Sad.
December 9, 2007 6:47 AM   Subscribe

What I Killed Today. I work with a lot of injured wildlife. Also not wild animals that are just in a lot of pain. Sometimes I have to euthanize them. I decided to record each animal I euthanize here.
posted by monju_bosatsu (80 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
wow, we're really on a death trip today, aren't we...

I'm thinking I'm just going to turn Metafilter off for a while until we find another topic.....
posted by HuronBob at 6:54 AM on December 9, 2007


Metafilter: What I killed today.
posted by seanyboy at 7:07 AM on December 9, 2007


Wow, this is so incredibly amazing.
posted by dozo at 7:21 AM on December 9, 2007


Kind of feels like The Homocide Report, which I can only read in fits and starts.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:30 AM on December 9, 2007


Sad. Necessary. I fully understand. I grokk. But still I find it sad.

I wept as if over a lost child when I had my 17 yr old cat put down this year. The vet was very professional. A few days later I received a very nice sympathy card from the vet with a lovely piece of verse. Very thoughtful.

These people do a very important job. Must be hard to stay objective.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 7:33 AM on December 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


The people who need to know about euthanizing pets aren't looking at this. In my county alone, over 400 dogs and cats are euthanized each month, and they are healthy dogs and cats, kittens and puppies, sentenced to death because there are too many of them. It is not their fault they are here. The whole situation has made me a spay/neuter zealot. To make matters worse, I have a property line shared with a backyard breeder. These hillbillies interbreed puppies that aren't purebred anythings. They sell puppies for about $30 or even give them away free in parking lots. People who get free kittens or puppies from parking lots or ads in the paper never go on to spay/neuter those animals or give them any kind of vaccinations and don't feel bad about moving and abandoning the animal. These are the animals that end up in shelters. Every animal deserves to be a wanted animal and until then, mandatory spay/neuter programs.

This link is someone euthanizing sick and dying animals. Imagine what it must like to work in a county facility or animal shelter and have to euthanize healthy socialized pets who have every right to continue living but because there are simply too many of them, they get put down. How sick is that? We are a sick twisted society to continue to allow it.
posted by 45moore45 at 7:39 AM on December 9, 2007 [19 favorites]


I especially hate hearing about the animals that were dealing with ants or mites. I hope there's a circle of hell reserved for certain insects.
posted by chips ahoy at 7:44 AM on December 9, 2007


.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:45 AM on December 9, 2007


Oh Noes 45moore45. People are killing animals.

Maybe it's the country boy in me, but every time I see one of these conversations devolve into this "euthanizing pets that have every right to live" squealing, I'm also tempted to wonder what a sick twisted society we live in.

Never mind the countless thousands of preventable human deaths that occur on a regular basis. What's really sickening is the death of cute little kittens. Never mind the fact that you're probably mourning the death of these "socialised" animals over a bacon sandwich.

Please. It is sad when pets die, but get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters.
posted by seanyboy at 7:47 AM on December 9, 2007 [4 favorites]


Bovine, that's "Homicide Report." The "Homocide Report" would be something very different, and likely more disturbing.
posted by papakwanz at 7:52 AM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters.

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.
posted by DreamerFi at 8:00 AM on December 9, 2007 [6 favorites]


On the contrary, seanyboy, the way society chooses to treat the least among us, including children and animals, is the measure of our humanity. I'm from the country - grew up there - and my dad is about as hillbilly as you can get - but he doesn't allow animals to breed unchecked because it's wrong.

So don't pull that country boy shit. You don't know what you're talking about.
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:01 AM on December 9, 2007 [26 favorites]


Hey this thread needs some bacon. That would brighten up the topic for everyone, as it always does. Well of course there are classes of beasts, wild animals, not wild animals, pets, not pets, but animals, all.
posted by nervousfritz at 8:10 AM on December 9, 2007


Mmmmm, bacon.
posted by notsnot at 8:21 AM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I recently adopted a 9 year old ginger tabby who was regretfully no longer wanted in his home because he isn't all that fond of children. I doubt his previous owners would have euthanized or neglected him, so I can't say I saved him from any kind of horrible demise, but the story about the cat that hadn't eaten for a month made me pull him over and give him a great big hug. He doesn't like kids. He does like hugs.

If you're not going to bother to take care of your animals, don't keep animals. It's not rocket science.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:24 AM on December 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


Screw you, Seanyboy. I can care about animals and people, they are not mutually exclusive, nor is giving a damn being on a high horse, whatever that has to do with anything.

You can't seriously think it is okay to just kill animals in shelters because it is inconvenient for them to exist. We could spay/neuter so the animals aren't born in the first place.

How sad you are so jaded as to see it all as so dispensible. It has nothing to do with being a country boy and everything to do with being a self-absorbed twat that doesn't value life or quality of life.
posted by 45moore45 at 8:36 AM on December 9, 2007 [9 favorites]


Bovine, that's "Homicide Report." The "Homocide Report" would be something very different, and likely more disturbing.

