Should Animals face the Death Penalty

[TBot411]

I saw this article and the idea suddenly occurred to me. : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37801676/ns/us_news-environment/ Specifically, healthy animals in there natural habitat where the human is the trespasser.

[fakepeeps7]

I think the problem is determining whether or not the animal is actually healthy. Healthy animals generally steer clear of humans. So if an animal attacks once, there might be something wrong with it, and it's probably more likely to attack again... and that's going to be a problem for humans.

That said, we have encroached on their habitat way too much, and killing a bear just because he's traipsing through your garden (when you've built your house on the side of his mountain) is pretty unfair.

[Vanito]

Animals face the death penalty every day in the meat industry. So lets not get all hypocritical about one bear, where the average pig, cow and chicken have it much worse.

[Oaktree]

Animals face the death penalty every day in the meat industry. So lets not get all hypocritical about one bear, where the average pig, cow and chicken have it much worse.

Animals killed in the meat industry are killed because it is necessary for out nutrition and, therefore, our survival. It is possible for some people to eat properly on a vegan diet, but for many people, it is only affordable to include some meat in the diet. Some people are allergic to many of the vegan sources of protein. If it were possible for our society to feed everyone properly without meat, it would be better to not keep animals for meat. But, as it is, it is necessary for the survival of most of our population.

When an animal is minding its own business in its own territory and people encroach upon it, threatening its ability to survive, that is an entirely different matter, and something I would consider wrong. Even if the animal attacks someone getting too close to its home, for example, that person is responsible for the confrontation and they are in the wrong. If a rabid animal comes to us and attacks someone, on the other hand, then I think that animal should be killed because it is a matter of life or death and a person is attacked without having threatened the animal in the first place.

To me, we should only kill other living things when it's a matter of life or death. Other animals are not held to this standard, but, for the most part, other animals will avoid us unless they are sick or threatened.

[Vanito]

Animals killed in the meat industry are killed because it is necessary for out nutrition and, therefore, our survival. It is possible for some people to eat properly on a vegan diet, but for many people, it is only affordable to include some meat in the diet. Some people are allergic to many of the vegan sources of protein. If it were possible for our society to feed everyone properly without meat, it would be better to not keep animals for meat. But, as it is, it is necessary for the survival of most of our population.

When an animal is minding its own business in its own territory and people encroach upon it, threatening its ability to survive, that is an entirely different matter, and something I would consider wrong. Even if the animal attacks someone getting too close to its home, for example, that person is responsible for the confrontation and they are in the wrong. If a rabid animal comes to us and attacks someone, on the other hand, then I think that animal should be killed because it is a matter of life or death and a person is attacked without having threatened the animal in the first place.

To me, we should only kill other living things when it's a matter of life or death. Other animals are not held to this standard, but, for the most part, other animals will avoid us unless they are sick or threatened.
The majority of meat eaten by people is unnessecary.
People nowadays eat so much met its consider unhealthy. Creating meat costs a lot more resources than creating other food. It seems unlogical to go upset about a bear, where much more suffering could be stopped by acting somewhat more responsible with the meat indusctry.

[arisu_marisu]

There's almost always a reason an animal kills. Usually for survival. It might've felt threatened in someway and retaliated.

"...they decided to kill the bear because it was unclear whether it had some unnatural form of aggression."

Umm..Ok. So, they killed the bear because they didn't know if it killed the guy for poops and giggles? Also they "suspected" that specific bear attacked him. What if it was a different bear? You just killed a bear because it might have murdered a man. huh?

However, the information here isn't enough for me to conclude that the bear killed him for no reason whatsoever.

Bears are pretty agressive and every few months or so I always catch a news report about how one went into a town and dug through someone's dumpster or someone went camping and a bear attacked an innocent camper. One of the reasons they are so used to being around people is because they have a great sense of smell and if you leave something around unnattended or, god forbid, actually feed the thing, they get used to hanging around and will get agressive when trying to get their next meal. Everyone wants to make it seem like they're evil bloodthirsty creatures because of this.
I've been camping plenty of times and worked at campsites and never once did I see a bear or get killed by one (obviously). I can't speak for the victim because I don't know if he did anything to instigate it to attack him but I was told of several things I was supposed to do and not do while camping. I was also instructed on what to do if I ever encountered one. Maybe, he wasn't aware that he was doing something to put himself at risk. Also, they say you need to have a buddy system. As in, if you are going out into the wilderness, never go alone. He was hiking alone. Big no-no. If he had someone there with him it could've helped in this situation. So, this could've been avoided altogether.

Death penalty to an animal seems absurd to me, honestly. Like I said before, never seen a real life bear without a big sheet of glass keeping us apart. I have been fairly close to a puma (mountain lion). I just kept my distance, watched it from afar frozen still and it never saw me and just went on it's way. If I had jumped out and dangled a steak maybe it would've killed me.

Anyway..That's just my opinion. I'm a bit of an animal nerd so forgive the long post.

[kiwi_tea]

Wait. What? This assumes a civilised society supports the death penalty for people!

No we shouldn't have the death penalty for ANY animals, including humans. It is hypocritical to kill to prove the wrongness of killing.

[Oaktree]

The thing about death penalty as a form of punishment is that it isn't a real punishment. Punishment is used to correct future behavior (which is why the corrections system in the US needs an overhaul, but that's another topic), but the death penalty simply prevents any future behavior. If you're in a situation where there's an axe murderer chasing you down and your only option is to kill to protect your own life (or a similarly dire circumstance), then it makes sense. But the death penalty is applied after the threat is gone or, at least, minimized.

[jooxis]

It depends on a lot of things, for me. If a certain wild animal is going around a village every night killing people, then I would understand if the villagers went out and hunted this animal down. If an aggressive dog mauls a child to death, I don't see a problem with putting it to sleep humanely. The owners shouldn't be able to keep the animal and it won't ever be adopted again, so what's the point.
But for example, if a zoo animal kills someone who falls into the animal's cage, I would not have the animal be put down. So there's probably some hypocrisy here (although I still think the same).

[longears15]

I would tend to agree with what Jooxis has said. There are certain cicumstances where destruction of wild animals may be an appropriate course of action - if a particular animal has been identified as being a problem and is repeatedly attacking or otherwise threatening humans, then really there's not much else the authorities can do. However, in situations like those in the OP, I think it is wrong. To my mind, if we take ourselves out of our own habitat then we do so at our own risk. When humans are injured by animals in the wild, the animal is usually only acting according to its nature - it's defending itself or its territory, or perhaps seeing the human as a food source (e.g. a surfer being taken by a shark). It's not nice and it's always going to spark outrage, but unless the animal becomes a repeat offender and can be identified as such, I don't feel that it should be punished. Additionally, a lot of attacks prove nothing more than the fact that human idiocy knows no bounds...

[Safyre420]

I'm not sure what world you all grew up on but I'm fairly certain all animals face the death penalty due to humans encroaching on THEIR territory. The animals only protect what is theirs, but humans have no concept of what is or isn't THEIR territory. Humans have been the cause of the extinction of hundreds, if not thousands, of species of animals yearly.

