I found this to be very interesting and im surprised TL didn't make a thread yet.
BREAKING NEWS: Censortube has now officialy removed the video of Louis eating the goldfish and it is no longer avaliable to see. ANOTHER VIDEO OF LOUIS HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED NOW., A VIDEO OF HIM EATING A TARANTULA.
A guy called Louis Cole ''foodforlouis'' @ Youtube is possibly gonna go to jail or have to pay 20k pounds for eating a live goldfish in one of his youtube videos. RSCPA is accusing him of animal cruelty and causing unneccessary pain to the goldfish. The video has already gathered over 1000 dislikes and hundreds of comments calling him a ''sick cruel bastard''.
The main reason people are going crazy over it, atleast in the video comments, is because he says early in the video that the fish is his pet, but it's an april fools and he says the fish isn't his pet at 2:39 in the video.
Louis has eaten alot of disgusting things, including raw pigs eyeballs, blended raw bulls testicle(and a solid one), blended mice (No, the mice weren't alive when he blended them) and live tarantulas and put it on youtube, but none of those animals we're against the law to eat alive.
Here's the full article on the matter.(I'm not gonna post all its text here because there is alot of pictures in the article so it's better to just go read it)
Anyway, discuss what you think about this, do you think it was very cruel? Should he be put in prison?
Heres a quote from the article i linked, it's the first top lines: RSPCA launch cruelty probe after man eats goldfish alive in shocking YouTube stunt
Online video of the pet being eaten by Louis Cole has been watched by more than 120,000 people Previous stunts include eating a live tarantula, a scorpion and 10 ground up dead mice RSPCA describe the attention grabbing videos as 'gratuitously cruel'
For those who wanna see the actual video, here it is:
how is that cruelty? what if you went fishing then just ate a fish, is that cruelty too? well if it is, then there should be many other people paying fines or going to jail =/
(I mean yea that is mean to the fish, but really it's a fish, how is that a crime to humanity that he should go to jail?)
My father has a pond with goldfish in it, they occasionally die because of temperature differences or because of being eaten by a bird. (all preventable) I'm pretty sure all such things cause tremendous stress and suffering to goldfish, but nobody cares, since my father doesn't actively cause it himself and well, goldfish are barely sentient as it is.
i.e. this is tasteless, but not a big deal, I think. It would be different depending on the animal though, if he ate a live ant nobody would notice, but if it was a live pigeon (how does that work?) people would be in shock. A goldfish is just in between.
What's next, you step on an ant and are sent to jail? This is complete bullshit, obviously. Animals are murdered in the most cruel ways for fast food industry's. Almost nobody gives a shit. Why didn't anyone care when he ate the live tarantula? This is idiotic.
On April 23 2012 18:23 Recognizable wrote: What's next, you step on an ant and are sent to jail? This is complete bullshit, obviously. Animals are murdered in the most cruel ways for fast food industry's. Almost nobody gives a shit.
Exactly my thoughts. Over sensetive and stupid, besides, he bit it's head off so the goldfish died in like 1-2 seconds :/.
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.
I didn't watch the video, but how is this in any way more significantly cruel than eating a goldfish that is already dead? All the meat products we eat involve killing, is killing a goldfish by chewing it any more or less humane than a cow getting butchered at the slaughterhouse?
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger(In nature science class I saw this when we dissected goldfish'). Their memory is approximately capable of 3 months. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
This is ridiculous. Animal cruelty is surely an issue that needs resolution, but how can you say eating a goldfish is cruel? There are two reasons I see no problem with eating a live goldfish:
1) Eating a goldfish is a source of nourishment. Whether it is cooked or alive how can someone go to jail for eating something that is commonly sold as a feeding fish? How is the act of eating a goldfish any different from killing a live fish then eating it? And if you want to say it is because it was cruel then how do you define cruel? Bashing fishheads as food prep is also cruel.
2) If goldfish are considered worthy of being protected from cruelty, then all is lost. We should shut down the cruelty that occurs from our major poultry and red meat sources. Should we move along the animal hierarchy and say killing flies/ants is an arrestable offense? No we shouldn't, and if we want to protect goldfish then we should also protect cattle and chickens.
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.
Interesting choice of words O.o
Anyways... Reading through the list of things this guy has eaten including live scorpions and a turkey leg infested with maggots, I'm wondering if theres something wrong with him. I'm pretty sure even in cultures where eating strange stuff (strange to most westerners anyway) is the norm, they usually don't go eating live scorpions and shit...
Edit - Although I very much think that jail or a 20k punishment is WAY over the top. He's basically a Youtube attention seeker who does something a bit wacky... I don't think fining him that much is appropriate. People who cause deaths get fined less ffs.
Edit 2 - Forgot to mention he blended 10 mice into a paste and chugged that down too. O.o
On April 23 2012 18:27 Praetorial wrote: You should add to the OP the fact that he has certainly done a number of disgusting things, like eating eyeballs raw.
Personally, I find his videos disgusting and distasteful, but how on earth the RSPCA sees that as justification to arrest someone is beyond me.
Don't forget the raw bull testicle he ate and the other raw bull testicle that he blended and drank.
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.
Interesting choice of words O.o
Anyways... Reading through the list of things this guy has eaten including live scorpions and a turkey leg infested with maggots, I'm wondering if theres something wrong with him mentally. I'm pretty sure even in cultures where eating strange stuff (strange to most westerners anyway) is the norm, they usually don't go eating live scorpions and shit...
He gets famous by doing it and his friends laugh at him while he consumes all the disgusting things. He also sees it as a challenge and feels it as an achievement when he has succeeded in eating the stuff, no hes not mentally ill. if you watch his videos he seems like an awesome and funny person.
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger. Their memory is extremly short, lasting 5-10 seconds. It's abit different then dogs and cats. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
What does the size of an animals brain have to do with anything? Does the size of an animals brain decide whether it's OK or not OK for you to be cruel to it? Their memory being "extremely short" has been debunked and is just a myth, so that's irrelevant.
What is the difference between a goldfish and a dog or a cat? They are both animals people keep as pets. You might not give a shit about goldfish, but I don't really give a shit about dogs or cats. I would never keep one as a pet, but I would never be cruel to one just for fun.
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.
Interesting choice of words O.o
Anyways... Reading through the list of things this guy has eaten including live scorpions and a turkey leg infested with maggots, I'm wondering if theres something wrong with him mentally. I'm pretty sure even in cultures where eating strange stuff (strange to most westerners anyway) is the norm, they usually don't go eating live scorpions and shit...
He gets famous by doing it and his friends laugh at him while he consumes all the disgusting things. He also sees it as a challenge and feels it as an achievement when he has succeeded in eating the stuff, no hes not mentally ill. if you watch his videos he seems like an awesome and funny person.
