It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forget Hitler's Holocaust - Evil Britain's pet Holocaust is just as horrible !

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Bisman
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


meat is meat. the only reason i wouldnt eat a person is out of respect. (though if my soccer team crash landed on a mountain, i just may)
but i dont respect a cat the same as a person. because its an animal. a resource that either entertains me as a pet, or feeds me when im starving to death.

G,day mate. i saw where you were going with your soccer team. yer a sick bugga, but mate i am STILL LAUGHING. Well done bloke.
To the bloke that started this thread.
You need to read more as there were many children in England that were starving before the war was started.A lot of children ended up on english farms for the duration and many more ended up out here in Aussie getting three meals a day
edit on 1-1-2014 by pronto because: nuts i need to learn how to spell. no not rest, words. lol




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Comparing what Hitler did to humans and what other people may have done to animals is crazy.
You have downgraded humans to animals which is what Hitler and his mates did.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Wrong thread, dude......



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe that someone would equate killing pets with killing humans. Over 8 million people died at the hands of Hitler, and you think killing pets is worse???????????

For the love of God we live in depraved times, and you just proved it. What an absolutely completely disgusting notion.
edit on 1/1/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
What do you suppose they fed their animals during rationing? My cat won't eat vegetables...



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyTrick
 


I remember reading somewhere that they had to use rosehips for vitamin C to prevent scurvy because they couldn't get lemons or oranges or anything like that, but rosehips grew in the countryside. I'm sure the starving pets were all cool with those.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyTrick
 


Exunctly - pet food was not included in rationing, but the meat needed would have been and it would have been diverted for human consumption.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
OP, I can kina-sorta see your reasoning here.

Ethics gets really complicated when factoring non-human organisms into the equation. And as much as I've read and thought about it, an "easy answer" is elusive.

But reading the thread, J. Baird Callicott's "second-order principles" come to mind, as described by him in "Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism."

For those unfamiliar, Callicott's SOP's go something like this:

"1. Any obligations generated by membership in more intimate (personal) communities take precedence over those generated by more impersonal communities."

So according to SOP 1, it is ethical to feed your pets rather than your neighbor's children--which is obviously problematic. HOWEVER, SOP 1 is countermanded by SOP 2, which goes:

"2. Stronger interests generate duties that take precedence over those duties generated by weaker interests."

SOP 2 can overrule SOP 1. So, because of the greater level of sentience/intelligence of your neighbor's children compared to your own pets, the ethical thing to to now becomes to feed your neighbor's children.

And this leaves you with the dilemma of your starving pets: allow them to suffer the agony of slow death from starvation; OR allow them to fend for themselves if they are able; OR if they cannot fend for themselves, and allowing them to starve and suffer to death is unethical and unacceptable, then the natural choice which follows is to euthanize those pets and spare them the suffering.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Lazarus Short
Cracked.com? Seriously?!


This is ATS; that's a completely valid citation here.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Read the book called "The Dog Man."

It is about a Japanese man who single handedly saved the Akita breed in Japan, when the numbers were down to the dozens.

Because the Japanese government and the citizens killed the dogs for food and for their warm, thick coats.

Almost every Akita can now be traced to the few that were saved by the Dog Man.

www.amazon.com...

You were not alive during those times. Things were tight, food was scarce, it was bad. Not even the great recession remotely compares to the trying times of the Depression and WWII.

When times get desperate, the animals suffer.

This was a long time ago man, let it go.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
P.S. Here is a little reality check. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter shelters, get euthanized.

Almost 4 million animals are put down in the US each year.

And we have the money and the needs to take care of them, but we don't. At least the Briish had a good excuse during WWII.

The holocaust is going on now, and for no good reason.

Worry about the problem now, of the millions of animals euthanized each year due to negligence, and the 25 million animals that are homeless and suffering NOW.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You make a good and valid point. It's sometimes too easy to read some article somewhere about some horrible thing and spout off half-cocked with Hitler comparisons, all the time remaining ignorant or silent about what is going on in the here-and-now.

People simply need to start taking their duties seriously. There is only one way to reverse the tide of suffering of our pets and their unwanted offspring, and it begins and ends with humans shouldering the responsibility of caring for other lifeforms in their charge, instead of simply treating dogs and cats as accessories and knicknacks like many pet owners do.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
For a little perspective here.





With pets facing starvation and extreme suffering I don't see how anyone could compare this decision they were forced to make, to the slaughter of people simply because they were different.

Who do you let starve so the pets could live exactly? How do you choose between food for pets or food for troops to stop a madman from taking over the world?



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

ProfessorChaos

JohnPhoenix

LiveForever8
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


As for your Hitler comparison...what are you on about? These weren't cold, heartless murderers slaughtering millions without a second thought.