What happens when an animal kills a human? They receive the death penalty without being able to plead their case. Nevermind PETA, they're a bunch of asshats anyway with their own agenda, and it's not for the well-being of the animals.

[kiwi_tea]

Safyre, animals don't have complex syntactical language: They're moral patients, not moral agents. Like small children, they can kick and scream to say no, but someone else has to do their arguing for them. They can't plead cases.

[Safyre420]

Safyre, animals don't have complex syntactical language: They're moral patients, not moral agents. Like small children, they can kick and scream to say no, but someone else has to do their arguing for them. They can't plead cases.

Are you sure they can't? How do you know that they can't plead their case in their own language? How do we know that they actually aren't sentient?

[kiwi_tea]

Because one of the distinguishing features between humans and non-humans is our ability to us complex, deeply abstract language. Elephants have syntactical proto-language. There's evidence some birds do. But they can't because whatever proto-languages they do have, they can never make arguments much more complex than 'NO!' or 'That hurts!'

[Safyre420]

Because one of the distinguishing features between humans and non-humans is our ability to us complex, deeply abstract language. Elephants have syntactical proto-language. There's evidence some birds do. But they can't because whatever proto-languages they do have, they can never make arguments much more complex than 'NO!' or 'That hurts!'

How do we know as humans that they can't? We don't have any standard translation method to determine such things. So do we really know that they can't make anything more complex than simple statements of agreement or disagreement?

[kiwi_tea]

Translation isn't standardised, and there's still plenty to learn in the field, but there's a lot of literature on animal communication: Both field research, and neurological research. I don't have time to dredge any of it up, but suffice to say we don't see animals communicating anything more amazing that Alex the Parrot or Koko the Gorilla. The fact that they can't grasp complex language - but can grasp simply language - plus the components of the brain that they apparently lack makes a pretty strong case. And we've learned, along the way, through tragedies like the Nim Chimpsky saga, too. :(

[Safyre420]

Translation isn't standardised, and there's still plenty to learn in the field, but there's a lot of literature on animal communication: Both field research, and neurological research. I don't have time to dredge any of it up, but suffice to say we don't see animals communicating anything more amazing that Alex the Parrot or Koko the Gorilla. The fact that they can't grasp complex language - but can grasp simply language - plus the components of the brain that they apparently lack makes a pretty strong case. And we've learned, along the way, through tragedies like the Nim Chimpsky saga, too. :(

But language isn't strictly spoken, it's also conveyed through body language. I'm not sure how complex you want it, but all animals communicate through complex language, if you consider spoken and body into one just like how humans communicate. In fact, I'd be willing to bet animals communicate in more complex ways than humans do as they use pheromones and such to mark territory, signify breeding periods, and the like. To say that animals communicate in simple language is laughable.

[kiwi_tea]

That's where the word 'syntactical' comes in. Syntax is the key: That's what non-humans aren't good with. Syntax is what turns proto-language into language: Vaguely associated noises and gestures into complex language.

(Maaaaaaan. Without CAW this forum is like the mob to me. "Just when I think I'm out... They pull me back in.")

[Safyre420]

That's where the word 'syntactical' comes in. Syntax is the key: That's what non-humans aren't good with. Syntax is what turns proto-language into language: Vaguely associated noises and gestures into complex language.

How do we know that there isn't syntax? We are just humans after all, we can't translate everything all animals are communicating, we have no way to, so how exactly are animals inferior in language than us when we communicate with less complex means and more simple than other animals? We communicate in dramatically simple ways compared to say bees or ants or whales or dogs or cats...so how exactly is our language more complex?

[kiwi_tea]

We do have ways to translate animal proto-language, scientists spend lifetimes in the field recording this information. We know, for example, many of the audible signals that elephants make and what they mean to other elephants. We also know, from observation, that they don't string these basic signals together with any particularly complex syntax. (They do have some simple syntax, hence the term 'proto-language')

We do not communicate using 'less complex' means, we also use pheromones, we also have body language, but a lot of it is automatic, not consciously borne communication. On top of all this communication is our actual language: Thoughts strung together to become deeply, deeply complex sentences, like the ones we're typing.

This is going to drag us wildly off topic if we're not careful, even though it's pretty much essential. Suffice to say, even if in some magical unlikely way animals CAN make a complex syntactical case for their survival, our species and thus our courts cannot understand them. So they're going to be moral patients either way, aren't they.

[Safyre420]

We do have ways to translate animal proto-language, scientists spend lifetimes in the field recording this information. We know, for example, many of the audible signals that elephants make and what they mean to other elephants. We also know, from observation, that they don't string these basic signals together with any particularly complex syntax. (They do have some simple syntax, hence the term 'proto-language')

My point is we only know what we interpret them to mean, we aren't elephants, we aren't any other animal so we can't say for 100% what the animals are saying regardless of what we interpret what they are saying. Yes we do likely know some of what they are saying but we don't know the full context of what they are saying nor in what context they are saying it in, we can't just simply disregard them as inferior and just kill them without knowing fully 100% what they are saying and what context it is in. Why are we so quick to condemn those that aren't able to speak to us like we speak to each other? Why do we feel that we have the right to take THEIR territory and condemn them to death when we don't even fully understand them?

[kiwi_tea]

I don't think I ever suggested that because animals don't have complex language they aren't moral patients.

In fact...

[Safyre420]

I don't think I ever suggested that because animals don't have complex language they aren't moral patients.

In fact...

I assume you mean this definition?

"Moral patients cannot formulate or follow moral principles and rules. "

And even if that is the correct assumption, who is to say that animals that are not humans cannot formulate or follow moral principles and rules? How do we know for sure that animals other than humans cannot formulate or follow moral principles and rules?

[kiwi_tea]

Because 'formulate' implies they use complex syntax and consciously reflect upon their principles and rules.

Young children and animals don't - by all evidence - do this. They DO act out some ingrained moralities, but they don't formulate them. They can't without the ability to form complex sentences like 'Treat others as they wish to be treated.'

Moral patients need protection by moral agents, who can formulate and consciously enforce what we call 'morality'.

[Safyre420]

Because 'formulate' implies they use complex syntax and consciously reflect upon their principles and rules.

Young children and animals don't - by all evidence - do this. They DO act out some ingrained moralities, but they don't formulate them. They can't without the ability to form complex sentences like 'Treat others as they wish to be treated.'

Moral patients need protection by moral agents, who can formulate and consciously enforce what we call 'morality'.

Again I ask, how do we know that they cannot? I do specifically remember being a young child and formulating my own morals, the morals that I have now, so whom is to say that animals cannot?

[kiwi_tea]

By 'young child' I mean 'infant'.

[Mosomashu]

Oaktree: Animals killed in the meat industry are killed because it is necessary for out nutrition and, therefore, our survival.

This is actually a myth because I am a vegetarian and I can survive perfectly well. Meat is totally unnecessary.

