Calor sponsors blood sports.

by I know you not Mon Apr 27, 2009 23:28

All this talk of animal "rights". The issue I would be concerned with is not whether animals have "rights" or not, of course they do! The real problem is that we, as humans, do not seem to want to ALLOW them to have any. The perpetrators of any form of violence, be it against animals or humans, are being denied their "right" to a full and comprehensive education. Having said this, it is fairly common knowledge that those who are "supposedly" permitted to avail of a full and comprehensive education, are, in fact, merely trained to keep the status quo. The status quo being that which suits people with the very mindset that accepts that violence against weaker life forms is not only ok, but is on ocassion enjoyable, eg. foxhunts, and the sinister permitting of "mild" torture. As long as the educators are directed by these people - and they are - then I'm afraid things will be extremely slow to change. To protest against cruelty to animals is an admirable thing to do and hopefully it stops at least some cruelty. Unfortunately, protesting in such a direct manner increases the incident of "hidden" cruelty. And not, to any great degree, will it decrease the actual numbers of acts of cruelty. To bring acts of cruelty to the attention of a public, most of whom have been conditioned to accept cruelty as the norm, is not going to counter the conditioning. Graphic images of cruelty, produced by persons/groups, are only used to demonize these very persons/groups and this is probably the most effective method used to stunt the growth of real awareness. If the images are meant to shock people into awareness or to change peoples ways of thinking, then I would suggest that these people are already aware of these acts and, although they might be shocked for a short period of time, the conditioning soon smothers any continued shock at the wrongdoing and people revert to a sort of, "well, I think its wrong and should be stopped" and then its on with life as normal - conditioned life, that is! It is the conditioning which must be strongly protested against. It is the conditioning which must be elimated. To ALLOW an entity it's "rights" is a society's expression of caring about that entity and only when the conditioning of society ceases will there be any chance of animals having their "rights" protected, in the sense of a society that actually cares.

by cat;ady Mon Feb 02, 2009 23:54

If you think I am fluffy in any way, please think again. I have just lost a baby cat to human sickness. Had she been deposited at any shelter rather than thrown to dogs, she would have made it. She died yesterday. All because some sick fuck thought it would be easy to throw her out in the rain.
I wish a thousand plagues on the fucker who did that. And I would inflict more if I knew who it was. It is personal now.
There is nothing fluffy about me. I assure you.
Cat

by animalcarer Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:57

In response to Nuala and her views on 'fluffy sentamentalists' - your very precise views on animal lovers and animal carers are popping up on a few websites now. I feel that you dislike the keeping of any domestic pet be it cats or dogs, you are supportive of animal culling and of course this is your right. However it is also our right as individuals to hold opposing views to yours - perhaps we can all do this without resorting to derogatory comments i.e. 'fluffy sentamentalists'.

by Catlady Fri Jan 30, 2009 02:18

I agree, thoough I have never had fox slippers I imagine them to be rather scratchy indeed. Being wild they would also probably bite and hae fleas.

Kitten slippers on the other hand are soft and warm - so long as the said kittens are living and breathing and curled willingly on your feet of course. Collie/Spaniel crosses make wonderful heat blankets too, and are a great remedy for bronchitis when sprawled on your back.

by Catlady Fri Jan 30, 2009 02:13

Nuala you wrote "Unless you are a vegetarian, you are personally responsible for animals being killed, often in horrific circumstances."

To be strictly true this should read "Unless you are VEGAN,you are personally responsible for animals being killed, ALWAYS in horrific circumstances."

The author of this piece IS vegan and therefore holds no personal responsibility for these horrific deaths.

I too am vegan, however, I would appear to be somewhat more tolerant than you. I welcome any voice which opposes hunting of any kind. Those voices may not be perfect (who is???) but they are certainly a step in the right direction as regards "sports" such as coursing and fox hunting.

Before I was vegan (or even vegetarian) I was adamantly opposed to hunting for sport. In my opinion, hunting for so called "conservation" reasons (such as the unfortunate deeer you mention) is even more hypocritical.

How, praytell, did the deer population survive before man and guns? I realise they are not the same as the native Irish Elk (look what happened there!) but my point does not change. Why do they "need" to be killed? What happens to their corpses once you have finished putting lethal holes in them? Are they respectfully buried? I think not. The reason this so-called conservation shooting continues is because there is a profit to be made from death. Its as simple as that. In the same way that the hunters on "reserves" harass and kill the native and natural predators so there are enough wild prey animals left to blast to smithereens.

Hunt if you want - it's not illegal (yet). But please at least be honest about what you do and why you do it. You do not go out shooting animals because you love them. If you were a true conservationist you would be a pollution fighting, habitat preserving, vegan rather than a happy go lucky shooter. You speak of "natural conservation" but klling animals with guns is anything but natural.

So less of the talk of "fluffy sentimentality" please. You have no idea what you are talking about or who you are referring to. At least do a minimum of research before you come on here and show yourself up by making ridiculous statemwnts about people you know nothing about. "Fluffy sentamentalists" are the idiots who put pink dresses on their poodles. Not those who stand in the rain and wind objecting to shooters who smear blood on each others faces once they have made their first "conquest".

by Lovely warm Fur Thu Jan 29, 2009 16:55

i agree fox hunting is silly.... have you ever worn fox slippers, well its really itchy, and they are not as warm as kitten slippers, now theres a sport. Might be a bit easy at first.... but could be onto something...

by Nuala Ingram Thu Jan 29, 2009 16:37

If you are a vegaterian then you have the right to be opposed to hunting. Otherwise what you're really about ie wooly minded right-on hypocrisy.

I abhor cruelty to animals. I have been part of campaigns against Fox Hunting, Badger Baiting, and Hare Coursing. I believe that anyone involved in torturing animals for “fun” is a sick puppy indeed. I also understand the need for natural conservation. I believe that if an animal is to be killed, then it should be killed as quickly and humanely as possible. I sometimes help out with the annual deer cull in the Wicklow Mountains, not because I hate deer, but because it has to be done. (I suppose that puts me up there with Hitler)

I am not interested in the fluffy sentimentality of people who feign horror at the suggestion that animals get killed, especially as most of these people sustain themselves everyday on the flesh of dead animals. Yes folks, animals are killed in their thousands every day for us to consume. Unless you are a vegetarian, you are personally responsible for animals being killed, often in horrific circumstances. Pretending to be horrified by that does not absolve you of your complicity. Grow up and get over it.

Regards - Nuala

by Mike Novack Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:05

If it's anything like over here, the gas users who live in town tend to be on gas mains while the people who use bottled gas tend to live out in the countryside. That could easily account for a rather large difference of opinion and the majority of "Calor" customers might be on the other side on this issue.

If that is the case, the campaign would simply be lose-lose for "Calor".