Well I did edit a bit and suggested it could be attention seeking.
Thats disgusting and somewhat disturbing, but then that seems to be his theme. Doesn't mean putting him in jail is the right way of going about it. I suspect the biggest issue at play is not just his cruelty to animals (which is what most seem to be debating) but the fact the he is actually making money off of this cruelty is the real issue at play (youtube revenues). If the court decided that eating a live goldfish was cruelty to animals then I feel a fine would definitely be appropriate (due to the fact that he made money from its death)
Jail time seems like a waste of resources and time all around.
The easiest way to sensationalize ANY legal issue is to look at the max sentence. It is completely standard to have hugely exaggerated sentences which get applied then suspended pending completion of some sort of probation. Basically the actual punishment most minor criminals suffer is very small and these "3 years and 20k pound" numbers are just probation insurance.
On April 23 2012 18:25 Loanshark wrote: I didn't watch the video, but how is this in any way more significantly cruel than eating a goldfish that is already dead? All the meat products we eat involve killing, is killing a goldfish by chewing it any more or less humane than a cow getting butchered at the slaughterhouse?
Cows get a shot to the head with one of those things the guy uses in No Country For Old Men before being butchered.
Except for our islamic friends, who only eat meat if the animal bleeds to death. (slicing the throat open)
There shouldn't be a difference in whether or not the animal was a goldfish. Having more of an emotional attachment to a specific species doesn't make its value or worth any less. What's the difference between a panda and a goldfish? In essence, nothing - only that you 'like' the panda more, for whatever entirely subjective reason you may have. If you reject excessively causing another species harm for no good reason (i.e. getting more subscribers on youtube) then you should also codemn this idiot for doing this.
So yes, this was cruel and unneccesary and the guy doing it is a complete fucking idiot. He shouldn't, however, get put into jail for it. Jails are only meant to seperate and rehabilitate people from the rest of society, something that doesn't need to be done for this guy. A fine on the other hand is completely acceptable, just to push the point home that this shit shouldn't be allowed to happen to any creature regardless of species.
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger. Their memory is extremly short, lasting 5-10 seconds. It's abit different then dogs and cats. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
How about you bother to actually read the freaking source you post as evidence.
"Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds"
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
I guess the problem is how he makes a spectacle out of eating strange animals. Not that I really care. Goldfish are pretty dumb anyways, they will even kill each other and eat their own babies if you once forget to feed them correctly. So I guess if you forget or are unable to feed your pets for some reason, you should go to jail too.
On April 23 2012 18:24 SolHeiM wrote: 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.
No, not all living creaturs are the same, we need to make distinctions. There is a difference between a goldfish and a dog, fish brains are small and don't have a neocortex.
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger. Their memory is extremly short, lasting 5-10 seconds. It's abit different then dogs and cats. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
How about you bother to actually read the freaking source you post as evidence.
"Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds"
While I was reading it my brother asked why I was reading it, I told him why and he said they got that extremly short memory, his and my fault, sorry will edit.
On April 23 2012 18:31 SolHeiM wrote:What is the difference between a goldfish and a dog or a cat? They are both animals people keep as pets.
Some people keep ants as pets, should I go to jail for stepping on one? The whole "pet" idea is just downright retarded, some animals aren't worth more than other animals just because people collectively decide they are fun to have in the house.
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger. Their memory is extremly short, lasting 5-10 seconds. It's abit different then dogs and cats. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
How about you bother to actually read the freaking source you post as evidence.
"Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors and sounds"
While I was reading it my brother asked why I was reading it, I told him why and he said they got that extremly short memory, his and my fault, sorry will edit.
Sounds to me like you have the attention span of a goldf.... wait a sec... :O
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
I regularly consume meat, and I said I found the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting behavior. What happens in the food industry is something I can't do anything about, and I look down on the people who torture animals for their own amusement.
I fail to see how eating a goldfish the way he did is any different than eating any other raw fish.
For fucks sake people, I really don't understand people who care about what other people eat. It's none of your fucking business at all.
I get the activists who want the treatment of animals to be upgraded - some of the shit is repulsive - but what this man has done is absolutely fine. Does he have to kill the fish, gut it, and put it on a frying pan first before eating for it to be OK?
ok. I don't think it makes a big difference alive or dead. Eaten in the wild alive all the time right? Not the biggest deal, but holy crap is that gross. I am sorry he may think he's funny or maybe he makes a lot of money and thinks he's internet famous, but have some fucking dignity man. Other ways to make money than to become that kid in grade school that eats glue because he thinks it makes him popular, but all the other kids are laughing at him not with him. Eww. Just my personal opinion.
On April 23 2012 18:36 Tanukki wrote: I guess the problem is how he makes a spectacle out of eating strange animals. Not that I really care. Goldfish are pretty dumb anyways, they will even kill each other and eat their own babies if you once forget to feed them correctly. So I guess if you forget or are unable to feed your pets for some reason, you should go to jail too.
Well, they are still capable of feeling pain. Although I still feel like he's an idiot, the RSPCA is more so, for doing things like attempting to bring Mario to justice over the skinning of tanooki.
Edit: I wrote that entirely without realizing your username.
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
I regularly consume meat, and I said I found the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting behavior. What happens in the food industry is something I can't do anything about, and I look down on the people who torture animals for their own amusement.
Agree with you completely. Most people here are obviously not seeing that there is a difference between eating/killing animals because you're hungry and want/need to eat something and purposely doing harm to an animal for the pure "value" (which I personally do not see, but well) of entertainment. He could have eaten his goldfish if he needed to because he was hungry or whatever, there's no problem with that. The problem lies in eating the goldfish and filming it just for the fun of it.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered? Does the fact that the animal is dead but suffered in the past change things?
On April 23 2012 18:31 SolHeiM wrote:What is the difference between a goldfish and a dog or a cat? They are both animals people keep as pets.
Some people keep ants as pets, should I go to jail for stepping on one? The whole "pet" idea is just downright retarded, some animals aren't worth more than other animals just because people collectively decide they are fun to have in the house.
No, you think some animals are worth less than others. That doesn't make it a fact, only your opinion. If you keep anything as a pet and are intentionally cruel to it, then yes I put you in the same category as the guy who are the live goldfish.
Jailtime for killing insects, accidentally or not is not the same as torturing pets.