I also agree with Safyre420. Just because animals do not speak or convey messages in the same way as us does not mean they do not do it.
Say an African person was suspected of murder in the U.K. he was there on holiday and now he is standing in a court, doomed to be sentenced. He cannot defend himself because he does not know the language. Rightfully, he should not go to prison, because he didn't do it. However, he is sentenced to life in prison.
Obviously, this is not fair, because he could not tell the court his side of the story. They do not understand him when he tries to communicate. Just like we do not understand animals. Of course, really the African person would not get sent to prison without them getting him a translator for the court case before he is convicted. But that is how we treat animals, isn't it? We eat them, and use them for clothes, shoes, etc. Scientists of course cannot understand their language because it is going to be totally different from ours.
I am not saying animals definitely do communicate, just that we cannot know for sure. They thought he world was flat at first, remember.
Humans do not rule the world, just because we think we do.

Sorry for the long post and also I do not know how to quote!

[Oaktree]

Oaktree: Animals killed in the meat industry are killed because it is necessary for out nutrition and, therefore, our survival.

This is actually a myth because I am a vegetarian and I can survive perfectly well. Meat is totally unnecessary.

You missed the rest of what I said. I said that many people simply can't afford to go on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Vegetables are expensive. A large part of the reason why meat is sometimes cheaper is because it is so heavily subsidized, but people who are struggling to put food on the table often won't be able to go the fresh vegetable route. We don't need nearly as much meat as many of us eat, but meat is often the best way to get certain nutritional needs.

Further, different people do have different nutritional needs. You're not going to look like a bodybuilder if you eat a vegetarian diet, or at least, the vast majority won't. Athletes need high energy foods, meat being pretty much the highest energy value food.

[kiwi_tea]

Yes. But you're also going to be a lot healthier if you *don't* try to look like a bodybuilder. And your skeleton won't be ruined for life. :P

Agree on the affordability though, meat-eaters facing poverty are perhaps the only ones who have a compelling argument. There really aren't any medical conditions that require meat, even if meat is sometimes more efficient than alternatives.

[fakepeeps7]

You missed the rest of what I said. I said that many people simply can't afford to go on a vegetarian or vegan diet. Vegetables are expensive. A large part of the reason why meat is sometimes cheaper is because it is so heavily subsidized, but people who are struggling to put food on the table often won't be able to go the fresh vegetable route. We don't need nearly as much meat as many of us eat, but meat is often the best way to get certain nutritional needs.

I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here meat is expensive. Far more expensive than a can of beans (which will provide a decent amount of protein, as well as a good number of vitamins and minerals).

If you've only got $5 in your pocket, you can get a lot more food for your buck if you choose the vegetarian option. In fact, I don't think that $5 would even be able to buy much in the meat department at all... unless you're into eating something that really should be served to the dog.

[jooxis]

I don't know what it's like where you live, but around here meat is expensive. Far more expensive than a can of beans (which will provide a decent amount of protein, as well as a good number of vitamins and minerals).

If you've only got $5 in your pocket, you can get a lot more food for your buck if you choose the vegetarian option. In fact, I don't think that $5 would even be able to buy much in the meat department at all... unless you're into eating something that really should be served to the dog.

It's like that here too - raw meat costs twenty times more than cabbage, rice or potatoes... but I assume in some countries where the land is very dry and infertile, there are no fresh vegetables so meat is the cheaper option

[Metatwaddle]

Can someone give me an example of these places where meat is cheaper per pound than beans or veggies? [Citation needed] and all.

[Oaktree]

As I'm living on campus, the prices of things are somewhat inflated from the rest of the area, but I'll give you an idea of what it's like on campus. Taco Bell is the cheapest place I can eat. I can get three tacos and a soda for a little over $4. The cheapest salad I can get on campus is about the same price, but is less filling and does not come with a drink (not to mention the really cheap salads taste awful). If I want a nicer (read: more edible) salad, it's going to be about $6-10. Any drink other than water will be at least $1.20 on top of that. If I go for healthier non-vegetarian options, that's still $5-7 dollars for a sandwich or something frozen (and then the cost of a drink on top of that), though I can get vegetarian options on that. The problem with that is that there is only one type of vegetarian sandwich offered on campus that includes any protein in it and I'm not going to eat the same sandwich day after day. It's extremely important to have some variety in your meal choices because you may not be getting all the nutrients you need, otherwise. The vegetarian frozen food usually comes in tiny portions for the same cost as the non-vegetarian frozen food (about $5-7). Don't get me wrong, I'm not eating meat every meal. I actually eat less meat on campus than my mother serves at home, but I don't think my meal plan would allow me to eat vegetarian all the time.

[Clashfan]

Being inexpensive is how fast food restaurants stay in business. Of course there is the convenience factor hence the term "fast-food" but bottom line it's about getting a large amount of food for very little money. Eating on the cheap is what College is all about Oaktree, you think it's for your education but really it's just a test to see if you can survive on a diet of Raman noodles and boxed Mac and cheese.

[Metatwaddle]

I must be doing it wrong. I'm a college student and the only boxed mac and cheese I eat is Trader Joe's. And it's kind of expensive. XD

As I'm living on campus, the prices of things are somewhat inflated from the rest of the area, but I'll give you an idea of what it's like on campus. Taco Bell is the cheapest place I can eat. I can get three tacos and a soda for a little over $4. The cheapest salad I can get on campus is about the same price, but is less filling and does not come with a drink (not to mention the really cheap salads taste awful). If I want a nicer (read: more edible) salad, it's going to be about $6-10. Any drink other than water will be at least $1.20 on top of that. If I go for healthier non-vegetarian options, that's still $5-7 dollars for a sandwich or something frozen (and then the cost of a drink on top of that), though I can get vegetarian options on that. The problem with that is that there is only one type of vegetarian sandwich offered on campus that includes any protein in it and I'm not going to eat the same sandwich day after day. It's extremely important to have some variety in your meal choices because you may not be getting all the nutrients you need, otherwise. The vegetarian frozen food usually comes in tiny portions for the same cost as the non-vegetarian frozen food (about $5-7). Don't get me wrong, I'm not eating meat every meal. I actually eat less meat on campus than my mother serves at home, but I don't think my meal plan would allow me to eat vegetarian all the time. Interesting--I didn't think about people like college students whose only options are prepared foods. (I am also a college student, but I'm a commuter so I eat at home. I'm not a vegetarian, FWIW, but I try to avoid red meat when I can.)

It sounds like the prices of the vegetarian salads are seriously inflated by the food service people. I can't imagine leafy greens are that expensive. Maybe if the cost of the different dishes reflected the cost of the ingredients a little better, it would be easier for college students to eat vegetarian, have some variety in their diet, and not go broke. I do think that if you're preparing your own food, going vegetarian makes economic sense and is perfectly healthy.