Um, er, yeah. I am a little embarrassed. Somehow I missed that one. I kind of say it on the verge of wrong, so my mind tends to misspell it.

I read the Homicide Report very regularly for some time. Maybe some kind of self-punishment thing for having life too good. It can get very disturbing; the litany of death can really weigh on you. I am often surprised that some minority groups are not rioting in the streets to protest the insane levels of violence in their neighborhoods. Hmm, somehow, I am getting off track.

I think reading this blog regularly would be a pretty bad one too.
posted by Bovine Love at 8:42 AM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Seanyboy, I'm a veterinary technician. I've had my hand in quite a few euthanizations, and I've been pretty desensitized to animal death. But I still think the euthanization of thousands of healthy animals every day is one of the great tragedies in the industrialized nations. Just because the thousands of human deaths are more tragic doesn't negate the other. And people like you, with callous disregard for the responsibility owed to domesticated animals, whose fates are close to entirely in our human hands, are part of the problem.

We have an obligation towards those dogs and cats in those animal shelters. Domesticated dogs and cats exist because of human beings, and, I feel, we have should be the ones to ensure they live their purpose, which is to serve mankind. Those dogs and cats in the shelters, they live short, unfulfilled, and likely unhappy lives, and there is no one to blame but us.

You say you're a country boy. Surely you've had a pet dog you were close to, or even a working dog you were fond of. Doesn't it make you feel regret over all the missed potential in every shelter dog or cat? You're not less of a person for devoting some time to this cause over that of human death. At least for humans, there is a justice system, however imperfect, in place in the first world nations. When someone lets their animals breed freely, with no eye to the eventual end at the hands of a veterinarian for them, there is no recourse.

And I don't think the consumption of meat and a society that tries to euthanize as few animals as possible is hypocritical. Dogs and cats are euthanized, and that is a waste. Cattle, pigs, and all those other livestock species, are just that: livestock. They are born to eventually be eaten, and between point A and point B they live a pretty cushy life. When they are humanely killed, it is not the tragedy of unfulfilled potential with only ourselves to blame, it is just a part of the food cycle. So I personally have no problem reconciling these views.

So, get off your high horse. I'm not less of a person for concerning myself with the plight of ownerless animals. And I have a hard time believing that anyone who can act in such a callous manner to fellow humans in an internet forum is the champion of human suffering they would have us believe.
posted by internet!Hannah at 8:55 AM on December 9, 2007 [18 favorites]


This entry is especially poignant as there is an accompanying photo:

Barn owl with a broken femur. It held the mask in place with its good foot as I anesthetized it.
posted by wannalol at 9:11 AM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


I heard O.J. Simpson has a similar blog...
posted by MrBCID at 9:13 AM on December 9, 2007


We have an obligation towards those dogs and cats in those animal shelters. Domesticated dogs and cats exist because of human beings, and, I feel, we have should be the ones to ensure they live their purpose, which is to serve mankind. Those dogs and cats in the shelters, they live short, unfulfilled, and likely unhappy lives, and there is no one to blame but us.

First off, domesticated dogs and cats do not have a purpose simply because we've imposed one on them. We've created animals who are incapable of surviving on their own and forced them to need. Any freedom they experienced at birth is taken away from them the second they're stripped from their mother and given to a family.

In that sense, they're livestock. There's no free will, no ability to come and go as they please, no danger and no choice. Your argument that there's a difference between the two simply because humans want them for different things is not morally relevant.
posted by scabrous at 9:15 AM on December 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


a one year old ferret with congestive heart failure. especially odd and uncomfortable because again, the family was in the room but one of the children was mentally handicapped and kept barking like a dog.

paging David Lynch
posted by geos at 9:42 AM on December 9, 2007 [5 favorites]


Well stated, Medieval Maven, 45moore45, and internet!Hannah. I think you all put it better than I could've.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:47 AM on December 9, 2007


I swear I saw someone say something about the Weighted Companion Cube while scrolling down, but upon searching for the terms found nothing... strange.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:55 AM on December 9, 2007


whatikilledtoday is compelling reading. The matter of fact way the deaths are presented combined with his/her straightforward compassion is profound.

Thanks monju_basatsu.
posted by nickyskye at 10:10 AM on December 9, 2007


scabrous, you misunderstand me. When I say purpose, I mean the reason they even exist in the first place. Cats, dogs, cattle, they all have the same purpose, and that is to serve mankind. These are all animals, and even species of animals, that would not exist were it not for human intervention. I see a moral difference between pets and livestock because thousands of pets are being wastefully destroyed just due to human negligence. When they start destroying thousands of cattle and pigs because we've bred more than we can eat, then I will agree that there is no morally relevant difference.