Er.. how do you know? Seems to me murdering your beloved pet by order of the government is just as cold and heartless as Hitlers actions. No.. in many ways this is much worse than Hitler's holocaust. The government didn't want people to be humane and take care of their pets. They deemed pets do not deserve to live so they made the owners kill them. (I wonder how many children wound up eating their pets!) They turned all Britains citizens into murderers. That's worse.

Normal people do do things just as evil as Hitler and yet - we tend to think nothing of it and or forget it quickly. That's my point.

You may be right.. perhaps they were not cold and heartless.. just stupid.

BTW folks, I have nothing against the British. In fact I love them and have many friends from across the pond. I'd have posted the same thread if this happened in America or any where else.
edit on 1-1-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp


So by your logic, it would have made more sense to let all of those animals die of starvation? I was expecting something FAR different when I clicked on this thread.

By the way, it was a government recommendation, not an order. If anything, it was the most humane thing that could have been done; these were domesticated animals that were not necessarily prepared to fend for themselves in the wild, and what do you think would have been done to a starving dog caught snacking on a dead human body? Yep, they would have been shot on the spot.

I'm sure a great many of those families (particularly the children) were absolutely brokenhearted to know that this was indeed the only true option for the situation.

Comparing this to Hitler's holocaust is silly at best.


Er.. check the facts. This was initiated because of a fear the government had BEFORE anyone was starving at all.

I would not have let my pet into the wild. I would not have murdered my pet. I would have kept my pet and fed it whatever I could find to keep it alive. My pet is like Family. I would no more let her out of my sight in a war any more than I did for Hurricane Katrina ! I still have my girl.

I'm sure most of the cats people did let loose fared just fine.. cats will thrive in the city outdoors in 1939 just like they do today. Those cats had a much better chance in the streets than getting murdered by the hand that raised them !

And no one gets the Hitler point.. LOL.. you guys are funny. Hitler is a Monster we all agree but so what, we can All be Monsters. They made monsters out of every person that shot their pet. People DID have better choices but 750,000 of them didn't bother. They allowed themselves to become The Monster.
edit on 1-1-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

On the plus side, their government wasn't trying to take away their arms to make them defenseless to martial law that will kill people AND their pets, cause if I don't have a gun, my dog isn't going to sit by while military is abusing me. Nowadays, we have Manchurian Candidates galore trying to further our beloved government agenda with false flags to take away more and more rights. Either way, most governments aren't there for people, especially not there for their innocent pets. I think we should keep our pets and use the guns they gave those English people, and shoot the government leader's pets (probably a snake or lizard), if they protest, then we might think about shooting them, or at least tazer them. Just kidding, I am anti-violence, especially on poor animals, but those sneaky government leaders don't think like us, I was just trying to figure out how they think, doesn't make it right though. Sorry. Maybe people are a bunch of sods. It is only when we realize it that we can do something better.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 

Would your cat stay with you if he/she knew that? Anyway let's hope you don't have to be in that situation, or your cat!



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   

nixie_nox
P.S. Here is a little reality check. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter shelters, get euthanized.

Almost 4 million animals are put down in the US each year.

And we have the money and the needs to take care of them, but we don't. At least the Briish had a good excuse during WWII.

The holocaust is going on now, and for no good reason.

Worry about the problem now, of the millions of animals euthanized each year due to negligence, and the 25 million animals that are homeless and suffering NOW.


Look, that's a different issue entirely but I'll give it to you.. It shouldn't happen and needs to be stopped, period. That's an issue we should all fight for.

What's different though is most people never have to take an active part in that animals death. The people at the shelters and whatnots (Peta) take care of killing the animals. This is more demoralizing because they got 750,000 of their citizens to murder their own pets. It's a Big step backward for civilization.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Im not a Royalist, and its a certainty that where Royalists are around there will be sacrifice for king and queen, whether that a human or an animal.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

nixie_nox
P.S. Here is a little reality check. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter shelters, get euthanized.

Almost 4 million animals are put down in the US each year.

And we have the money and the needs to take care of them, but we don't. At least the Briish had a good excuse during WWII.

The holocaust is going on now, and for no good reason.

Worry about the problem now, of the millions of animals euthanized each year due to negligence, and the 25 million animals that are homeless and suffering NOW.


My daughter works for the ASPCA, and we are currently fostering a dog, our 4th. To compare the treatment of animals in Britain prior to WWII, and the Nazi Holocaust, is a crime against humanity. Seriously, I don't think there is anyone among us, who wouldn't wish that all animals had happy and safe homes, but this comparison is horrid.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join