EPTJail for eating a live goldfish? - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
What food you eat is your own business. Whether you eat it in an entertaining fashion is also your own business. While he may have eaten it in an entertaining fasion and posted it on YouTube, his body still digested it. If he took the goldfish and tortuously killed it for no reason, that would be abuse. But he ate it. All of it. He didn't waste it and he benefited from the nutrients in that fish. For that day, and maybe only that day, his diet consisted partially of goldfish. It was his intention to eat it - and it contributed to his overall food intake. His intention was NOT to inhumanely kill it for entertainment purposes. His premeditated intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes. Eating food for entertainment is NOT illegal. Perhaps gluttonous, but not illegal. Buying and consuming pets from the pet store is one thing. Buying and consuming food - sold as food - from the pet store is another. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
hunting/fishing can run the gambit. you go somewhere that releases stupid homebred pheasants to fly up on command to get shot that's cruel (and hardly competitive) It's also pretty damn stupid if you're not even going to eat the damn things. fishing for some fun and some food is fine. personally i find hunting larger game like deer highly unnecessary and somewhat cruel; and definitively questionable when there's fewer and fewer. but those are pretty debatable things.. | ||
|
ILoveCoffee
Malaysia164 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:08 zeru wrote: So i guess you think hunting an fishing should be illegal kich? No, even a cursory glance at what I've written would make that abundantly obvious. One should be able to logically ascertain that what I'm against and what you just said are two different things based mostly on motive and intent. For instance, I'm just going to assume you're a hunter. Are hunters OK with poachers? I would assume that most hunters feel that poaching is wrong. I would also assume (and personal experience of friends who hunt tends to confirm this assumption) that hunters have a profound respect for both nature and the animals they are killing. I would hope that hunters don't make a spectacle of what they're killing and that the enjoyment of hunting is more derived from your connection to nature, your environment, and not the actual killing of the animal--that the killing of the animal is a means to an end to provide food. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:16 tso wrote: the issue here is spectacle hunting/fishing can run the gambit. you go somewhere that releases stupid homebred pheasants to fly up on command to get shot that's cruel (and hardly competitive) It's also pretty damn stupid if you're not even going to eat the damn things. fishing for some fun and some food is fine. personally i find hunting larger game like deer highly unnecessary and somewhat cruel; and definitively questionable when there's fewer and fewer. but those are pretty debatable things.. What kind of deer are the people near you hunting? It must be fairly exotic to be endangered. I know where I live I'm a statistical anomaly due to the fact that I haven't been involved in a car accident with one. | ||
|
Troxle
United States486 Posts
I agree with the OP, people need to get a grip on reality and go spend some time in the wilderness. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
 i'm just saying "generally". same here. minnesota; smashed car a good few timesno one eats the things - it seems wasteful and stupid | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:24 tso wrote: naw, i don't think they're endangered i'm just saying "generally". same here. minnesota; smashed car a good few timesno one eats the things - it seems wasteful and stupid Yeah, that is pretty gross. People who kill simply for pleasure are not the people I tend to hang out with. I'm OK with eating anything edible in pretty much any way as long as it A. Isn't endangered B. Doesn't undergo protracted suffering | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:14 Arghmyliver wrote: Dude. Stop insinuating that I like to watch things die, or that your opinion makes you morally superior. We have a good debate here and you are ruining it with your petty passive aggressive attitude. It's unbecoming man, please stop? What food you eat is your own business. Whether you eat it in an entertaining fashion is also your own business. While he may have eaten it in an entertaining fasion and posted it on YouTube, his body still digested it. If he took the goldfish and tortuously killed it for no reason, that would be abuse. But he ate it. All of it. He didn't waste it and he benefited from the nutrients in that fish. For that day, and maybe only that day, his diet consisted partially of goldfish. It was his intention to eat it - and it contributed to his overall food intake. His intention was NOT to inhumanely kill it for entertainment purposes. His premeditated intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes. Eating food for entertainment is NOT illegal. Perhaps gluttonous, but not illegal. Buying and consuming pets from the pet store is one thing. Buying and consuming food - sold as food - from the pet store is another. No. I'm not insinuating that you like to watch things die, or that my opinion is morally superior, it's just that that is a natural consequence of arguing against what I'm arguing and there's no real way around that. I believe that my opinion is, in fact, morally superior and objectively superior (or I wouldn't be arguing it)--I don't believe however that you like to watch things die. So now there is no insinuation, it's just stated. His intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes, yes, but in this case consumption results in death, he killed it by eating it. It's logically equivalent to saying that, 'His intention was to kill it by eating it for entertainment purposes' and I am diametrically opposed to that kind of behavior. He absolutely could have killed it humanely beforehand, but he actively and consciously chose not to in attempt to increase the shock value of the situation. He even went as far as lying about it being his own pet to even further increase the shock value. It was so thoroughly intended to be a spectacle and nothing more, it was killing an animal in public for shock value. And that's wrong. | ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