[kiwi_tea]

I imagine meat is considerably easier to come by in arid regions than easily digested plant matter. When my hubby made the switch to veggies though we were saving a good $50 a month. At any rate. We need to move most this over to the vegetarian/meat-eater thread. Whether animals can make a case for themselves is relevant, and meat-eating does amount to a death penalty whether you're for or against it, but the ins and outs of the vegetarian/meat argument don't belong in this thread. :)

[Vanito]

It sounds like the prices of the vegetarian salads are seriously inflated by the food service people. I can't imagine leafy greens are that expensive. Maybe if the cost of the different dishes reflected the cost of the ingredients a little better, it would be easier for college students to eat vegetarian, have some variety in their diet, and not go broke. I do think that if you're preparing your own food, going vegetarian makes economic sense and is perfectly healthy.
Making meals for a large group of people is less expensive than for a minority of people who are vegetarian.
Healthy food in generally is more expensive.

[Metatwaddle]

Making meals for a large group of people is less expensive than for a minority of people who are vegetarian. But that's equally an argument for having everyone eat vegetarian. Making meals for a large group of vegetarians is also less expensive than making separate meals for the vegetarians and the meat-eaters in your household.

At any rate, I'm not sure your statement is always true. It's true that you get economies of scale from cooking the same meal for larger numbers of people, but if you split the meals between vegetarians and meat-eaters, some of the extra cost will be offset by the fact that you're buying less meat. Your claim may be true in some cases, but it's not the sort of statement I'll accept as generally true without seeing some math.

Healthy food in generally is more expensive.Meat in general is also more expensive.

ETA: Kiwi's right, sorry about that--if someone wants to move this recent derail to a more relevant thread, that'd be fine.

[Neerie]

Cooking your own food is still always cheaper than buying anything premade, including fast food, and it's more likely to be healthier. I live alone, currently on unemployment, and I go grocery shopping every 3 weeks or so, spending around 40 bucks each times, but I also do not buy any premade stuff, no junk, if I want dessert I will bake something at home, not buy twinkies.

To come back to the price of meat vs vegetables and fruits, well it would depend on the meat and the veggies. Processed meat is VERY expensive. I rarely eat any lunch meat anymore, since for the same price I could get a really nice piece of beef, pork or chicken from which I could feed myself for a whole week as compared to 2-3 meals for the lunch meat. And since I live alone, I tend to buy a lot of frozen veggies instead of fresh ones (with the exception of the stuff that keeps long), that way I don't waste any.

Like I've read in an article, or watched on tv, forgot which, about intelligent food budgetting: "the most expensive food, is the one you throw away". And that statement is SO true! I'd much rather treat myself to a nice cheese or nice piece of meat and enjoy it, than buy stuff and throw it away.

I check the price of tofu sometimes when I feel like it (I'm not a vegetarian but still enjoy the versatility of tofu in asian-type meals), and it is more expensive per pound than even boneless chicken breasts most of the time. But overall, the key to affordable meals is to plan your means ahead, look for the specials, stock up on essentials that keep (like cans of tomatoes when they are cheaper, they keep and can be used in a wide variety of recipes), planning meals with leftovers you have in order not to waste them (like if you have extra cheese after making a lasagna, then you can use it to make a pizza).

hmmm, and why has this thread turned into a food debate? lol

To get back to the original idea of the thread, I totally agree that it's unfair for humans to treat wild animals the way they do when it's us who decide to build houses on their territory, also making it much harder for predators to find preys. So of course animals are bound to find their way into neighborhoods sooner or later, of course little Poochy might get eaten by a croc if you live in South-Carolina next to a lake, of course you might find a racoon in your living room if you keep a pet trap door open all the time. Some animals are of course more dangerous than others, but humans in general have to stop being so arrogant and stop thinking that the whole planet belongs to them and them alone. Have more respect for wildlife.

Controlling seal population "because they are making fish population precariously low", when it was overfishing by humans with techniques that destroy marine ecosystems that reduced the fish populations so low to start with is extremely arrogant and selfish, and, for lack of better word, unfair.

[Purity4]

Making meals for a large group of people is less expensive than for a minority of people who are vegetarian.
Healthy food in generally is more expensive.

Not always.

http://www.mothering.com/recipes/eating-naturally-unnatural-budget

[Safyre420]

Not always.

http://www.mothering.com/recipes/eating-naturally-unnatural-budget

I love how that article mentions "organic" food so much, wonder if they know that ALL food is organic.

[Oaktree]

Organic is a purely made-up term when it's applied to foods. Sometimes it means locally grown, sometimes it means it uses organic fertilizer, and I'm sure there are other uses of the term. Seeing as there's no real FDA definition of organic, a producer could simply slap on the label and start charging more for regular produce. It also bothers me a little that they use the term "organic" because organic simply means carbon-based, which is everything we eat, short of minerals.

[fakepeeps7]

Organic is a purely made-up term when it's applied to foods. Sometimes it means locally grown, sometimes it means it uses organic fertilizer, and I'm sure there are other uses of the term. Seeing as there's no real FDA definition of organic, a producer could simply slap on the label and start charging more for regular produce. It also bothers me a little that they use the term "organic" because organic simply means carbon-based, which is everything we eat, short of minerals.

"Organically grown" makes more sense to me, as that implies that no chemicals were used in the food's production (at least, that's what it means around here).

I wish there was a term (other than "sustainable", which is kind of vague) that would tell you whether or not your food came from a farm that destroyed the natural habitat of an endangered species. It's sometimes difficult to eat "compassionately" when you don't know exactly where your food came from.

[kiwi_tea]

Define "chemicals"

[fakepeeps7]

Things like Roundup.

[kiwi_tea]

And water?

It sounds like you're objecting to synthesis, not chemicals.

[fakepeeps7]

You're just looking for a fight. I'm not in the mood.

[kiwi_tea]

It's OT at any rate. And no, I'm not looking for a fight, but you're inviting one by being wildly inaccurate with your terminology.

[longears15]

As far as 'organic' foods go - I'm not sure what the situation is in the US, but here in Australia the industry is very heavily regulated.

What it means is that the foods are grown without the use of fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides, etc. The regulations here are so strict that even potential contamination from a neighbour's crop - e.g. a neighbour sprays for bugs, resulting in drift of spray on the breeze - is enough that one cannot receive organic accreditation.

The same goes, as far as I know, for organic meats. Their feed cannot be artificially treated in any way, nor can they even be vaccinated except where the given vaccination is required by law. Have just found a link on the restrictions relating to organic meat production: Link (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/213601/Use-of-vaccinations-in-organic-farming.pdf)

[kiwi_tea]

What it means is that the foods are grown without the use of fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides, etc.
Except that every organic orchardist I know (my aunt and uncle, for example) uses fertilisers, pesticides, and insecticides. They just don't use synthetic ones. Because they're superstitious.

[CormorantEnt]

Man was made steward of the Earth. If an animal does not honor that, and attacks us, it should suffer. Plus, once an animal has tasted human blood, there's usually no turning back. They tend to develop a taste for us rather quickly.

I'm not saying we should go out of our way to put every bear head on a pike or have every mountain lion crushed under a steamroller. That'd be ridiculous. But to assume that a vicious dog that has crossed all boundaries is somehow entitled to a life where it can continue to do so is even more absurd than defending the alleged rights of serial-mass-rapist-murderer-pedo-psychos.

