Can You "Humanely" Kill An Animal? If so, how?

Killing is very humanely, one thing is that our mass annihilation weapons capable to extinct the human race self, provided us some sort of an artificial peace through fear and realization that there won't be a real winner aftermath, without nuclear weapons we would still have wars, second points, we don't have natural predators so it's naturally that someday we would be forced to kills each others for place, food, etc...

It's completely normal to murder another animal for food as well survival.

Kill it quickly, painlessly, and just in order to survive.

I'm completely against killing and hunting for sport.

If it's out of mercy, it's humane.

Shoot it in the head. Watch it's brain splatter. It's instant and painless.

So it's wrong to kill animals if you don't have to?

Magic

I'm against hunting for sport so keep that in mind

1. Who says they are innocent? By who's standards are you measuring? What exactly makes an innocent animal? Can a crocodile be considered innocent? Can a lion be considered innocent? Can rats that carry disease and caused the black plague or that cause millions of dollars of damage be considered innocent? I feel like the OP is being an animal rights activist in saying "innocent animals" on literally every thread on here. Yet he/she considers themselves a villian on Comic Vine. Why would a villian carry the needs of animals higher than that of humans or comic characters?

2. Murder no, kill absolutely. To murder is never humane as it by it's very definition means killing a human. Animals cannot be murdered they can simply be killed. Killing an animal for your survival might be neccessary, ever watched "The Revenant"? Would you call that bear innocent? Not if you were in that situation, be honest if you were being mutilated by a bear would you lie back and just say "I can't think of a humane way to kill it so let it kill me". The very word "humanely" implies that it a human attribute, no animal in existence kills other animals humanely, they kill ferociously. If an animal attacks you then you need to react in ferocious animal behaviour, so would you ever in your life need to worry about killing an animal humanely? No, because you would only kill for survival not for fun.

3. My idea of a humane way? Ever seen I am legend? The way Will Smith killed his dog, I would say that's the most humane way I can think of. And also note he didn't want to do it he had to.

"Humanely" and "kill" when used in conjuction is an oxymoronic statement if I can say so myself.

*thumbs up*

'an animal must be either killed instantly or rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes'.

Cut its throat

@tinyford:

1. Who says they are innocent? By who's standards are you measuring? What exactly makes an innocent animal? Can a crocodile be considered innocent? Can a lion be considered innocent? Can rats that carry disease and caused the black plague or that cause millions of dollars of damage be considered innocent? I feel like the OP is being an animal rights activist in saying "innocent animals" on literally every thread on here. Yet he/she considers themselves a villian on Comic Vine. Why would a villian carry the needs of animals higher than that of humans or comic characters?

The thread is mostly geared towards discussing the idea of "humane slaughter" in the animal agriculture industry. I'm questioning if it's possible to kill a relatively harmless animal like a chicken in a "humane" way. Humane means with compassion. Obviously defending yourself from a lion or preventing a plague from spreading is different.

I do like to stick up for animals being killed. I don't know what you mean regarding "villain" unless you mean the red text on my username. I made it red because I like red, lol.

2. Murder no, kill absolutely. To murder is never humane as it by it's very definition means killing a human. Animals cannot be murdered they can simply be killed.

I mean, call it what you want. Animals being "killed" or "murdered" still results in their death.

Killing an animal for your survival might be neccessary, ever watched "The Revenant"? Would you call that bear innocent? Not if you were in that situation, be honest if you were being mutilated by a bear would you lie back and just say "I can't think of a humane way to kill it so let it kill me".

I don't think I ever said self-defence is off the cards. Killing a bear can be inhumane and justified at the same time. Killing something is never humane (unless it's a mercy killing), but you can justify doing so by mentioning it's self defence.

The very word "humanely" implies that it a human attribute, no animal in existence kills other animals humanely, they kill ferociously. If an animal attacks you then you need to react in ferocious animal behaviour, so would you ever in your life need to worry about killing an animal humanely? No, because you would only kill for survival not for fun.

