• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Killing mice

SilverTongue said:
I hate to say this, but the stuff you just said about wolves is as much BC as the rumors going around about snakes.
Click to expand...
Silvertongue...Rich was just giving an example. If wolves, cougars, coyotes, etc. were left to roam freely in heavily human populated areas, they <b>WOULD</b> and <b>HAVE</b> preyed on humans as a food source. Rich was simply saying that almost anyone would choose to kill the wolf instead of their own child. This was just an <i>example</i> of killing out of necessity, in my opinion! I certainly would do whatever I could to save my child if I was in that situation!

As for eating meat...it IS a natural thing for humans to hunt for food. Is it cruel for a tiger to kill an antelope? It's natural for one animal to eat another. Why should a tiger have more rights than humans? Now don't get me wrong...I do NOT believe in killing for sport, fashion, etc. I also do not believe in cruelty to animals...thus I won't knowingly eat veal, for example. It's cruel to keep a calf in a box so it can't move or exercise it's muscles...just to have tender meat. I do not believe anyone here is saying it is OK to be <b><i>unnecessarily</i></b> cruel to animals.

Well, that's all I have to say!
 
This will be my last post on this topic, I promise, unless someone asks me a direct question. But I agree with SilverTongue about the wolf issue. I have also done research here. Wolves on this continent are terrified of humans. This is not a recent development; they have been terrified of humans for a few hundred years, at least. This fear extends to anything that smells human, including children. What really ticked people off about wolves was that they came unexpectedly and carried off livestock - sheep or calves that resembled wolves natural prey. That and fear, mainly from all those fairy tales that portray wolves as evil animals that love to kill humans.
 
http://www.natureswolves.com/human/aws_wolfattacks.htm

Now a days wolf attacks are far and few, however it has occured in the past, I found this on a web site,

Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John James Audubon of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried axes on the shoulders as a precaution. While traveling through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his ax and escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend lay scattered in the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered up the axes and returned home with news of the event. This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J.. and Bachman,J,: The Quadrupeds of North America. 3 volumes. New York, 1851 - 1854)

Of course wolf attacks are going to be far and few today because wolves are scared shot less of us, they aren't dumb, however back in the pioneering days wolves were king of the land and hadn't had the experiances they have had in the last two centuries with us killing them and all, I am not a specialist in wolves, but I have taken woldlife management classes, wolves are dangerous and if I lived in wolf country I wouldn't let my children play out of sight...
 
Torn...must talk about something else...but I can't just let it go! But this is a corn forum! What to do:confused:
Okay, I have to say something. Meat is not, in any way, necessary for human health. Humans used to be, before they became hunters, herbivores in every way. Therefore one could argue that we are supposed to be vegetarians. Besides, comparing a tiger to a human is ludicrous - a tiger NEEDS to eat meat, or he'll die. But humans...they can very easily live without it. (In fact, it's actually more healthy for you to not eat meat.) As for the wolf issue...yes, they are terrified of people. And yes, if a ceratin situation happened MANY YEARS AGO in which I had to choose a wolf over my child...I would move. It would be innaceptable to value one human over a pack of wolves, but I would still cherish and adore my child. However, in that case I would almost understand the killing of the alpha wolf, meaning that the pack would move elsewhere. Today, however, that same situation would be wrong - because there is such a thing as relocation. Besides, there are many out there who interpret the words "and have dominion over the creatures" in the Bible as saying "take care of them." If you really believe in religion you would believe that we should behave as perfectly as we can, to strive to behave like Adam and Eve before they sinned. And Adam and Eve were vegetarians before they sinned! When God says "dominion" it could mean "ruling" or it could mean "care and love." After all, Elizabeth had dominion over her subjects, but she doesn't eat them, wear them or poison them, does she?
Glad to have gotten that out. But I still want to return to corns...conflicting interests...
 
As an afterthought, we, IMHO, had no right to wipe out nearly the entire SPECIES. Come on, 30 people die while out in the woods, so we kill THOUSANDS of them? HUNDREDS of thousands? I can see if you wanted to hunt down and kill the wolves who attacked the people, but come on. An entire, and very vital, type of animal wiped out for killing a hundred people every 10 years???
(And if you wish to see who you eat when consuming your daily flesh meal, go here: http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/slaughter.html I urge everyone to go here and check it out.)

Oh, and Congratulations Pipatic!! :D
 
Last edited:
People killed wolves for more than one reason, and IMHO, if killing a wolf means some on doesn't die, (and leave a family without a father, brother, son ect...) then I would kill the wolf, yes today there are other options to killing and duh I would go with those if possible, but to me a wolf is not equal to a human, and humans don't just kill wolves, we are also trying to repair the damage that we have done to their numbers
 
Why? Why should a wolf be worth less than a human? Isn't that simple discrimination, like racism or sexism (not meaning to be offensive - I'm trying to prove a point, not insult anyone)? Once again, you could move. The wolves wouldn't die and the family members wouldn't die either. I'm not implying that we should stop all building projects, I'm saying that we should have some self control. As for re-introducing..yes, it is very good that we finally came to our senses and realized that we must repair the damage we have done.
 