The day I had 25 stitches put in my leg back in 1999, I was the only lawn mower accident case in the entire emergency room. There were, I believe, 14 other patients. All of them were attacked by dogs. At least four were attacked by the same dog. There's a reason pit bulls are now illegal in Michigan.

[Safyre420]

Man was made steward of the Earth. If an animal does not honor that, and attacks us, it should suffer. Plus, once an animal has tasted human blood, there's usually no turning back. They tend to develop a taste for us rather quickly.

Man was made steward by whom? Oh right, themselves. We must honor and respect our animal brethren, lest we destroy ourselves along with them.

[CormorantEnt]

Man was made steward by whom? Oh right, themselves. We must honor and respect our animal brethren, lest we destroy ourselves along with them.

Okay, fine. Take the atheist/pantheist/whatever position.

Do you see wolves or coyotes or Tasmanian devils sponsoring efforts to Go Green? Getting involved in conservation programs? Rescuing animals from oil spills?

Didn't think so. Likewise, do they not attack us when we threaten their children? Do they not go to great lengths to defend their children from predators, even if it means killing on precedent?

How then, is it true that we have to hold ourselves to such an absurd higher standard, especially if there's nothing there above us which can enforce standards?

I guess what I'm really trying to say is; lethal injection for a dog that shredded a toddler to smithereens because that toddler looked at the dog funny isn't even eye-for-an-eye punishment. (Feeding the dog to a wolverine would be proportional punishment. I wouldn't recommend trying it though.)

So why is putting down the killer dog even an issue?

[Safyre420]

Okay, fine. Take the atheist/pantheist/whatever position.

Do you see wolves or coyotes or Tasmanian devils sponsoring efforts to Go Green? Getting involved in conservation programs? Rescuing animals from oil spills?

Didn't think so. Likewise, do they not attack us when we threaten their children? Do they not go to great lengths to defend their children from predators, even if it means killing on precedent?

How then, is it true that we have to hold ourselves to such an absurd higher standard, especially if there's nothing there above us which can enforce standards?

I guess what I'm really trying to say is; lethal injection for a dog that shredded a toddler to smithereens because that toddler looked at the dog funny isn't even eye-for-an-eye punishment. (Feeding the dog to a wolverine would be proportional punishment. I wouldn't recommend trying it though.)

So why is putting down the killer dog even an issue?

Animals, much like humans as we are animals, generally do not attack unless they feel threatened. If a toddler is shredded by a dog, it is by all means the toddler's fault for not knowing better, and even more the parents fault for 1) not properly watching their child 2) not properly teaching their child to approach animals that they are unfamiliar with with caution. Most adults don't even know the proper procedure to approach someone else's pet, livestock, etc. It is unwise to run up to a strange animal, domesticated or wild, as that can be perceived as a provocation, the animal cannot be blamed for defending itself to a perceived threat. Humans, however, should know better and should know to let the animal(in the case of domesticated animals) approach them, smell them, sense them and otherwise let the animal make "contact". Animals shouldn't be held responsible for the stupidity of humans.

[jooxis]

If a toddler is shredded by a dog, it is by all means the toddler's fault for not knowing better

LOL. Are you serious? Jesus Christ. If the dog even has it in him to attack a toddler, it is a dangerous dog to begin with and is by all means anyone's fault but the child's.

[Daisie]

It seems to me that animal attacks are driven either by instinct or by conditioning. A frightened or hungry animal might attack a person, as might one that's been trained by people to be aggressive. Animals are not bloodthirsty, and even those that attack people are not motivated by any malicious intent. It's pointless and cruel to try to "punish" an animal that lacks any understand of right and wrong. A dangerous animal should only be put down when there is no reasonable, humane way to keep it and others safe.

[Safyre420]

LOL. Are you serious? Jesus Christ. If the dog even has it in him to attack a toddler, it is a dangerous dog to begin with and is by all means anyone's fault but the child's.

ALL animals are potentially dangerous, ignorance isn't an excuse, it is partly the toddler's fault for not knowing better and even more their parent's fault.

[Nekowolf]

...how is a toddler supposed to know when they're functioning on basic comprehension? It's like blaming a toddler for failing an advanced algebra quiz; like they would honestly get it. I could understand parents at fault, yes. But sometimes, shit happens; they're not all bad parents, they just happened to turn around at the wrong time.

Dangerous. Animals. Are. Dangerous. It's one thing if you're out in the woods and get attacked by a mountain lion because you pissed it off. It's a wild animal, this is all it knows, so sure, it makes sense to assume all wild animals are potentially dangerous.

But a dog owned by a person should be tamed. Wild predatory animals like mountain lions and wolves don't live among people. Dogs do. And when you have a dog who is a threat to others, as sad as it is, it should be put down if it cannot be rehabilitated. It is a danger not only to people but probably other animals as well.

If you want to "respect all animals," and A. humans are animals, B. pets are animals, and C. this dog is a threat to both humans and pets (who are animals as well), then D. the conclusion is it should be put down anyway because it is a potential threat to more than just itself, otherwise, you are not respecting A or B, because you are essentially saying "let them be put in possible danger."

EDIT: Oh, and if you say "well just keep it in a cage," you want to keep it locked up for the rest of its life? Now you could say "oh but we do that with people," yeah, we do. And fights still happen when they're let out for an hour, or even just having guards come by to give them food. I'd rather be dead than locked up in a cage. It's just easier and cheaper to put the animal down, and a hell lot less of a risk to others; whether it be other animals or people, unless you want to keep it in a cage 24/7.

[fragglerocks]

Not all toddlers are that aware of what they are doing. Even if the parents taught them better. That's why it takes lots of repetition before a young child may learn something. I have never been so appalled by a comment on here before than the one made that "If a toddler is shredded by a dog, it is by all means the toddler's fault for not knowing better." What goes on in your mind? Geez. I do agree that, yes, parents are at fault if they aren't properly supervising their young child. But what about the dog owners? Do you have any idea how many stories I have heard about dogs eating babies toes off? What is normal about that? The dog was hungry? Jesus Christ if you are so busy with your baby that you can't feed your dog, it's best not to have a dog to begin with.

When I was 16, I had a job at a restaurant about 4 blocks away, so I walked to and from there everyday. One day, out of the blue, 2 big dogs ran towards me. I am not afraid of dogs, and I've always known how to act around them. I made no eye contact and just kept walking, thinking they would keep running and ignore me. But instead, they started to circle me and growl. In my head I kept going over what I may have done to piss these animals off so much. I ignored them and kept walking at a slow steady pace but the bites started anyways. If it weren't for the trash guy coming down the street and blowing his horn over and over then yelling at them, I probably would have been mauled to death. And for what? Because the dogs were hungry? Crazy? Did they decide that very day to claim the sidewalk as their territory and attack whoever was on it? Who knows. But to think that people would say "Poor doggies. Now (fragglerocks) what did you do wrong?" just seriously pisses me off.

