|
On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:
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.
My claim is accurate given the best of our available scientific knowledge, which is the only possible basis for rational discussion or decision-making. Regardless, your position (and that of many others) would still be ideologically inconsistent unless you disavow harming any sort of animal. After all, science has limited understanding of every animal's intelligence/sentience. Unless you're a vegan, your attempts to call others the "scum of the earth" are hypocritical at best.
On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:
It most certainly can feel pain, and the amount is irrelevant considering that it is unnecessary.
It's a necessary amount required for consuming the fish. The pain involved in the slaughter of various animals to meet human needs frequently exceeds that felt by this fish, which experienced brain death in a matter of seconds. The "unnecessary suffering" referred to in animal cruelty laws is designed to prevent people from torturing animals. That's certainly not the case here.
On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:
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.
The purpose for which you kill something is irrelevant. It doesn't affect the pain and suffering felt by the animal. Either it's not okay to (humanely) kill cows ever, or it's okay regardless of the purpose. You can't cherry-pick where it's convenient for your fragile and hypocritical sensibilities.
On April 27 2012 12:54 Hollow wrote:
Also, I am not outraged about this at all. I simply find it pathetic to get attention this way and completely unnecessary.
You're calling people in this thread the "scum of the earth" if they disagree with you. If this is simply something you do spuriously, then perhaps your posts should be reported.
|
On April 27 2012 13:03 Hollow wrote:
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.
No, but anyone who says it's not okay while being okay with eating animals from anywhere is a hypocrite.
On April 27 2012 13:03 Hollow wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't know your feelings over the internet mattered more than the feelings of animals being tortured to death.
Being eaten ≠ torture.
On April 27 2012 13:03 Hollow wrote:
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?
Do you eat meat? How about any animal products? Do you use any? Do you kill kill insects or destroy their lives by kicking them out when they live in your home?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you're a complete hypocrite when you call people the "scum of the Earth" for doing the exact same thing as you, except with animals that you find less cute.
|
Didn't Mr. Bean do the same thing in an episode in a theme park? 
|
On April 27 2012 13:03 Hollow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:58 Arghmyliver wrote: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.
It seems from your post that you know absolutely nothing about my philosophies on intelligence and sentience. This makes sense because I have posted neither in this forum. Please refrain from using personal attacks in a debate (although I'm sure you could find a job in political advertising).
From my education in the physical sciences, my theory on such matters is this -
There is a spectrum of sentience upon which all matter falls. The more complex the system, the more complex the sentience. We can approximate the sentience of things similar to us (maybe chimps) but we cannot hope to understand the sentience of more removed life forms (say a tree) or things even more foreign (like a star). This is a very basic explanation of my beliefs, but one that serves to underline my point. Obviously - things that you would do to hurt or torture a human could have little to no effect on other things (i.e. waterboarding a crab would not produce the same torturous effect as waterboarding a human). I say sentience, but depending on your definition of sentience (human intelligence [pattern finding], self-awareness, emotion, reaction to stimuli etc) you might use a different term.
I never defended animal cruelty, nor did I imply that animals are here to suffer for us (the fact that you suggested that I did is frankly libelous). I just don't think what this guy did was particularly cruel. He crushed the fish's head with his teeth and then consumed it. This is almost certainly the same way that your ancient ancestors killed and ate small fish for thousands of years. It is not torture. Torture would be something along the lines of pulling the fishes fins off, abraded its abdomen, rolling it in salt, dipping it in lemon juice and then eating it slowly tail first a bit at a time drawing out its suffering in an excruciating manner.
Your argument appears to be "If you can't see how wrong this is then YOU are wrong" which is no more viable an argument than the one you made up for me.
|
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 +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10nYQozTo8
So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it.
I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong.
|
On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong.
I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun."
I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic.
Edit: If "normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than "normal" anyways.
|
On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways.
So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation.
That must be weird.
I was hoping the context of the situation would lead to some degree of assumptions to be made about what I said--the implication that people do not "butcher" (sorry, I used this as a synonym for killing) living "cows" expressly for the intent of having "fun on youtube". But I suppose leaps like that just aren't possible.
I mean this whole thing is pretty simple: would you film yourself killing an animal for fun with the intent to show it to other people? If yes, you're weird. If no, you're normal, and you should find the concept of doing that wrong. Uniqueness is something inherent in everyone and normal isn't a word that contradicts that. You should know this, because I'm assuming you aren't 12. Individual snowflakes are unique to all others, they are also normal, because they are snow flakes.
|
On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird.
I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement.
warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I was hoping the context of the situation would lead to some degree of assumptions to be made about what I said--the implication that people do not "butcher" (sorry, I used this as a synonym for killing) living "cows" expressly for the intent of having "fun on youtube". But I suppose leaps like that just aren't possible. I mean this whole thing is pretty simple: would you film yourself killing an animal for fun with the intent to show it to other people? If yes, you're weird. If no, you're normal, and you should find the concept of doing that wrong. Uniqueness is something inherent in everyone and normal isn't a word that contradicts that. You should know this, because I'm assuming you aren't 12. Individual snowflakes are unique to all others, they are also normal, because they are snow flakes.
