Isn't food the reason why we have animals in the fields?

Contributed by editor on Sep 21, 2009 - 08:45 AM

Dear Editor,

Re: Lazarus, you're off topic
What is wrong with slaughtering the animal? Isn't it the very reason we have sheep and other animals in the fields of this country... for food?


The sole purpose of the sheep, in question, was to fatten it ( and the others) for slaughter and to sell the meat to eat. We are not all vegetarians.

The danger to young minds ? Practically zero, if teachers, parents and society do the job of educating the infants, appropriately.

The mistake was in the making it a pet and naming it. Not a good lesson in animal husbandry.

Still I suppose it is all part of the "fluffy world" where we are becoming divorced from the practicalities and realities of every day life.

I suppose that for the future we may well have "risk assessments" (carried out by competent and qualified persons of course) for every stage of life.

This "fluffyness" is already evident in the phrases and words we "must" use in these so called enlightened times. Just think of all the euphemisms in everyday parlance "collateral damage" just means the killing of civilians in a military attack, is just the only one I will mention.

There are numerous others, which I fear, would have certain readers reaching for their smelling salts, if mentioned.

Finkle leave it at that as I have to "go and see a friend off to the coast" and ruminate on the sole question of whether there is any soul to this "debate" No doubt crying out "Ah So" when a conclusion is met.


© Hawkinge Gazette and Channel Coast News 2009