My argument was simply that there is a moral difference in the deaths of cattle killed for meat and cats killed in a shelter, not that there is a difference between the categories of pet and livestock over all. I'm sorry I didn't convey that clearly enough the first time.
posted by internet!Hannah at 10:11 AM on December 9, 2007


When I say purpose, I mean the reason they even exist in the first place. Cats, dogs, cattle, they all have the same purpose, and that is to serve mankind. These are all animals, and even species of animals, that would not exist were it not for human intervention. I see a moral difference between pets and livestock because thousands of pets are being wastefully destroyed just due to human negligence. When they start destroying thousands of cattle and pigs because we've bred more than we can eat, then I will agree that there is no morally relevant difference.

There are wild cats, wild dogs, wild rabbits and wild birds. To say that their species would not exist without human intervention is wrong because they do exist.

If you're talking specific animals, animals bred to become human pets are purposeless; the "purpose" you're talking about is purely based on what the consumer wants out of them and has nothing to do with any choice the being has in its own purpose. If you want to humanize animals as beings with feelings, who feel loss and are to be grieved, you have to concede that they must have their own perception and purpose in life that's not defined by consumer culture.

I understand the point you're trying to make, really, I just think you're wrong in making it. There is no morality in a being birthed for a purpose other than a free existence because it is a tangible good. If there is no freedom, there is no will, there is no soul, there is no being to mourn.

If you believe there are all of those things as attributes of an animal, you might want to explore whether or not an animal's purpose really is to serve someone or whether or not we force that on them.
posted by scabrous at 10:33 AM on December 9, 2007


.
posted by everichon at 10:34 AM on December 9, 2007


get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters.

It's quite possible to be dismayed by both - but, since the FPP is about euthanized animals and not man's inhumanity to man, it's completely natural for people to express their feelings about the former without having to qualify their statement by acknowledging the latter. In my time on the farm I've witnessed the deaths of more than a few livestock due to causes natural and otherwise. I've also dispatched my share of nuisance animals and always felt a twinge of regret. Maybe where you're from being of the country means taking a callous attitude towards others and a disregard for animals, but where I was raised it means being smart enough to respect nature and life and disliking irresponsibility and waste.

So get off your giraffe.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:41 AM on December 9, 2007 [7 favorites]


Part of the point, though, is that people generally never see the consequences of their stupid behavior. I can't take in every cat I see at the PetSmart on the weekend, even though I would if I could. My two were rescues, and when they reach the end of their long, well-loved and protected lives, we will get two more from a shelter, because it's the only way to try to right the wrongs of people who just throw away what they do not want.

Society is responsible for the unwanted pet explosion, and we have made these animals dependent upon us. Wild cats and dogs in urban areas are overpopulated and often carry and spread disease that would not be present in actually wild populations. They would not exist in the numbers that they do if we behaved responsibly and controlled the population. We have the thumbs and the ability to use higher reason, and therefore it is incumbent upon us to do so. I don't really feel that it's a lot more complex than that, but when it comes to beings that will never have much beyond the reasoning that a 2 year old human is capable of, well, I'm probably a little militant.

Being a bit of a country girl, I was also raised to respect such animals. You respect cows and pigs and chickens because they feed you, and you respect dogs because they serve you, as a working dog or a pet. Your cats catch rats and keep them out of your horse feed, or else they comfort you at night in your home. Your horses carry your load out in the woods when you're playing on the weekend. There are not nice words that those of us who respect the land and its animals call people who don't do the same.
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:43 AM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


It alternately makes me a little sad and sometimes angry.

Some ancient cultures said that saying the names of the dead was the way that they were kept immortal. Without names or subject numbers, their way of death is also a unique identifier. It's not quite the same, but it seems like the right thing to do.
posted by Weighted Companion Cube at 10:45 AM on December 9, 2007


I can respect animals and I have felt sad at the death of pets. I believe in spaying an Neutering. I don't keep a pet now simply because I work a long job and have a life that would be cruel to introduce a dog to. I eat as many vegetarian meals as I eat meals containing meat. (Because I don't think it's right that we torture, drug, kill and eat such an excess of animals)

So, please don't paint me as callous just because I don't get all preachy about the culling of animals that can't be kept.

Millions of animals are unnecessarily killed because they taste nice. That's it. Simple as. A tiny percentage of animals are also killed because society does not deem it necessary to look after them. Ultimately we grow them and kill them so we can have a more fun life.

If you want to become a vegetarian, then that's fine. In fact, if I've angered vegetarians with my callous talk, then I apologise. I've a lot of respect for people who have extended their notions of the sanctity of life into other species. The world is a better place for having these people.

But, this talk of pets being different to livestock is nonsense. And the hijacking of this conversation about being a vet is bullshit.