Right, but it isn't lions and bears claiming that they can kill their prey humanely. Human beings are the ones who go around saying "humane slaughter tho!" I'm asking if that is actually a logical thing to say.

3. My idea of a humane way? Ever seen I am legend? The way Will Smith killed his dog, I would say that's the most humane way I can think of. And also note he didn't want to do it he had to.

Yeah, so mercy killing is a thing, I agree.

What about the meat you buy out of the supermarket? Humane? Compassionate?

In what way are those methods carried out with compassion or benevolence? Humane derives it's meaning from how humans treat each other. Can I kill your guy's families humanely? I'm feeling pretty hungry.

You can't humanely kill anything unless you're putting it out of it's misery. Lets just get rid of that notion for good. That being said, I see nothing wrong with hunting, eating meat, or anything in that realm unless you do so cruelly. And killing something for food is not inherently cruel. You can even make sport out of it as long as the animal is used afterwards. So, no, the chicken that you you see chopped up and packaged in grocery stores were not killed humanely. If that bothers you, then don't eat it.

Killing is part of human nature. To humanely kill an animal you shoot it and eat it. That way if they say anything just say you were hungry

With a chainsaw. Or a flamethrower if possible. Maybe a baseball bat but only if it's one of those cool modded ones with barbed wire like in Walking Dead.

Do you take medicine? You know you're doing "genocide" against the bacterias that live inside your body right?

Taking medicine to destroy harmful bacteria is self-defence. Also, bacteria cannot feel pain because it has no brain or central nervous system.

;)

To answer your first question: food is my medicine.

I would've argued a year ago that a shot to the head or slice to the neck to an animal like a pig for example, would've been humane. But, my view on this has changed after thinking about a couple things. I thought that our states in the US don't execute criminals given the death penalty, by shooting them in the head or slitting their throat. They kill them by injecting some chemicals into them and previously killed them by electrocution, hangings, gas inhalation, and firing squad.

Then there was a couple times while playing the game, Gears of War 3 in which I heard the Queen Myrah character saying "I suppose that was humane." After shooting a human character right in the head and the brains/bloods splattering everywhere or maybe it was after curbstomping a character. Anyway, the point is that that game is hyper violent and both of those executions are pretty out there and very graphic. That line made me laugh and at the same time made me think about this topic of "what's considered humane?", while I continued to play the game and kill pixels on the screen very violently.

I think "humane and killing" is mostly an oxymoron. Though I can think of a couple instances like pulling the plug on someone lying on a hospital bed who's turned into a vegetable or stuff like what weapons are allowed to be used on a battlefield (Geneva conventions). Both of which are arguable topics I guess. But I guess neither really apply to animals when it comes to slaughtering them for food and it is a definite oxymoron there.

Taking it out quick is generally what that means. It's not though, but that what it "means".

So is this the Vegan you're gonna be? Cause we already got like three of those here.

@tvc-15: I'm glad there are three other people who like asking questions and debating.

They have no intent to hurt you, shouldn't you try to avoid hurting them?You're putting your live ahead of millions of others while killing a cow feed dozens of people.

Why are you calling it 'murder'?

Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of a human being.

You kill it in a way that it feels no pain. Plants & Fish probably don't feel pain, doing it to a higher level being quickly and painlessly has little difference in my book.

@i_like_swords: so firstly I didn't mean to offend but the vine is filled with strange "meat vs no meat" threads this week. (Should we put that in battles? Haha)

Yes I'm refering to the red writing as you can see mine is blue as my "allignment" is hero. I understand you like the red, but know that this does reflect your profile and other viners take it as you being a villian. Just a thought.