And if I ever saw a dog attacking a child, I would grab my gun and that dog would be dead on the spot. No questions asked.

[Safyre420]

...how is a toddler supposed to know when they're functioning on basic comprehension? It's like blaming a toddler for failing an advanced algebra quiz; like they would honestly get it. I could understand parents at fault, yes. But sometimes, shit happens; they're not all bad parents, they just happened to turn around at the wrong time.

Dangerous. Animals. Are. Dangerous. It's one thing if you're out in the woods and get attacked by a mountain lion because you pissed it off. It's a wild animal, this is all it knows, so sure, it makes sense to assume all wild animals are potentially dangerous.

But a dog owned by a person should be tamed. Wild predatory animals like mountain lions and wolves don't live among people. Dogs do. And when you have a dog who is a threat to others, as sad as it is, it should be put down if it cannot be rehabilitated. It is a danger not only to people but probably other animals as well.

If you want to "respect all animals," and A. humans are animals, B. pets are animals, and C. this dog is a threat to both humans and pets (who are animals as well), then D. the conclusion is it should be put down anyway because it is a potential threat to more than just itself, otherwise, you are not respecting A or B, because you are essentially saying "let them be put in possible danger."

EDIT: Oh, and if you say "well just keep it in a cage," you want to keep it locked up for the rest of its life? Now you could say "oh but we do that with people," yeah, we do. And fights still happen when they're let out for an hour, or even just having guards come by to give them food. I'd rather be dead than locked up in a cage. It's just easier and cheaper to put the animal down, and a hell lot less of a risk to others; whether it be other animals or people, unless you want to keep it in a cage 24/7.

Even domesticated animals are potentially dangerous. The parents of the toddler should teach the toddler not to approach unfamiliar animals. I knew this when I was a toddler, but then I did practically grow up in a horse stable. Dogs are protective of their owners, and in my experience they don't generally attack unless they feel threatened. Sure if the dog was going on a murderous rampage, by all means kill it, but if it just happened only once, it's not the dog's fault.

When I was 16, I had a job at a restaurant about 4 blocks away, so I walked to and from there everyday. One day, out of the blue, 2 big dogs ran towards me. I am not afraid of dogs, and I've always known how to act around them. I made no eye contact and just kept walking, thinking they would keep running and ignore me. But instead, they started to circle me and growl. In my head I kept going over what I may have done to piss these animals off so much. I ignored them and kept walking at a slow steady pace but the bites started anyways. If it weren't for the trash guy coming down the street and blowing his horn over and over then yelling at them, I probably would have been mauled to death. And for what? Because the dogs were hungry? Crazy? Did they decide that very day to claim the sidewalk as their territory and attack whoever was on it? Who knows. But to think that people would say "Poor doggies. Now (fragglerocks) what did you do wrong?" just seriously pisses me off.

That is a perfect example of dogs that should be put down. They attacked without provocation, if the dogs were living at a house on your walk home, then surely they have seen you before, and from what I gather you didn't provoke them in any way. Many dog attacks are caused by provocation, the others because their owners conditioned them that way.

[Neerie]

Okay, fine. Take the atheist/pantheist/whatever position.
What does religion have to do with this debate? You claim that humans were made stewards of the earth, and even if there was indeed some divine being that made it so, stewards are responsible for the well being of what they are stewarding, a form of guardian, a governing power, NOT mindless destructors of everything just because they have been given the power to!

Divine intervention asside, humans are part of this world, a PART of it. We need this world to live. We have the knowledge of how most things work, we are aware of our impact on the planet (even if most people would rather just hide their head in the sand and ignore or even deny it). This knowledge and awareness comes from our degree of intelligence, and wether this intelligence comes from divine intervention or evolution is irrelevent; we should know better than being pricks about our impact on the world.

Do you see wolves or coyotes or Tasmanian devils sponsoring efforts to Go Green? Getting involved in conservation programs? Rescuing animals from oil spills?
Do you see todlers knock on the police station doors to ask for help when they are being abused? Since they are powerless, then they shouldn't be protected, right?

And what if a kid is older and as a result of his abuse he starts to be a bully, abuses drugs, and indulges in self harm, then we label him as a troubled child and it's his fault and we need to get rid of him, right?

Because that's the logic you seem to apply to animals.

Likewise, do they not attack us when we threaten their children? Do they not go to great lengths to defend their children from predators, even if it means killing on precedent?
Are you saying that because they won't think twice about defending their children, we shouldn't think twice about killing them if that defence happens to be against humans? Or am I totally missing your point?

If I did get you right, you'll have to explain that logic to me. Here's another analogy. Europeans came to the Americas, invaded the native territories, brought diseases with them, destroyed habitats and ressources, and then forced the natives into reserves. The natives fought back. The Europeans therefore felt totally justified to further rip the natives of their rights, of their cultures, and of their lives when they were becomming a bit agressive.

The Europeans thought they had divine right to do all of this. Now can you tell me with a straight face that what the natives were really to blame here? It's the same situation with animals, except that animals can't even go the diplomatic route.

How then, is it true that we have to hold ourselves to such an absurd higher standard, especially if there's nothing there above us which can enforce standards?
Ahh the old "there's nothing stopping me from commiting murder if I don't believe in God" argument, gotta love it. :Pint:

How about: we have to hold ourselves responsible for our actions because we are already aware that if we continue the way we're going, we will end up destroying the ressources that keep us alive in the first place!

Wake up :!:

[jooxis]

I knew this when I was a toddler, but then I did practically grow up in a horse stable.

Good for you. So every toddler and baby has the responsibility to request from their parents to teach them how to behave around animals, otherwise it will be their fault for being so ignorant?
There have been month-old babies fatally attacked by dogs, but I guess it's their fault for giving the dog a "threatening stare" or something. Since animals always have good reasons and intent when they kill an infant.

in my experience they don't generally attack unless they feel threatened

You really should get some more experience then. Coincidentally, I've had experience with dogs my whole life in many forms. Like fragglerocks' example, I have been attacked by dogs for no reason concievable but rather just a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not that uncommon.
Also, there's a stray dog in my neighborhood who bites and attacks passing people completely at random. I've known this dog since it was a puppy and it's always been cared for well by the local people. The dog simply has issues which are not the fault of the people it attacks. I can say for sure as I've witnessed dozens of these attacks and the people did nothing "wrong"- they were just passing by minding their own business.

As I've stated before, any dog who attacks a child with the intent to KILL IT has issues and something is wrong with the dog, not the victim. Yes it is mostly the adult's fault for putting their child in danger but it's LEAST OF ALL the toddler's or baby's fault.

[Vanito]

Okay, fine. Take the atheist/pantheist/whatever position.
There is no specified atheist or pantheist position on this. This assumption makes no sense. It is rather prejudiced in fact.

Not always.

http://www.mothering.com/recipes/eating-naturally-unnatural-budget
Depends on where you live. Every jar of not-pesticide grown food here is more expensive than its supermarket equivalent, non-pesticice-potatoes, non-pesticice-cropts or non-pesticice-salad, non-pesticice-beans.. its all more expensive.