The thing is if you come to Thailand or go to Hong Kong or China, you will see a restaurant that serve some stuff that are still alive. For example, shrimp or fish. It is very normal here.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
They can sue a whole city in Belgium then, some city in Belgium has this as a yearly tradition
edit : just found where it's done again, the city is called "Geraardsbergen". And it's even accepted by UNICEF as a world heritage, not the fish eating itself ofcourse, it's just a part of "krakelingen". A tradition that gets done every year
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
What the hell. Why would you want to eat a goldfish anyway, a raw one as well thats so stupid. Why does he do what he does btw? Just for "entertainment values"? or is it because he is proving that there is good protein or something in these ceatures/animal bits? I have seen the likes of Bear Grylls eat disgusting things, but he has many a reason, normally he is starving and showing you how to survive in the wild and that "x" has high protein levels or "y" is great mineral source and should be consumed because of it. Not because its "funny".
I think what this dude is doing is sick. And the argument, alot of other animals have it worse it stupid really. We humans really treat animals with too little respect.
Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs. And it is proven that fish can feel pain.
This is animal cruelty... I would like to live in a world where animal cruelty is punished.
So Bear Grylls eating live fish is okey because he is trying to "survive" even if he is doing that for amusement of show viewers and this guy can go to jail for eating Goldfish? I am disgusted by people who would send this man to jail for THIS. I, sometimes, really don't want to live on this planet anymore.
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
"U a vegetarian, bro?"
*facepalm*
You obviously didn't get it. I am not a vegetarian.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs. And it is proven that fish can feel pain.
Source? This is the kind of claim that needs to be backed up. And since you're the one presenting it, it's on you to provide some source material.
On April 23 2012 18:52 whiterabbit wrote: So Bear Grylls eating live fish is okey because he is trying to "survive" even if he is doing that for amusement of show viewers and this guy can go to jail for eating Goldfish? I am disgusted by people who would send this man to jail for THIS. I, sometimes, really don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I would assure you that Bear Grylls would not consume a goldfish when it's alive. He would kill it first. And he's not doing it for his own amusement, he is making an educational documentary series on survival. He doesn't eat a goldfish alive and then put it on youtube for shits'n'giggles.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs.
Nonsense ...
Haha you narrow-minded fool...
Why don't you read about it ? Or study fish yourself?
Saying nonsense without any reasons or research yourself is weak
I just did a study recently where i tested the intelligence of goldfish so not only have i read countless of studies of the subject but i also have personal experience of this.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs. And it is proven that fish can feel pain.
Source? This is the kind of claim that needs to be backed up. And since you're the one presenting it, it's on you to provide some source material.
Okay if you guys are to dumb to use google I'll guess I'll do it.
On April 23 2012 18:41 Rickson wrote: I fail to see how eating a goldfish the way he did is any different than eating any other raw fish.
For fucks sake people, I really don't understand people who care about what other people eat. It's none of your fucking business at all.
I get the activists who want the treatment of animals to be upgraded - some of the shit is repulsive - but what this man has done is absolutely fine. Does he have to kill the fish, gut it, and put it on a frying pan first before eating for it to be OK?
You can't see how torture is different from killing? Are you for real?
He is causing unnecessary suffering and pain for the goldfish. If he wanted to eat the goldfish there are ways of killing goldfish that are relatively painless for them.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
There is so much fail in this...
HOW THEY DARE TO HOUNT FOR THEYR OWN AMUSMENT JAIL THEM!!
really man. there was no tortureing on that video. He did nothing over every sunday huner or casual fisherman do in theyr free time. People shuld grow up.
On April 23 2012 18:41 Rickson wrote: I fail to see how eating a goldfish the way he did is any different than eating any other raw fish.
For fucks sake people, I really don't understand people who care about what other people eat. It's none of your fucking business at all.
I get the activists who want the treatment of animals to be upgraded - some of the shit is repulsive - but what this man has done is absolutely fine. Does he have to kill the fish, gut it, and put it on a frying pan first before eating for it to be OK?
You can't see how torture is different from killing? Are you for real?
He is causing unnecessary suffering and pain for the goldfish. If he wanted to eat the goldfish there are ways of killing goldfish that are relatively painless for them.
so what about cooking a lobster? is it torture? (as they are thrown into boiling water while still alive) and is that ok because there is no way to get the same flavor ...
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
I think you have a good heart and your intentions are good. But I think you missed my point. We as humans do not need to eat meat. In fact it is probably more affordable to practice healthy eating while avoiding meat. However we support industries where cattle are slaughtered so that we can eat meat which is more enjoyable. The life of cattle from living conditions to their inevitable slaughter is cruel. It is probably even more cruel than a goldfish being eaten alive. I have an issue seing how you find the breeding of animals in cruel conditions and eventually slaughtering them isn't killing them for our amusement. There are alternatives that are healthier, but we rather eat meat because it is more "amusing".
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
I think you have a good heart and your intentions are good. But I think you missed my point. We as humans do not need to eat meat. In fact it is probably more affordable to practice healthy eating while avoiding meat. However I support industries where cattle are slaughtered so that I can eat meat which is more enjoyable. The life of cattle from living conditions to their inevitable slaughter is cruel. It is probably even more cruel than a goldfish being eaten alive. I have an issue seing how you find breeding of animals in cruel conditions and eventually slaughtering them isn't killing them for our amusement. There are alternatives that are healthier, but we rather eat meat because it is more "amusing".
I'm saying I find the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting. People eat because we need nourishment in order to survive. Killing of animals for food as long as you do it humanely is fine.
You're trying to put words in my mouth by trying to manipulate the word "amusement". I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the cruel conditions in quite a few cattle farms, or whatever you call them, are for our amusement the same way a circus is for our amusement. I don't think anyone who went and watched what happened in those places would find that in any way amusing. If they do, then that's a shame.
I actually think that the most fishs eat their food (for example other fishs) alive. Kinda weird that humans need to treat some animals better than those treat each other.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
really man. there was no tortureing on that video. He did nothing over every sunday huner or casual fisherman do in theyr free time. People shuld grow up.
There was one of those ducks or geese who got shot, and they didn't kill it while it was in the air. That one suffered. And they went out killing those geese for their own amusement. They did if because they thought it was funny. One of those guys even says so in the video.
If you go out and hunt or fish where the primary reason behind it is to eat, and you to the best of your ability prevent the animal from suffering while you kill it is a thousand times more commendable than what those people did in the duck/geese hunt video.
Absolutely fucking disgusting behavior and is in no way comparable to what the majority of people who hunt and fish for food do.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day. .
That is absurdly hypocritical.
By eating the meat of non-human animals you presumably find it acceptable to have animals killed for the sole purpose that you can enjoy their meat. You are presumably not starving, nor malnourished and have the freedom to choose other 'non-suffering' forms of nutrition. Your decision to eat meat is a fulfillment of an arbitrary preference: some might say, for your 'amusement'.
Chomping up a fish is probably going to end all sense experience (due to utterly destroying its brain) within the first three bites (~1-2 seconds), yet putting the bolt through a cow's head is likely to do much less overall damage, thus potentially prolonging its conscious experience of suffering.