To elaborate on what you asked about it being humane can raise sooo many more questions. I understand now that you basically only mean slaughterhouses, and I apologise for bringing up the bears then, but then again if someone else read mine and gained something from it I would be glad. So can it be humane, well the question arises does it need to be humane? Obviously I am not for ISIS tactics on animals, but the fact stands that we don't know what happens to animals after they die (making this a religious answer). We don't know if an animal can feel pain when they die a fast death and if this is even relevant because they are dead now so what concerns to we need to have about how they feel after being killed (making this the unreligious answer). Animals that are hurt are much worse to me than animals that are killed because at least the pain stops at death, but mistreated animals have constant pain.

"Animals being killed or murdered stil results in their death" well sure it does, but being murdered does infact also include a measure of torture. Now I'm not an expert on slaughterhouse techniques but I do know that they chop off the heads of a chicken and that takes less than a second. In other words it is dead faster than the opium receptoids can process the pain so it dies a painless death. For cattle I know it is an electric spike in the head, this is done because it is the fastest way to kill the cow and the electricity influences it to temporarily not feel pain. (Then of course fish has it's own way, lobster which I will never eat because that is what I believe to be the cruelest, but you get the idea)

I believe that the very words "humane slaughter" is a paradox. But I also believe that we kept the word slaughter from the years when it was done with hammers instead of electric spikes. It was a slaughter and something awful. Today I would be more comfortable with the words "humane death" to the animals. As they die, but don't undergo slaughter anymore.

Is it logical to call killing humane? Well let's use Spock logic... Did the animal suffer? No (at least not in modern slaughterhouses). Did the animals anticipate their death? Well no, they couldn't have foreseen death from circumstances that were identical to how they are caged to eat. Will the animal be mad after you killed it? It can't be.

So I would conclude that in the olden times it most certainly could NOT have been used. but with the methods we have today I don't see it as a paradox at all.

The meat you buy from the supermarket.. well you can only hope that they used the methods I mentioned. If you are going to the cafe down the street to buy some low budget meat chances are it wasn't humane, but if you go to walmart then the chances are great that they used the methods listed and the animals were most definitely not aware of their death or pain caused by it at all.

Sorry if my previous post offended you. It was not my intention

Yes, so long as you do it without causing the animal pain.

@i_like_swords: Yes. Doing so to survive(eat) and in self-defense is justified, but doing so out of sport and for fun is just awful.

Also, you're alive!

Possibly through euthanasia?

A true humane death implies it is done through compassion.

---

As much as killing for survival reasons can be attempted painlessly, I still wouldn't see it as humane, if in some cases necessary.

Let me start by saying I do not agree with @bluehope in this regard...

Do you take medicine? You know you're doing "genocide" against the bacterias that live inside your body right?

To begin "you're doing genocide" with or without the use of medicine but that's besides the point. I believe a common, subconscious, gauge of a lives value is determined by the entities perceived ability to experience complex emotions. It's the same reason a good majority of the human population would feel more remorse were they to hit a dog with their car than crush an ant under their shoe. Both are living organisms and in both incidents it was indeed accidental however we are able to perceive more complex emotions within the dog hence can empathise to a far greater degree. It is for this reason I find your use of an organism that by all accounts has nothing in common with any 'animal' (in the sense that this topic is implicitly discussing) bar it is a living organism (unlike say, a virus) to hold very little weight or meaning.

Can I kill your guy's families humanely? I'm feeling pretty hungry.

I wouldn't quite draw that comparison. Strictly it's far more correct to put as so... A pride of Lions will hunt and kill Wildebeest - young and old alike (but generally young because they're vulnerable) - and this isn't considered inhumane or even evil. It's simply nature. However brutal or cruel, it's entirely natural.

Now it'll be easy to argue that the terms "humane" and it's inverse "inhumane" cannot be applied to entities without cognitive capability to reason and evaluate comparable to humans - hence it's not unreasonable to assume that these terms can be applied to humans exclusively.

However in the same manner it's not unnatural for humans to kill and east living organisms - particularly 'animals' - and despite my qualms with it's initial proposal your response to BlueHope's statement went as followed...

Taking medicine to destroy harmful bacteria is self-defence.