This article if helpfull on advicing to cut down on snacks, fruitbars, not avoid bulk sections, use less ready made components etc, advices to go to nearby farms to buy. That saves money. Many of these things would save money on any person who eats food.

Not every product in bioshops is more healthy by definition. (or "organic") Opon reading the incredients its often rather sad to see that sugar has been replaced by frustose (thats not nessecarily healthier) that agave-glucose-fructose syrup sirup or apple-fructose sirup are just fancy names for whats nearly or completely the same ingredient. (fructose is frutose, apply-frustose at most contains traces of apple)

[Safyre420]

Good for you. So every toddler and baby has the responsibility to request from their parents to teach them how to behave around animals, otherwise it will be their fault for being so ignorant?
There have been month-old babies fatally attacked by dogs, but I guess it's their fault for giving the dog a "threatening stare" or something. Since animals always have good reasons and intent when they kill an infant.



You really should get some more experience then. Coincidentally, I've had experience with dogs my whole life in many forms. Like fragglerocks' example, I have been attacked by dogs for no reason concievable but rather just a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not that uncommon.
Also, there's a stray dog in my neighborhood who bites and attacks passing people completely at random. I've known this dog since it was a puppy and it's always been cared for well by the local people. The dog simply has issues which are not the fault of the people it attacks. I can say for sure as I've witnessed dozens of these attacks and the people did nothing "wrong"- they were just passing by minding their own business.

As I've stated before, any dog who attacks a child with the intent to KILL IT has issues and something is wrong with the dog, not the victim. Yes it is mostly the adult's fault for putting their child in danger but it's LEAST OF ALL the toddler's or baby's fault.

You misunderstand what I said, if the toddler provokes the dog into defending itself it isn't the fault of the dog, period. In the case of babies, they aren't at fault at all, we were talking about toddlers, toddlers aren't as mentally incapable of knowing that they shouldn't just run screaming up to an unfamiliar animal as you all make them out to be.

[fakepeeps7]

Aren't dangerous dogs usually conditioned to be that way by their owners? If we're going to punish the dog with death, then we should be punishing the owner as well. Not with death, mind you... but maybe jail time or a prohibition on owning animals.

As for babies and toddlers getting mauled, that may just be due to some latent instinct in the dog. Maybe the dog views them as prey. In any case, parents should always be watching their kids if they're near animals. Most cases of mauling (or smothering, in the case of cats) seem to occur when the parent is nowhere near the kid.

[Safyre420]

Aren't dangerous dogs usually conditioned to be that way by their owners?

Possibly, in most cases I would say yes, I would also say that it is partly the breed as well. Some breeds are more likely(not saying that they are) to be violent, like say wolfhounds.

[fragglerocks]

Chows are very cute and fluffy...children love the idea of having one to hug and hold all the time. But most Chow breeders will recommend they go to homes without children, because their tempers aren't made for screaming, hyper kids. That's not to say that all of them are bad with kids, but parents do need to be extra careful when choosing the family dog. I agree Safyre420, the breed does make a difference. People should educate themselves more, instead of adopting because a dog looks friendly or is just simply adorable as a pup, but this doesn't always happen and there are problems because of misunderstandings.

[Purity4]

You misunderstand what I said, if the toddler provokes the dog into defending itself it isn't the fault of the dog, period. In the case of babies, they aren't at fault at all, we were talking about toddlers, toddlers aren't as mentally incapable of knowing that they shouldn't just run screaming up to an unfamiliar animal as you all make them out to be.

To clear up any confusion, what exactly is your definition of toddler? In my mind, toddler means a baby that is learning or has just learned how to walk, so they're toddling. With my daughters, that happened around the age of 10 months. So if your definition of toddler is the same as mine, this means you are expecting a 10 month old baby, yes baby, to have impulse control (which has been proven that most children don't achieve until around the age of 5+) and knowledge of another animal's body language cues, and the ability to interpret and react accordingly to those clues.

[Safyre420]

To clear up any confusion, what exactly is your definition of toddler? In my mind, toddler means a baby that is learning or has just learned how to walk, so they're toddling. With my daughters, that happened around the age of 10 months. So if your definition of toddler is the same as mine, this means you are expecting a 10 month old baby, yes baby, to have impulse control (which has been proven that most children don't achieve until around the age of 5+) and knowledge of another animal's body language cues, and the ability to interpret and react accordingly to those clues.

I consider a toddler to be roughly 2-4 years of age, before 2 years I consider them to still be babies.

[fakepeeps7]

Possibly, in most cases I would say yes, I would also say that it is partly the breed as well. Some breeds are more likely(not saying that they are) to be violent, like say wolfhounds.

I thought wolfhounds were quite gentle. Or am I thinking of deerhounds...?

I've heard that some of the smaller breeds can be quite snippy. It's just that they're smaller, so they can't cause as much damage. (Well, except to babies. I think I heard of an unattended baby getting mauled to death by a Pomeranian once. Who would have thought?)

[Safyre420]

I thought wolfhounds were quite gentle. Or am I thinking of deerhounds...?

I've heard that some of the smaller breeds can be quite snippy. It's just that they're smaller, so they can't cause as much damage. (Well, except to babies. I think I heard of an unattended baby getting mauled to death by a Pomeranian once. Who would have thought?)

I'm not much of a small breed person, they annoy me, I'm more of a large breed, in particular labs.

[Purity4]

I consider a toddler to be roughly 2-4 years of age, before 2 years I consider them to still be babies.
I also consider 2 years and under a baby, and toddling a stage of babyhood. Two to four years old is not a toddler, though, that's a young child. However, that is still before the ability of impulse control, which typically doesn't develop until after the age of five.

Regardless of technical definition of the word toddler, what you are saying is you expect a two to four year old to have impulse control (which has been proven that most children don't achieve until around the age of 5+) and knowledge of another animal's body language cues, and the ability to interpret and react accordingly to those clues. This just seems like expecting the impossible and laying blame where it shouldn't be (on a two to four year old).

[Safyre420]

I also consider 2 years and under a baby, and toddling a stage of babyhood. Two to four years old is not a toddler, though, that's a young child. However, that is still before the ability of impulse control, which typically doesn't develop until after the age of five.

Regardless of technical definition of the word toddler, what you are saying is you expect a two to four year old to have impulse control (which has been proven that most children don't achieve until around the age of 5+) and knowledge of another animal's body language cues, and the ability to interpret and react accordingly to those clues. This just seems like expecting the impossible and laying blame where it shouldn't be (on a two to four year old).

Never said they should have the ability to interpret an animal's body language, I said that they should know better than to run screaming up to an unfamiliar animal and otherwise provoking by pulling tails, ears, hitting etc. The parents should teach their child to properly approach animals, and yes those in the ages of 2-4 do have the ability to control themselves somewhat when it comes to unfamiliar animals.

