EPTJail for eating a live goldfish? - Page 31
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
godulous
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 15:49 Arghmyliver wrote: 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? First off, it's an atrocity you would even mention Bear Grylls given his show has been explicitly proven to be falsified at almost every turn. They had a camera man dress up like a bear to fake a bear attack.. I'm skeptical of anything that occurs on that show and the event was likely heavily staged and very much not real. In fact I would guarantee it. Simulations of those events are entertaining, but they don't actually happen on that show. It's like a reenactment of someone eating something. If he actually does, that's very inappropriate. I'll demonstrate: Survivor Man (someone who actually is alone), AKA Les Stroud, actually does have to eat either living things or recently deceased things in order to actually survive his environment (hence why he no longer does the show, he became seriously ill due to the unbelievably harsh conditions he put his body through to do what shows he did). Any graphic killing (of which there is almost none) is either instructional in that you have to actually know what you can and cannot eat, or is not shown. I distinctly recall an episode where he catches a rabbit to eat, it's death is not shown, it's strictly instructional on how to properly prepare a rabbit in the wild for food. It should be noted that people have actually reported surviving these situations as a direct result of the shows he did. He legitimately saved people's lives. To the actual points: The goldfish isn't more important, the persons should all be prosecuted for their cruelty, and the man is either more or less worse than others based on their individual acts--of which I have no idea. But I'm assuming they're bad. The law enforcement resources would be an officer sent to the man's house, since he did it publicly. They have departments for other such issues, they work very hard. No resources are spent here that would be spent there. Fish are food, they can be eaten alive, I don't really understand how an intelligent person like yourself can't differentiate between consuming a living thing for food and consuming a living thing for shock value entertainment. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:02 godulous wrote: I've fed live fish to turtles, hopefully the turtles wont get jail time as well. They need to eat it to survive, so no don't worry! | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:02 godulous wrote: I've fed live fish to turtles, hopefully the turtles wont get jail time as well. To address the last 3 of these (including Argh's which was surprising), I guess I'll have to quote myself again: (and maybe again later, I was under the impression people on team liquid had critical thinking skills and didn't post knee-jerk reactions to things) "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." godulous, if you were to take your turtle out onto the street, gather a crowd, and smash it with a hammer, you recognize that's something worthy of jail time right? (Or some legal ramification?) Maybe emphasizing this will help: "Fish are food, they can be eaten alive, I don't really understand how an intelligent person like yourself can't differentiate between consuming a living thing for food and consuming a living thing for shock value entertainment." - Me. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
| ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:05 Kich wrote: First off, it's an atrocity you would even mention Bear Grylls given his show has been explicitly proven to be falsified at almost every turn. They had a camera man dress up like a bear to fake a bear attack.. I'm skeptical of anything that occurs on that show and the event was likely heavily staged and very much not real. In fact I would guarantee it. Simulations of those events are entertaining, but they don't actually happen on that show. It's like a reenactment of someone eating something. If he actually does, that's very inappropriate. I'll demonstrate: Survivor Man (someone who actually is alone), AKA Les Stroud, actually does have to eat either living things or recently deceased things in order to actually survive his environment (hence why he no longer does the show, he became seriously ill due to the unbelievably harsh conditions he put his body through to do what shows he did). Any graphic killing (of which there is almost none) is either instructional in that you have to actually know what you can and cannot eat, or is not shown. I distinctly recall an episode where he catches a rabbit to eat, it's death is not shown, it's strictly instructional on how to properly prepare a rabbit in the wild for food. It should be noted that people have actually reported surviving these situations as a direct result of the shows he did. He legitimately saved people's lives. To the actual points: The goldfish isn't more important, the persons should all be prosecuted for their cruelty, and the man is either more or less worse than others based on their individual acts--of which I have no idea. But I'm assuming they're bad. The law enforcement resources would be an officer sent to the man's house, since he did it publicly. They have departments for other such issues, they work very hard. No resources are spent here that would be spent there. Fish are food, they can be eaten alive, I don't really understand how an intelligent person like yourself can't differentiate between consuming a living thing for food and consuming a living thing for shock value entertainment. Well - being familiar with both shows I can tell you that while there were some incidents of deception in the first season, Man vs Wild did clean itself up. The specific case you describe occurred due to the fact that there were no bears available for casting at the time of the particular shows filming. Bear Grylls actually does eat many of the animals he catches (or are caught for him, as the case may be) - I would find that hard to be staged considering he puts them writhing into his mouth on camera and masticates them to death (with no cutting). The present company, as well as your opinion of one of the youngest people to climb Mt. Everest (also, King of the Boy Scouts) would seem hardly relevant in this case. I sincerely doubt that my allusion should be considered an "atrocity." While generally ineffective, your use of evasive libel certainly impedes argument (similar to the way CombatEx' abuse the "Pause" feature impedes micro). After hearing your arguments I am forced to conclude that you are a devout Jainist? May I remind you that, generally, modern progressive first-world governments employ a separation between church and state. It is therefore inappropriate for you to assume that your religious laws should apply to the population at large. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:19 Thylacine wrote: Kich, come on... Come on...? I can't possibly be the only person who feels it's wrong to kill something explicitly for shock value entertainment can I? I mean he's facing legal ramifications for it so I'm not but it's surprising to see intelligent people A: misunderstand what actually happened, B: try to downplay it because it's a fish, or C: defend someone who killed something explicitly for shock value entertainment. Feeding your turtle isn't a crime, killing an animal on the street for shock value is. I mean, is that not so obvious it hurts or? | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
casting bears for a staged attack also i see no reason to assume he's a jainist (lol again btw) why is everyone in this thread completely of the mind of "who gives a shit about fish", and then stops thinking i'm with you kich.. it appears to have been a long few pages for you.. | ||
|
godulous
United States337 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:09 Kich wrote: To address the last 3 of these (including Argh's which was surprising), I guess I'll have to quote myself again: (and maybe again later, I was under the impression people on team liquid had critical thinking skills and didn't post knee-jerk reactions to things) "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." godulous, if you were to take your turtle out onto the street, gather a crowd, and smash it with a hammer, you recognize that's something worthy of jail time right? (Or some legal ramification?) Maybe emphasizing this will help: "Fish are food, they can be eaten alive, I don't really understand how an intelligent person like yourself can't differentiate between consuming a living thing for food and consuming a living thing for shock value entertainment." - Me. Here is a video of a turtle eating a fish, posted on the internet for entertainment of others. The video in question was a human eating a fish, posted online for.. presumably entertainment. If you're arguing that it's an act of cruelty toward the fish, why not take equal offense to this video? Smashing a turtle with a hammer is not a valid comparison. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:31 tso wrote: lol.. casting bears for a staged attack also i see no reason to assume he's a jainist (lol again btw) why is everyone in this thread completely of the mind of "who gives a shit about fish", and then stops thinking i'm with you kich.. it appears to have been a long few pages for you.. Why then, does Kich not similarly attack young children who incinerate insects for "pure shock value entertainment?" The fish was not his pet, it was sold to be eaten. Why then does it matter what species consumed it? Edit: Again I feel I must stress that I DO GIVE A BOUNTIFUL BOWEL MOVEMENT ABOUT FISH. Fish were essential to the evolution of Homo Sapien. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:33 Arghmyliver wrote: Why then, does Kich not similarly attack young children who incinerate insects for "pure shock value entertainment?" The fish was not his pet, it was sold to be eaten. Why then does it matter what species consumed it? im confused. you claim he's jainist then say he -doesn't- feel that burning ants for fun is wrong.. .. that's the point. it doesn't... same thing as being poor form if you get a piranha just to feed it inappropriately sized food (rats and such) or make an ordeal of feeding your snake live food it makes you a dick | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:26 Arghmyliver wrote: Well - being familiar with both shows I can tell you that while there were some incidents of deception in the first season, Man vs Wild did clean itself up. The specific case you describe occurred due to the fact that there were no bears available for casting at the time of the particular shows filming. Bear Grylls actually does eat many of the animals he catches (or are caught for him, as the case may be) - I would find that hard to be staged considering he puts them writhing into his mouth on camera and masticates them to death (with no cutting). The present company, as well as your opinion of one of the youngest people to climb Mt. Everest (also, King of the Boy Scouts) would seem hardly relevant in this case. I sincerely doubt that my allusion should be considered an "atrocity." While generally ineffective, your use of evasive libel certainly impedes argument (similar to the way CombatEx' abuse the "Pause" feature impedes micro). After hearing your arguments I am forced to conclude that you are a devout Jainist? May I remind you that, generally, modern progressive first-world governments employ a separation between church and state. It is therefore inappropriate for you to assume that your religious laws should apply to the population at large. I'm an athiest, the 'atrocity' was sarcastic because I don't like his show and Les Stroud is fucking awesome. May I remind you that the governments you're referring to agree with me and take animal cruelty kind of seriously? I mean how is this not really clear yet--he didn't eat the goldfish for sustenance, he wasn't teaching you how to properly prepare a goldfish for a meal, he was explicitly killing it for shock value and that's wrong. I don't see how there is any other view that one could ascertain through reason. I don't know what a Jainist is, actually. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:37 tso wrote: im confused. you claim he's jainist then say he -doesn't- feel that burning ants for fun is wrong.. .. that's the point. it doesn't... same thing as being poor form if you get a piranha just to feed it inappropriately sized food (rats and such) or make an ordeal of feeding your snake live food it makes you a dick He must be a bad Jainist. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
