ChatterBank0 min ago
Why Is A National Nespaper Printing This Hysterical Garbage?
89 Answers
WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGES IN THIS LINK -
https:/
I am as much of an animal lover as the next person, but l also understand that nature is often cruel and violent.
But we have to keep a sense of proportion, something which seems to have utterly deserted the Daily Mail in its coverage of the change in the laws governing the shooting of crows.
It's coverage is slanted in an utterly inaccurate and unreal way - no doubt to appeal to the animal lovers in its Middle England readership.
But let's be factual here shall we? Crows are not 'demons', in spite of the picture used to infer that message, neither do they 'torture' ewes and lambs like some species of flying psychopath.
Crows eat to survive, and part of their prey is the soft and easy-to-eat parts of sheep and lambs, and like any creature, they will take what the can find when they can find it.
Yes, lambs and sheep are fluffy and defenceless, and crows look menacing and unattractive, but that is not the crows' fault - they simply do what they do to live - they don't do it for sadistic fun, they do it to survive, as all animals and birds do.
After all, farmers don't want to shoot crows to protect their fluffy lambs and sheep because they love them - they want to shoot them because blind and killed animals represent financial loss, which the farmer recoups when the animals are killed anyway, albeit more humanely.
Does anyone else agree that the Mail's slant on this issue is ludicrously biased, and pandering to the anthropomorphic attitudes of its readers and it should accept that nature is nasty, regardless of how 'appealing' some species are.
https:/
I am as much of an animal lover as the next person, but l also understand that nature is often cruel and violent.
But we have to keep a sense of proportion, something which seems to have utterly deserted the Daily Mail in its coverage of the change in the laws governing the shooting of crows.
It's coverage is slanted in an utterly inaccurate and unreal way - no doubt to appeal to the animal lovers in its Middle England readership.
But let's be factual here shall we? Crows are not 'demons', in spite of the picture used to infer that message, neither do they 'torture' ewes and lambs like some species of flying psychopath.
Crows eat to survive, and part of their prey is the soft and easy-to-eat parts of sheep and lambs, and like any creature, they will take what the can find when they can find it.
Yes, lambs and sheep are fluffy and defenceless, and crows look menacing and unattractive, but that is not the crows' fault - they simply do what they do to live - they don't do it for sadistic fun, they do it to survive, as all animals and birds do.
After all, farmers don't want to shoot crows to protect their fluffy lambs and sheep because they love them - they want to shoot them because blind and killed animals represent financial loss, which the farmer recoups when the animals are killed anyway, albeit more humanely.
Does anyone else agree that the Mail's slant on this issue is ludicrously biased, and pandering to the anthropomorphic attitudes of its readers and it should accept that nature is nasty, regardless of how 'appealing' some species are.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - // I once had a cat who played with mice for the fun of it. He’d catch them, bring them home alive, and then put them down to eat his dinner. //
As I understand it, the perceived wisdom is that cats practice hunting by appearing to 'play' with prey, but they are actually honing catching skills rather than amusing themselves, which ties in with my belief that animals react to stimuli involving eating and surviving, and actually nothing else.
We as humans love to put 'human ' characteristics onto animals, even though they are patently false.
Everyone goes 'Aaaah ...' when e see a seal pup because it has huge soulful eyes and soft fur, so people imagine cuddling one.
In reality, any seal would have your fingers off if you came within range of its mouth, they are not 'cuddly' at all!
As I understand it, the perceived wisdom is that cats practice hunting by appearing to 'play' with prey, but they are actually honing catching skills rather than amusing themselves, which ties in with my belief that animals react to stimuli involving eating and surviving, and actually nothing else.
We as humans love to put 'human ' characteristics onto animals, even though they are patently false.
Everyone goes 'Aaaah ...' when e see a seal pup because it has huge soulful eyes and soft fur, so people imagine cuddling one.
In reality, any seal would have your fingers off if you came within range of its mouth, they are not 'cuddly' at all!
I'm a cat lover but will admit that they most certainly do torture their prey before killing it. That's an emotive anthropomorphic word in this situation but it describes what they do, many will bat and toss birds and mice for fun long before they kill it - which they are quite capable of doing with an instant bite. Similarly foxes - famous for killing lots of chickens and leaving them uneaten if they've broken into a run.
From what I understand of foxes, their instincts get confused when they see a lot of prey (chickens etc) in a confined space and they behave like a kid in a sweet shop. I have seen foxes dart into the middle of a field and grab one of many rabbits and run off with it whilst leaving the rest of them behind.
hereIam - // If pecking the eyes out of a poor ewe while she's lying there giving birth of all things, isn't torture (for her) then I don't bloody well know what is !!! And of course lambs are innocent, they are just little babies. Some utter rubbish being spouted on here .. //
It's not 'torture' in the true sense of the word, which is crucial to the point I am making.
