Do you consider skinning animals ALIVE as cruel, or unusual?

[MariKine]

Yeah, I don't own any leather.. Not even a leather belt. :s

[kingmea]

Quote by: Tycoon Don't be ridiculous. Besides, it's been established that animals feel pain. Don't tell me you've never considered the way you'd like to die. A painless way, right? Well if we should deny that to animals then we should deny it to you as well.

animals can't vote. animals don't have rights. animals being in pain doesn't have the consequences of humans being in pain.


All deaths are painful...so keep dreaming.


I'd let animals die less painfully, if thats what u mean. but its a waste of everyones time to lobby for it.

[ShadowFox]

Ya, but leaving them alive and skinning them while they are still alive isn't right. They could kill them in many other ways if need be.

[Tycoon]

Animals can't vote. Animals don't have rights. Animals being in pain doesn't have the consequences of humans being in pain.

Hahahaha, that's the most foolish thing I've ever heard. It's not that long ago that blacks couldn't vote, blacks didn't have rights and blacks being in pain didn't have any consequences.

All deaths are painful...so keep dreaming. I'd let animals die less painfully, if thats what you mean. But its a waste of everyone's time to lobby for it.

And I'm sure that's exactly what people thought of blacks. That it was a waste of everybody's time to think about how immoral it was.

And to assume that all deaths are equally painful is stupid. Do you think being put to sleep would be as painful as being skinned alive?

[MariKine]

Quote by: kingmea animals can't vote. animals don't have rights. animals being in pain doesn't have the consequences of humans being in pain. All deaths are painful...so keep dreaming. I'd let animals die less painfully, if thats what u mean. but its a waste of everyones time to lobby for it.

So if an animal could talk, and let you know he/she is in pain, does that make it any different? Because they can in a way.. by whining, or crying, which I'm sure they do..

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Marikine So if an animal could talk, and let you know he/she is in pain, does that make it any different? Because they can in a way.. by whining, or crying, which I'm sure they do..

yep. Just because their language isn't the same as ours isn't much of an argument. What about people who speak a language you don't?

[Muckraker]

I'll hop in on this one. I'll preface this by saying that I am a firm believer in animal rights and my actions are indicative of that belief but for the purpose of entertainment I will argue the opposing view in this thread. I'm choosing this stance for this thread because the posters on the side of what I believe aren't doing their due diligence in this debate even though they have the opposition drastically outnumbered.
-----------------------------

The manner and method of processing non-human animals is inconsequential and, since the animals are property, should follow the most cost effective route to the consumers.

If skinning an animal alive increases the speed of production by 5% then that goes right to the bottom line. Slowing down production to accommodate the "feelings" of animals that will be dead momentarily anyhow is not a good business decision and it will ultimately increase the final cost to the consumer.

Taking the "feelings" of animals into consideration is a slippery slope and there is only one possible outcome at the bottom of that slope. People who are philosophically on the way down that slope won't like what they are going to be required to do when they hit the bottom.

If you want to eat meat free of guilt then don't watch Youtube videos and don't ask questions. Demanding that companies change their business practices and increase costs to end consumers because you "feel bad" about what you think the animals "feel" is incredibly hypocritical when you follow up your concern with a statement about how you love eating steak but you can't stand the "torture" inflicted on the poor victims of the process of veal.

Non-human animals are raw materials. They are property that is bought and sold. Non-human animals exist on the commodities trade side by side with barrels of oil and bushels of wheat.

--------------------------------------------------------------
You folks on the other side of this debate need to step up your strategy if you want to convince anyone otherwise. I would love to come help you out but I prefer to do two versus ten in support of a stance I don't agree with than do eleven versus one when everyone on my side is not debating effectively.

[Tycoon]

You think we're not doing our "due diligence" in this debate, but you are just brining up points for the other side of the argument that reveal humanity's selfishness and just how inhumane this treatment is.

The manner and method of processing non-human animals is inconsequential and, since the animals are property, should follow the most cost effective route to the consumers.

If we have the ability to reduce the pain then we should do so. When animals are put down at the vet do you think they are just hacked at with a knife until they are dead? No, they are put down in a humane way that the owners of the pet pay extra for because it's the humane thing to do.

If skinning an animal alive increases the speed of production by 5% then that goes right to the bottom line. Slowing down production to accommodate the "feelings" of animals that will be dead momentarily anyhow is not a good business decision and it will ultimately increase the final cost to the consumer.

Nobody ever said that good business was humane or the right thing to do. There are even plenty of alternatives to the fur trade. Why should these animals have to suffer painfully in death just so that we can be a little warmer or look a little more impressive? Maybe it is the consumer we should be going after.

