I have already written how organizations like PeTA and Blue Cross are double-crossing the cultural/religious/personal rights of individuals and communities. These are the groups pushing to ban Jallikattu. They went to courts to get humans killed and maimed by stray dogs. They are behind the protests against Eid sacrifices. Now they have stricken again. This time members of the Nari Korava tribes are the victims of these "animal love-makers".
I myself have kept many cats and I love cats. They make adorable pets. Almost all members of my family accept a feline pet over any other pet. I have personally rescued many kittens from drainage pits, barbed wires etc. But that should stop there. I should not behave like the so called "dog lovers" who are offended by Chinese (Yulin) Dog Meat festival, but want millions of cattle slaughtered to feed their dogs. My love for cats stops with me. I have no right to force my opinions on others. There are superstitious people who say that cat is a bad omen. Should I get offended by that too?
According to various reports from TV channels and news sites, the Blue Cross of India have taken law in to their hands and "captured" 3 Nari Korava men for "cruelty towards animals". Reason? The Nari Korava men were catching feral cats (possibly to eat, which is part of their food habits). Where this insanity will stop? Sadly, our Nari Korava brothers don't have Facebook activists who can write lengthy conspiracy theories that "PeTA is a foreign funded organization that is set to eradicate native cat breed and introduce foreign breeds" like they have done for bulls. But I have few questions on this aspect.
1. All these organizations regularly euthanize animals and they run in public money. (They forced me to pay money to take a rescued cat in, very humane indeed!) Will they publish the number of animals in and out of their facility transparently?
2. Will they also get offended if a cat eats a rat? If rat is natural food of cat, then meat is natural food of humans. They should not get offended by humans eating meat.
3. Will they also protest against eradication of flies and mosquito? Don't those insects have right to live? What about plants? What these people are feeding their animal brothers?
4. Blue Cross vaccinate dogs for rabies. Why they are not respecting the rights of rabies virus? If they consider dog life is more important than virus life then the same logic can be applied like this. "Human life is much more important than dog life".
5. Who are they to decide which stray animals can be killed and which cannot be? What is morally correct is subjective and changes with time and region. Killing dog for food may sound repulsive to some while for someone else it may be their favorite food since childhood.
6. They claim they want all animals happy. Have they conducted any survey among the animals they keep? How they are so sure that what they do is best for animals?
Some valid reasons to take action:
1. If someones pet has been captured or killed, action can be taken on that, provided the pet remained in the premises of its owner or accompanied by the owner and didn't pose a threat to anyone else. Killing a dog or any other animal in self-defense should not be a crime. This line of reasoning can be extended to plucking a flower from neighbors' garden.
2. Killing or capturing wild animals or endangered species can be counted as crime. But wait, that too includes even trees and plant life.
3. Slaughtering animals in unsuitable places can be prevented. This is purely in grounds of hygiene and for regulating slaughter. Not for anything else.
4. An economical and sustainable approach can be taken to reduce over-hunting or over-fishing or over-exploitation of resources. People who violate this can be punished.
5. No one should be punished for killing the following animals. Animals which they themselves have grown, that have been properly bought with money or other means, that are feral/stray, in self-defense, to prevent spread of diseases, to keep the environment safe and clean etc.
Some points to ponder:
1. Humans evolved from other primates just 2 lakh years back.
2. Humans domesticated cows, cats etc only within last 15,000 years. (Before that there were no such animals! Dogs were not domesticated at first and they just evolved along human hunters some 40 to 27 thousand years ago.)
3. Humans were hunter-gatherers for good part of their history. Just the most recent 5% (10 thousand years approx. out of 2 lakh years) of human history we started agriculture.
3. Without eating meat, we might not have evolved as humans.
4. Without humans domesticating, these animals will be extinct within few generations.
5. Agriculture causes more extinctions and environmental damage than sustainable hunter-gatherer cultures like those of Nari Koravas. So Blue Cross and PeTA should first try to ban agriculture.