I see no difference to this and any other form of meat eating, aside from the fact that it presents a condensed and uncensored portrayal of the journey from living animal to dead food.
Well we eat raw live octopus, where is the government going to fine and put us in jail? Its not a vertebrate but it still squirms and offers plenty of resistance. Pointless, just give him a small fine and be over with it. Something of this nature gets a jail sentence... Seriously?
On April 23 2012 19:08 Animeghost wrote: Eating live raw oysters is done all around the world and considered a delicacy. What's the difference.
They don't squirm.
It's pretty gross, not that he should be punished for it.
Live Octopus is a delicacy in Japan and Korea. And believe you me it squirms.
Don't they usually cut the brain off or w/e before its served? Not sure if you could class that as 'live'.
The specialty of the dish is that the tentacles are served immediately after chopping them off. It takes a while for it to really "die". You basically let it squirm in the seasoning / sauce to get an even coating effortlessly and chow down. Sometimes you can even feel a bit of suction from the tentacle.
On April 23 2012 18:58 Zorgaz wrote: Haha you narrow-minded fool...
On April 23 2012 18:58 Zorgaz wrote: Okay if you guys are to dumb to use google I'll guess I'll do it.
what an awful attitude..
OT: don't fall for this media hype.. i cant imagine any court taking this serious. he kills it before eating it as some has stated already, there are sooo many way more questionable things to discuss about, i cant belive that this gets so much attention.
Man it's such a hipocrisy, japanese slaughter thousands of dolphins and wales when there are internacional laws that forbid this, they don't get jail time or fines!
This guy eats a fucking goldfish that he bought and he might get fined or jailed?
On April 23 2012 19:19 nennx wrote: pets are your property and you should be able to do with them as you please
if someone does something fucked up to their pets the law really shouldn't be involved in any major form (no jail time)
Man some many people on TL sicken me.
Amazed so many here are this ignorant, oh well guess I'll stay away from the General forums for a while...
Apparently thinking that the law shouldn't be in every aspect of our lives is somehow ignorance. Most people have the decency to know when something is right or wrong, and the people who don't are going to do things regardless of the law or not
On April 23 2012 19:19 nennx wrote: pets are your property and you should be able to do with them as you please
if someone does something fucked up to their pets the law really shouldn't be involved in any major form (no jail time)
Except, you know, they are ALIVE CREATURES, not your property. Would it be fine if I'd eat my dog alive? Or cut off his legs and let him slowly bleed to death? No, because it's fucking sick and cruel to a living being for no reason whatsoever. It's disgusting you would even think this.
On April 23 2012 19:19 nennx wrote: pets are your property and you should be able to do with them as you please
if someone does something fucked up to their pets the law really shouldn't be involved in any major form (no jail time)
Man some many people on TL sicken me.
Amazed so many here are this ignorant, oh well guess I'll stay away from the General forums for a while...
Apparently thinking that the law shouldn't be in every aspect of our lives is somehow ignorance. Most people have the decency to know when something is right or wrong, and the people who don't are going to do things regardless of the law or not
Alright, so we don't need to punish murder either? Or rape? That's all fine, because most people won't do it, right? Seriously.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day. .
That is absurdly hypocritical.
By eating the meat of non-human animals you presumably find it acceptable to have animals killed for the sole purpose that you can enjoy their meat. You are presumably not starving, nor malnourished and have the freedom to choose other 'non-suffering' forms of nutrition. Your decision to eat meat is a fulfillment of an arbitrary preference: some might say, for your 'amusement'.
Chomping up a fish is probably going to end all sense experience (due to utterly destroying its brain) within the first three bites (~1-2 seconds), yet putting the bolt through a cow's head is likely to do much less overall damage, thus potentially prolonging its conscious experience of suffering.
I see no difference to this and any other form of meat eating, aside from the fact that it presents a condensed and uncensored portrayal of the journey from living animal to dead food.
It's not hypocritical. Killing animals humanely is fine in my eyes. Torture is not. There is a big difference between killing an animal quickly, and running after an animal with a rusty pick-axe, stabbing it every now and then and having it die several hours later form blood loss and exhaustion, even if you ate it afterwards. One of those scenarios is acceptable, because one is not based on torture and cruelty to animals for ones own amusement.
Torture, or inhumane killings of any animals, like say dissolving a fish in acid for example, is disgusting.
Don't get me wrong it's stupid to kill a animal for "fun" or to show off but it's even more stupid to expect someone to get jail time or a big fine for that when we see animals being treated like they are all over the world and then try to pin the guilt on this guy with his goldfish..
What about the spanish king killing elephants in the wild? isn't this worse?
What about the mass murder of sharks to eat a god damn fin that doesn't even taste that good?
On April 23 2012 19:08 Animeghost wrote: Eating live raw oysters is done all around the world and considered a delicacy. What's the difference.
They don't squirm.
It's pretty gross, not that he should be punished for it.
Live Octopus is a delicacy in Japan and Korea. And believe you me it squirms.
Don't they usually cut the brain off or w/e before its served? Not sure if you could class that as 'live'.
The specialty of the dish is that the tentacles are served immediately after chopping them off. It takes a while for it to really "die". You basically let it squirm in the seasoning / sauce to get an even coating effortlessly and chow down. Sometimes you can even feel a bit of suction from the tentacle.
Hmm, not sure if its alive though, in the sense of the word that suggests the creature itself is actually 'squirming' consciously. I thought it was a nerves thing, much like with many animals etc twitching/moving long after 'death'. Imo, once the brain is removed/ destroyed, the creature is no longer alive.
Perhaps I am wrong ofc. If so then that is also a bit strange. Not saying its sick or cruel, just strange to me. I wouldn't fancy eating something quite that raw :D
On April 23 2012 19:19 nennx wrote: pets are your property and you should be able to do with them as you please
if someone does something fucked up to their pets the law really shouldn't be involved in any major form (no jail time)
Except, you know, they are ALIVE CREATURES, not your property. Would it be fine if I'd eat my dog alive? Or cut off his legs and let him slowly bleed to death? No, because it's fucking sick and cruel to a living being for no reason whatsoever. It's disgusting you would even think this.
We shouldn't say moral correctness = law. If I want to be a fucked up piece of shit with my dog, I should be able to do that if I want. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. If we want to think of dogs as living capable things maybe we shouldn't be buying/selling/breeding them like property. I would never abuse my animals, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to do it if I want to.
On April 23 2012 19:08 Animeghost wrote: Eating live raw oysters is done all around the world and considered a delicacy. What's the difference.
They don't squirm.
It's pretty gross, not that he should be punished for it.
Live Octopus is a delicacy in Japan and Korea. And believe you me it squirms.
Don't they usually cut the brain off or w/e before its served? Not sure if you could class that as 'live'.
