Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that the word 'vermin' is amongst the most mean-spirited self-serving words in the English language.

244 replies

OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 10:52

Tis a thread about a thread - sort of - well a spin-off from the fox-poisoner thread. Sorry.

Human animals dominate the planet. I think that is a given. Other animals have to squeeze into the spaces that we leave. The truly 'wild' bits of the world are getting smaller and smaller. Tigers for example are getting increasingly rare as they have the temerity to attempt to carry on living in their natural habitat where humans are encroaching. I don't need to tell you what is happening to polar bears. Most of the land in the UK is built-up or farmed. What is left is seen as a playground for humans - mountain bikes, motocross, walkers, climbers etc. Not much space left for other species to thrive. And we pollute the water and the air - a problem for other species even more than for our own.

There isn't a single species that hasn't been affected, usually for the worse, by human activities. Apart from those opportunistic enough and 'clever' enough to benefit from us. To fit into the cracks we leave - pigeons, rats, foxes, squirrels for example. They live alongside us, eating our rubbish, finding homes in the little bits of waste ground that we don't want. But as punishment for that adaptability we give them a name, we call them vermin, and declare them fair game - find them disgusting and try to poison them, hunt them or shoot them. Is it really acceptable to only permit the survival of those creatures that we find appealing and that don't impinge on us.

I am not a beleiver in animal rights. I think that is errant nonsense. But a bit of self-knowledge and compassion when dealing with the creatures we share our space with is needed.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 15:40

I am very wary of attributing murderous human behaviour to evolutionary adaptedness.

And it's not the 'strongest' genes, it's about whether that feature is adaptive. So yes, for a carnivore, tooth shape would indeed be relevant. And certain behaviours too of course, some of which are not simply aggressive. But you are using survival of the fittest in the 'biggest and strongest' sense, which just isn't the case. It's all about the niche they inhabit.

Anyway, all irrelevant to the meaning of the word 'vermin'

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:40

I think that perhaps I am thinking of how much better our society would be if we got rid of the idea that we do things for reasons of survival. Most of us don't. We don't have to go out and kill to live. We don't need to fight off huge scary predators with pointy teeth. We are all cossetted and comfortable. Survival simply isn't that much of an issue in Western society. Therefore it seems very OTT to call small furry animals vermin as if they threaten our very existence. They are a nuisance, that is all.

Call them animals and put up with them to the extent you can. if you can't, kill them but don't make it easier on yourself by giving them a label

And yes I also think that we should react withy conscience whenever we eat meat. Awareness perhaps rather than horror - then perhaps we would eat less of it and only that stuff that comes from the best sources, not sad factory-farmed stuff.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 15:44

No Orm. They are not simply a nuisance,or at least they have potential to be much more than that. They are now a nuisance, to us, because we are so good at controlling them. Uncontrolled small furry animals have caused much more than a nuisance in our past, and do so in other places now.

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:47

Can we not be magnanimous in victory ? We are the supreme beings on this planet. A rat does not mean the bubonic plague is returning, a fox does not mean there will be no chicken in the shops.

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 29/12/2009 15:48

Awareness about eating meat, following your logic Orm means, that we have to call it 'animal' too.

You seem to be saying that it's ok to stamp on a mouse as long as we shed a tear afterwards. That's just bizarre. You are not in a position to tell people what they should be feeling. That you can do it because you don't like doing it, but if someone else can do it with a smile on their face, they are wrong. And, even more bizarrely, you attribute all of this to the word 'vermin'.

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:52

It's not bizarre at all.

It isn't OK for anyone to be deliberately cruel is it tether? Would you like anyone who could stamp on a mouse with a smile on their face? I wouldn't. I'd think there was something wrong with them.

Killing for a good reason is one thing. Killing easily, because you can, is another.

OP posts:
Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:52

Yes call it animal if you like. But cow or pig might be more informative.

OP posts:
ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 15:54

fallenmadonna yes I have two separate behaviours that I'm thinking of and I'm crossing them over. The compassion thing is one and the survival thing the other. Needs some more thought!
_

I suppose the way rats etc were viewed in the days when the diseases they carried caused enormous suffering and death are the way that germs and bacteria are viewed now.

We have on the whole managed to suppress the "vermin" but now the danger is from a new quarter - we are struggling with various diseases.

However viruses and bacteria are alive as well. OK they're not furry and they're quite small but they still live.

Should we feel sorry for them as well?

TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 15:54

Nope. But a mouse in my kitchen means mouse droppings in my flour, and that is not a healthy proposition for my family. And if you raise chickens, it might not affect the nation's chicken supply (and interesting that you choose the end of the chain, after urging us to consider further down), but it might affect your own cash supply.

You can be magnanimous about foxes. As can I. Because it costs us nothing. It's a bit off to be magnanimous in that situation.

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:56

I think that may be where we are having the difficulty tether. I think there is a basic standard of decency that should govern our treatment of animals - and not enjoying killing something small and defenceless is one of them.

If you don't share that belief there isn't any common ground.

OP posts:
ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 15:56

Orm your post 15:47:26 marvellous.

TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 15:56

Ah but are viruses alive...?

ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 15:58

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying this discussion. I don't feel that everyone's shouting at each other and getting terribly worked up at all, but that we're all having a fairly grown-up conversation. A rare Mn thread!

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 15:58

I don't think they have consciousness. Which is where the big difference lies.

OP posts:
ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 16:00

Depends on definitions doesn't it.

They are certainly very clever. And they certainly adapt, survive and evolve like billy-o. My mum says that's why the RC establishment have such a problem with HIV - admitting that viruses exist more or less means accepting evolution.

tethersjinglebellend · 29/12/2009 16:01

Stamping on a mouse is still stamping on a mouse, Orm. I'm not sure the expression on someone's face as they do it negates that fact. What I think about that person is irrelevant. What I call the mouse is dictated by context and the English language. Isn't that what we are debating?

I could be a strict vegan for all you know

TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 16:01

The RC church doesn't have a problem with evolution as far as I'm aware. HIV or no HIV.

ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 16:02

Just thought I'd chuck some religion into the mix, as if there isn't enough to think about already

Feel free to ignore that complete tangent!

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 16:02

And where would you draw the line tether and madonna?

If we build more and more houses and badgers undermine the foundations with their setts could we call them vermin? Or owls spitting dirty owl pellets all over the patio? Or deer nibbling your camellias (don't scoff that is the case in my parents garden)? Sparrow hawks carrying off pet kittens? Wild birds eating all your garden peas? Chaffinches pecking primulas? (they do - they like the red ones)

Are all those vermin? Is it OK to kill them because they are damaging our property?

OP posts:
tethersjinglebellend · 29/12/2009 16:03

I'm enjoying it too, ImSo

Interesting RC/HIV theory BTW...

But now I have to go to bastard Sainsburys. And buy some pig.

Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 16:04

Well tether I think the discussion is veering between the two TBH. You just asked me if it was OK to smile while stamping on a mouse. And I said IMO it wasn't.

I'm not denying you could be a vegan. I know a vegan who is phobic about animals.

OP posts:
Original poster
OrmIrian · 29/12/2009 16:04

Make sure it's free-range pig !

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 29/12/2009 16:05

I don't think we have the balance too awry now really. We view it not on an individual level, but a specific level. So bats are endangered and you have to put up with them in your roofspace however much of a pain they are. Pigeons aren't, and their population is controlled.

ImSoNotTelling · 29/12/2009 16:06

Really? Just goes to show you should never listen to your mum...

Had better go for a google on that one.

tethersjinglebellend · 29/12/2009 16:06

The definition of vermin is subject to change and is all about context as I have said ad infinitum... It has nothing to do with how fluffy or cute the animals are.

It is not about where I draw the line. I wouldn't stamp on a mouse. It's about what society permits. And it permits stamping on mice.