Taking the "feelings" of animals into consideration is a slippery slope and there is only one possible outcome at the bottom of that slope. People who are philosophically on the way down that slope won't like what they are going to be required to do when they hit the bottom.

That's just too bad for them. If they find it necessary to kill animals just for a better look or a wamer coat then they should have to do it a humane way.

If you want to eat meat free of guilt then don't watch Youtube videos and don't ask questions. Demanding that companies change their business practices and increase costs to end consumers because you "feel bad" about what you think the animals "feel" is incredibly hypocritical when you follow up your concern with a statement about how you love eating steak but you can't stand the "torture" inflicted on the poor victims of the process of veal.

Yes, I want more humane treatment for animals but that doesn't mean that we can just give up meat. There is a such thing as the food chain. We have to find a middle ground between the treatment that is going on right now and completely giving up meat.

Non-human animals are raw materials. They are property that is bought and sold. Non-human animals exist on the commodities trade side by side with barrels of oil and bushels of wheat.

If there were a bigger, more intelligent animal on this earth then they could look at it the same way. Is that what you want? Perhaps you are missing your sense of empathy.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Tycoon You think we're not doing our "due diligence" in this debate, but you are just brining up points for the other side of the argument that reveal humanity's selfishness and just how inhumane this treatment is.

I am pointing out that you haven't come anywhere near proving your point and, in fact, you are proving your opponent's point when you speak in vague, abstract terms. Your position also requires a very conditional line to be drawn but you haven't acknowledged that line.

If we have the ability to reduce the pain then we should do so.

How are you able to determine what pain the animals would like reduced? Do you think a dairy cow would prefer to go through the pain of being kept artificially pregnant for five years - teats ready to explode from the pressure of the genetically modified milk - before being slaughtered or would they prefer to not be pregnant and constantly milked if the tradeoff was the pain of being skinned alive for a few minutes?

Since I would rather be skinned alive than be kept from ever seeing my children again, does that mean that cows and pigs should also be released from the pain of having their young taken away from them?

When animals are put down at the vet do you think they are just hacked at with a knife until they are dead? No, they are put down in a humane way that the owners of the pet pay extra for because it's the humane thing to do.

What is more "humane:"
1. Taking a 14 year old dog behind the shed and beating his skull in with a shovel because he can't walk or see anymore?
2. An owner paying a vet to put their two year old dog down because the dog has bad breath and poops on the carpet and they don't want to bother with it anymore?

The "humanity" of animals that the vet "puts down" is to appease the owners, not to minimize the pain of the animals. This is especially true in a situation where the owner could do something to nurture the animal back to health but they don't want to go to the trouble or foot the large medical bill.

Nobody ever said that good business was humane or the right thing to do. There are even plenty of alternatives to the fur trade. Why should these animals have to suffer painfully in death just so that we can be a little warmer or look a little more impressive? Maybe it is the consumer we should be going after.

If they came up with a way for animals that are slaughtered for meat to feel no pain or anxiety at all but the implementation of this practice would raise the price of a McDonald's burger from $1 to $3, would you support it? What about if the process did not cost any additional money but all the meat created in the "humane" manner had a slightly bitter aftertaste? Where is the line that you would draw for implementation of these humane and painless deaths and what creatures need not apply?

That's just too bad for them. If they find it necessary to kill animals just for a better look or a wamer coat then they should have to do it a humane way. Yes, I want more humane treatment for animals but that doesn't mean that we can just give up meat. There is a such thing as the food chain. We have to find a middle ground between the treatment that is going on right now and completely giving up meat.

Here is the big problem with your argument. If I were to provide concrete proof that eating meat is not necessary to a healthy human diet would your stance then lump meat with fur?

See the problem here? That's why I said that the slippery slope of your argument can only end up at one position that most people would consider too big a sacrifice to make.

You cannot successfully argue the stance that the "pain" of animals should be taken into consideration unless you jump in the deep end and just deal with the rush of cold water.

If there were a bigger, more intelligent animal on this earth then they could look at it the same way. Is that what you want? Perhaps you are missing your sense of empathy.

If they can "farm" humans and there is nothing we can do to stop or hinder them then what does it matter what we want? Should we then get a petition going that says we are okay with being killed to make the Blookle-Gibbies they wear on their alien toes but we would prefer to be humanely "put to sleep" instead of just run through their glibionizers while fully conscious?

You should read P.K. Dick's sci-fi masterpiece, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? He deals with aspects of human empathy and it is a great fiction read to boot.

