|
United States5162 Posts
On April 27 2012 06:07 Competent wrote:
After reading 19 pages, the only justification for eating the live gold fish is, "Other animals are eaten alive also." or some form of appeals to nature. I would suggest that these people pick up a book on logical fallacies; you need it.
The issue that most people today have a hard time understanding is the issue of well being. We are animals too, but we are different in the idea that we have the ability to view that the retraction of well being is a bad thing--however insignificant the life. Most here have argued that "It's just a goldfish. It's brain capacity/memory/sentience/etc... is miniscule." While this is a factual statement, let me propose the logical inconsistency behind it. What if, on scale, a race of aliens from another world were so intellectually advanced that we appeared to be that of a goldfish's intelligence in comparison to theirs? Quickly we can realize the moral (not talking to you nihilists) dilemma at hand. There obviously is a problem, but to these aliens, we are mere "goldfish" in a pond that will do well in nourishing their bodies. It isn't illegal to them to eat things from other worlds. The pain we feel isn't on the scale of pain that they are capable of feeling--which is much higher. However, I--and I hope you-- would find issue with being eaten, despite being apart of nature and being so insignificant in brain intellect, and maybe even size.
While there may be a line that could be drawn as to what is below the point of "what we shouldn't care about" we should not draw this line arbitrarily on the claim of moral ignorance until we find a better answer. We should care about everything that can feel--any--pain, love, attraction, loyalty, and happiness--among others--until, if ever, we find the best suited answer.
Just to make things clear, you are arguing in favor not eating any animals, right? Because killing it the way he did is no worse then any other 'humane' way to kill a fish.
|
On April 23 2012 20:35 frontliner2 wrote:I think what he did is cruel to the gold fish (drowning in acid example) and just retarded. Should he be punished? meh. How about a 500 dollar fine and a last warning? Jail Sentence is too severe for this case. And I'm saying that as a vegetarian 
500 dollar fine? Are you kidding me? If you think he should be fined, then what about all those people out there who has ever cut a fish's head off or sliced open a fish's belly?
|
This is why jails and prisons get overcrowded. People care enough to want to imprison others for things like this.
|
Yeah, this is totally ridiculous. Guess people have forgotten that when other predators eat fish by the trillion in the ocean it's using the same method.
|
My uncle went fishing the other day and caught a few fish. He hooked them up on a sharp hook and then pulled them up into the boat, where they flailed around and couldn't breathe for a bit. He then killed them. Why did he do this? Because fishing is fun! And because he wants to eat them, yum! I'm pretty sure he should be imprisoned though, because what he did to these poor fish was way worse than this Louis Cole fella did.
The only way I can see an argument against this is if you pull out the, 'no animal should ever be killed for any reason, including consumption by humans' card, because this is faaaaaarrrrr more humane than the living conditions of most animals raised for human consumption.
|
Dang, I guess every time I gut a trout when I go fishing I should have actually been fined and/or gone to jail, I guess going fishing should be illegal now T_T I'll never do it again judge, I swear!
|
Why do people care sooo much ITS JUST A STUPID GOLDFISH
sigh... whats next kill a fly go to jail?
|
On April 27 2012 00:54 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:46 TwilightStar wrote:
I guess we should arrest larger fish for eating goldfish, just like this man has.
How can people be so stupid..
It's a fish.
This logic is beyond stupid. That's like saying that it's okay to hunt an endangered species just because other animals do it.
People eating animals is stupid logic? Animals eating other animals is stupid logic?
Not sure where you are living, buddy.
The real stupid logic is the concept of someone being jailed for eating a god damn fish.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's "bad".
|
On April 27 2012 06:48 Karl Maka wrote:
Why do people care sooo much ITS JUST A STUPID GOLDFISH
sigh... whats next kill a fly go to jail?
Didn't PETA get mad at Obama for killing that fly?
|
On April 27 2012 06:51 Ruscour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 06:48 Karl Maka wrote:
Why do people care sooo much ITS JUST A STUPID GOLDFISH
sigh... whats next kill a fly go to jail? Didn't PETA get mad at Obama for killing that fly?
Yes, it was rather foolish.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
if there was a "human" way to kill animals, it still wouldn't imply that it is the proper way.
Most fish are eaten alive. Therefore the "natural" (now what does that mean??) way to die for a fish, is to die being eaten alive.
People just have no clue what they're talking about sometimes...
|
Looks like that fish was... jailbait.
but seriously, this is silly. I can't believe they're going to this extreme, and even deciding to remove it. This is so extremely silly, and has gone on for far too long.
|
I find myself plunged in a more stupid world everyday.
|
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote:
I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The point is that he caused the animal pain for the sake of entertainment. That is what the laws concerning animal cruelty are aiming to prevent. Are you argueing that causing animals pain for fun is fine?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
|
On April 27 2012 07:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote:
I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that he caused the animal pain for the sake of entertainment. That is what the laws concerning animal cruelty are aiming to prevent. Are you argueing that causing animals pain for fun is fine? The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
Lulz. By that definition a ton of fishermen deserve to go to jail. They fish for their own entertainment, and to eat the fish later. And especially those guys that catch and release. They cause the fish pain solely for their own entertainment.
