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.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
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?
I'm against fishing for entertainment as well, but that's no view that's supported by law since, I assume, it's considered part of culture. For example I also am completely against bullfighting and find it completely barbaric and cruel, but that's also protected by "culture". There would be no point arguing for punishment if the headline would be "Matador kills bull".
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
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.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
Again, as I just said this stuff is sadly protected by calling it "part of our culture". Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Those personal believes of mine however have not much to do with this case. In this case, there is no way in hell he can get away with saying "Butbut, everyone eats goldfishes alive since hundred of years, it's part of our culture!", that is why I consider the comparisons to fishing/hunting etc. to be completely unvalid.
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.
Did you just argue that animals are members of society? That's about as valid as saying "corporations are people"
On April 27 2012 08:43 r.Evo wrote:
Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Thousands of years of human history have already proven you wrong. I'll go use the Spanish as an easy example.
Or I can go ahead and bring this one home since you're from Germany and point out that "tomcat poking" and "goose clubbing" are German traditions which have existed for hundreds of years (so far civilzation hasn't ended...has it?).
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?
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
I can't quite say I'm a vegetarian, because I very rarely eat meat. I also agree with you that hunting for fun is deplorable. Believe me when I say I love animals and respect all life. But that includes human life, it isn't just reserved for those life forms I arrogantly feel need my personal "protection" (that's a shot at PETA, not at you). You can't claim to love and respect life yet apparently have such an utter disdain for the well being of humans. The complexity of human consciousness lends itself to often quirky and stupid behavior as that individual grows and unfolds and matures. In a society where hunting is fine, fishing is fine, and eating meat is fine, what he's done is simply not even remotely enough to "slam a hammer on his head," particularly if you're claiming to be a steward of animal life (since that includes humans).
Frankly, you are wrong. You can't be so shocked and outraged over a goldfish's life that you're willing to destroy a human's life. You need to rethink your hierarchy of values because you're putting alot of things higher in importance than this guy's life and emotional well being.
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.
Did you just argue that animals are members of society? That's about as valid as saying "corporations are people"
No, he's saying you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power, members or not, something I agree with quite strongly. He's simply forgetting that you can equally judge a society by how it treats those who have the "most" power.
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?
Also, 100% agree with pretty much everything sevencck just said
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?
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
I can't quite say I'm a vegetarian, because I very rarely eat meat. I also agree with you that hunting for fun is deplorable. Believe me when I say I love animals and respect all life. But that includes human life, it isn't just reserved for those life forms I arrogantly feel need my personal "protection" (that's a shot at PETA, not at you). You can't claim to love and respect life yet apparently have such an utter disdain for the well being of humans. The complexity of human consciousness lends itself to often quirky and stupid behavior as that individual grows and unfolds and matures. In a society where hunting is fine, fishing is fine, and eating meat is fine, what he's done is simply not even remotely enough to "slam a hammer on his head," particularly if you're claiming to be a steward of animal life (since that includes humans).
Frankly, you are wrong. You can't be so shocked and outraged over a goldfish's life that you're willing to destroy a human's life. You need to rethink your hierarchy of values because you're putting alot of things higher in importance than this guy's life and emotional well being.
Um, sorry I probably have presented that wrong but you just misunderstood me. I'm not "willing to destry a humans life" because he hurt an animal, especially because what you pointed out about PETA is what annoys the hell out of me and is most of the reason I can't find myself aligning with them.
"slam a hammer on his head" wasn't meant literally, more like the hammer of justice and all that. =P ... Since I actually find myself agreeing with your entire post I'd say we're pretty much on the same page.
Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Thousands of years of human history have already proven you wrong. I'll go use the Spanish as an easy example.
Or I can go ahead and bring this one home since you're from Germany and point out that "tomcat poking" and "goose clubbing" are German traditions which have existed for hundreds of years (so far civilzation hasn't ended...has it?).
They didn't prove me wrong. Society at large IS in fact still failing when it comes to showing compassion and empathy for other human beings OR animals. The step from "I'm superior to this animal and that's why I can do with it whatever I want to" to "I'm superior to this person I can do with him whatever I want to" is incredibly small.
If you are able to accuse hurting an animal with the argument that you're a superior being that argument isn't far from what caused most of the suffering and bloodshed in the history of mankind. The reason for this is because this type of argument exploits the same in both cases: Lack of empathy and lack of compassion.
Don't get me wrong, I definitly do understand that we, as a society, are currently inable to actively display such values because of the way we think, act and have done so for thousands of years. - But that doesn't mean we have to take a step backwards and make something acceptable that's been off the table already due to advance as to how we think about ourselves and our role in the environment.
On April 26 2012 19:17 brum wrote: Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there..
Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
They're not vertebrates, that's why the law sees it as something different.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
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.
I do not eat animals. I do not condone eating animals. The only thing I would condone would be dairy and/or eggs, and ONLY if nothing is done to the animal that could shorten its life or trespass on it's well being.
Such examples would be: -Dairy cows are outside at all times unless the need to be milked. -No hormoes/cages/branding
Same for chickens, and don't over complicate my words please. Let's all use common sense and understand these are not the only two methods. This was a very very brief example that probably could go under more revising.
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.
I do not eat animals. I do not condone eating animals. The only thing I would condone would be dairy and/or eggs, and ONLY if nothing is done to the animal that could shorten its life or trespass on it's well being.
Such examples would be: -Dairy cows are outside at all times unless the need to be milked. -No hormoes/cages/branding
Same for chickens, and don't over complicate my words please. Let's all use common sense and understand these are not the only two methods. This was a very very brief example that probably could go under more revising.
Homo Sapien Sapiens evolved to eat both flora AND fauna. In science this is called an Omnivore.
It is commonly posited that humans took the great intellectual step forward in Africa then - travelling northward along the coast - spread across Southern Asia to India, Australia and the rest of the globe. Guess what kind of meat was most commonly consumed due to this coastal journey? If you guessed "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits" then you are correct - also you just read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Fish."
That being said, the common Goldfish lives in a freshwater habitat. Oddly enough - humans for some reason have evolved to be able to eat any small freshwater fish as raw dog as a dude who forgot his Trojans. In fact, of all the meat we consume, fish is probably the most gastronomically acceptable in terms of our intestinal evolution.
If you don't believe in eating animals - I really don't give a shit. If its for religion, fine. If its because you don't like how the animals are treated, I'm right there with you. Unfortunately - you can no more tell humans to stop getting their healthy and essential nutrients from the most natural source than you can tell a carnivore that it has to get its protein from peanuts and cheese. And you will NEVER, I repeat NEVER be able to remove the DNA evidence which incriminates you and your ancestors in the googles of fish homicides committed by your species.
And indeed - for the majority of our history - the murder weapon was our molars.
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.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
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.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
Dear False Dichotomy,
I don't agree with your last statement. It may be cruel, but eating food shouldn't be punishable by law.
On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote: Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law.
Why does it matter whether you bought a mouse in a pet shop to feed it alive to your snake, or eat it alive yourself?
On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote: If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
EPT