No - I would not film myself killing animals for fun. Neither do I think that people post videos on YouTube for any reason other than to entertain their target audience. So in that regard ALL of the videos are posted for the explicit purpose of "having fun on YouTube."
However, it is completely irrelevant what you or I would or would not post on YouTube. This thread is concerned with whether this man should be punished by law for consuming a goldfish on video. In my opinion, he should not. This is YouTube's jurisdiction - if you will - and therefore it is their right to remove his video or terminate his account, etc as they see fit. The law should not be involved and he certainly should not face criminal charges. He ate a fish. A feeder goldfish. The nomenclature suggests that the fish is meant to be consumed. What consumes it would seem to be irrelevant.
If your point is that people don't post videos of themselves killing animals for fun - I would invite you to use the "search" feature included on YouTube's site.
|
On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM
I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication.
I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true?
It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways.
However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless.
Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue?
|
|
|
I can't see anything wrong with that. Animal cruelty = jail or fine. The most normal thing in the world. When you kill animals for fun that is animal cruelty to me, so yes... 20k or jail.
|
apparently you guys haven't heard of lobster sashimi.... no i would never eat it but i use to have to prepare it when i was a sue chef
|
On April 27 2012 14:54 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication. I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true? It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways. However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless. Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue?
Um. I think you forgot to read the post directly above this one ^_^.
|
On April 27 2012 15:17 swiftazn wrote:
apparently you guys haven't heard of lobster sashimi.... no i would never eat it but i use to have to prepare it when i was a sue chef
This is a really good example of what this thread isn't about.
|
On April 27 2012 15:19 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 14:54 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication. I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true? It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways. However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless. Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue? Um. I think you forgot to read the post directly above this one ^_^.
Your post occurred while I was writing mine. I mean I was joking before but, seriously? There's something like 7 minutes between the two posts and I'm not egotistical enough to believe I could write anything worth reading in less than 7 minutes.
I didn't bother editing it because what you said was irrelevant--if it would make you really happy I could remove the part where I ask you what you're arguing about, I was hoping I wouldn't have to and we could just go on understanding that it was read after I posted. But it didn't seem relevant given your argument is "this should be handled by youtube alone" and my argument is "you shouldn't kill animals in public for entertainment purposes". I would argue, to qualify that, that posting videos of yourself doing something is equivalent to doing that something, and that posting said videos to a public medium such as youtube is equivalent to doing it in public.
|
On April 27 2012 15:22 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 15:19 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:54 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote: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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication. I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true? It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways. However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless. Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue? Um. I think you forgot to read the post directly above this one ^_^. Your post occurred while I was writing mine. I mean I was joking before but, seriously? There's something like 7 minutes between the two posts and I'm not egotistical enough to believe I could write anything worth reading in less than 7 minutes.
Your argumentum ad hominem is non-conducive to intellectual debate.
|
Here guy, I'll try and explain my position a little clearer ^_^.
So - there are lots of videos on YouTube of people eating things alive, forcing animals to fight, feeding pets to each other and killing non-threatening animals for sport. While this may be deplorable - in the interest of consistency, shouldn't all of these persons be prosecuted for their cruelty? Why is the goldfish more important than the other animals? Why is this man worse than others who recorded and posted comparably violent/abusive videos?
What if the law enforcement resources being expended on this case were used in an effort to crack down on people who mass breed dogs in inhumane conditions, or those who run rooster fighting rings?
Additionally - fish are commonly considered food and are also commonly eaten raw - even alive.
You argue that the problem lies in his consumption of the fish for entertainment purposes. Why then, would you say, does Bear Grylls graphically kill animals with his teeth on the popular television show "Man vs Wild"? Is he is going to die of starvation before he makes it back to the hotel continental?
|
On April 27 2012 15:30 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 15:22 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 15:19 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:54 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 12:07 Kich wrote:
[quote]
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 + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication. I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true? It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways. However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless. Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue? Um. I think you forgot to read the post directly above this one ^_^. Your post occurred while I was writing mine. I mean I was joking before but, seriously? There's something like 7 minutes between the two posts and I'm not egotistical enough to believe I could write anything worth reading in less than 7 minutes. Your argumentum ad hominem is non-conducive to intellectual debate.
With terminology like that I would expect you to be able to substantiate your argument better than something that's tantamount to saying "but goldfish don't matter". It doesn't matter if it's a goldfish or a cricket, which is what I was getting across in my previous posts, publicly killing animals with the intent of entertainment is objectively illegal--the fact that he's facing potential jail time should make this abundantly clear. Arguing against that is a very, very strange take on the subject because I believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who openly admits they believe that publicly killing animals with the intent of entertainment should be objectively legal.
But I don't think people would dispute that, I would hope not at least. The dispute is whether or not youtube is a public place. I addressed previously that it is. Making a video of you doing something illegal is equivalent to doing something illegal, posting that video on a public forum/medium/whatever is equivalent to doing that something in public. Posting a video on youtube of you eating a live goldfish for entertainment is equivalent to you eating a live goldfish on the corner of a busy street for entertainment.
They're both illegal. They're both really fucked up.
|
On April 27 2012 15:53 Kich wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 15:30 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 15:22 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 15:19 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:54 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:32 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 14:23 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 14:07 Arghmyliver wrote:On April 27 2012 13:43 Kich wrote:On April 27 2012 12:11 Arghmyliver wrote:[quote] Couldn't resist. + Show Spoiler + So I'm wondering if you're capable of some degree of critical thinking. Was there any thought at all before posting a bunch of links that ironically validate exactly what I just said in a snarky manner? I suppose if I left it at that it would hurt too much to think that hard about it. I guess I'll just verbatim quote myself: There's a distinct line between what butchers do and what some guy on his youtube channel is doing. One is used for the express purpose of supplying food, and the other is strictly entertainment. I mean maybe you were that guy who buried small animals in their yard and then mowed the lawn, I have no idea, but generally normal people think that killing animals for fun is objectively wrong. I thought the one with the kid laughing in the background as a man shoots a bull in the head and then saying "Awesome" was particularly condemning. I suppose you could dismiss the butcher videos as "instructional" or something - but your exact words were in fact "butcher for fun." I seem to have touched a nerve though as you have resorted to accusing me of being a repressed psychotic. Edit: If " normal" means "poor at debate" then I'd rather be strange thanks. Come to think of it, I'd rather be unique than " normal" anyways. So I'm guessing you didn't actually read the youtube comments for that video then? Interesting. I too, often show videos to people without knowing what they're about. Perhaps I touched repressed feelings you have then, as I explicitly made no such accusation. That must be weird. I just assumed when you implied that I buried small animals in the yard and then mowed them. However, since you insist, here is a video of someone killing numerous cows in inhumane ways for what is almost invariably his own amusement. warning - video contains a plethora of bovine-directed violence + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTDKWVGYkLM I didn't bother watching it, I'm not sure why you'd go so far out of your way to find a video of that, that must be weird. There was no such implication. I guess I don't really know what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that not only should he be allowed to do that to cows, that he should be? Or are you just pointing out that, yes, in fact, people do post terrible things on youtube? I mean did you actually just sit there and hone in on one portion of a sentence, take it completely literally, and spend some undetermined amount of time disproving it from being explicitly true? It's understood that it happens, what with the fact that the topic is about it happening. The topic is whether there should be legal ramifications for doing so, and the answer is unequivocally yes. The knee-jerk response to this (which is incorrect) is that this is some sort of slippery slope in which killing anything should be punished and that's stupid or something--that's not the case. It's the fact that it's being done as "entertainment" is what is the primary problem. Step on a spider in your house, whatever--step on that same spider as entertainment for friends is weird though anyways. However take a bucket of crickets to a street corner and make a show of you smashing them, the police either will or should intervene shortly. They'd likely let you go because it's just crickets, if it were cats or something you'd probably be killed before the police showed up, but it's still fucked up and you shouldn't be let go regardless. Is my stance clear or is that somehow vague and warranting of a video of a guy smashing hundreds of crickets on the ground in new york city for hours on end with no issue? Um. I think you forgot to read the post directly above this one ^_^. Your post occurred while I was writing mine. I mean I was joking before but, seriously? There's something like 7 minutes between the two posts and I'm not egotistical enough to believe I could write anything worth reading in less than 7 minutes. Your argumentum ad hominem is non-conducive to intellectual debate. With terminology like that I would expect you to be able to substantiate your argument better than something that's tantamount to saying "but goldfish don't matter". It doesn't matter if it's a goldfish or a cricket, which is what I was getting across in my previous posts, publicly killing animals with the intent of entertainment is objectively illegal-- the fact that he's facing potential jail time should make this abundantly clear. Arguing against that is a very, very strange take on the subject because I believe you would be hard pressed to find someone who openly admits they believe that publicly killing animals with the intent of entertainment should be objectively legal. But I don't think people would dispute that, I would hope not at least. The dispute is whether or not youtube is a public place. I addressed previously that it is. Making a video of you doing something illegal is equivalent to doing something illegal, posting that video on a public forum/medium/whatever is equivalent to doing that something in public. Posting a video on youtube of you eating a live goldfish for entertainment is equivalent to you eating a live goldfish on the corner of a busy street for entertainment. They're both illegal. They're both really fucked up.
What's your take on those felonious kids killing ants with the ol' magnifying glass trick?
Edit: I think my argument so far has been anything BUT goldfish don't matter. I spent an entire post describing how humans evolved to eat fish - which would seem to say that fish matter a lot. That goldfish had essential Omega-3 fatty acids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