well.. i suppose that's.. a possibility.. o_O | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:33 Arghmyliver wrote: Why then, does Kich not similarly attack young children who incinerate insects for "pure shock value entertainment?" The fish was not his pet, it was sold to be eaten. Why then does it matter what species consumed it? Because I'm not on a fucking crusade? I'm explaining why this specific man is being charged with crimes and is facing punishment. You posted a bunch of videos of random people killing animals trying to justify their acts and brought that in. Why does it matter what species consumed it? Because last I checked turtles didn't have a governing body nor are they currently weighing on a case in which a turtle ate something on youtube for shock value nor are they really concerned about anything in their lives outside of survival. I mean I haven't checked in awhile though, they still haven't organized--right? Snapping turtles can be pretty scary. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:30 Kich wrote: Come on...? I can't possibly be the only person who feels it's wrong to kill something explicitly for shock value entertainment can I? I mean he's facing legal ramifications for it so I'm not but it's surprising to see intelligent people A: misunderstand what actually happened, B: try to downplay it because it's a fish, or C: defend someone who killed something explicitly for shock value entertainment. Feeding your turtle isn't a crime, killing an animal on the street for shock value is. I mean, is that not so obvious it hurts or? Well, like Ray Comfort said once: ''What proof and evidence do you have to show that your belief in your opinion is both accurate and correct?'' I don't think anyone can prove this or that about this subject but I dunno, some people just don't agree with you so you gotta do something | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:37 Kich wrote: I'm an athiest, the 'atrocity' was sarcastic because I don't like his show and Les Stroud is fucking awesome. May I remind you that the governments you're referring to agree with me and take animal cruelty kind of seriously? I mean how is this not really clear yet--he didn't eat the goldfish for sustenance, he wasn't teaching you how to properly prepare a goldfish for a meal, he was explicitly killing it for shock value and that's wrong. I don't see how there is any other view that one could ascertain through reason. I don't know what a Jainist is, actually. Well - his YouTube show was about eating gross things. Gross - but edible. One could argue that it was an ongoing experiment meant to bring awareness to the limitations of the human digestive system. Animal cruelty is terrible and awful. Eating animals should not be considered animal cruelty. I am arguing that the premature death of the goldfish is NOT CRUELTY in this case simply because he ate it and did so in a manner that did not prolong the animals suffering. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:42 Kich wrote: Because I'm not on a fucking crusade? I'm explaining why this specific man is being charged with crimes and is facing punishment. You posted a bunch of videos of random people killing animals trying to justify their acts and brought that in. Why does it matter what species consumed it? Because last I checked turtles didn't have a governing body nor are they currently weighing on a case in which a turtle ate something on youtube for shock value nor are they really concerned about anything in their lives outside of survival. I mean I haven't checked in awhile though, they still haven't organized--right? Snapping turtles can be pretty scary. I posted those YouTube videos because you made a highly inaccurate statement regarding the plethora of content available on YouTube. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:42 Thylacine wrote: Well, like Ray Comfort said once: ''What proof and evidence do you have to show that your belief in your opinion is both accurate and correct?'' I don't think anyone can prove this or that about this subject but I dunno, some people just don't agree with you so you gotta do something What proof and evidence do I have to show that killing an animal on the street for shock value is wrong. I'll have to get back to you on that one. I mean, more seriously? Motive, intent. Feeding an animal so it doesn't die is fine. Feeding an animal so you can show your friends how it kills this living thing is incorrect behavior. I get the feeling that the disagreement with that comes way more from defensiveness over past actions and people not wanting to feel guilty about weird shit they've done in their childhood. The problem right now is that people are emphasizing the fact that consuming/killing something isn't always wrong. So they are posting some bullshit about feeding their pets or frying ants, and that's fine (well, frying ants is pretty weird too). That's not what this is about. This is about someone killing an animal explicitly for the entertainment of others through it's shock value or whatever they may get from it. I apologize for being in the "I don't like to watch things die for the fun of it" club, apparently I'm a minority. And more importantly, besides that, that's why he's getting charged--because he killed an animal for no other reason than he wanted to entertain people. And that's pretty illegal. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 16:46 Arghmyliver wrote: Well - his YouTube show was about eating gross things. Gross - but edible. One could argue that it was an ongoing experiment meant to bring awareness to the limitations of the human digestive system. Animal cruelty is terrible and awful. Eating animals should not be considered animal cruelty. I am arguing that the premature death of the goldfish is NOT CRUELTY in this case simply because he ate it and did so in a manner that did not prolong the animals suffering. And that's perfectly legitimate, I'm not saying the goldfish experienced pain and that's never been my stance from the beginning. I even elaborately explained that you could crush crickets and have the same response by authorities. It has nothing to do with how he killed it it's why he killed it. Animal cruelty has just as much to do with why it happens as it does how it happens. I even explicitly stated that eating fish alive isn't necessarily cruel, you quoted it and responded to it, you couldn't possibly have missed that. He killed it for fun. And that's wrong. I can't see how there can be any other interpretation of "He killed it for fun" other than "that's wrong". So he should be being charged, and it's perfectly legitimate to charge someone with crimes if they are killing animals for fun. Making a spectacle of something dying seems objectively wrong to me. I'm put off by the defense of the actions because in defending against my arguments it's tantamount to saying that killing animals for fun is ok, and that seems odd that someone would actively try and get behind that line of thinking. | ||
| ||