When they start destroying thousands of cattle and pigs because we've bred more than we can eat, then I will agree that there is no morally relevant difference.
I've a solution to this. You're correct when you say that the killing of unwanted pets is a waste and morally wrong. My solution to this is to make sure that the unwanted animals are processed and made more useful. Mittens from Kittens & Puppy BBQ Steaks and Slippers. It's not for me personally, but from what you've said, I can see no reason why this wouldn't be more acceptable than the wanton murder and disposal of these animals.
posted by seanyboy at 11:04 AM on December 9, 2007


An 11 year old kid talking about killing and eating pet chickens.
(From This American Life)
posted by seanyboy at 11:12 AM on December 9, 2007


Also, thousands of animals (cattle and birds) are killed, not for meat, but because they are potentially unfit to be eaten. Should we be angry about the murder of these animals too? Should we rehouse the herds of cattle that were simply unfortunate to be living too close to the suspicion of disease?
posted by seanyboy at 11:22 AM on December 9, 2007


Some ancient cultures said that saying the names of the dead was the way that they were kept immortal.
Some ancient cultures also believed in sacrificing virgins to the sun god. If I were you, I wouldn't let nostalgia inform you on complex moral issues.
posted by seanyboy at 11:24 AM on December 9, 2007


get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters.

...such as people on the internet whose opinions need correcting, apparently.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:32 AM on December 9, 2007


scabrous: "There are wild cats, wild dogs, wild rabbits and wild birds. To say that their species would not exist without human intervention is wrong because they do exist.

No, wild dogs and cats are different species from the domestic ones. Now, there are feral dogs and feral cats, but those are the target of just as bad an eradication campaign in most places as they would face in a shelter. And they certainly don't survive as well as their naturally-wild cousins. As far as rabbits and birds go, I don't think we were talking about those, as the number of birds and rabbits euthanized in shelters is pretty insignificant in comparison to dog and cat numbers. So what was your point?

If you're talking specific animals, animals bred to become human pets are purposeless; the "purpose" you're talking about is purely based on what the consumer wants out of them and has nothing to do with any choice the being has in its own purpose.

How is this different from cattle? I can't tell what you're arguing--I'm not trying to humanize pets as having more value to their lives. Anyways, animals can not and do not choose their own purpose--they are animals. But for us to kill off millions of perfectly good cats and dogs is wasteful, irresponsible, and completely avoidable.

If you believe there are all of those things as attributes of an animal, you might want to explore whether or not an animal's purpose really is to serve someone or whether or not we force that on them."

Does this actually make a difference? A purpose is what we give an animal. There's not some divine being going "hey, cow, your job is to be meat!" There's no difference because it's the same thing.

seanyboy: "Millions of animals are unnecessarily killed because they taste nice. That's it. Simple as. A tiny percentage of animals are also killed because society does not deem it necessary to look after them. Ultimately we grow them and kill them so we can have a more fun life.

I've a lot of respect for people who have extended their notions of the sanctity of life into other species. The world is a better place for having these people.

And you show that view of respect towards people who value the lives of animals by saying things like

"Oh Noes 45moore45. People are killing animals.

and

"Please. It is sad when pets die, but get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters."

Odd way of expressing your respect, then.

I've a solution to this. You're correct when you say that the killing of unwanted pets is a waste and morally wrong. My solution to this is to make sure that the unwanted animals are processed and made more useful. Mittens from Kittens & Puppy BBQ Steaks and Slippers. It's not for me personally, but from what you've said, I can see no reason why this wouldn't be more acceptable than the wanton murder and disposal of these animals."

Now you're just trying to be offensive. The meat industry is heavily controlled, and to imply that animals with unknown backgrounds and who have been raised with no eye to consumer safety or demand are going to be acceptable for processing as meat is completely ludicrous. Turning the unwanted cats and dogs into livestock isn't going to be a solution, though I would certainly prefer it to the current situation. In fact, I think it's a good thing that at the veterinary school here, a good chunk of the animals euthanized at the local shelters are used for dissection classes. I myself got to dissect a dog from one of the local shelters. So, yeah. Thanks for trying, play again.

seanyboy: "Also, thousands of animals (cattle and birds) are killed, not for meat, but because they are potentially unfit to be eaten. Should we be angry about the murder of these animals too? Should we rehouse the herds of cattle that were simply unfortunate to be living too close to the suspicion of disease?"

Because killing animals with for the safety of the food supply (not to mention the health of other herds of livestock, should the threat not be contained) is the same thing as killing animals who are alive because some schmo down the road couldn't be bothered to spay or neuter his pets. That's a fallacious argument.
posted by internet!Hannah at 11:53 AM on December 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


[this is good]
posted by Newbornstranger at 12:16 PM on December 9, 2007


internet!Hannah.