New Source:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Cats-of-Tondiarpet-narrowly-escape-gypsy-soup-get-mew-lease-of-life/2016/08/17/article3583010.ece
I myself have kept many cats and I love cats. They make adorable pets. Almost all members of my family accept a feline pet over any other pet. I have personally rescued many kittens from drainage pits, barbed wires etc. But that should stop there. I should not behave like the so called "dog lovers" who are offended by Chinese (Yulin) Dog Meat festival, but want millions of cattle slaughtered to feed their dogs. My love for cats stops with me. I have no right to force my opinions on others. There are superstitious people who say that cat is a bad omen. Should I get offended by that too?
According to various reports from TV channels and news sites, the Blue Cross of India have taken law in to their hands and "captured" 3 Nari Korava men for "cruelty towards animals". Reason? The Nari Korava men were catching feral cats (possibly to eat, which is part of their food habits). Where this insanity will stop? Sadly, our Nari Korava brothers don't have Facebook activists who can write lengthy conspiracy theories that "PeTA is a foreign funded organization that is set to eradicate native cat breed and introduce foreign breeds" like they have done for bulls. But I have few questions on this aspect.
1. All these organizations regularly euthanize animals and they run in public money. (They forced me to pay money to take a rescued cat in, very humane indeed!) Will they publish the number of animals in and out of their facility transparently?
2. Will they also get offended if a cat eats a rat? If rat is natural food of cat, then meat is natural food of humans. They should not get offended by humans eating meat.
3. Will they also protest against eradication of flies and mosquito? Don't those insects have right to live? What about plants? What these people are feeding their animal brothers?
4. Blue Cross vaccinate dogs for rabies. Why they are not respecting the rights of rabies virus? If they consider dog life is more important than virus life then the same logic can be applied like this. "Human life is much more important than dog life".
5. Who are they to decide which stray animals can be killed and which cannot be? What is morally correct is subjective and changes with time and region. Killing dog for food may sound repulsive to some while for someone else it may be their favorite food since childhood.
6. They claim they want all animals happy. Have they conducted any survey among the animals they keep? How they are so sure that what they do is best for animals?
Some valid reasons to take action:
1. If someones pet has been captured or killed, action can be taken on that, provided the pet remained in the premises of its owner or accompanied by the owner and didn't pose a threat to anyone else. Killing a dog or any other animal in self-defense should not be a crime. This line of reasoning can be extended to plucking a flower from neighbors' garden.
2. Killing or capturing wild animals or endangered species can be counted as crime. But wait, that too includes even trees and plant life.
3. Slaughtering animals in unsuitable places can be prevented. This is purely in grounds of hygiene and for regulating slaughter. Not for anything else.
4. An economical and sustainable approach can be taken to reduce over-hunting or over-fishing or over-exploitation of resources. People who violate this can be punished.
5. No one should be punished for killing the following animals. Animals which they themselves have grown, that have been properly bought with money or other means, that are feral/stray, in self-defense, to prevent spread of diseases, to keep the environment safe and clean etc.
Some points to ponder:
1. Humans evolved from other primates just 2 lakh years back.
2. Humans domesticated cows, cats etc only within last 15,000 years. (Before that there were no such animals! Dogs were not domesticated at first and they just evolved along human hunters some 40 to 27 thousand years ago.)
3. Humans were hunter-gatherers for good part of their history. Just the most recent 5% (10 thousand years approx. out of 2 lakh years) of human history we started agriculture.
3. Without eating meat, we might not have evolved as humans.
4. Without humans domesticating, these animals will be extinct within few generations.
5. Agriculture causes more extinctions and environmental damage than sustainable hunter-gatherer cultures like those of Nari Koravas. So Blue Cross and PeTA should first try to ban agriculture.
New Source:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Cats-of-Tondiarpet-narrowly-escape-gypsy-soup-get-mew-lease-of-life/2016/08/17/article3583010.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment