EPT80% of the Chinese population should be jailed then.
What a total joke, certain groups of people need to get the sand out of their v****as.
Is it surprising AT ALL that the UK is rolling downhill faster and faster day by day?
Jail for eating a live goldfish? - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EngrishTeacher
Canada1109 Posts
80% of the Chinese population should be jailed then. What a total joke, certain groups of people need to get the sand out of their v****as. Is it surprising AT ALL that the UK is rolling downhill faster and faster day by day? | ||
|
Tippecanoe
United States342 Posts
| ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
On April 27 2012 18:26 Arghmyliver wrote: Honestly right? But if you hold that position, it necessarily follows that you must enjoy torturing animals. how is it torture? its a quick death. taking the fish out of water till its nearly dead then putting it back just before it dies then doing it again is torture. beating something with a stick to the point of near death is torture and cruel. Spraying a can of poison to kill a swarm of ants can be considered cruel but you never see people going to jail for that do you? | ||
|
TiDragOnflY
Netherlands130 Posts
On April 23 2012 18:24 SolHeiM wrote: I am completely behind this. I find eating any animal when it's still alive, or the torture of animals for your own amusement completely disgusting. I don't consider myself particularly oversensitive but I hope this guy gets his just deserts. Where do you draw the line when it comes to eating things alive? You're allowed to eat a goldfish alive but not a cat or a dog? They are considered pets and you couldn't say "it's just a goldfish, after all" and then say it's not OK to consume a dog when it's alive, because then I say to you, it's just a dog, after all. I think he should get jail time and get fined for animal cruelty. The fish dies in a few seconds you cannot bite the head off from a Dog/Cat so your post makes no sense what so ever. And in my opinion people really love to hate nowadays its a fricking goldfish. Some people need to get a reality check. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:04 TiDragOnflY wrote: The fish dies in a few seconds you cannot bite the head off from a Dog/Cat so your post makes no sense what so ever. And in my opinion people really love to hate nowadays its a fricking goldfish. Some people need to get a reality check. I agree whole heartedly. | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
Every country that eats insects, that includes putting them in the pan when they're still moving or even spraying bug spray should be jailed, prosecuted for insect rights violations and must pay a hefty fine. | ||
|
Thylacine
Sweden882 Posts
On April 27 2012 21:09 MethodSC wrote: I find eating any insect when it's still alive, or the torture of insects for your own amusement completely disgusting. I don't consider myself particularly oversensitive but I hope this guy gets his just desserts(corrected). Every country that eats insects, that includes putting them in the pan when they're still moving or even spraying bug spray should be jailed, prosecuted for insect rights violations and must pay a hefty fine. Obvious troll... | ||
|
AUFKLARUNG
Germany245 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 27 2012 18:23 Arghmyliver wrote: 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. Jaded opinion? Yes, clearly I'm the one with a jaded opinion on the matter, what with all the talk about how things could be handled better and that you don't have to make a mockery of killing something. It has nothing to do with a god-complex or infallibility it's about you saying that it's fucking ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others and that it doesn't matter because it's a fucking goldfish and you're telling me I have a god-complex? Because I would rather not weigh in on "What we are allowed to kill on camera for people's enjoyment"? I am sorry my jaded opinion, from all that harsh not-killing-things I do on the daily, is clouding my rational judgment on the issue. I mean, are you for real? All I'm saying is he didn't have to kill the thing on camera and the show could have been perfectly fine had he killed it off camera before eating it. I'm sorry my awfully cynical opinion on life is unreasonable to you. I'm sorry you don't agree, I don't know, I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. The fact that this guy went far out of his way to make a showing of him killing something, that he purposely attempted to pull on some strings of people by claiming it was his pet, is wrong. And your stance is that not only should this happen, but that that kind of behavior is correct and in no way weird or wrong. Are you familiar with what the word jaded actually means? | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 28 2012 00:57 Kich wrote: Jaded opinion? Yes, clearly I'm the one with a jaded opinion on the matter, what with all the talk about how things could be handled better and that you don't have to make a mockery of killing something. It has nothing to do with a god-complex or infallibility it's about you saying that it's fucking ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others and that it doesn't matter because it's a fucking goldfish and you're telling me I have a god-complex? Because I would rather not weigh in on "What we are allowed to kill on camera for people's enjoyment"? I am sorry my jaded opinion, from all that harsh not-killing-things I do on the daily, is clouding my rational judgment on the issue. I mean, are you for real? All I'm saying is he didn't have to kill the thing on camera and the show could have been perfectly fine had he killed it off camera before eating it. I'm sorry my awfully cynical opinion on life is unreasonable to you. I'm sorry you don't agree, I don't know, I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. The fact that this guy went far out of his way to make a showing of him killing something, that he purposely attempted to pull on some strings of people by claiming it was his pet, is wrong. And your stance is that not only should this happen, but that that kind of behavior is correct and in no way weird or wrong. Are you familiar with what the word jaded actually means? Dude. Again I said none of those things. I said that I don't think this qualifies as illegal in this circumstance. I would never eat, or condone eating, goldfish alive. But this guy can if he wants to. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On April 28 2012 00:57 Kich wrote: Jaded opinion? Yes, clearly I'm the one with a jaded opinion on the matter, what with all the talk about how things could be handled better and that you don't have to make a mockery of killing something. It has nothing to do with a god-complex or infallibility it's about you saying that it's fucking ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others and that it doesn't matter because it's a fucking goldfish[/i] and you're telling me I have a god-complex? Because I would rather not weigh in on "What we are allowed to kill on camera for people's enjoyment"? I am sorry my jaded opinion, from all that harsh not-killing-things I do on the daily, is clouding my rational judgment on the issue. I mean, are you for real? All I'm saying is he didn't have to kill the thing [i]on camera and the show could have been perfectly fine had he killed it off camera before eating it. I'm sorry my awfully cynical opinion on life is unreasonable to you. I'm sorry you don't agree, I don't know, I thought it was a pretty reasonable opinion. The fact that this guy went far out of his way to make a showing of him killing something, that he purposely attempted to pull on some strings of people by claiming it was his pet, is wrong. And your stance is that not only should this happen, but that that kind of behavior is correct and in no way weird or wrong. Are you familiar with what the word jaded actually means? Libel. I said none of these things. Please redact your egregious errors. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:09 Arghmyliver wrote: Dude. Again I said none of those things. I said that I don't think this qualifies as illegal in this circumstance. I would never eat, or condone eating, goldfish alive. But this guy can if he wants to. And I'll repeat myself (again, for the second time as anticipated). It's not the fact that he did, it's why he did it. And that's the bottom line. That's why it's illegal. Because it actually is, illegal. That's why he's getting punished for it. Did you really just post twice instead of editing your first post, quoting the exact same thing? And yes, you did. In fact, you just did: "But this guy can if he wants to" is tantamount to saying it's ok to kill something for the enjoyment of others. That's what happened, he killed an animal for the enjoyment of others, and you're explicitly saying that that is ok. You've also stated that it doesn't matter because it's a goldfish that is supposed to be eaten anyways. Page 30. It's also highly contradictory to state that you don't condone the act and then literally in the next sentence state that you agree he should be allowed to do the act that you just said that you don't condone. You either don't condone it and disapprove of the action, or you do condone it and approve of the action, or are ambivalent about the topic all together. And even then, it's much less about the action and more about why he did it. My point of view is fairly simple, when you generalize the event, he killed an <animal> for public entertainment, it doesn't matter what that <animal> is, it's wrong. Your defense thus far can be boiled down to, "But come on man, it's just a goldfish, who cares?" He could have done this with a rabbit that he caught himself in the wild, it'd still be wrong to kill it and eat it for public entertainment. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:24 Myles wrote: What's the difference between this and sport fishing? The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. | ||
|
HeroHenry
United States1723 Posts
| ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:39 HeroHenry wrote: I can't believe he's going to jail for this when you can eat a live octopus in Korean stores anywhere in America. This is probably something that shouldn't be done (both because it's weird and because it's an entirely valid choking hazard, I'd rather not risk getting a limb to stick to the inside of my throat and kill me). Unfortunately it's very much a part of their tradition and it'd be hard to do anything about it. However this is also explicitly served as a dish, and not killing it for the sake of killing it. I mean, the octopi in question are all going to be served at some point, so whether it dies now or later isn't necessarily relevant, but I don't believe these korean restaurants go out their door and chop up a octopus then dump it on the street in front of people to let it sit there and die slowly then expect money for doing it. | ||
|
lahara
Germany140 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Charger
United States2405 Posts
| ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:32 Kich wrote: The catch and release policy? If you're catching it to eat it, cool, if you're catching it to sell to be eaten, cool, if you're catching it so that you can just kill it, that should strike you as something weird. Does it matter that they're a fish, I mean wouldn't it be weird if you went out and caught a squirrel just so you could kill it? If you're alluding to the fact that people actually do practice catching various animals for the explicit purpose of killing them for the sake of killing them, yes, I'm aware that happens, and yes, it's kind of a fucked up practice. I generally lean more towards the "You could also just not kill it" club in that regard. You know, kind of like pest control services who have been becoming increasingly more humane in their removal of pests, always trying to opt to remove problems without violence because you can.. I'm also not trying to state that this guy is some kind of serial fish killer, I'm just explaining that in this specific scenario this is why he was arrested or whatever. It would have been the same result if he had a show where he caught a squirrel and bit it's head off. In fact if it was a squirrel I think the only two sides would be, That's really fucked up and He should go to jail. People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act. My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. | ||
|
Kich
United States339 Posts
On April 28 2012 04:55 Myles wrote: My point is that when you catch a fish you cause it way more pain then when you 'eat it alive'. Catching a fish entails putting a hook through it's mouth(or guts if they swallow it) and then either cutting its head off or letting it slowly suffocate. Why you do this seems irreverent to me as you should be killing things as humanely as possible regardless of why you do it. And by eating the fish in the manner he did he instantly killed it as soon as he bite down. There is literally no more humane way to kill a fish despite whatever reason he did it for. Right, so was I not clear enough in my previous posts or? .. I mean, I thought "it's not how he killed it, it's why" was a clear enough message, so ending a post trying to refute that with "despite whatever reason he did it for" seems like not so great of a response given that I've already acknowledge (3 times now going on 4!) that it's not the fact that he did it, or how he did it, it's why he did it that matters here. I even explicitly stated in the post you just quoted, "People are focusing too much on what he killed, not why he killed it, which is a lot more important--it doesn't matter what died, killing something for public entertainment shouldn't be a tolerated act." I don't believe I ever even attempted to paint an image of this man savagely and painfully killing this animal, I made it abundantly clear from the start what my intentions were. Unless you're willing to openly state that killing an animal for fun is not worthy of some kind of legal action I don't really know why anyone's arguing with me. There's been a lot of irrelevant bullshit that's gone on in this thread in attempt to change the topic (which I believe is undeniably a show of realizing that they were wrong), and only a few people seem to be able to recognize what's actually applicable to what we're talking about here. | ||
| ||
