ChatterBank6 mins 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.
There was a thread that touched quite heavily on this a few days ago.
https:/
I agree, nature is cruel - should we intervene?
I'm really not sure.
https:/
I agree, nature is cruel - should we intervene?
I'm really not sure.
Here's another interesting slant on it.
https:/
https:/
//I agree, nature is cruel - should we intervene?
I'm really not sure//
Nor I. We can't change the way the world is (or, as arguers on another thread claim, the way an all-powerful and loving God meant it to be) and rather pointless to try.
We can, however, regulate our own behaviour: rescue a mouse from a cat on a personal level, perhaps; or, as a group, have laws to limi the (necessary) cruelty we inflict on animals reared as food.
I assume, by the way, that the OP knows that the word "anthropomorphy" means the attribution of human moral judgments to animals, and is not the assertion that they do not feel pain.
I'm really not sure//
Nor I. We can't change the way the world is (or, as arguers on another thread claim, the way an all-powerful and loving God meant it to be) and rather pointless to try.
We can, however, regulate our own behaviour: rescue a mouse from a cat on a personal level, perhaps; or, as a group, have laws to limi the (necessary) cruelty we inflict on animals reared as food.
I assume, by the way, that the OP knows that the word "anthropomorphy" means the attribution of human moral judgments to animals, and is not the assertion that they do not feel pain.
Some interesting facts and quotes there. Farmers don't want to record every time they kill a crow; up to 100,000 are killed each year. Even if we only have 1000 farmers (but there are far more), that would require them to make a note twice a week on average. A farmer reported that this spring they have been 'lucky' (despite the ban) but last year was 'carnage' (before the ban). Sounds like they are benefiting from the temporary ban.
Most worryingly, a sheep might be sent for slaughter as a "blind sheep is not much use to any farmer". I would dearly love to know what else the farmer planned to do with this sheep, blind or otherwise. I have never managed to train one well enough to drive a tractor, and they are not even much use at scaring off ramblers.
Most worryingly, a sheep might be sent for slaughter as a "blind sheep is not much use to any farmer". I would dearly love to know what else the farmer planned to do with this sheep, blind or otherwise. I have never managed to train one well enough to drive a tractor, and they are not even much use at scaring off ramblers.
The Mail is printing this story in response to the TV presenter Chris Peckham (no pun intended) receiving death threats.
// TV presenter Chris Packham has said he received a "very calculated" death threat against him and his family after he campaigned for measures to protect birds from being shot.
Last week, two dead crows were hung on Packham's garden gate, and the presenter said charities and organisations he works with have also been "bombarded by bullies". //
The Mail is taking the side of the people making the death threats, hanging dead birds on his property (he is a vegan) and the bullies. Not sure why the Mail would take that line, maybe it associates vegans and gun control with lefties.
// TV presenter Chris Packham has said he received a "very calculated" death threat against him and his family after he campaigned for measures to protect birds from being shot.
Last week, two dead crows were hung on Packham's garden gate, and the presenter said charities and organisations he works with have also been "bombarded by bullies". //
The Mail is taking the side of the people making the death threats, hanging dead birds on his property (he is a vegan) and the bullies. Not sure why the Mail would take that line, maybe it associates vegans and gun control with lefties.
Can't be bothered to read the article but assume it's very emotive. Nature is cruel. Farmers need to protect their livestock business. That's as natural for human food producers as eating is for the crows. The important bit is to attain and maintain balance. We don't need to be decimating one species, nor letting it grow sufficiently to cause issues.
I think the anthropomorphism argument is well overplayed. Animals can think and make decisions regardless whether it's different or identical to other species such as ourselves. It seems to be used to imply non-human species are just automatons and so we have no reason to consider how we treat them.
As for the article itself, all sorts of styles are used. If it causes controversy then it sells.
I think the anthropomorphism argument is well overplayed. Animals can think and make decisions regardless whether it's different or identical to other species such as ourselves. It seems to be used to imply non-human species are just automatons and so we have no reason to consider how we treat them.
As for the article itself, all sorts of styles are used. If it causes controversy then it sells.
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.