The specialty of the dish is that the tentacles are served immediately after chopping them off. It takes a while for it to really "die". You basically let it squirm in the seasoning / sauce to get an even coating effortlessly and chow down. Sometimes you can even feel a bit of suction from the tentacle.
Hmm, not sure if its alive though, in the sense of the word that suggests the creature itself is actually 'squirming' consciously. I thought it was a nerves thing, much like with many animals etc twitching/moving long after 'death'. Imo, once the brain is removed/ destroyed, the creature is no longer alive.
Perhaps I am wrong ofc. If so then that is also a bit strange. Not saying its sick or cruel, just strange to me. I wouldn't fancy eating something quite that raw :D
Well it's chopped off a live octopus (which is why it would still squirm), so the people running the "cruel" argument might have a stab at it.
Personally I think torture is not ok, but eating any animal is fine. This case was more of the latter. It's not like he took a pencil and pierced the crap out of the fish. I know some people who've done sicker things to much cuter animals and nothing's happened to them.
It's all fun and games until someone (or something) gets hurt, right?
20,000 pounds is a fuck ton of money. He would deserve the fine if he ate a live mouse or something, but a goldfish, not so much. There are restaurants in the States that serve octopus so fresh the tentacles are still moving when you're putting it into your mouth. What's the difference between killing something 60 seconds before you eat it, and killing something while you're eating it? Or steaming a live lobster slowly to death?
Then again, from a food perspective it's one thing to eat something because you (or at least someone) think it tastes good, and another to eat something because you can say you ate it (to someone who would be grossed out by the idea).
On April 23 2012 19:27 shell wrote: Don't get me wrong it's stupid to kill a animal for "fun" or to show off but it's even more stupid to expect someone to get jail time or a big fine for that when we see animals being treated like they are all over the world and then try to pin the guilt on this guy with his goldfish..
What about the spanish king killing elephants in the wild? isn't this worse?
What about the mass murder of sharks to eat a god damn fin that doesn't even taste that good?
Please.. stop it..
Do you really, honestly, think nobody is upset about those? Because, if you do, you haven't been on here for very long. Just because worse things are happening in the world does not mean we should tolerate other terrible things. That's seriously backward logic.
On April 23 2012 19:19 nennx wrote: pets are your property and you should be able to do with them as you please
if someone does something fucked up to their pets the law really shouldn't be involved in any major form (no jail time)
Except, you know, they are ALIVE CREATURES, not your property. Would it be fine if I'd eat my dog alive? Or cut off his legs and let him slowly bleed to death? No, because it's fucking sick and cruel to a living being for no reason whatsoever. It's disgusting you would even think this.
I hate retards who think moral correctness = law. If I want to be a fucked up piece of shit with my dog, I should be able to do that if I want. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. If we want to think of dogs as living capable things maybe we shouldn't be buying/selling/breeding them like property. I would never abuse my animals, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to do it if I want to.
Agreed. It's great when the law can be justified on additional moral grounds, but it's horrible to use as a sole basis.
Morals change over time. Good law transcends it so long as there is a society.
Alright, so we don't need to punish murder either? Or rape? That's all fine, because most people won't do it, right? Seriously.
We shouldn't need to punish for "animal murder" or "animal rape" unless its towards an animal you don't own yourself. Lets not mix up humans and animals here.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day. .
That is absurdly hypocritical.
By eating the meat of non-human animals you presumably find it acceptable to have animals killed for the sole purpose that you can enjoy their meat. You are presumably not starving, nor malnourished and have the freedom to choose other 'non-suffering' forms of nutrition. Your decision to eat meat is a fulfillment of an arbitrary preference: some might say, for your 'amusement'.
Chomping up a fish is probably going to end all sense experience (due to utterly destroying its brain) within the first three bites (~1-2 seconds), yet putting the bolt through a cow's head is likely to do much less overall damage, thus potentially prolonging its conscious experience of suffering.
I see no difference to this and any other form of meat eating, aside from the fact that it presents a condensed and uncensored portrayal of the journey from living animal to dead food.
It's not hypocritical. Killing animals humanely is fine in my eyes. Torture is not. There is a big difference between killing an animal quickly, and running after an animal with a rusty pick-axe, stabbing it every now and then and having it die several hours later form blood loss and exhaustion, even if you ate it afterwards. One of those scenarios is acceptable, because one is not based on torture and cruelty to animals for ones own amusement.
Torture, or inhumane killings of any animals, like say dissolving a fish in acid for example, is disgusting.
If the meat industry qualifies as humane then the actions within this video are humane. A man put a fish in his mouth, chomped it a couple times, then swallowed it. The fish was alive and well, suffered a brief moment of pain, then died. Compare that scenario to the use of "factory farming" eggs by use of battery cages (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage) or broilers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broilers).
I find the case in question to be of no significance when compared to the mentioned practices of large parts of the poultry/egg business. I thus adjust my 'outrage' accordingly.
If you wanna be an idiot in public, better think about what you're doing. If eating live things is forbidden, do it silently or don't do it at all.
And yes, i find it disgusting.It's a way of entertaining people which i don't find ethical.You also don't feed living animals to snakes and such.
To his defense however, he should pay a moderate fine. He won't do it again, so there's really no point of putting him into jail or something.Law is simply ridiculous at times, it should change behaviors, not just do something destructive with your life, lots of potential wasted.
I've seen porn where they put about 300 goldfish into a blender, blended them, put them into stockings and had a girl wear them while being molested by a creepy asian guy. I don't know where I was going with that but the fact that the guy is getting jailed and fined is downright stupid. I guess we have to appease the sensationalists though.
More horrible things should deserve more attention than this bullshit.
To waste time arguing about how you should eat a goldfish, when 1000000 times more horrible things in the world is going on. Why don't we debate however kids that tears the wings of flies should be punished too?
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Have you seen half the way animals kill each other in the wild? Nature is fucken cruel and sick if you actually look at what other animals do to each other.
Why do you think the phrase "Damn nature, you scary", exists?
On April 23 2012 18:16 Thylacine wrote: Louis has eaten alot of disgusting things, including raw pigs eyeballs, blended raw bulls testicle(and a solid one), blended mice and live tarantulas and put it on youtube, but none of those animals we're against the law to eat alive.
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Have you seen half the way animals kill each other in the wild? Nature is fucken cruel and sick if you actually look at what other animals do to each other.
Why do you think the phrase "Damn nature, you scary", exists?
so you are an animal but only when it suits your purpose. very nice logic there.
if animals do it, it's ok for humans to do it too. if animals don't do it, well ... fuck them, we're humans. we can do what we want because we're the superior race.
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.