Odd way of expressing your respect, then.
1) That respect extends to vegetarians. I implied but didn't state that.
2) I decide how I show my respect for people. You can guess about my lack of respect, but really - You've no idea.
3) Way to paraphrase. They teach you that in debating school?

killing animals with for the safety of the food supply
There's a phrase we can all get our teeth into huh. I was talking about rehousing said animals. Spending money on watching them to make sure they're not infected. This is a more costly solution than just killing them. As is the culling of spare pets. So I don't believe it is a fallacious argument at all.

Turning the unwanted cats and dogs into livestock isn't going to be a solution, though I would certainly prefer it to the current situation.
You would? Are you absolutely sure about that or did you just argue yourself into a palatable corner. Because, to be honest I think it'd be a terrible thing to be eating our unwanted kittens. WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?
posted by seanyboy at 12:43 PM on December 9, 2007


There's a passage in the Talmud instructing Jews to feed their animals before they feed themselves. From this, the rabbis extrapolated that our responsibility to animals is greater than our responsibility to ourselves, because they are fully dependent on us. This is why Judaism has created such extensive laws governing the slaughter of animals (unfortunately, the point of these, which is that such slaughter much be as humane as as painless as possible, is sometimes forgotten). It is also why Jews, historically, do not hunt.

There is a story about a butcher who took over the job from the Ba'al Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidism. He was preparing his knife for the slaughter, and somebody, watching him, told him that he was doing it wrong. "The Ba'al Shem Tov, when he would prepare his knife, did it differently," he was told. "He whet the knife with his tears."

I always liked these stories. As I figure it, animals have it hard enough without us going in and adding to their misery. We're in an extraordinarily privileged position of having a choice about how we treat those who are weaker than us, and those that depend on us. We are not amoral creatures of nature, killing without thought or compassion or concern. I appreciate those who try to be gentle and considerate with animals, and to recognize that they too value their tiny lives, and fear and fight the end of their lives.

People who are callous about such things, and behave as though such concerns were beneath consideration, just seem like bullies to me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:45 PM on December 9, 2007 [7 favorites]


seanyboy: "Also, thousands of animals (cattle and birds) are killed, not for meat, but because they are potentially unfit to be eaten. Should we be angry about the murder of these animals too?

Yes. Yes, we should. Now I'm the first to admit I have no solution either, and it grates me that we (as in humanity, not "we" as in metafilter readers) are unable to solve this situation, just like we're somehow unable to solve hunger despite the fact that we can grow enough food, should we choose to. We are a sad species, far less evolved than we like to thing of ourselves, and these examples make that very clear. And it is also unfortunate that we need reminding ourselves of this so often.

We have a lot of work to do. A lot of growing up.
posted by DreamerFi at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Cattle, pigs, and all those other livestock species, are just that: livestock. They are born to eventually be eaten, and between point A and point B they live a pretty cushy life.

Um, they do? (first link is pretty gorey)
posted by brevator at 12:50 PM on December 9, 2007


Seanyboy, it is hard to take you seriously because your post have turned toward Trollville. I suggest you volunteer down at a shelter and witness a days worth of euthanization. Look at the faces of the people who have to hold down healthy animals and kill them. Watch the life drain out of a dogs face as it dies. I don't think you'd be so cavalier if you saw even a single death up close and personal. My county kills over 400 each month. There are 67 counties in my state, times it times 50 states and the number is in the millions of needless deaths each year in the United States.
posted by 45moore45 at 12:50 PM on December 9, 2007


Callousness is the lazy man's response to tragedy. Tears are free; let them flow.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:03 PM on December 9, 2007


45moore45: MY post has turned to trollville??? I'm not the one who ambushed a thread about euthanasia of pets with a screed on hillbillies causing the death of healthy animals. Don't call "Troll" because you disagree with me.

My original focus in this thread came from you taking a good and sensitive post and making it about a relatively minor issue you care about. Everything else was simply me trying to justify my original "callous" position. I don't think healthy animals should be killed. But I'm not losing sleep over it & I'm not bringing it up at an only slightly related opportunity. And I don't think it's as terrible as all that.

I've consistently stated that the death of pets saddens me. I'll go further. The death of animals saddens me. Not as much, but it saddens me. There, I said it.

And I've seen death up close and personal. For you to suggest a lack of empathy in me for this situation is incorrect. I've held a dog in my arms while it snots up blood and its owner, a friend, wept hysterically. It was awful. I thank the stars that there was a vet willing to kill that animal, because to be honest - I don't know if I'd have been able to. But, unlike a lot of people I'm happy to be uncaring enough to state publicly that loved pets which die are more important than animals which have no owners.
posted by seanyboy at 1:12 PM on December 9, 2007


Oh, I think they're calling you a troll because you started off by mocking people who think this is a subject of concern, and then suggesting making kittens into mittens. Oh, and then you mocked another poster in all caps.