[longears15]

I thought wolfhounds were quite gentle. Or am I thinking of deerhounds...?

I've heard that some of the smaller breeds can be quite snippy. It's just that they're smaller, so they can't cause as much damage. (Well, except to babies. I think I heard of an unattended baby getting mauled to death by a Pomeranian once. Who would have thought?) We seem to be going further and further OT here, but in my experience a LOT of smaller breed dogs are snappy and can actually do a surprising amount of damage. I think the problem is that people tend not to take them as seriously - so many owners seem to find their Pomeranian/Maltese/Shi Tzu/Random Fluffy's temper tantrums cute ("Oh, s/he's just a little bit naughty..."), whereas a larger breed displaying the same behaviours is quite obviously a problem to all but the most stupid of people.

To the subject of toddlers and animals - it's my firm opinion that NO toddler is 100% safe around ANY dog and should never be left unsupervised. Any parent who thinks it's okay shouldn't own a dog, never mind have a child. Doesn't matter whether or not the child has been raised around dogs from the day it was born, or whether the dog has always been well socialised with young children. All dogs have a limit to what they can take and even the best behaved kid won't always understand that - a two or three year old can't.

[Purity4]

Never said they should have the ability to interpret an animal's body language, I said that they should know better than to run screaming up to an unfamiliar animal and otherwise provoking by pulling tails, ears, hitting etc. The parents should teach their child to properly approach animals, and yes those in the ages of 2-4 do have the ability to control themselves somewhat when it comes to unfamiliar animals.

I agree that children should be taught the proper way to interact with animals, but I disagree that a two to four year old will have the ability to control their impulses, regardless of how well they are taught, which is why I also believe that children should never be left unsupervised around animals.

[Safyre420]

I agree that children should be taught the proper way to interact with animals, but I disagree that a two to four year old will have the ability to control their impulses, regardless of how well they are taught, which is why I also believe that children should never be left unsupervised around animals.

Perhaps I've only been around well behaved 2-4 year olds as all the ones that I've known over the years, could control their impulses somewhat. When around unfamiliar animals they wouldn't just bound up to the animal and expect it to play nice. Perhaps it's the shear lack of effective disciplinary actions that many kids nowadays get bitten and otherwise attacked by animals.

[jooxis]

Perhaps it's the shear lack of effective disciplinary actions that many kids nowadays get bitten and otherwise attacked by animals.

Perhaps. But whatever it is, it would be the fault of an adult. Not the kid's.

[longears15]

Perhaps I've only been around well behaved 2-4 year olds as all the ones that I've known over the years, could control their impulses somewhat. When around unfamiliar animals they wouldn't just bound up to the animal and expect it to play nice. Perhaps it's the shear lack of effective disciplinary actions that many kids nowadays get bitten and otherwise attacked by animals. Safyre - the point is that, as even you are saying yourself, toddlers can only control their impulses somewhat. Also, it's one thing teaching kids not to approach unfamiliar animals - but - most bite wounds are inflicted either by the family pet or by another animal the child is familiar with. They might be doing something to the dog that they've done a hundred times before but maybe the dog is tired, a bit off colour or has a sore spot and doesn't want to be bothered...that's all it takes sometimes even for the most easy-going of animals. Which is why unsupervised kids and animals just don't mix.

I do agree though that parents are often to blame. I used to work with donkeys and we had a few 'bombproof' animals that we used for public events - one being a beautiful old man of about 40-odd that you could do anything with. From time to time he used to get pressure sores on his chest and knees and him being a bit short to bend comfortably, I used to get down on the ground to clean them. I knew that I could do that safely with him, but remember us going into his yard one Open Day to find a two year old clinging to one of his back legs. Can't even begin to imagine what must have been going through his parents' minds letting him run off into a group of donkeys. Worse was that they couldn't see the problem when I pointed it out to them...it's no wonder that kids are hurt in stupid ways when there are parents who don't bother to instil basic common sense in their offspring. (Though that makes for a whole new debate topic in itself, methinks...)

[fakepeeps7]

Can't even begin to imagine what must have been going through his parents' minds letting him run off into a group of donkeys.

Obviously, nothing was going through their minds.

Some people are so dumb I often wonder how they managed to procreate in the first place.

[fragglerocks]

I knew that I could do that safely with him, but remember us going into his yard one Open Day to find a two year old clinging to one of his back legs.

*GASP* Are you serious? That's a dead 2 year old waiting to happen... I am in complete disbelief that there are parents that ignorant!

[kiwi_tea]

Again. Toddlers and animals are moral patients - they don't have the ability to theorise nearly as coherently as adult humans, but they can suffer just as much. Only adult humans are moral agents.

[Amtram]

You would be amazed at the number of pictures and videos around showing parents holding their children over the fences of zoos so the kids can get closer to the animals. There's no shortage of parental idiocy.

[fragglerocks]

Remember when the five year old fell into the gorilla pit at the Zoo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A

A parent's worst nightmare I am sure.

[fakepeeps7]

I think the worst nightmare would be the tiger pit.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i think theres many facets to this argument to consider.

its all situational, however.

some kids can be taught better and restrain their impulses better.
some dogs are taught to maul and destroy.
some adults are irresponsible or genuinely dont have any say in the situation ( being away, being preoccupied with something important, etc... )....

problem is, nobody wants to deal with it on a situational basis. everyone wants to punish according to what happened, not the circumstances or what led up to it or who is involved and what those people are like. imho the system needs a change, to better suit punishments to wrongdoings.

[Neerie]

I used to live right next to a daycare, 2 sides of our 3 sided fence were directly adjacent to the daycare playground. We also had 2 golden retrievers, who grew up there, so they were used to the kids and their noises.

Now I'm all for adults teaching kids how to be safe around dogs, but some adults just have it plain wrong. When I was living there, I've done plenty of teaching the kids how to approach dogs, emphasizing that they should also always ask the owner if they can pet the dog, and to never pull hair, ears, or tail (which was aimed mostly at the 2-4 years olds). Some of the daycare workers however, had a very bad approach about the whole thing, as they were trying to scare the kids instead of educating them. Instead of showing the right thing to do and come ask us if the kids could pet the dogs, or to tell the kids to ask us, they would plainly yell at kids to "get away from the fence because dogs are dangerous and mean!" *facepalm* Of course that came from the employees who prefered to gather together and chat while leaving the kids on their own outside, not noticing the 2 year old who had fun having my dogs lick his pacifier repetitively.

Now my dogs were on my side of the fence, and although the younger kids could get their whole arm through the fence, if my dogs would get tired of the petting, they could get away. I would never have put my dogs in the playground, as a swarm of 40 kids can drive any dog crazy. Sometimes the place looked like a petting zoo when i gave the kids some dog kibbles to give the dogs through the fence (instead of them trying to feed my dogs with weeds, which they would eat.. ugg lol) but I did that only because I knew my dogs who have always been extra gentle with food, I would never have done that with a snappy dog.

[TBot411]

A Kitty meets a Bear .
http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq153/TBot411/BearMeetsCat.jpg