On April 23 2012 18:16 Thylacine wrote: Louis has eaten alot of disgusting things, including raw pigs eyeballs, blended raw bulls testicle(and a solid one), blended mice and live tarantulas and put it on youtube, but none of those animals we're against the law to eat alive.
Did the guy blend mice alive ? o.o
Hahahah, no ofcourse not. Now THAT would be sick. ^^
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Have you seen half the way animals kill each other in the wild? Nature is fucken cruel and sick if you actually look at what other animals do to each other.
Why do you think the phrase "Damn nature, you scary", exists?
so you are an animal but only when it suits your purpose. very nice logic there.
if animals do it, it's ok for humans to do it too. if animals don't do it, well ... fuck them, we're humans. we can do what we want because we're the superior race.
.....What?
Explain your point because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
On April 23 2012 18:31 SolHeiM wrote:What is the difference between a goldfish and a dog or a cat? They are both animals people keep as pets.
Some people keep ants as pets, should I go to jail for stepping on one? The whole "pet" idea is just downright retarded, some animals aren't worth more than other animals just because people collectively decide they are fun to have in the house.
No, you think some animals are worth less than others. That doesn't make it a fact, only your opinion. If you keep anything as a pet and are intentionally cruel to it, then yes I put you in the same category as the guy who are the live goldfish.
Jailtime for killing insects, accidentally or not is not the same as torturing pets.
Wrong, my very point is that some animals are not worth more than others. It's retarded people who say it's a huge difference between eating a pig and eating a dog, because dogs are pets... which is dumb, because pigs are pets as well, it's a difference idiots make up because they can't handle the fact that pigs are just as much alive as dogs are. Don't make a distinction based on animals being pets or not, they are just animals regardless.
On April 23 2012 19:41 Cattivik wrote: If you wanna be an idiot in public, better think about what you're doing. If eating live things is forbidden, do it silently or don't do it at all.
And yes, i find it disgusting.It's a way of entertaining people which i don't find ethical.You also don't feed living animals to snakes and such.
To his defense however, he should pay a moderate fine. He won't do it again, so there's really no point of putting him into jail or something.Law is simply ridiculous at times, it should change behaviors, not just do something destructive with your life, lots of potential wasted.
Err you do feed live animals to snakes... its pretty common. Eating a live goldfish is unnecessary but it is no worse than how we kill fish to eat them. Some people let them suffocate, one quick chop seems more humane to me. Some bash them on the head, still about the same level of humaneness as just biting it. Some put them on ice which some consider the most humane method, death by hyperthermia. Its a pick of quite bad options. There is no nice way to kill something. I don't see why biting the brain and smashing it with a blunt object should be different. Both can be messed up and go wrong. Both willl kill it quick.
Haven't seen any of his videos but from my point of view this is being made too big of a deal. And what is with the punishment? 20k or going to jail for eating a goldfish doesn't soud reasonable. If you want animal rights to be taken seriously don't punish people with such ridiculous penalties
On April 23 2012 19:53 Egyptian_Head wrote: Err you do feed live animals to snakes... its pretty common. Eating a live goldfish is unnecessary but it is no worse than how we kill fish to eat them. Some people let them suffocate, one quick chop seems more humane to me. Some bash them on the head, still about the same level of humaneness as just biting it. Some put them on ice which some consider the most humane method, death by hyperthermia. Its a pick of quite bad options. There is no nice way to kill something. I don't see why biting the brain and smashing it with a blunt object should be different. Both can be messed up and go wrong. Both willl kill it quick.
You sure are right about the fact that the killing method is quick and painless, and that there is worse that that, but my points are that:
- He wants to entertain people with it. - What you actually might find entertaining doesn't put you into the best light.
Until here it's a matter of taste, now to a simple example of why he is an idiot.
If you are a stoner in a country where weed is illegal, you are morally on the right side for the majority of people... As long as you don't get on anybodys nerves with it. So, smoke your joint at home and you're right and smart. Smoke your joint in front of some cops and you're an idiot going on their nerves.You made a choice.Now deal with it.
If this guy wants to go public with something which is illegal where he's living, he now has to deal with it.
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?
On April 23 2012 19:53 Egyptian_Head wrote: Err you do feed live animals to snakes... its pretty common. Eating a live goldfish is unnecessary but it is no worse than how we kill fish to eat them. Some people let them suffocate, one quick chop seems more humane to me. Some bash them on the head, still about the same level of humaneness as just biting it. Some put them on ice which some consider the most humane method, death by hyperthermia. Its a pick of quite bad options. There is no nice way to kill something. I don't see why biting the brain and smashing it with a blunt object should be different. Both can be messed up and go wrong. Both willl kill it quick.
You sure are right about the fact that the killing method is quick and painless, and that there is worse that that, but my points are that:
- He wants to entertain people with it. - What you actually might find entertaining doesn't put you into the best light.
Until here it's a matter of taste, now to a simple example of why he is an idiot.
If you are a stoner in a country where weed is illegal, you are morally on the right side for the majority of people... As long as you don't get on anybodys nerves with it. So, smoke your joint at home and you're right and smart. Smoke your joint in front of some cops and you're an idiot going on their nerves.You made a choice.Now deal with it.
If this guy wants to go public with something which is illegal where he's living, he now has to deal with it.
On April 23 2012 20:04 gruff wrote: I'm a bit surprised youtube haven't removed the video yet since they seem to have adopted the "we don't want any people to get offended" policy.
"This video has been age-restricted based on our Community Guidelines" says Youtube, logging is required and at beginning of video you have big warnning.
2) If goldfish are considered worthy of being protected from cruelty, then all is lost. We should shut down the cruelty that occurs from our major poultry and red meat sources. Should we move along the animal hierarchy and say killing flies/ants is an arrestable offense? No we shouldn't, and if we want to protect goldfish then we should also protect cattle and chickens.
On April 23 2012 20:04 gruff wrote: I'm a bit surprised youtube haven't removed the video yet since they seem to have adopted the "we don't want any people to get offended" policy.
"This video has been age-restricted based on our Community Guidelines" says Youtube, logging is required and at beginning of video you have big warnning.
Yes I saw that, that wasn't my point.
There's been videos removed by youtube for doing things way less offensive than this. I'm not saying I want it removed but with youtubes policy lately of removing anything that gets people riled up (especially the ones that get press time) I'm a bit surprised they let it stay.
There's gold fish dying all the time because people are retarded and can't feed them/change the water/etc. That seems more like cruelty than simply killing them by a bite.
Also if you think this is wrong why should fishing be allowed? Letting fish suffocate of knock them on the head to kill them isn't exactly more humane. Is it just because it's a "pet" fish?
So he can't bite off it's head and kill it instantly like he did.
But he can lay it down on a table and cut it's head off or let it suffocate to death, then eat it.
I really dont see the difference, none of these options sound more humane than the other. I think most people are just offended that it was a goldfish and not a sirloin.