Umm guys i asked a question hehe I guess rich is going to have to make a non corn section of the forum. I mean i didnt ask for the story of life lol but i asked how to kill mice,im sure rich dosnt like us bringing up this stuff on the forum becouse its for Corn snakes. So can we plz drop the subject and not post any more on this subject,thx.
 
Okay. Sorry. (There's no telling how long I'll keep going once I get on a rant, as my mother tells me:) Anyways I don't remember what the conclusion was on the mouse-killing...I think that it was "CO2 is most humane, chemical injections can be harmful to the snake's health, and freezing is a big:confused:, because we've had people say that it puts you in some serious pain, but then we've had others claim that it puts you to sleep first, which would be definately kinder than some other ways....As for bopping, well, I geuss it depends on how hard you do it. If you do it right it's quick and supposedly painless, but if not you end up putting the victim in unbearable misery. So take your pick I geuss:)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess I may have to make up a General BS forum where I can move threads like this. But for now I find it interesting to see how other peoples' minds work.


It would be innaceptable to value one human over a pack of wolves, but I would still cherish and adore my child
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right, Celeste, that you would sacrifice your own child rather than do whatever was necessary to save it?

So Celeste, here's the scenario: I happen to be walking down the path in the woods with my rifle slung over my shoulder and as I turn the bend, I see you standing there admiring some flowers with your back turned to the trail. I also see a fully mature wolf, a little gaunt, so he is definitely hungry, about to spring at you with the obvious intent to kill and eat you. I believe I have just enough time to get off a shot, because shouting to warn you would not affect the outcome that is imminent. Should I act to kill the wolf, placing a higher value on your human life, than that of the wolf's, or not?
 
Shoot AT the wolf. There is no wolf in the world that will not run away from a shot - if he is not scared, then he most likely has rabies, in which case it would be acceptable to kill him. And you are forgetting that last part of my sentence while you interpret what I am saying - that I would still wish to love and protect my child. I never said that I would be willing to sacrifice my baby; no parent would. I am simply saying that to put the life of the child so far ahead of the lives of many different beings is being biased, as any parent would be in that situation. I would move away, as I have stated. I could not bare to kill the pack, and I most certainly could not let my child be in danger. If I moved, the pack would be left alone, I could warn other people not to move there, and my child would be happy and safe, since young children often hate to see any creature die.
 
Luck you, Celeste!

To be able to just pack up and move is not an option that many of us have. I personally work my tail off to simply make it from week to week. I would not be able to just move.

By the way, God put us above other animals...He made us in His image...so I definitely value human life over the life of other animals. That doesn't mean that I don't value the life of animals. It simply means if I have to save one or the other...I would choose to save a human life.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate and respect the way you feel. I don't condemn you for it, but at the same time...you have no right to condemn anyone else for their beliefs on this matter. As Rich said, the cost of your freedom is that YOU have to accept and tolerate the freedom of other people to do things you may not particularly like." You basically have to agree to disagree...That's not to say that you can't try to change other people's minds. However, be aware that one of the hardest ways to change someone's mind is by condemning that person.
 
I don't wish to condemn or put anyone down...I wish to put things in another perspective. I agree with what you say, but at the same time I can't help but think: if slave-owners had never been...shall we say "corrected", the practices they did would still be done today. Unless someone stands up and says what they believe (and, in the case of the slaves, say it forcefully) nothing will change. But the right to "agree to disagree" seems very reasonable....Once again I seem to have torn interests...I think it's time for me to go and muse over some things. (And, not that it matters, but my snake, Angel, is raising her body out of my lap to stare at the computer screen...I wonder what she would say if she could read about all this. It would be interesting if our snakes could talk, wouldn't it? I wonder if the meaner corns would say nasty, rude things, and the docile ones would say kind words...)
 
Last edited:
Rich IMHO shoot me right square in the noggin' so I don't feel the wolf attack!Crazy sure! I have just stumbled upon this thread and must say that everyone here is CRAZY in there own way!To here all of this talk about the bible I would just like to say this.The bible (depending upon which bible you refer to)has been written and rewritten so many times through out history (by different kings and conquerers of the lands),(What easier way to control an unruly population?) that it is hard to know excactly what the real meaning was.As for killing man over wolf think about it like this: Which one has the POTENTIAL to screw up the environment the most?How many kids will that human produce (2,3,5?) that will further screw the environment?The wolf will kill a few animals for food.It will not produce chemicals to artificially raise food and polute the environment with manure spills that poison the waters and kill things for miles.Course now some would say there is always a flip side to every coin and what if this person was destined to have a child that would find a cure for aids?Do I value human life?Sure, but I try to value all life.If it came down to a man or a wolf?Sorry, guy!Man has to have a natural preditor(because he is too stupid to control himself) if it is not another animal then it will have to be disease.This has been my opinion(8).
 
Okay, the freak speaks his two cents.