By definition, 'torture' is the act of inflicting pain on another person in order to force them to say or do something.
The vital aspect of that definition is that torture is committed by humans, it cannot be committed by animals or birds on other animals or birds.
In a loose sense of the word, the reaction can feel like 'torture' as you say, but that is not what it actually is.
As for lambs being 'innocent' - all new born animals are innocent, but again, the anthropomorphic use of the term in this context encompasses their fluffy toy-like appearance to bolster the notion that hurting them is more cruel than it would be if they looked like, for instance, praying mantises.
It's not 'torture' in the true sense of the word, which is crucial to the point I am making.
By definition, 'torture' is the act of inflicting pain on another person in order to force them to say or do something.
The vital aspect of that definition is that torture is committed by humans, it cannot be committed by animals or birds on other animals or birds.
In a loose sense of the word, the reaction can feel like 'torture' as you say, but that is not what it actually is.
As for lambs being 'innocent' - all new born animals are innocent, but again, the anthropomorphic use of the term in this context encompasses their fluffy toy-like appearance to bolster the notion that hurting them is more cruel than it would be if they looked like, for instance, praying mantises.
Andys post @ 13:56 reminded me of this,
https:/
Prudie - // I'm a cat lover but will admit that they most certainly do torture their prey before killing it. That's an emotive anthropomorphic word in this situation but it describes what they do, many will bat and toss birds and mice for fun long before they kill it - which they are quite capable of doing with an instant bite. //
As I have posted, and will happily reiterate, the perceived wisdom is that cats are actually honing hunting skills by appearing to 'play' with their prey, I certainly do not believe they are 'torturing' it - that is a concept too sophisticated for any species below Man to grasp.
// Similarly foxes - famous for killing lots of chickens and leaving them uneaten if they've broken into a run. //
Again, I understand that a fox will kill all the chickens in a run, and he will, given the chance, bury all but one for future use, and take one for immediate consumption, by himself, or back to a family if he has one.
The run full of dead chickens and no fox is a run where the fox has been disturbed before he can move his kills, and he as run and left them behind. The notion that foxes kill 'for fun' is similarly dubious, they kill for food, as all prey animals and birds do.
As I have posted, and will happily reiterate, the perceived wisdom is that cats are actually honing hunting skills by appearing to 'play' with their prey, I certainly do not believe they are 'torturing' it - that is a concept too sophisticated for any species below Man to grasp.
// Similarly foxes - famous for killing lots of chickens and leaving them uneaten if they've broken into a run. //
Again, I understand that a fox will kill all the chickens in a run, and he will, given the chance, bury all but one for future use, and take one for immediate consumption, by himself, or back to a family if he has one.
The run full of dead chickens and no fox is a run where the fox has been disturbed before he can move his kills, and he as run and left them behind. The notion that foxes kill 'for fun' is similarly dubious, they kill for food, as all prey animals and birds do.
237SJ - // I have seen foxes dart into the middle of a field and grab one of many rabbits and run off with it whilst leaving the rest of them behind. //
A different circumstance I believe.
A fox faced with highly mobile rabbits will be content to kill and take one, but if he was faced with half a dozen rabbits in a pen where they cannot escape, he would kill them all with a view to taking one for now, and burying the rest for a return visit.
A different circumstance I believe.
A fox faced with highly mobile rabbits will be content to kill and take one, but if he was faced with half a dozen rabbits in a pen where they cannot escape, he would kill them all with a view to taking one for now, and burying the rest for a return visit.
Baldric - // Andys post @ 13:56 reminded me of this,
https:/
That perfectly illustrates my point - in the days when performing seals were part of circuses, any seal handler would tell you that seals can be vicious, and will bite if they feel provoked - again, the notion that 'cuddly looks' equate to 'cuddly behaviour' is roundly disproved - as it should be, it's only the assumptions of anthropomorphism that place these notions on wild animals who obviously do not feel obliged to exhibit them.
https:/
That perfectly illustrates my point - in the days when performing seals were part of circuses, any seal handler would tell you that seals can be vicious, and will bite if they feel provoked - again, the notion that 'cuddly looks' equate to 'cuddly behaviour' is roundly disproved - as it should be, it's only the assumptions of anthropomorphism that place these notions on wild animals who obviously do not feel obliged to exhibit them.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Dores Anyone Know What This Means...
Technology23 mins ago
News24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.