Well, my opinion is probably nothing new to this thread. It's a bit disgusting, pretty stupid and very weird. Is it worth jailtime? no. Is it worth $20k? no.
I don't get it. People throw live fishes (and other things) into boiling hot oil to deep fry them and it's okay to do that but not eat it live? It's it more painful/cruel to do that instead of killing it instantly by biting it's head off?
On April 23 2012 20:00 Cattivik wrote: You sure are right about the fact that the killing method is quick and painless, and that there is worse that that, but my points are that:
- He wants to entertain people with it. - What you actually might find entertaining doesn't put you into the best light.
Until here it's a matter of taste, now to a simple example of why he is an idiot.
If you are a stoner in a country where weed is illegal, you are morally on the right side for the majority of people... As long as you don't get on anybodys nerves with it. So, smoke your joint at home and you're right and smart. Smoke your joint in front of some cops and you're an idiot going on their nerves.You made a choice.Now deal with it.
If this guy wants to go public with something which is illegal where he's living, he now has to deal with it.
Great analogy.
Not really, he's missing the point. No one's saying that violating a law on Youtube is a bright idea. The point being made is that the law that he's breaking is completely stupid in the first place.
On April 23 2012 20:21 CluEleSs_UK wrote: Well, my opinion is probably nothing new to this thread. It's a bit disgusting, pretty stupid and very weird. Is it worth jailtime? no. Is it worth $20k? no.
GUYS I don't think he has actually been fined 20k or threatened with jail? Has he been sentenced? I thought it just said the RSPCA was investigating him. So many times people complain about the maximum tariff without realising that it's very possible he won't be sentenced anything like as harshly.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
For amusement or the purpose of eating them shouldn't make a difference, so yes you are a hypocrite. You are doing the exact same thing as the people who say don't mind it happening to goldfish but for other animals it would be worse. Actually what you are doing is much worse because you are trying to claim the moral high ground when you actually have none.
I'm really against what he did. The fact it was alive is what bothers me. I understand why other people wouldn't agree with me though. People eat fish all the time. I just think that it's messed up (my opinion).
But I don't agree with the punishment. It's a little much for something like that.
I think what he did is cruel to the gold fish (drowning in acid example) and just retarded. Should he be punished? meh. How about a 500 dollar fine and a last warning?
Jail Sentence is too severe for this case. And I'm saying that as a vegetarian
On April 23 2012 20:16 Psychobabas wrote: Sue him!!! Sue him and put him to prison with the other criminals!!!!
Right after we solve world hunger and wars...
This. It's a matter of perspective. If the legal system and the public opinion considers killing a goldfish by biting (instead of killing it by letting it suffocate) important enough to waste time, resources and publicity then something is terribly wrong.
People die every day by desease, starvation and war in countries of the third world. People are starving every day in the cities of the "developed" world. People lose their jobs every day and their homes are confiscated by banks, because of the economical system imbalances. Animals live in absolutely horrifying and unhygienic conditions before being slaughtered. Earth is being overpopulated with the population's projection showing that the population will be inevitably drastically reduced either by a global disaster, famine or disease. etc.. etc... etc....
And people seriously care about an attention seeking hipster eating a fish? But that's just the easy way out. If you want to be an "activist" you go for the easy targets and sleep with your conscience clear. Pathetic.
(As for my personal opinion, the guy is kind of sick but everyone who watched the video has a part of the responsibility. Don't watch and he disappears into oblivion. He is the product of the millions who like to watch him, because of cruelty, curiosity or to flame him)
Love the people saying the fish drowned in acid, when it CLEARLY says in the article that he chewed it and theres even pictures of him chewing it thorougly before swallowing it. Read the article before talking, atleast.
I'm pretty sure having your head bitten off and then being eaten is a lot less painful then having a hook go through your cheek, suffocating, then being gutted. Or being shot in the forest and then having your throat slit and bleeding out. If this is illegal, so should recreational fishing and hunting.
I am physically disgusted and upset to my stomach that people are even considering punishing him in anyway whatsoever. Who the F are we to judge what he does with his .30c goldfish?
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no Live eating so it'S like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or Animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to Kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
For amusement or the purpose of eating them shouldn't make a difference, so yes you are a hypocrite. You are doing the exact same thing as the people WhO say don't mind it happening to Goldfish but for other animals it would be worse. Actually What you are doing is much worse because you are trying to claim the moral high ground when you Actually have none.
I don't agree if he is jailed or fined. He screwed up because he was killing an Animal(however small or big) for entertainment, Which I assume is a crime and RSPCA is trying to justify within the law that was the case. Its up to a judge to find (if any)the appropriate punishment.
But saying all this, the reason why you kill an animal does make a difference in my opinion. That is why you can Kill people in self-defense and not go the jail but you are not allowed to murder someone. The endproduct is the same but very different situations.
Double Moral to infinity. Systematical animal cruelity is normal on daily bases what the fuck is wrong with the people. Still this dude is crazy but the punishment is ridicolous.
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.
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!
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.
This is why I hate all animal rights activists, making something so trivial into such a huge deal. If all the people/resources/funds these organizations have went to helping ya know MANKIND maybe the world would be a better place...maybe
It's a goddamn goldfish. Most Koreans and Japanese that enjoy sushi, that I know personally, have eaten half live fish at one time or another. Most have enjoyed it... Are they terrible cruel people? I swear, he could have eaten his own amputated arm and gotten less press...
Oh fuck, I've eaten alot of fish alive in my whole life. I bet the whole population of Korea and/or Japan would go to jail for their sashimi and stuff like that.
In all seriousness, people should find better things to do instead of bullshit like this. He may be a sick bastard to do something like this and post them on youtube, but 20k fine or jail time? No way in hell.
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
On April 23 2012 22:03 Lumi wrote: 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.
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.
yeah i was just going to say that, people tend to care more if the animals killed are "cute" or lovable. Scorpion or tarantula eaten? no probs, but not goldfish!
Funny, I've actually changed my mind about this. If it's okay to eat a live fish for no reason, why not a dog? How about a cat? Or better yet a newborn puppy, that would definitely fit in his mouth. Tell me what's wrong with that. What's so special about fish that it's okay to eat them on camera but not a household pet? Oh right, everyone's scared about the government and laws. But suppose someone went to a country where eating a puppy live would be legal and filmed it. There's no way you're not a hypocrite if you'd be against someone chowing down on a dog but not a fish. Come on, they're just both animals right? Don't be a wussy, there's nothing to be worried about here, right?
