Cruelty: to Creatures

Cruelty: to CreaturesUpdated: June 29th, 2015

Author:-elf

Created: August 23rd, 2013

EDIT: 25th Aug Replaced most instances of 'animal' with 'creature' to clarify that it refers to any non vegetable life form, not just big and small furry ones.

Cruelty may be described as doing something to deprive another of comfort or enjoyment of their usual and healthy environment. This will include stealing as well as intimidation to extort gain. In the UK legal system this doesn't apply to creatures other than human. This is therefore applied by individuals in their dealings with 'other than human' creatures to suit their own conscience.

The trust was set up by people choosing to avoid using creatures and their by-products and this post is an attempt to clarify the use of trust property with regard to creatures.

Wild creatures are free to roam on the majority of the land of at least two thirds, as it fits the forest agriculture planning. No creatures is otherwise managed, although they are kept from vegetable areas.

Dealing with creatures that become a nuisance to crops is solely the responsibility of the grower, but the grower will not use chemical sprays or other creatures as bait or a deterrent.
This subject needs expanding:

My argument is simple, like taking candy from a baby, it is cruel to take from creatures that cannot defend themselves nor have the understanding to enter into a contract.

Young humans are deemed unavailable for sexual exploitation despite any apparent consent notwithstanding any agreement or expectation of emotional or physical gain. Such are protected to varying degrees. How goes the dumb creature?

I notice the self indulgent nature of this position, this is a matter of will, a meditation maybe and is part of my response to the general environmental damage I cause. I am not concerned specifically about the creatures, but rather I do not want to be cruel. Creature use is an obvious use I can do without.

I am exploring how I can live without using creatures. I do not campaign for animal welfare nor do I consider it cruel for someone to defend themselves or their property which entails animal curtailment that may be disturbing, painful or lethal for the creature.

With specific regard to pets I consider the collection of creatures for such purpose to be cruel albeit that the animal may appear content. Many creatures are bred or groomed to be submissive. Humans are also groomed or so enslaved that they appear content. Being content is not an indication of lack of exploitation.

A piece on Fair Trade would be relevant here.

Page 2: About the Cat Page 3: Weather the Leather

Pages: 1· 2· 3

Comment No. * from: roger [Member]

I'm wondering if cruelty is the best word, use and abuse only seem to differ in that use may imply a non human resource or a consenting human. Still people will consent if they are needy, poor or unaware of the consequences. So fair trade seems the direction to go, but there can't really be fair trade with animals. Exploitation is by no means unfair, it is just that a resource is being used. Whether the exploitation involves, abuse or isn't fair or is cruel is a human concept.

The use of a mentally challenged person, whether through youth, old age, brainwashing or some accident or contracted disease is always questionable and the use may be taking advantage of a vulnerable person. Whether this amounts to abuse or cruelty is a matter of opinion and perspective. This is why it seems perfectly legal breed an animal, keep it imprisoned so it cannot escape and then to cut it up eat it, wear ir or feed to your preferred other animal. Yet is an offence to have sensual (sexual) relation with it. Such a use would seem not to cause the animal any suffering, but is degrading to the human. So the offence is against another person, the Queen, who heads up the values held by large organisations like the church.

So when the animal doesn't suffer and the human is overly sensual with it the human is offending god; or is it the soul, which religion tries to protect or develop.

How can it therefore be good for the soul to take advantage of vulnerable animals human or otherwise. The Hindus have their the cow of God, Jews and Muslims the pig from hell. The degree of use of a vulnerable creature, is a matter of individual conscience.

The more vulnerable the creature the easier it is to take advantage of it and, this must surely be the most questionable issue, which is why we have religious and secular laws to deter people from unauthorised exploitation.

And here it is, authorised.

I will not sanction or be complicit in by authorising the use of animals or their by-products on the land other than consenting adult humans that can write up their own contract.
So it is better to for the soul to use a humans for your fun and games and food.