I don't think it's because people disagree with you. It's because of how you choose to disagree with them.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2007


Got it.

Screw you, Seanyboy...How sad you are so jaded ... self-absorbed twat = NOT Troll.
WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU? = Troll.

Oh Noes 45moore45. People are killing animals. = Troll.
These hillbillies interbreed puppies that aren't purebred anythings. = Not Troll.

I can't find an analog for the kittens/mittens thing, but I was making a valid point and I like the fact that kittens rhymes with mittens. I wasn't trolling, but hey - sue me.
posted by seanyboy at 1:31 PM on December 9, 2007


Some ancient cultures said that saying the names of the dead was the way that they were kept immortal.

This ain't no ancient culture here, mister.
posted by homunculus at 1:34 PM on December 9, 2007


Just because other people may be trolling doesn't mean you might not be as well.

Anyway, it's a strangely lovely blog. I hadn't thought something so stripped down could at once be so interesting and so sad.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:40 PM on December 9, 2007


Agreed both ways. But I'm not trolling.
And it is a good blog.
posted by seanyboy at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2007


Oh, I don't think you're intentionally trolling, or even unintentionally doing so; I just see why people might feel your slipping in that direction. Being accused of trolling is the risk of being glib when people's hearts are breaking.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:55 PM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


This would probably be a really interesting thread if people were actually discussing the contents of the post.
posted by hermitosis at 1:59 PM on December 9, 2007


One of the most moving entries, that speaks volumes on this person's compassion:


Wednesday, January 18, 2006

very old rat. so sweet, so kind. he licked me. i kissed him. he smelled like disease and dying. his kidneys had probably failed. his paws were covered in blood. he made me cry. i whispered to him.
posted by Gordion Knott at 2:19 PM on December 9, 2007 [2 favorites]


Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.

Verily, as long as ye cannot distinguish between humanity and beast, ye shall remain morally confused.
posted by chlorus at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2007


Well, again, I think one of the important distinctions is that humanity is the beast that can have compassion for other beasts. It is one of the things that puts us above monsters and somewhere closer to angels, metaphorically speaking.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:36 PM on December 9, 2007


People who get free kittens or puppies from parking lots or ads in the paper never go on to spay/neuter those animals or give them any kind of vaccinations and don't feel bad about moving and abandoning the animal.

I'm all for spay/neuter programs, but it's really unfair to equate all people who accept free kittens with those who let their pets breed willy-nilly or people who get a pet and then drop it off at the shelter a month later when it's no longer cute enough to make up for the fact that it pukes on the carpet.

Most of the cats my family and I have owned over my lifetime were once "free kittens" of some sort. And they have all been spayed or neutered, they've all had their shots, and they have all lived their whole lives with my family. We may be hicks, but not all hicks are that kind of hick.
posted by lampoil at 3:09 PM on December 9, 2007


seanyboy: "internet!Hannah.

Odd way of expressing your respect, then.
1) That respect extends to vegetarians. I implied but didn't state that.
2) I decide how I show my respect for people. You can guess about my lack of respect, but really - You've no idea.
3) Way to paraphrase. They teach you that in debating school?

Okay, I'm still calling bullshit. You "decide how" you show your respect, and do so by insulting people who are emotional over animal death? And I didn't paraphrase, I quoted you word for word with links to the appropriate quotes.

There's a phrase we can all get our teeth into huh. I was talking about rehousing said animals. Spending money on watching them to make sure they're not infected. This is a more costly solution than just killing them. As is the culling of spare pets. So I don't believe it is a fallacious argument at all.


I have a feeling you are unfamiliar with the meat industry. Let's take a look at a common cause for the mass disposal of cattle, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. This is better known as mad cow disease. You're from Britain. You all are facing a near-epidemic of BSE. Here's your lesson for the day:

This disease is caused by prions. There is no treatment. There is no preventative. It has a very long incubation period. And in Britain, where you use primarily bone and meat meal to feed your cattle, there is a very severe chance of contamination throughout the food supply before any sign of the disease is detected. So, you propose that instead of eliminating the infected cattle populations, we separate them, keep them under observation for 4 years (the minimum incubation period in cattle) and then see if we're willing to risk them being safe for consumption? Keep in mind that meat from cattle at that age is only good for dog food. Mind you, BSE isn't killed by cooking, and when humans eat infected meat, they get variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is a fatal and incurable degenerative brain disease.

Still think observation is a viable alternative to destroying infected cattle populations? The money spent rehousing (in quarantine conditions, which is no mean feat for large herbivores, unless you want to cram them into an enclosed building for four years, which I find far more inhumane than destroying them in the first place) and observing these cattle (which end up completely unprofitable from a market stand point due to age) would be much better spent researching how to cure the disease.