[Tycoon]

I am pointing out that you haven't come anywhere near proving your point and, in fact, you are proving your opponent's point when you speak in vague, abstract terms. Your position also requires a very conditional line to be drawn but you haven't acknowledged that line.

That's because nobody has been arguing against our point.

How are you able to determine what pain the animals would like reduced? Do you think a dairy cow would prefer to go through the pain of being kept artificially pregnant for five years - teats ready to explode from the pressure of the genetically modified milk - before being slaughtered or would they prefer to not be pregnant and constantly milked if the tradeoff was the pain of being skinned alive for a few minutes?

I have no doubt that the good business decision, which you seem so keen to defend, would be to have them gush genetically modified milk until they're ready to die and then skin them.

Since I would rather be skinned alive than be kept from ever seeing my children again, does that mean that cows and pigs should also be released from the pain of having their young taken away from them?

You're basing your argument off of an awful lot of assumptions, such as that they would have young or that they would care.

What is more "humane:" 1. Taking a 14 year old dog behind the shed and beating his skull in with a shovel because he can't walk or see anymore? 2. An owner paying a vet to put their two year old dog down because the dog has bad breath and poops on the carpet and they don't want to bother with it anymore?

Stop manipulating. If you want to make that point it has to be controlled. The proper way to say it (without a lot of manipulative bull) would be for both to be fourteen years old, blind, and disabled.

The "humanity" of animals that the vet "puts down" is to appease the owners, not to minimize the pain of the animals. This is especially true in a situation where the owner could do something to nurture the animal back to health but they don't want to go to the trouble or foot the large medical bill.

Why do you think that would appease the owners? Because they know their much loved pet didn't go through very much pain in death. And in some cases, yes, it is a financial problem. That simply can't be solved.

If they came up with a way for animals that are slaughtered for meat to feel no pain or anxiety at all but the implementation of this practice would raise the price of a McDonald's burger from $1 to $3, would you support it? What about if the process did not cost any additional money but all the meat created in the "humane" manner had a slightly bitter aftertaste? Where is the line that you would draw for implementation of these humane and painless deaths and what creatures need not apply?

Once again, stop making manipulative assumptions. None of us know what the possible affects of a more humane death could be. If you want to discuss that then get a source.

Here is the big problem with your argument. If I were to provide concrete proof that eating meat is not necessary to a healthy human diet would your stance then lump meat with fur? See the problem here? That's why I said that the slippery slope of your argument can only end up at one position that most people would consider too big a sacrifice to make. You cannot successfully argue the stance that the "pain" of animals should be taken into consideration unless you jump in the deep end and just deal with the rush of cold water.

Once again, I said we need to find a middle ground.

If they can "farm" humans and there is nothing we can do to stop or hinder them then what does it matter what we want? Should we then get a petition going that says we are okay with being killed to make the Blookle-Gibbies they wear on their alien toes but we would prefer to be humanely "put to sleep" instead of just run through their glibionizers while fully conscious?

Exactly my point. Is that what you want? No. As long as we have the possibility not to make it the way it is then we have the responsibility not to.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Tycoon That's because nobody has been arguing against our point.

That does not excuse lazy debating. Trust me, I would love it if you could prove your point. What annoys me is when people that are trying to help end up muddying the argument further and provide fodder for people on the other side of the argument to fling around.

I have no doubt that the good business decision, which you seem so keen to defend, would be to have them gush genetically modified milk until they're ready to die and then skin them.

You have not addressed the question I posed. How are you able to determine what is more painful to animals? Your argument is that we should minimize pain to animals. So how do we go about rating their levels of pain in each stage of our usage of them? Isn't that the point? Rate animal pain and minimize it where possible?

You're basing your argument off of an awful lot of assumptions, such as that they would have young or that they would care.

I merely proposed the exact same scenario to you. You feel that being skinned alive is painful and so you would like to avoid causing that pain to animals. I feel that having my children taken from me is painful so, using that same logic, we should avoid taking animals' children from them.

Stop manipulating. If you want to make that point it has to be controlled. The proper way to say it (without a lot of manipulative bull) would be for both to be fourteen years old, blind, and disabled.

Asking questions you don't want to answer is not "manipulation." The question is as simple as "would you prefer to buy a Ford or a Toyota?"

Option 1 would obviously draw all sorts of negative flak if it were filmed and posted to Youtube. Option 2 is pretty clearly the less "humane" option though, right?

Does your measure of humanity come down to method over motive?

Once again, stop making manipulative assumptions. None of us know what the possible affects of a more humane death could be. If you want to discuss that then get a source. Once again, I said we need to find a middle ground.

That is called a hypothetical question. Asking a "what if" does not require a source. You said you are all for minimizing pain. The hypothetical question is what if we can negate pain completely but the price we pay is either a more expensive or slighly less tasty product?

If you answer no then you are not all for making tiny concessions to minimize pain. You are just for minimizing pain in the sensationalized videos you see that are for products you don't personally want to buy.

If you answer yes then you should become vegetarian because there are already products readily available that cause no pain to animals but the tradeoff is they cost slightly more and do not have an identical taste to the meat you are used to.

Exactly my point. Is that what you want? No. As long as we have the possibility not to make it the way it is then we have the responsibility not to.

As the species that has no say in the matter, who cares what I want?

[Wolfgang]

-=Wolfgang Now has the floor=-

Skinning an animal alive is barbaric. Animals have done nothing to harm us nor cause any pain to us. I dont mind the killing of animals for things such as food, furs etc etc. I belive they should be killed as fast and as painless as possible. Weather it be posion or someother means of killing the animal. Skinning it alive is wrong.
-=Next commenter Now has the floor=-

[Socrates]

Humans have a the issue of thinking only they are capable of thought or emotion. while i'm not saying its on the same level as human though its there none the less in all life. Humans ignore thin for a very valid reason. if they treated animals, and even to an extent plants, as things capable of though 90% of humans would die. I am not trying to condescend to these people, because I to eat meat. But think on this, it used to be that fighting, and killing, someone for no reason other then they are taking your land used to be common. It was cruel but people did it because there was no other option. Maybe someday we will have another option with those lower life's we so blatantly disregard.

[Tycoon]

That does not excuse lazy debating. Trust me, I would love it if you could prove your point. What annoys me is when people that are trying to help end up muddying the argument further and provide fodder for people on the other side of the argument to fling around.

Providing fodder for the people that aren't on the other side of the argument.

You have not addressed the question I posed. How are you able to determine what is more painful to animals? Your argument is that we should minimize pain to animals. So how do we go about rating their levels of pain in each stage of our usage of them? Isn't that the point? Rate animal pain and minimize it where possible?

Because their brains are not disimilar from ours. Animals feel pain the same way we do. The only differences in their brains involve brain capacity, memory, and thoughts driven towards more physical needs such as food and shelter. They still feel pain, and anything is better than this.

I merely proposed the exact same scenario to you. You feel that being skinned alive is painful and so you would like to avoid causing that pain to animals. I feel that having my children taken from me is painful so, using that same logic, we should avoid taking animals' children from them.

You're using logic that goes nowhere and also proves or solves nothing. Besides, being skinned alive is obviously a more physical pain that can be avoided rather than a psychological pain.

Asking questions you don't want to answer is not "manipulation." The question is as simple as "would you prefer to buy a Ford or a Toyota?"

No, it would be like asking "Would you prefer to buy a Toyota or a used Ford?"

That is called a hypothetical question. Asking a "what if" does not require a source. You said you are all for minimizing pain. The hypothetical question is what if we can negate pain completely but the price we pay is either a more expensive or slighly less tasty product?

I never even said that they had to stop skinning animals. I only said that they should do it in a humane way, and I would say the same when it came to meat or dairy products, or anything of that nature.

Besides, you cannot use hypothetical questions to prove your point. If you want to prove a point then prove to me that the fur would be of worse condition if the animals were killed in a different manner.

As the species that has no say in the matter, who cares what I want?

You care what you want, and what you would want would be a less painful death. As long as we have the possibility to give these animals a less painful death then we have the responsibility to do so.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Tycoon Because their brains are not disimilar from ours. Animals feel pain the same way we do. The only differences in their brains involve brain capacity, memory, and thoughts driven towards more physical needs such as food and shelter. They still feel pain, and anything is better than this.

This is what you should be focusing on. Forget worrying about what animals would want and what is and is not "humane."

If you can successfully prove that animals experience pain in ways similar to humans then you are one step closer to illuminating your own hypocrisy as a meat eater

You're using logic that goes nowhere and also proves or solves nothing. Besides, being skinned alive is obviously a more physical pain that can be avoided rather than a psychological pain.

How can you say what is more or less painful, especially for non-human beings? I think it could be successfully argued that psychological pain can be immensely more painful and damaging than physical pain ever could be.

No, it would be like asking "Would you prefer to buy a Toyota or a used Ford?"

Point taken. Then how about answering this question. Which scenario would "enrage" Youtube viewers more if all they had was the video to look at?

I never even said that they had to stop skinning animals. I only said that they should do it in a humane way, and I would say the same when it came to meat or dairy products, or anything of that nature.

Why would you go about the difficult task of proving something is inhumane and then simply ask for companies to do it in a slightly less inhumane manner? Do you really think the animals' lives are full of joy up to the point they are killed?

That is where you are falling on your own sword. If you successfully win the argument that the manner of killing an animal is inhumane then how can you possibly win the argument that the completely unecessary killing of animals is not inhumane to begin with?

Besides, you cannot use hypothetical questions to prove your point. If you want to prove a point then prove to me that the fur would be of worse condition if the animals were killed in a different manner.

I like how you want to focus on fur because, as a non fur wearer, your position doesn't require you to modify any of your actions. I'm sure skinning alive has more to do with cost than preserving the condition of the fur. You can have this point if you want though because any searches I do on the topic throw back hundreds of sites with enraged posters and Youtube videos.

You care what you want, and what you would want would be a less painful death. As long as we have the possibility to give these animals a less painful death then we have the responsibility to do so.

You know what? I would prefer to not die at all. I would prefer to not be born and raised in brutal conditions and then killed, regardless of the method of killing. You are focusing on the end only because it won't require you to change your purchasing behaviors.

Extend your position and modify your actions if you really care about this topic. Otherwise, just don't watch the Youtube videos because you will never be pleased by what you see.

We have the possibility to not kill animals for fur or meat at all. Using your logic, that means we also have the responsibility.

[jumph1gh]

Quote by: GHook93 I disagree with it. Killing an animal for food (or really for any other reason) should be done as quickly and painless as possible. Animals should be treated humanely before they are slaughtered. That is the main reason I won't eat veal or try foie gras!

What's the point of treating an animal humanely just for a second? You've treated animals as animals all your life, just because you are going to hurt it doesn't mean you should treat in humanely. Really, unless you have treated an animal like a human all your life, I don't think it should matter rather you skin it alive or not.

[LookToTheFuture]

Considering the possibility for one moment that i don't give two hoots about how animals are treated and all i am concerned about is the meat and it's quality. I was going to explain it myself and although this article specifically talks about pigs it applies to all animals and covers it more comprehensively than i can:

Essentially, stress results in chemical changes that prevent meat from "ripening" properly as it otherwise would. There's two recognized problems - meat from an that's been so exhausted that the meat doesn't have enough glycogen to ripen properly. That meat is called DFD - dark, firm, dry. The other problem is meat from a stressed animal, whose meat's pH drops too quickly, damaging the meat. The meat loses fluid, texture and water, so it is called PSE (pale, soft, exudative).

Please note that stress immediately before slaughter has the biggest impact. There's all sorts of stress that could conceivably ruin meat (e.g. transport stress, weaning stress or the mental trauma of an unhappy piglethood) - but stress just before slaughter seems to be most important.

I rest my case. Treat animals nice and they will taste nice back. MMMMMM.. meat is good!

[Piscean]

Whoever thinks it's no big deal to do such a thing as long as you eat the animal after, should be totally understanding when it's done to them, as long as theyre eaten afterwards ovecourse.

[Piscean]

Considering the possibility for one moment that i don't give two hoots about how animals are treated and all i am concerned about is the meat and it's quality. I was going to explain it myself and although this article specifically talks about pigs it applies to all animals and covers it more comprehensively than i can:

Essentially, stress results in chemical changes that prevent meat from "ripening" properly as it otherwise would. There's two recognized problems - meat from an that's been so exhausted that the meat doesn't have enough glycogen to ripen properly. That meat is called DFD - dark, firm, dry. The other problem is meat from a stressed animal, whose meat's pH drops too quickly, damaging the meat. The meat loses fluid, texture and water, so it is called PSE (pale, soft, exudative).

Please note that stress immediately before slaughter has the biggest impact. There's all sorts of stress that could conceivably ruin meat (e.g. transport stress, weaning stress or the mental trauma of an unhappy piglethood) - but stress just before slaughter seems to be most important.

I rest my case. Treat animals nice and they will taste nice back. MMMMMM.. meat is good!



Your a heartless, worthless, charactor and life in generalwould be better off without you

[Kizzume]

Quote by: Suburbanite because i am human and to set up a system where i am skinned would set up the same system for you to be skinned in. okay, tell you what, ASK an animal if he minds and if you get an answer i'll see it your way.

Oh my god. So because they can't speak english, they deserve to be skinned alive? What a crock!