sounds like you're on the same general side there's some odd particulars of british law - meh. leave the particulars to lawyer types let's agree the guy is a crass twat and leave it at that | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:23 zeru wrote: I'm talking about the kind of hunting and fishing the average person does as a hobby, for entertainment, you seem to have a problem with killing something where the main intent isn't to eat it, but entertainment, which hobby hunters do. Hunters who do it as a hobby dont necessarily need to have respect for nature and animals they are killing, thats just not true at all. Even worse with hobby fishers like myself, catch fish, kill and use the fish to catch more fish, and not to ever eat, for pure entertainment. You think this should be illegal? No, that's also not contradictory towards my point of view. What I feel on legislation isn't really relevant since that's not what this thread is about--it's about what actually is illegal. In regards to hobby hunters / fishers, I would say I'm morally opposed to the concept. I don't think killing something can be fun. However I would say making a show of killing something for fun would probably worse on my scale. I don't think I'm naive enough to believe that anyone could / would legitimately stop it, but that doesn't mean I have to therefore agree with it. | ||
|
Emiko
Philippines102 Posts
s funny once you realize how bored he and his friends must be (too much money and nothing to do?) | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
| ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
-_- ffs. you think the human race reached the top of the food chain by being discreet when it came to how they ate something? How on earth did people become so damn sensitive to such petty bullshit? a fucking goldfish? really? edit/ is it maybe the recession? need a few extra bucks or something? | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
On April 27 2012 17:35 Kich wrote: No. I'm not insinuating that you like to watch things die, or that my opinion is morally superior, it's just that that is a natural consequence of arguing against what I'm arguing and there's no real way around that. I believe that my opinion is, in fact, morally superior and objectively superior (or I wouldn't be arguing it)--I don't believe however that you like to watch things die. So now there is no insinuation, it's just stated. His intention was to consume it for entertainment purposes, yes, but in this case consumption results in death, he killed it by eating it. It's logically equivalent to saying that, 'His intention was to kill it by eating it for entertainment purposes' and I am diametrically opposed to that kind of behavior. He absolutely could have killed it humanely beforehand, but he actively and consciously chose not to in attempt to increase the shock value of the situation. He even went as far as lying about it being his own pet to even further increase the shock value. It was so thoroughly intended to be a spectacle and nothing more, it was killing an animal in public for shock value. And that's wrong. Well - I don't agree with you, but that doesn't make my opinion superior. You are a human being entitled to your own opinion. Unfortunately - you also implement the same sensationalist approach that you condemn in the video. I don't like to watch things die and that conclusion does not follow from the fact that I don't think this guy is legally at fault. Sure he's sensationalist, but he hasn't done anything legally reprehensible in my opinion. You not only spout incredibly radical and falsely dichotomous arguments, but also make sure to put me on the negative end of them. Not only that, but you fail to re-evaluate your argument whenever I posit a counterpoint and merely continue to shout the same thing back at me. I am at a loss as to how I can make you understand that I do not believe any of the things you constantly attribute to me. You are more reliable at producing argumentative faeces than a shit machine. If you must cling to your jaded opinionated entitlement I have little to say to you. I think we have two opposing viewpoints where you seem to think that your perceived moral superiority renders you completely infallible. Let me know how that God-complex works out for you. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
On April 27 2012 18:10 eu.exodus wrote: long story short. if you are planning to eat a goldfish, take it to your local vet and have it euthanized before you do or sit in jail. -_- ffs. you think the human race reached the top of the food chain by being discreet when it came to how they ate something? How on earth did people become so damn sensitive to such petty bullshit? a fucking goldfish? really? edit/ is it maybe the recession? need a few extra bucks or something? Honestly right? But if you hold that position, it necessarily follows that you must enjoy torturing animals. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1081 Posts
| ||
| ||