To this I'd say consumption of living organisms (notably 'animals') is self-preservation. It's not barbaric or unnatural - humans are a predatory species and killing prey is quite natural. In regards to where I am actually leading this...

In what way are those methods carried out with compassion or benevolence?

When we slaughter an animal it's not much different too when a Lion kills it's prey, as I said it's self-preservation. However we instead of savagely mauling and consuming our prey live (extreme I know but I'm just emphasising a point) opt to choose a far less traumatising and painful method. To quote my initial statement "slit it's throat".

In this method an extremely sharp cutting tool is used as too ensure that the blade does not bite and tear the skin. Furthermore the technique ensures that the windpipe and blood vessels (but not the spinal cord). This results in a large alteration in blood pressure and supply to the brain inducing unconsciousness and depriving the blood supply to the brain - effectively preventing the experience of pain. It's a common misconception primarily because without the scientific knowledge the methodology and casual observations (thrashing and twitching - which are in fact muscle spasms independent of the sensation of pain) are quite barbaric in appearance.

I completely understand the point you are trying to make. The idea of humane on the surface contrasts the action of taking a life (particularly taking my phrasing into account) however when I consider that precautions can be taken to actively produce a far less traumatic experience for what I consider to be an inevitable process (the slaughter of an animal for food) I believe that could be interpreted as the very definition of a humane act entailing both benevolence and compassion. I hope you can at least consider accepting my point of view.

Personally I think so long as an animal doesn't experience any pain there is nothing morally wrong with the killing.

I. Everything is subjective.

II. Humane means "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals"

III. As previous members posted, as quick and painless is best, but there are so many different ways to view this.

IV. Regardless, we really should stop eating meat. We are selfish, so we're not. I know I still need some more time before I truthfully fully quit.

(+)

A contradiction within its self.

Humans are cruel, savage in nature. How can anyone state that there is a humane way of killing?

@legacy6364: @yung_ancient_one: You guys know what to do!

@i_like_swords:

Damn, man, what happen to you? Not asking the question being smart, snarky, or anything of the matter.

Just interested in your sudden life style change and such.

Eh, there's nothing compassionate or benevolent about death. It's painful, frightening, and final. People harm animals for selfish and pragmatic reasons. The only humane thing to do would be to stop producing and exploiting animals, but that will never happen.

Life is absurd and meaningless. Make your choices and live with them.

I saw slaughterhouse footage, then thought "I feel pretty hypocritical contributing to this." I then researched what kinds of food I can eat instead and here I am.

It's like anything else, it just so happens I am within 1% of the earth's population who do this, so it seems very weird/holier-than-thou/cult-like.

@i_like_swords:

That's fair, lal.

For me, I like meat too much to ever really give it up, but I do acknowledge how hypocritical eating meat is for a lot of us, and how it sucks how the animals are treated.

Something quick and painless, anything so I can have my juicy porter house steak, mmm yummy yummy in my tummy

How is it hypocritical exactly?

Nuke them.

whichever way makes em taste better

Maybe coat the killing tool in seasoning or maybe a bullet filled with spices that explodes upon entering the body

@i_like_swords said:

Probably because it is one of the preachiest, most self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou things you can criticize people for.

this is ingenious... i especially am fond of the bullet idea, because then it also rewards you for being accurate. put the spices in one place and it taste better than in the other?

Definitely, shoot the chicken in the breast

@Batman242:

The way people elevate the importance of one animal over another arbitrarily, or on a whim with no objective criteria besides "I feel differently". Case in point, people are disgusted by the thought of cats or dogs being eaten, but have no problem eating Cows, chickens, or pigs.

They are all living, breathing creatures. that think and can feel pain. Care for all, or don't care for none - if you don't adhere to this logic, you exhibiting double standards or being a hypocrite.

Nature isn't humane, our methods of killing animals is much more quick and painless than pretty much anything you will find in nature.

@sirdrprofessor: That's a really good point