|
On April 23 2012 21:26 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 21:18 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On April 23 2012 20:01 Dali. wrote:On April 23 2012 19:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
I have the feeling most animal right acitivists probably live somewhere in a big city and have no clue what nature is and how it works. They need to just look at my cat play guantanamo with some mouse for one hour before finishing her off to see that their ideas of nature are in fact unnatural.
Let me paint you a picture: To you it is totally acceptable for me to "play Guantanamo" with your cat, clawing, biting and pummeling it until it finally dies, of bloodless or physical trauma because I am a part of nature, and that's what nature does. Have 2,500+ years of ethical thought achieved nothing? I obviously have an emotional bond with my cat and not with some goldfish, that lives on the other side of the planet and which I never saw before. I don't. Let nature take its course and let the feast begin!
It does not matter if you treat her the same way that she treated mice or if you kill her mercifully. In the end she is dead. It is only thing that matters.
Ethics is no hard science, there is no ultimate wrong or right, ethics is a construct in our mind to ensure a working society and civillization. The difference between you killing a rabbit in the forest and you killing my cat would be that it will upset me and I will seek revenge and thus your action will bring turbulence to human society and be deemed unfavorable or wrong.
|
So what are you in for?
Ate a goldfish.
|
The top comment on that YouTube video:
"Thumbs up if TeamLiquid brought you here."
I gave it a Like 
Anyways, as emotionally attached as I am to my pet dog, I'm still objective enough to understand that people (including myself) eat animals using all sorts of preparatory methods- and sometimes, fish are partially alive. Just because a fish is someone's pet doesn't mean that it's no longer a fish. The fish barely knows what's going on, and it makes no difference if he bought the fish at a pet store (although apparently, it's not actually his pet anyway?) or if he bought the fish at a fancy restaurant. This isn't animal cruelty in the slightest.
|
On April 23 2012 21:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 21:26 Dali. wrote:On April 23 2012 21:18 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On April 23 2012 20:01 Dali. wrote:On April 23 2012 19:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
I have the feeling most animal right acitivists probably live somewhere in a big city and have no clue what nature is and how it works. They need to just look at my cat play guantanamo with some mouse for one hour before finishing her off to see that their ideas of nature are in fact unnatural.
Let me paint you a picture: To you it is totally acceptable for me to "play Guantanamo" with your cat, clawing, biting and pummeling it until it finally dies, of bloodless or physical trauma because I am a part of nature, and that's what nature does. Have 2,500+ years of ethical thought achieved nothing? I obviously have an emotional bond with my cat and not with some goldfish, that lives on the other side of the planet and which I never saw before. I don't. Let nature take its course and let the feast begin! It does not matter if you treat her the same way that she treated mice or if you kill her mercifully. In the end she is dead. It is only thing that matters. Ethics is no hard science, there is no ultimate wrong or right, ethics is a construct in our mind to ensure a working society and civillization. The difference between you killing a rabbit in the forest and you killing my cat would be that it will upset me and I will seek revenge and thus your action will bring turbulence to human society and be deemed unfavorable or wrong.
If there is no right or wrong there should at least be consistency. Your example isn't quite right though since I'm not killing your rabbit, but I am killing your cat. You have every right to be mad at me for killing your pets, they're not mine.
|
On April 23 2012 21:28 sc4k wrote:
The problem with this forum and internet forums in general is that there is no balance in the population, almost everyone is a young male, I'd wager sensitivity towards animal cruelty is more of a female trait.
I don't have evidence to support that claim, but I'd make a small wager as well.
But really, when it comes down to it, everyone is capable of understanding the rational arguments for and against it (although I guess you'd say we've yet to hear more against arguments). And I think, in this thread, it has been well argued that eating a goldfish is just as "entertaining" or enjoyable as choosing to eat meat even though humans don't need to. And secondly, in terms of the amount of suffering endured, animals in factory farms go through a level of pain that is at least equivalent to what the gold fish went through, although its likely worse even in the most humane killings.
|
On April 23 2012 21:42 silverstyle wrote:
This just seems plain stupid... it seems disgusting enough that he ate and tasted it, what other punishment does he need?
While we are doing this, lets just nab everyone that has ever eaten chicken.
But seriously, its just like eating any fish.. They were all once alive before they were killed.
The difference here is that he just ate it for fun. He killed an animal not out of need but just because he thought it would be funny/to get attention. A living breathing being is now dead, dissolved in acid, and it was alive at that moment (and don't doubt it, it felt that), just because of his need for fun. It is just this thoughtlessness, this disrespect for animals that pisses me off.
On any other day I would most likely agree and let this slide. But not today or perhaps not anymore cause I am sick of such a display. Let him serve his time so he can think about what respecting life means. You may think this is harsh but I don't care. He didn't care so I won't give him my sympathy.
|
Wow, i really didn't think my country could get any more retard. Actually thats a lie, totally expect this kind of idiocy, especially after Liam Stacey. Thank fuck im getting out of this shit hole.
|
well i expect joe rogan to be apprehended if he ever sets foot in the uk. he'll be serving a few life sentences for fear factor.
|
On April 23 2012 21:59 taintmachine wrote:
well i expect joe rogan to be apprehended if he ever sets foot in the uk. he'll be serving a few life sentences for fear factor.
Oh dear those poor cockroaches, who will be the savior for those poor animals?...
|
I'm a vegan, and big on animal rights, but this is absurd and I would have nothing but words of critique and shame for the parties involved with this potential punishment. Absurdity.
|
I dunno about cruelty but that's just plain fucked-up, you can't deny that. Jail time might sound harsh but laws are laws if he was breaking a law by eating a goddamn fish, that is. Otherwise someone has to set a standard and draw the line somewhere else next week he'll be eating hamsters alive. The bigger question we should be asking is why the hell can't he find a better way to get attention than something so stupid? He didn't even look like he was enjoying it.
Plus regardless of what you say or think, if someone is eating an animal alive on camera for no reason other than entertainment, someone somewhere is going to be bitching about it. That's something you just gotta get over yourselves about. Interesting though how fish seem to scale higher on the moral food table than cockroaches and other invertebrates, no pun intended.
|
Even if the world were on the brink of destruction people would be upset about a random guy eating a goldfish..
Seriously, who cares. Only news about celebrities could be more insignificant.
Go protest against the usage of animals for experiments or big companies poisioning our planet.
And let him eat his goldfish...
|
And who will be taking the 20K for the goldfish? His mother?
Sure its unnecessary pain (for a damn goldfish) but jail AND fine is just utterly stupid.
edit: read the OP wrong. Still my opinion stands though.
|
I just love how at least half of posts here convientelly missing some facts.
- Poor Gooldfish didn't feel any acid because it was dead in a sec by his teeth.
- When we are at it, I watched few clips out of curiousity and every living thing he ate was dead in a blink of an eye, if you watch him eating Tarantula I can bet you won't be able to think of a faster way of Tarantula getting killed in it's natural environment.
- Goldfish wasn't his pet, it was 1st April's joke, but I guess no one of you watched clip to the end, as much as Dailymail didn't watch it to the end.
- He didn't blend live mice, they were dead before put in blender.
- Etc...
Lets focus on fish(es). I live in city with lake, every day of year there are bunch fishermen at the lake fishing. Most of them not even to eat those fishes but for fun. Ways they kill those fishes can't even be compared to swift death of this guy's Goldenfish.
What I find most distrubing is that some of you would literally send all those people to jail and ruin entire families... and you have no shame coming here and posting about awefulness of this video.
Good job, be sure to do everything you can that this men gets his life ruined by jail sentence for killing fish faster then 99% people from all around the globe who work in that industry or fish just for fun.
At the end of the day, that guy and his videos are total unneeded bullshit but I am more "offended" by you little pathetic instant-activists after you get served by tabloid like Dailymail fighting for small things targeting easy prey to sleep better with your "clear" conscience.
|
Doppleganger's post is exactly what I feel on this issue. Why would you bring harm to another living organism just for fun? For fun...really?
|
On April 23 2012 21:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 21:26 Dali. wrote:On April 23 2012 21:18 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:On April 23 2012 20:01 Dali. wrote:On April 23 2012 19:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
I have the feeling most animal right acitivists probably live somewhere in a big city and have no clue what nature is and how it works. They need to just look at my cat play guantanamo with some mouse for one hour before finishing her off to see that their ideas of nature are in fact unnatural.