This guy ate the fish then for other peoples' entertainment. (and maybe his own) The line definitely shouldn't be 'drawn' by people like you anyway.
|
On April 27 2012 07:23 ThaZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 07:17 r.Evo wrote:On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote:
I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that he caused the animal pain for the sake of entertainment. That is what the laws concerning animal cruelty are aiming to prevent. Are you argueing that causing animals pain for fun is fine? The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition. Lulz. By that definition a ton of fishermen deserve to go to jail. They fish for their own entertainment, and to eat the fish later. And especially those guys that catch and release. They cause the fish pain solely for their own entertainment. This guy ate the fish then for other peoples' entertainment. (and maybe his own) The line definitely shouldn't be 'drawn' by people like you anyway.
By people like me you mean the people who made this law in the first place? Who exactly are people like me? Like, people who point out why a system works the way it does? -_-
|
I'm speaking from an entirely subjective viewpoint here when I say: Attention whore got what he wanted. Lots of attention. Congrats!
|
On April 27 2012 07:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote:
I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that he caused the animal pain for the sake of entertainment. That is what the laws concerning animal cruelty are aiming to prevent. Are you argueing that causing animals pain for fun is fine? The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
Wrong. This doesn't even make sense within the context its coming from.
1) People hunt for entertainment, remember? Legally.
2) People fish for entertainment, remember? Legally.
3) People eat for entertainment as well as nourishment remember? Legally.
4) People waste food, remember? Legally.
First of all, by your logic, one could argue that people who waste food frivolously are causing animals unnecessary pain for the sake of entertainment. I say by your logic because you're willing to overlook the fact that whatever else he was doing, he was also eating. This is the monkey wrench in your argument, an argument that also assumes goldfish are even capable of feeling pain (as we understand it), or being aware of their own existence.
It's approaching nihilism to deny 1) differences in animal complexity and 2) degrees of cruelty so that you can turn this into a flatland where killing any animal is cruelty, and where we don't have to consider the animal or the degree of cruelty. It's almost comical nihilism. It's generally speaking a postmodernist deconstructionist mindset that is so ass backwards it can't even reconcile the difference between eating a live goldfish and torturing a sentient animal, so it throws the perpetrators of both actions in the slammer (something which is worse than the offense itself in this case). Sorry, but just because you and the other postmodernists can't reconcile these differences for yourself doesn't mean a man (stupid though he may be) deserves to have his life plunged into turmoil and put into prison. His "crime" just doesn't merit that punishment.
To the other nihilists in this thread:
You can't use the notion of all life being sacred as a logical basis to make irrelevant the nature/complexity of the lifeform that died, or to make irrelevant the degree of cruelty.
Even if this guy did it just for entertainment, killing and eating a goldfish for entertainment isn't sufficient basis for punitive actions, when eating a goldfish for nourishment is fully reasonable. Sorry, but the slight difference in intent on something that is ordinarily legal, common, and has a staggeringly large precedent in nature isn't sufficient to jump something from "meh" to prison time, especially in a society where people regularly hunt for entertainment.
Even if he "tortured" the goldfish (lol), torturing a goldfish isn't the same as torturing a dog or a monkey. And before the postmodernists in here cry that's just my opinion and it has no basis in reality, consider that that very reply is your opinion just the same, except that your opinion ignores the hierarchy of complexity that is nature and makes irrelevant how sentient a lifeform is (and is willing to put a highly sentient lifeform in prison (a torturous experience for a sentient lifeform) for "torturing" something that likely doesn't feel pain as you know it, is barely sentient, and is probably not self aware). If you're going to argue that goldfish are sentient and self aware, then putting them in a tiny-ass aquarium would be torture beyond anything someone could additionally do. In other words, the reason it's appropriate to keep a goldfish contained in a tank is the same reason killing it isn't a big deal.
And on that note another question for the nihilists in here: why do the very people accusing this poor guy of murder (lol) find it acceptable to keep a goldfish in a small tank, but now consider it cruel to put a dog in a travel case? Could it be because there are varying degrees of complexity and sentience?
|
On April 27 2012 00:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:10 gruff wrote:On April 26 2012 18:53 Thylacine wrote:On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote:
So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!...
Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ... a LIVE fish. So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals. Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum. Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period. I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have? There is literally no difference at all between cutting it's head of with a knife and biting it clean off the way he did in the video.
You keep making posts about "causing the animal pain" while you clearly didn't even watch the video. He killed a fish with his mouth and then ate it after it was dead. Removing a fish's head and then eating it shouldn't be illegal as long as the fish doesn't suffer. No matter what tools are used to remove the head.
Edit: Also, 100% agree with pretty much everything sevencck just said
|
On April 27 2012 00:17 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:10 gruff wrote:On April 26 2012 18:53 Thylacine wrote:On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote:
So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!...
Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ... a LIVE fish. So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals. Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum. Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Since when do people fish only for the food? Most people I know that like fishing do it for entertainment. If you truly believe the bolded part then, as I said, a large group of people in the world would be doing something illegal. And he caused the fish less trauma than many of said people when they fish. As I also said in my post, the underlying nature of this have nothing to do with him eating the fish alive or "casuing the fish pain" as you now turned to. It's about him doing it for entertainment which is a completely different matter, which was my original point.
And turning it into that direction, how do you feel about fishing programs on television?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
