
|
By:
You are a good man Kenny
|
|
By:
Shrewd_dude
How very cruel Kenny. Just lop their balls off to make them more manageable and loveable pets. Only a mug would think like that.  |
|
By:
You cats and dogs must be mugs then Aka.
|
|
By:
No, not neutering and letting them roam is cruel in th extreme.
|
|
By:
Because Peta says so?
|
|
By:
Nope common sense says so.
|
|
By:
Keeping telling yourself that otherwise you might realise that your just a self indulgent hypocrite and only interested in preventing the cruelty that doesn't have a direct affect on your lifestyle and doesn't conflict with your self held image of being an 'animal lover'.
|
|
By:
You're
|
|
By:
Cats like to roam, it's their nature. Letting them bring litters of kittens, which would be inevitable, into the world is just irresponsible.
And nothing self indulgent about it. As KM says the real cruelty would be in not doing it. |
|
By:
I'm actually struggling to see where it's self indulgent. Please expand.
|
|
By:
You want to have the benefits of a pet yet you don't want to have to put up with the possibility that you may be burdened by it's offspring so you have it mutilated = self indulgent.
What you are saying is that you in this case think the cruelty is acceptable in order for you to have the enjoyment of having a pet. Perfectly acceptable position just typical of pet owner/'animal lovers' like you and PETA to have their 'holier than thou' attitude with respect to things they disagree with such as horse racing, dog racing, animals as food, clothing, for testing etc. e.g "animals are not ours to eat, wear, for entertainment" but when it comes to our pets they are ours to mutilate as a means of birth control. |
|
By:
Cruelty and mutilation?
Firstly the operation is done under anaesthetics and mutilation would hardly describe the outcome. Secondly how many kittens do you think a cat can have in it's lifetime? Are you saying that we should have say 20 kittens for instance? Then those grow up and lets say half are female and each of them has 20 kittens etc etc etc . I don't think you have thought your argument through Shrewd. |
|
By:
Aka as I've said I'm not saying you should have anything. I couldn't give a **** about what you do with your wee darling animals and I'm not going to tell someone what they shouldn't be doing with their property.
I'm saying you like many other pet owners/animal lovers and the likes of PETA are complete and utter hypocritess to bang on about things like the leather trade and what other people do with their animals as their own property and then pretend that the things you do with your property as pets is any different and isn't cruel because you consider them as part of their family. Castrating something isn't mutilation? Yeah, okay then. |
|
By:
*the
|
|
By:
ffs Shrewd's naivety is staggering on this subject.
There's no room at any cat centre round here because many thoughtless cat owners let their pets roam, and therefore multiply at an alarming ratee, resulting in 1000s of unwanted and neglected cats. Ask Slippy. |
|
By:
and if it wasn't for the likes of people like Cat's Protection in spaying and neutering feriles the thousnds would become millions in not all that many years. They multiply at an alarming rate.
|
|
By:
Castrating doesn't banish the desire for mating!
|
|
By:
Cats live longrer, healthier lives and it is the most humane way to stop unwanted pregnancies. It prevents some cancers, reduced straying fighting and spraying.
|
|
By:
It's a bit like the culling deers.
Unsavioury but necessary in some places simply because the alternatives are more cruel ie more animals results in less food resulting in poor health etc etc. Shrewd you've dodged the question I asked and remember you raised the subject. Should cat owners allow their pets to breed without any control resulting in umpteen kittens? |
|
By:
As I've said to Aka Kenny your position in itself is perfectly acceptable and logical. You are willing to inflict cruelty on your property when you think that it is justified and it allows you and others to have the enjoyment of your animals without having to worry about the negatives. It's when you're trying to tell others what they should be doing with their property and take umbrage at other forms of cruelty because the benefits are not something that affects your lifestyle which makes you such a hypocrite.
|
|
By:
Aka I'm not sure if your just being dim or not. The question has been answered I said I couldn't give a dam it's your property and unlike you I'm not one to be a hypocrite and demand others not to inflict harm on their property whilst doing the same to mine.
|
|
By:
What is this cruelty you refer to?
|
|
By:
You say you don't give a damn. So why raise the question?
In effect you are saying that we shouldn't interfere and allow our cats to have as many kittens as they like and then their kittens and then their kittens and then ........ So at some stage every cat owner would have say 100 cats then 500 then ..........? That is your argument Shrewd. Not very shrewd is it? |
|
By:
Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others
|
|
By:
Wilfully? Taking a sensible course of action.
Causing pain or suffering? Painless albeit I'll give you a bit of discomfort but a lot less than giving birth. |
|
By:
Shrewd just admit you're wrong and you didn't think your argument through and we can all move on.
|
|
By:
I'm not even sure if you are even reading anything that is said Aka or you're pissed. I can't repeat myself again and again. I am saying the castrating of animals is cruel but I couldn't care less about it as it's up to a person what they do with their property.
I am merely highlighting the hypocrisy of Kenny and numerous pet owners like you and organisations like PETA who are quite happy to cause pain and suffering to animals when it is of benefit to them but then have a 'holier than thou' attitude towards any other forms of suffering or pain such as eating meat, using leather(which is what this thread was about) or animals for entertainment etc. when it is not a benefit which affects their lifestyle. |
|
By:
ok, lets have it Shrewd's way, and within a few years you won't be able to move for unwanted and neglected cats (not that it isn't pretty bad at the moment) A bit like the Pied Piper and his rats.
|
|
By:
Yes and we'll have a lot less animals taking up spaces in slaughterhouses if we all got out a buy a new pair of leather shoes every six months.
|
|
By:
Is this a wind up Shrewd? If so I've been caught h, l and s.
|
|
By:
Or should we just just wait until we can't move for all the unwanted useless cows kicking about the high street.
|
|
By:
Your argument is flawed at every stage Shrewd.
Not cruel as no pain involved and sensible given the alternative. As regards your comment on shoes, that's not the point. Most people accept that animals have become an integral part of the food chain (and in the production of shoes etc) but that shouldn't stop people from campaigning for 2 things. 1 - a decent life for the animals. 2 - a humane and dignified death. That would be a start. |
|
By:
As Blackadder said to Baldrick, there's only one thing wrong with your argument.
It's boloks. But at least Shrewd took an interest in the subject of animal cruelty. |
|
By:
No pain involved. By that I'll take it you mean that PETA says they only feel a little discomfort as opposed to the terror that can be seen in the animals eyes they suggest in slaughterhouses in the opening post.
If you think neutering and castration of an animal causes no suffering then you must be looking forward to staying up late on the 24th for a glimpse of a jolly fat man coming down your chimney. |
|
By:
The animal is firstly given a sedative and then an anaesthetic.
The result is far better than the alternative and justifies the discomfort involved. |
|
By:
Not sure what point you are trying to make re the slaughterhouse. You seem to be arguing against your own position.
|
|
By:
As I said earlierAka
What you are saying is that you in this case think the cruelty is acceptable in order for you to have the enjoyment of having a pet. Perfectly acceptable position just typical of pet owner/'animal lovers' like you and PETA to have their 'holier than thou' attitude with respect to things they disagree with such as horse racing, dog racing, animals as food, clothing, for testing etc. e.g "animals are not ours to eat, wear, for entertainment" but when it comes to our pets they are ours to mutilate as a means of birth control. Glad you've come round. |
|
By:
My post at 12.32 refers to neutering of pets btw.
|
|
By:
I must say Shrewd your post at 12.35 would do Chemical Ali proud.
|