Let me paint you a picture: To you it is totally acceptable for me to "play Guantanamo" with your cat, clawing, biting and pummeling it until it finally dies, of bloodless or physical trauma because I am a part of nature, and that's what nature does. Have 2,500+ years of ethical thought achieved nothing? I obviously have an emotional bond with my cat and not with some goldfish, that lives on the other side of the planet and which I never saw before. I don't. Let nature take its course and let the feast begin! It does not matter if you treat her the same way that she treated mice or if you kill her mercifully. In the end she is dead. It is only thing that matters. Ethics is no hard science, there is no ultimate wrong or right, ethics is a construct in our mind to ensure a working society and civillization. The difference between you killing a rabbit in the forest and you killing my cat would be that it will upset me and I will seek revenge and thus your action will bring turbulence to human society and be deemed unfavorable or wrong.
I more or less agree.
The reason I'm replying is because you contradict what you originally appeared to infer in the first post in this conversation: that we can appeal to non-human interaction ('nature') to formulate ethical norms.
Human society has found value in empathetic behaviour because it builds bonds and communities. We have extended this beyond our species as seen in the keeping of pets. Many advanced cultures value and continue to improve humane animal treatment wherever possible, since there is no value in inducing unnecessary suffering. As such, invoking the indifference to suffering present in 'nature' and accusing animal rights activists, who promote a reduced or no tolerance policy to animal abuse caused by humans not nature, of being ignorant and misguided in trying to champion the rights of animals seems a misguided criticism.
|
Cats kill birds and mice all the time, most of the time they don't eat their catch, they'll just torment it while it dies slowly.
Nature is cruel. The millions of animals out there that suffer unnoticed, why do people get so emotional over one goldfish?
|
On April 23 2012 22:17 Nekovivie wrote:
Cats kill birds and mice all the time, most of the time they don't eat their catch, they'll just torment it while it dies slowly.
Nature is cruel. The millions of animals out there that suffer unnoticed, why do people get so emotional over one goldfish?
..... Read the series of posts directly above your own.
|
On April 23 2012 22:17 Nekovivie wrote:
Cats kill birds and mice all the time, most of the time they don't eat their catch, they'll just torment it while it dies slowly.
Nature is cruel. The millions of animals out there that suffer unnoticed, why do people get so emotional over one goldfish?
Because they're cute.
No seriously thats why more people care about the fish than seeing people eat cockroaches on fear factor.
|
On April 23 2012 22:12 whiterabbit wrote:
I just love how at least half of posts here convientelly missing some facts.
- Poor Gooldfish didn't feel any acid because it was dead in a sec by his teeth.
- When we are at it, I watched few clips out of curiousity and every living thing he ate was dead in a blink of an eye, if you watch him eating Tarantula I can bet you won't be able to think of a faster way of Tarantula getting killed in it's natural environment.
- Goldfish wasn't his pet, it was 1st April's joke, but I guess no one of you watched clip to the end, as much as Dailymail didn't watch it to the end.
- He didn't blend live mice, they were dead before put in blender.
- Etc...
Lets focus on fish(es). I live in city with lake, every day of year there are bunch fishermen at the lake fishing. Most of them not even to eat those fishes but for fun. Ways they kill those fishes can't even be compared to swift death of this guy's Goldenfish.
What I find most distrubing is that some of you would literally send all those people to jail and ruin entire families... and you have no shame coming here and posting about awefulness of this video.
Good job, be sure to do everything you can that this men gets his life ruined by jail sentence for killing fish faster then 99% people from all around the globe who work in that industry or fish just for fun.
At the end of the day, that guy and his videos are total unneeded bullshit but I am more "offended" by you little pathetic instant-activists after you get served by tabloid like Dailymail fighting for small things targeting easy prey to sleep better with your "clear" conscience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