Rich Z said:

So Celeste, here's the scenario: I happen to be walking down the path in the woods with my rifle slung over my shoulder and as I turn the bend, I see you standing there admiring some flowers with your back turned to the trail. I also see a fully mature wolf, a little gaunt, so he is definitely hungry, about to spring at you with the obvious intent to kill and eat you. I believe I have just enough time to get off a shot, because shouting to warn you would not affect the outcome that is imminent. Should I act to kill the wolf, placing a higher value on your human life, than that of the wolf's, or not?
Click to expand...

Well, if it was me, I would shoot Celeste, because the wolf is obviously hungry and has been unable to fend for itself. Make the shot good, so she won't feel it coming. The wolf, panicked by the shot, will run off; but, eventually, it will return to gain some nurishment. If we are to support that which needs our support, then the starving wolf would win out over a plump, well fed vegetarian.

:p

Now, smack the mouse and give it to the snake.
 
I'm all up for feeding the wolf too, but I think I'd rather help him find a nice big herd of caribou rather than die, but then again that's just me:) (If I made anyone think that I like animals BETTER than people, I'm sorry. I think that they should be treated more or less like our equals.) But hey, if you want to feed him, feel free to do so - just let me help out!
 
Last edited:
Sorry to stray back off track for a moment, but I just had to touch on the animal rights debate briefly.

John Singer- a nutcase and a half. Whereas he asserts that the practical use of animals is morally wrong, he has also gone on record to say that human infanticide is okay if the baby is disabled. Of course, he set a time limit for this- 28 days. So, if after 28 days you aren't completely satisfied...

He has also gone on record to say that bestiality is perfectly okay, as long as it's "consensual"- "Hey there beautiful, what's a nice poodle like you doing in a pound like this?"

PETA- a quasi-terrorist organization. Not only has PETA funded domestic terrorism, they also participate in, and openly condone it. They have likened the acts of ALF to such legitimate causes as the Underground Railroad.

PETA also partakes in some utterly tasteless campaigns, such as mocking those with cancer (re: their milk moustache ads).

Of course, there is a hypocritical side to PETA. I particularly like this quote:

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic.
Twice a day I take synthetically
manufactured insulin that still contains
some animal products--and I have no
qualms about it." Sweetland adds,
"I don't see myself as a hypocrite.
I need my life to fight for the rights
of animals." -Mary Beth Sweetland,
PETA

One last thing about PETA, one of their founding premises was to totally abolish the keeping of animals as pets, along with the gradual extinction of the domestic cat & dog by attrition.


It was said early in the thread that credited animal rights activists with saving the buffulo, whale, etc, and revamping the laws regarding the use of animals in movies. This is false. Credit for these acts goes to the animal welfare movement.

The animal welfare movement has been around for centuries, whereas the animal rights concept is a radical offshoot of animal welfare, and is relatively new. The premise of animal welfare is to prevent suffering and cruely to animals. The premise of animal rights is to end all "exploitation" of animals, including pets and zoos. Interestingly, several species would now be extinct if it organizations such as PETA achieved their goals.
 
COW IS YUMMY!!!
^THAT IS THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION I NEED IN ORDER TO BE A CARNIVORE/OMNIVORE. contrary to your stated opinion celeste humans (homo sapiens) have always depended on meat as part of their diet. (and even further back in prehistory including but not limited to cro-magnon man, neanderthal, homo erectus, etc.) the higher primates, as a general rule, are opportunistic feeders that will eat whatever is presently available. species which rely on a more varied diet have a greater chance at survival than a species which is hampered by strict dietary needs. (ie. koalas live strictly on eucalyptus leaves and would become extinct if there was a blight which killed all eucalyptus) the fruits of evolution will always be to the species that is more flexible in a changing environment. that is why lions are thriving and cheetahs are dying as an example.
that is why i believe it WAS important for early humans to be omnivores. humans no longer adapt to their environment but rather adapt their environment to suit their needs. (probably the best evolutionary adaptation of all)
next on my list is that i don't believe killing is wrong.... yes, that is exactly what i said, there is nothing wrong with killing another creature (including if both necessary and unavoidable, a human). what is more important is the motivation behind the killing and this is what determines the moral implications of the killing. (shooting a dog that is attacking a human is much different morally than torturing a cat to death for pleasure)
also i believe that different species can have a different value placed on their lives. my wife's life has a higher value than the life of my neighbor's dog, which is in turn more highly valued than a rabbit or a stalk of broccoli or all the way down the line to a unicellular protozoan which has almost no value whatsoever to me.
for what its worth i think rich was right in that most of this is just an arbitrary line that everyone must draw for themselves. as everyone of us is different we will ultimately draw our line in a different place whether we are right or wrong and the only "person" qualified to pass judgement on whether you are right or wrong is/could be/might be god whoever/whatever/however you perceive him/her/it/them to be....
SO GO AHEAD DUSTIN AND GAS, WHACK, SUFFOCATE, FREEZE OR OTHERWISE DISPATCH YOUR MICE IN WHATEVER MANNER YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE......enough ramblings from me... have a good one everyone... :) ---jim
p.s. rich if you ever see a wolf drooling at the sight of my backside while i am bent over admiring some pansies... SHOOT IT PLEASE, then we'll discuss the moral implications of your actions... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top