EPTJail for eating a live goldfish? - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
| ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
| ||
|
Nancial
197 Posts
| ||
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is. @Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive? Did you not read the article or watch the video? Both would tell you that the fish died when he bit it. Being killed by being crunched seems no more inhumane to me than dragging a fish up from the sea in a net and dropping it on a deck to die slowly of asphyxiation. We try too hard to pretend the things we eat were peacefully put to sleep as if they were someone's beloved pet. It's a little silly that he tapes himself eating, but he does no more net harm than someone who sits down at a nice restaurant and orders a delicious salmon. If it were actually his pet, there might be something to this. But it wasn't. | ||
|
toemn
Germany915 Posts
This guy should consequently go to jail too. Those poor larvae.. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
logikly
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
Gelenn
United States87 Posts
On April 24 2012 03:00 Cutlery wrote: Mz, "We kill animals in a way that leaves them feeling little pain, so we can eat them for nourishment" is not the same as "we swallow animals alive to let them boil in our stomach's acid." So putting words in his mouth is exactly what you are doing :p, by interpreting the first part in whichever way you want, and ignoring the second part. ffs people, HE CHEWED THE FISH AND IT DIED IN HIS MOUTH. Why is everyone stuck on the idea that he swallowed it alive (not that I would care if that was the case either, personally). Seriously, reading threads like this always annoys me how hard people work to not read the damn OP. Like half the posts end up arguing about something completely unrelated because its not what happened at all. Reading comprehension ftw. | ||
|
BearStorm
United States795 Posts
On April 24 2012 03:00 Cutlery wrote: Mz, "We kill animals in a way that leaves them feeling little pain, so we can eat them for nourishment" is not the same as "we swallow animals alive to let them boil in our stomach's acid." So putting words in his mouth is exactly what you are doing :p, by interpreting the first part in whichever way you want, and ignoring the second part. How can I be putting words into his mouth if I am not trying to reword what he is saying, but instead bringing up a new way to look at the situation that I am not giving him credit for? Nowhere in the above quotes do I ever try to credit him for saying that cruelty committed by eating animals and cruelty to animals for amusement are similar in thought. It is an idea that was introduced to the discussion that I might be presenting horribly if neither of you can undertand it! One last try at rephrasing: What I think he is saying: Being cruel to animals is wrong unless they are being used for nourishment. What I am saying: Eating animals is NOT a necessity. It is a pleasure we obtain from eating animals. Eating animals may be a necessity if other foods of equal nuitritional value are not available at a similar cost (they are available and are even cheaper). So the idea of necessity is simply not true. Therefore the act of eating animals is derived from pleasure. One cannot hold the moral highground by judging someone who is committing cruel acts for pleasure when they also support acts of cruelty for their own pleasure. Is it clear now? Basically my issue with his arguement is that his exception for cruelty is based on the necessity of nourishment from animals but that simply is not true! | ||
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
| ||
|
ScouraE
Canada28 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4923 Posts
On April 23 2012 18:58 Zorgaz wrote: Haha you narrow-minded fool... Why don't you read about it ? Or study fish yourself? Saying nonsense without any reasons or research yourself is weak I just did a study recently where i tested the intelligence of goldfish so not only have i read countless of studies of the subject but i also have personal experience of this. Okay if you guys are to dumb to use google I'll guess I'll do it. -_-' http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/hidden-lives-of-fish.aspx http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/thisweekssciencequestions http://finatics.hubpages.com/hub/fish-intelligence-the-mastermind-behind-your-aquarium-glass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_intelligence news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/3189941.stm Try looking into it yourselfs.. Nowhere in your links does it say fish are at least as intelligent as dogs or cats, you made that one up. Fish showing awareness of their surroundings is what I would expect form a neuronal net of that complexity, but comparing it to the level of intelligence in mammals is still pretty far-fetched. Too bad people in intelligence research often seem to mistake some simple algorithms for problem-solving with complex intelligence. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
| ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
Wanting him to be fined or even jailed would make me a hypocrite as i'm not a vegetarian. However if he was fined for posting this kind of stuff on youtube for everyone to see, i would find it more logical. | ||
|
Littlemuff
United Kingdom301 Posts
| ||
|
Xpace
United States2209 Posts
a) If the animal is not the legal property of another individual (owner has an appropriate license, or is recognized by a governing body and/or shelter for ownership); or b) If the animal is considered under conservation or endangered by governing bodies (such as the IUCN) or a government-enacted law (such as the Endangered Species Act), excluding independent entities with no credentials such as PETA; or c) If the animal is a major contributor, or is paramount to the survival of an entire group or family of animals, whereas said group or family would not be able to thrive further without its presence, unless said animals are considered a nuisance to humans and/or the greater local habitat, or degenerates its surrounding environments It should be fair game; for consumption, hunting for the sake of pleasure, scientific research, exhibition, taxidermy, YouTube entertainment material, whatever; assuming the animal isn't put in prolonged, unnecessary harm that is not justified by the purpose(s) of the action, whether slaying, capturing, isolating, or any tampering with its natural lifestyle. As for the video, the guy did nothing wrong. The goldfish went from dead to alive in a span of one minute, maybe slightly more? I'm not going to argue here, just stating my opinion on what I think about this ridiculous 'investigation'. It's a complete and utter waste of donations (the RSPCA runs completely on volunteer donations, not the state) to go through this process. There are dogs and cats in the streets going hungry, but instead let's focus on this guy eating a goldfish. It's obvious that the extreme proponents of the Animal Welfare Act or animal rights in general are using his popularity to advocate their issue. Similar absurd case from the same country: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1262676/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-If-justice-Im-goldfish.html, in case no one's linked this yet. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On April 24 2012 04:26 Littlemuff wrote: I thought it was a bit inhumane. Would have thought doing crap like that would be socially unacceptable. Its not even tasty, like he didnt enjoy it, the fish obvously didnt enjoy it. So why do it? seems really stupid. It should be punished, it serves no purpose than to ammuse a few people and upset a whole load more. Or maybe putting a live fish with its tail bit flapping about in my mouth then looking at the camera like something really cool is about to happen is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. Doing things that upset people are no basis to send people to prison. There's a lot of things in a modern society that you are allowed to do legally that offend a lot of people. He killed the fish in a more human way that any fish you have ever bought at a store. But apparently because you can't see them dying and because you like the way they taste it's not a problem or? The only potentially valid argument you can make is that he puts it out there for other peoples enjoyment and potentially benefits from it but it's still a pretty weak argument. | ||
|
henkel
Netherlands146 Posts
On April 24 2012 04:05 logikly wrote: [spoiler]People have lost their minds, whats the difference between eating a live goldfish and then going to red lobster and ordering a fresh lobster from the tank where they then cook them alive? Can someone explain the difference to me. I dont hear of people complaining about that. and if that is so cruel then what level is this? + Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAqdh_kLbs What he says. (difference is food and entertainment I gues) But still; does anyone remember that TV show fear factor where they would eat alive stuff all the time. Jackass, Steve O swallows a gold fish and barfs him back up again. Those 2 spring to mind and i am pretty sure there must be more examples out there of people eating living pets for no other purpose then entertainment. Would be kinda fun though if he's convicted for it. So many "cruell animal abusers" could and should get charged then. | ||
|
SuperYo1000
United States880 Posts
On April 24 2012 03:37 OptimusYale wrote: O shit my pet cat is totally going to jail forever...... jail? my cat is going to get the chair for the sick things it does to rodents and gophers......toying with it so it thinks it can get away like 50 times before eventually eating it face first | ||
| ||