Or we could talk about Hoof and Mouth disease. You've had an outbreak of that in Britain recently, too. It's incredibly contagious, mutates very quickly, and is incredibly painful for the animals infected. Oh yeah, humans can get it too. Animals can also be infectious with the disease and asymptomatic, which means if you don't take extreme measures against the disease, ie, destroying entire herds, then you end up with a veritable epidemic, whereupon the animals who would have been destroyed initially are destroyed anyway, only now they've suffered from a painful disease and possibly transmitted it to untold other animals.

These diseases impact the entire country. When your country had an outbreak of Hoof and Mouth disease in 2001, the repercussions were so severe that your elections were delayed. Not to mention the severe economical impact on nations with discovered outbreaks of Hoof and Mouth disease, or even BSE, as all other countries in the world immediately cease beef trade. The 2001 outbreak in Britain cost you all £8.3bn.

Still think you have a better solution? Because I'd love to hear it, as opposed to you just talking out your ass.

You would? Are you absolutely sure about that or did you just argue yourself into a palatable corner. Because, to be honest I think it'd be a terrible thing to be eating our unwanted kittens. WHAT KIND OF MONSTER ARE YOU?"

Wow, are you kidding? Of course it's preferable. In other societies they eat dogs. Why should I be appalled when you suggest we ought to do the same? It's not the ideal solution, but it's better than just killing and disposing of millions of animals every day. However, if I recall correctly, I also gave reasons why this is an impractical solution, since it's inherently impossible to regulate, which food industries require. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one in a corner, here.
posted by internet!Hannah at 3:39 PM on December 9, 2007


I hope you're a vegetarian, because I fail to see a moral difference between euthanizing a kitten for being inconvenient and slaughtering a cow because it tastes good. Too bad for the cows for not being cute, I guess.
posted by empath at 4:01 PM on December 9, 2007


That's fairly disingenuous. This is not a zero sum game where you can't really hate the fate of millions of domesticated animals and eat meat. I know that I am conscious of what a disaster factory farming generally is, and so I try to buy food that I know where it comes from. I buy Organic Valley rather than Horizon. Myself and a lot of other people put a lot of effort into putting our money where our mouths are, and there is nothing morally reprehensible in doing what you can and knowing that your best efforts may not be enough.
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:30 PM on December 9, 2007


"What I Killed Today" is just a sell-out version of "What Jeff Killed."
posted by kenlayne at 4:32 PM on December 9, 2007


I'm pretty sure this is a double....... hang on.
posted by salvia at 4:33 PM on December 9, 2007


Ah, only kinda. It was a comment in this thread.
posted by salvia at 4:35 PM on December 9, 2007


If I was insulting anyone, I was insulting the people who decided to drag this thread into an ALF meeting.

You make valid points about BSE and foot and mouth, but I don't think you're exactly right and you're also losing my original point.

Firstly, there wasn't anything like consensus on the size of the populations that needed to be culled when they were culled. Many felt that too many animals were culled and this was done partly to allay a hysterical public reaction. I personally don't know, but it's not cut and dried.

Secondly, the conversation which led to this ridiculous conversation (and we're both guilty here) went a little bit like ...
Me : As well as pets, we also kill cattle. Isn't that as bad?
You : But we only kill these animals for meat.
Me : We also kill them if they're sick. Couldn't we just rehouse them.
You : Equating the killing of cattle to the killing of pets is fallacious.
Me: I said Culling pets to save money is equivalant to Culling cattle to save money. We could rehouse.
You: Well it's a bad idea to try and save them (science, science). Have you got a better one?

So, just to get back on track. No I don't have a better idea. But then, I've no problem with culling cattle, just like I've no problem with culling pets. It's sad both ways, but I haven't got a problem with it.

The annoying thing here is that really the only thing we're disagreeing on here is the fact that I'm not emotionally that bothered about *unowned* pets being killed. I think it's wrong and I'd rather it didn't happen but it doesn't upset me. I don't see it as being any different to the killing of animals for meat.

That's the core of it. That and the fact that whether it doesn't upset someone makes them somehow less empathic, less intelligent, less educated and less moral.
posted by seanyboy at 4:43 PM on December 9, 2007


By the way. I lied a bit there - I do have a better idea.

All meat should be produced in the country it is sold in. Meat should cost quadruple what it does now. The price of meat should be capped at a minimum price not taxed on a pro-rata cost/sale percentage. You could do that via taxes or an insistence on organic produce or a combination - I'm not bothered which.

The higher prices will mean less meat eaten. Not only is this healthier for us, but it's also beneficial to the environment. Smaller herd sizes would also reduce the chance of cross infections & the price capping would provide a financial incentive for more expensive animals to be reared for meat eaters. This would increase bio-diversity, further cutting the chance of an epidemic.

Finally, we could spend some of that hard earned tax money to try and cure some of the more troublesome diseases like scrapie and foot and mouth.

So - That's my idea. It's kind of out there, and I'm not really smart enough to recognise an major gotchas, but it's there. It's a better idea.
posted by seanyboy at 4:52 PM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


seanyboy: All meat should be produced in the country it is sold in. Meat should cost quadruple what it does now. The price of meat should be capped at a minimum price not taxed on a pro-rata cost/sale percentage. You could do that via taxes or an insistence on organic produce or a combination - I'm not bothered which.

That's a little extreme. I guess if you live in a country without vast tracts of ranchable land, it just sucks to be you.

My personal suggestion with regard to factory farming is that we outlaw the wholesale feeting of antibiotics to healthy animals. This will pretty much end feedlot farming in cattle (which require antibiotics to eat corn, otherwise their gut microbes will go crazy and kill them) and is a good idea anyway, so we don't completely render useless our antibiotic supply. Of course, the only ones that are given to animals are the old ones that have fallen out of favor here and are therefore cheap, just the sort of thing they might use in the third world....
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:18 PM on December 9, 2007


seanyboy writes "Please. It is sad when pets die, but get off your high horse and start worrying about something that actually matters."

And that's the point in which you don't see, for some reason, that caring for a pet doesn't necessarily imply NOT caring for humans.

Actually, I have met a few people that just were not able to express their sentiments to other humans , or so I tought because they were completely loving, caring and attentive to every need of their pet ..and exactly like people in love, tended to their most unpleasant needs such as cleaning their vomit if need arised.

So what was "odd" with them , that made them look as standing "on a high horse, detached" to an occasional or slightly superficial observer ?

I have also met people that, while not afraid of animals, absolutely didn't want anything to do with them and noticed how reserved, polite, restrained they were while relating to other humans : never inappropriate, but never relaxed as well. Yet one time a lot of attention was being given to a dog and one of these kind of person started petting him as well (quite a precedent , never seen it before) ...and a relaxed look, a sense of belonging and partecipating, generally they looked and felt a "lot more accessible".

So what was "odd" with them that was unlocked by entering in contact with the pet , or by the whole predicament ?


You see, I can't being to see how you can dismiss other people pain, claiming that there is something that really matters, belittling their HUMAN pain as if they were inhuman when grieving their pets....could it be that you don't know humans as well as you think ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:07 PM on December 9, 2007


I call bullshit on the whole what I killed today blog. Just doesn't add up to me- and I can add. Someone getting their rocks off making up grief.
posted by mattoxic at 7:03 PM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


mattoxic - doublecheck your addition. I can verify this is real, as i am married to the author. The auto-skepticism of and armchair pedantics of metafilter are always fascinating, if not directly amusing.
posted by mantid at 7:56 PM on December 9, 2007 [6 favorites]


'Shopped.
posted by kevspace at 8:06 PM on December 9, 2007


does anybody have the link to the comparable OJ blog?
posted by goldism at 8:13 PM on December 9, 2007


Rumors of your ability to add were greatly exaggerated.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 8:25 PM on December 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


mattoxic, go troll somewhere else. i can also vouch for the author and her career.
posted by luriete at 8:47 PM on December 9, 2007


skepticism ain't trolling

btw I'd love to post my spouses online activity, but an ebay store doesn't make a great fpp.
posted by mattoxic at 9:00 PM on December 9, 2007


mattoxic, go troll somewhere else. i can also vouch for the author and her career.

Funny. For absolutely no good reason that I can pin down, I had pictured the anonymous author as a male vet tech. Hmm.
posted by bicyclefish at 11:15 PM on December 9, 2007


Oh and I'll just restate this because I don't think I made it clear at the start. It's not the death of pets I'm being "callous" about - It's the death of unwanted pets.
posted by seanyboy at 12:35 AM on December 10, 2007


[a few comments removed, take namecalling to metatalk or email]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:37 AM on December 10, 2007


[this is good]
posted by PugAchev at 11:07 AM on December 10, 2007


This thread has reminded me of one thing.. it's "All You Can Eat BBQ Ribs night at Armadillo Willy's!"

Aw yeah.
posted by drstein at 11:51 AM on December 10, 2007


Reminds me of "Disgrace".
posted by senor biggles at 12:30 PM on December 10, 2007


seanyboy: "By the way. I lied a bit there - I do have a better idea.

All meat should be produced in the country it is sold in. Meat should cost quadruple what it does now. The price of meat should be capped at a minimum price not taxed on a pro-rata cost/sale percentage. You could do that via taxes or an insistence on organic produce or a combination - I'm not bothered which.


Yeah, but then you have a situation where thousands of animals are immediately dropped off at the local animal shelter as pet food prices skyrocket, which puts us back at square one. This really is a catch-22.
posted by internet!Hannah at 9:58 PM on December 10, 2007


« Older Things Other People Accomplished When They Were...   |   Web2.0 vs. the 4th Dimension Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments