|
On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 08:34 FeUerFlieGe wrote: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. 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.
Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet."
|
It's so hilarious how crazy people are. A goldfish is nowhere near as self aware or as intelligent has 90% of the other animals we regularly butcher inhumanely (legally) for food.
|
On April 27 2012 11:22 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote:On April 27 2012 08:34 FeUerFlieGe wrote: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. 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. Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet."
Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Or are you really that short-sighted? The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?"
So, is that your argument as well? It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? My point that you are misrepresenting is that if you think that is fine, then you are the scum of the Earth. If you don't, then make an actual point.
|
On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 11:22 nam nam wrote:On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote:On April 27 2012 08:34 FeUerFlieGe wrote: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. 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. Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet." Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Or are you really that short-sighted? The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?" So, is that your argument as well? It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? Make a point.
Nobody is misrepresenting you. We are just taking offense to your false dichotomy which condemns all those who disagree with you to the status of "subhuman scum of the earth."
It makes you a sort of Debate Hitler.
|
On April 27 2012 11:39 Aberu wrote:
It's so hilarious how crazy people are. A goldfish is nowhere near as self aware or as intelligent has 90% of the other animals we regularly butcher inhumanely (legally) for food.
That's not the issue though, or is that not abundantly clear after the 20 someodd pages? Eat goldfish all day, but don't video tape it and show it to people for entertainment.
Note that people don't butcher cows for fun on youtube.
I mean that's a fairly simple concept to get right? That shit might happen to you when you kill animals for the lulz on youtube? That there's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing, in that one is used for the express purpose of supplying the food industry and the other is strictly entertainment and that borders on a real fucking weird concept?
|
On April 27 2012 12:07 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 11:39 Aberu wrote:
It's so hilarious how crazy people are. A goldfish is nowhere near as self aware or as intelligent has 90% of the other animals we regularly butcher inhumanely (legally) for food. That's not the issue though, or is that not abundantly clear after the 20 someodd pages? Eat goldfish all day, but don't video tape it and show it to people for entertainment. Note that people don't butcher cows for fun on youtube. I mean that's a fairly simple concept to get right? That shit might happen to you when you kill animals for the lulz on youtube? That there's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing, in that one is used for the express purpose of supplying the food industry and the other is strictly entertainment and that borders on a real fucking weird concept?
Couldn't resist.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10nYQozTo8
|
On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:07 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 11:39 Aberu wrote:
It's so hilarious how crazy people are. A goldfish is nowhere near as self aware or as intelligent has 90% of the other animals we regularly butcher inhumanely (legally) for food. That's not the issue though, or is that not abundantly clear after the 20 someodd pages? Eat goldfish all day, but don't video tape it and show it to people for entertainment. Note that people don't butcher cows for fun on youtube. I mean that's a fairly simple concept to get right? That shit might happen to you when you kill animals for the lulz on youtube? That there's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing, in that one is used for the express purpose of supplying the food industry and the other is strictly entertainment and that borders on a real fucking weird concept? Couldn't resist. + Show Spoiler +
put those guys in jail right this moment!
|
^ You would think he would at least do a preliminary search before posting that.
|
Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick.
|
On April 27 2012 12:20 bjornkavist wrote:
Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick.
Apparently the fact that a fish has a spine makes all the difference.
I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders.
|
On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?"
You're wrong. Animal cruelty laws are aimed at preventing unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the purpose you're using them for. The point being made by people here is that eating the goldfish alive doesn't constitute unnecessary suffering. Given the limited/non-existent nature of a goldfish's intelligence/sentience, as well as the quickly induced brain death from mastication, eating a live goldfish doesn't entail any sort of animal abuse.
On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? My point that you are misrepresenting is that if you think that is fine, then you are the scum of the Earth.
There's nothing wrong with eating any sort of animal that isn't sentient or potentially sentient, and the law shouldn't concern itself with it. The fact that people like you are selectively outraged over a goldfish, but not a spider, is pretty clear evidence of your irrational and ethnocentric biases.
On April 27 2012 12:30 Jojo131 wrote:
I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders.
That's pretty much it. I think the same thing every time I see a self-proclaimed vegetarian/vegan deliberately crush an insect.
|
On April 27 2012 12:30 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:20 bjornkavist wrote:
Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick. Apparently the fact that a fish has a spine makes all the difference. I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders.
Counterpoint - cute spider
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly31neukgm1rnx17uo1_500.jpg)
|
It's a damn fish for crying out loud
|
Remember that super long post regarding shark fin soup? the destruction of our oceans eco system, dolphin slaughter, shark genocide.........................................
this srsly made me lol. I have been a vegetarian my entire life, my parents raised me that way. The life of this goldfish did not bring me pain.
whats the difference in buying a goldfish to feed your baby shark? my friends have snakes and sharks that probably eat pet stores worth of cuddly little animals.
|
On April 27 2012 12:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?" You're wrong. Animal cruelty laws are aimed at preventing unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the purpose you're using them for. The point being made by people here is that eating the goldfish alive doesn't constitute unnecessary suffering. Given the limited/non-existent nature of a goldfish's intelligence/sentience, as well as the quickly induced brain death from mastication, eating a live goldfish doesn't entail any sort of animal abuse. Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? My point that you are misrepresenting is that if you think that is fine, then you are the scum of the Earth. There's nothing wrong with eating any sort of animal that isn't sentient or potentially sentient, and the law shouldn't concern itself with it. The fact that people like you are selectively outraged over a goldfish, but not a spider, is pretty clear evidence of your irrational and ethnocentric biases. Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:30 Jojo131 wrote:
I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders. That's pretty much it. I think the same thing every time I see a self-proclaimed vegetarian/vegan deliberately crush an insect.
You are making a very strong claim that you cannot possibly back up by saying that the fish has a "limited/non-existent intelligence/sentience". Fact of the matter is that you have no idea about its feelings, and science itself is limited in attempting to demonstrate it. It most certainly can feel pain, and the amount is irrelevant considering that it is unnecessary. And you are also wrong saying that it doesn't matter. You are being sold an animal as a pet, not as food. The establishment selling it to you places it under your care. If you cause it unnecessary harm and kill it for entertainment, that is animal cruelty.
Also, I am not outraged about this at all. I simply find it pathetic to get attention this way and completely unnecessary. You're just assuming a lot of things here.
|
does the fish feel suffering in a tank the size of a basketball? Science has shown that the short term memory span of a goldfish is extremely small
|
On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:32 sunprince wrote:On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?" You're wrong. Animal cruelty laws are aimed at preventing unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the purpose you're using them for. The point being made by people here is that eating the goldfish alive doesn't constitute unnecessary suffering. Given the limited/non-existent nature of a goldfish's intelligence/sentience, as well as the quickly induced brain death from mastication, eating a live goldfish doesn't entail any sort of animal abuse. On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? My point that you are misrepresenting is that if you think that is fine, then you are the scum of the Earth. There's nothing wrong with eating any sort of animal that isn't sentient or potentially sentient, and the law shouldn't concern itself with it. The fact that people like you are selectively outraged over a goldfish, but not a spider, is pretty clear evidence of your irrational and ethnocentric biases. On April 27 2012 12:30 Jojo131 wrote:
I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders. That's pretty much it. I think the same thing every time I see a self-proclaimed vegetarian/vegan deliberately crush an insect. How can I be wrong when I'm stating an opinion? But you, you are certainly wrong. You are making a very strong claim that you cannot possibly back up by saying that the fish has a "limited/non-existent intelligence/sentience". Fact of the matter is that you have no idea about its feelings, and science itself is limited in attempting to demonstrate it. It most certainly can feel pain, and the amount is irrelevant considering that it is unnecessary. And you are also wrong saying that it doesn't matter. You are being sold an animal as a pet, not as food. The establishment selling it to you places it under your care. If you cause it unnecessary harm and kill it for entertainment, that is animal cruelty. Also, I am not outraged about this at all. I simply find it pathetic to get attention this way and completely unnecessary.
I find it pathetic that you care so much about the fish's feelings but have no problem calling half the people on this thread "scum of the earth."
Surely though, you are a trailblazer of goldfish society.
|
Nobody should kill anything just for shits and giggles.
|
On April 27 2012 12:58 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:On April 27 2012 12:32 sunprince wrote:On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
The difference should be clear enough; please go ahead and read the post the person I quoted was responding to. It says: "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?" You're wrong. Animal cruelty laws are aimed at preventing unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the purpose you're using them for. The point being made by people here is that eating the goldfish alive doesn't constitute unnecessary suffering. Given the limited/non-existent nature of a goldfish's intelligence/sentience, as well as the quickly induced brain death from mastication, eating a live goldfish doesn't entail any sort of animal abuse. On April 27 2012 11:45 Hollow wrote:
It is fine if I choose to have my meals from the pet shop next to my home because other people eat the animals that are sold there in another part of the world? The law shouldn't concern themselves with it? My point that you are misrepresenting is that if you think that is fine, then you are the scum of the Earth. There's nothing wrong with eating any sort of animal that isn't sentient or potentially sentient, and the law shouldn't concern itself with it. The fact that people like you are selectively outraged over a goldfish, but not a spider, is pretty clear evidence of your irrational and ethnocentric biases. On April 27 2012 12:30 Jojo131 wrote:
I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders. That's pretty much it. I think the same thing every time I see a self-proclaimed vegetarian/vegan deliberately crush an insect. How can I be wrong when I'm stating an opinion? But you, you are certainly wrong. You are making a very strong claim that you cannot possibly back up by saying that the fish has a "limited/non-existent intelligence/sentience". Fact of the matter is that you have no idea about its feelings, and science itself is limited in attempting to demonstrate it. It most certainly can feel pain, and the amount is irrelevant considering that it is unnecessary. And you are also wrong saying that it doesn't matter. You are being sold an animal as a pet, not as food. The establishment selling it to you places it under your care. If you cause it unnecessary harm and kill it for entertainment, that is animal cruelty. Also, I am not outraged about this at all. I simply find it pathetic to get attention this way and completely unnecessary. I find it pathetic that you care so much about the fish's feelings but have no problem calling half the people on this thread "scum of the earth." Surely though, you are a trailblazer of goldfish society.
Did half of the people in this thread say that it is fine to eat animals from the pet shop? I didn't see any so far.
Oh, so I have my priorities wrong! I'm sorry, I didn't know your feelings over the internet mattered more than the feelings of animals being tortured to death. I'll make sure I don't condemn morally corrupt opinions in such a harsh way so as to spare you all those horrible feelings.
You are the scum of the Earth if you think animals are here to entertain you and suffer for you, period. Animal cruelty can never be justified. How hard is this to understand and accept? An argument from ignorance doesn't work, an "but we don't know how much they feel, if at all. If you don't know then why do you approve of it? There is no excuse, no logically sound reason to defend this act in any way.
|
Before even reading your post I thought "let me guess, this is in england" and yup, "20 K pounds" later, i was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