And if nothing else, I'm pissed off that there's actually some jackass who gets off eating crap because he's not talented enough to do anything actually worth viewing. He's eating invertebrates and eyeballs for Christ's sake, you don't need to be an Olympic gold medalist to do that. Plus it's just plain idiotic; it's really no different than a guy who jumps off his roof or whatever then lays on the ground moaning in agony. There are videos of that crap too and they're not one bit more funny or clever in any way. Give me a goddamn break.
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.
Well then...that was completely disgusting and immoral on both the individual and the authorities. I think the guy should get out of jail and be fined but there is no way I am going out of my way to save stupidity.
The next step is then to do something about the factory farms.
EDIT - Fuck me...he should not be fined at all since I put alive worms on my fishing hook all the time. It does not change the fact that he is stupid and deserves no help though.
On April 23 2012 21:46 Caphe wrote: Oh fuck, I've eaten alot of fish alive in my whole life. I bet the whole population of Korea and/or Japan would go to jail for their sashimi and stuff like that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQm0loI2XS8 + Show Spoiler +
In all seriousness, people should find better things to do instead of bullshit like this. He may be a sick bastard to do something like this and post them on youtube, but 20k fine or jail time? No way in hell.
On April 23 2012 22:27 Areon wrote: And if nothing else, I'm pissed off that there's actually some jackass who gets off eating crap because he's not talented enough to do anything actually worth viewing. He's eating invertebrates and eyeballs for Christ's sake, you don't need to be an Olympic gold medalist to do that. Plus it's just plain idiotic; it's really no different than a guy who jumps off his roof or whatever then lays on the ground moaning in agony. There are videos of that crap too and they're not one bit more funny or clever in any way. Give me a goddamn break.
Grats, you have a problem with 80% of entertainment today. Not saying it's bad, I'm actually in agreement with you. But that's just my opinion, and its not factually correct (hint).
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.
Which is nothing that should have any effect on the legal side of a matter.
Most of the people i know think calfs are cute (some even find cows cute) bute love eating steaks, meat, ...
The problem with our society is, that most people get oh so sensitive when they see something which disgusts them, but are apparently able to turn their brain off whenever they want to. So all the disgusting stuff does not happen in a way where people see it, and commonly it is agreed upon that this makes disgusting stuff disappear somehow...
(Vote): No punishment at all (Vote): Video should be deleted (Vote): Smal fine (~500$) (Vote): Fine (~4000$) (Vote): Mayor Fine (12.000$+) (Vote): Jail Time (Vote): Death (Vote): Torture followed by death (Vote): Support (he is a badass) (Vote): No allowens to buy or own any living thing. (Vote): Psychological check (maybe a threatment)
Probably not enough Options
Note to self: never add troll answers... Torture followed by death you guys cant be serious...
So does it have to do anything with the fact that it's his pet? Biting its head off is just like killing a fish before cooking it any other way, which would make all fishing illegal.
On April 23 2012 22:39 Cheerio wrote: So does it have to do anything with the fact that it's his pet? Biting its head off is just like killing a fish before cooking it any other way, which would make all fishing illegal.
It is not his pet. Watch the clip. Dailymail just loves adding to drama.
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.
Are you a vegetarian? If not you should become one so you can try to maintain the moral highground. By purchasing the common meat you find in the supermarket you are supporting the acts that are involved in making that meat availalbe to you. Just because you are not directly committing the cruel acts that happen in slaughterhouse does not make you any better if you have a healthier/affordable/obtainable alternative to the meat.
I regularly consume meat, and I said I found the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting behavior. What happens in the food industry is something I can't do anything about, and I look down on the people who torture animals for their own amusement.
So if that person ate the gold fish in the exact same way but did it because he actually wanted to eat it, would that not be considered torture then? I don't see how eating a live goldfish is torture. If a cat caught a mouse inside your basement and played around with it until the it died, would you punish the cat for it? Eating a live gold fish is probably less painful for the gold fish than it is for the mouse in this scenario.
On April 23 2012 22:27 Areon wrote: Funny, I've actually changed my mind about this. If it's okay to eat a live fish for no reason, why not a dog? How about a cat? Or better yet a newborn puppy, that would definitely fit in his mouth. Tell me what's wrong with that. What's so special about fish that it's okay to eat them on camera but not a household pet? Oh right, everyone's scared about the government and laws. But suppose someone went to a country where eating a puppy live would be legal and filmed it. There's no way you're not a hypocrite if you'd be against someone chowing down on a dog but not a fish. Come on, they're just both animals right? Don't be a wussy, there's nothing to be worried about here, right?
I don´t know about others but IMO it´s ok to eat any animal you want to eat.
On April 23 2012 22:27 Areon wrote: Funny, I've actually changed my mind about this. If it's okay to eat a live fish for no reason, why not a dog? How about a cat? Or better yet a newborn puppy, that would definitely fit in his mouth. Tell me what's wrong with that. What's so special about fish that it's okay to eat them on camera but not a household pet? Oh right, everyone's scared about the government and laws. But suppose someone went to a country where eating a puppy live would be legal and filmed it. There's no way you're not a hypocrite if you'd be against someone chowing down on a dog but not a fish. Come on, they're just both animals right? Don't be a wussy, there's nothing to be worried about here, right?
And if nothing else, I'm pissed off that there's actually some jackass who gets off eating crap because he's not talented enough to do anything actually worth viewing. He's eating invertebrates and eyeballs for Christ's sake, you don't need to be an Olympic gold medalist to do that. Plus it's just plain idiotic; it's really no different than a guy who jumps off his roof or whatever then lays on the ground moaning in agony. There are videos of that crap too and they're not one bit more funny or clever in any way. Give me a goddamn break.
ROFL you know people eat dogs in asia right...? Also fish is something basicly evreone eats so i dont understand. A raw fish is actually a real meal. If you eat a goldfish for lunch that would work its nutricient for a human body so to me its insanely stupid how it can be animal cruelty.
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.
amazing post my man, nothing to do but get sad seeing people and justice going after a guy that ate a fish alive.. seriously people needs to use his time fixing real problems..
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
He bit through the head of the goldfish as he first put it into his mouth, killing it right away.
Did you watch the video? The fish most certainly did not drown in acid.
Also, on a related note, when you go fishing (if you ever have before), when you clean a fish, you generally start by cutting its head off. I don't see how this is different.
I find it hilarious they're trying to fine/arrest him. Good luck with that, how pathetic.
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.
What an amazing post, it's intelligent people like you that make me love this community.
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.
I feel this way, but I also feel they will overfine this guy and ruin part of his life just to make a point, I see PETA jumping all over this and screwing it up too. This guy needs to be given a small fine, but nothing huge, make your point and then leave. Less is more IMHO in this case.
I don't think the issue is that he has eaten the fish but that he made it public and as advertisement for his Youtube channel. It's the same like if you beat your dog with a paper. If someone does it at home no one cares, if he streams it he'll get sued.
Since when eating became a crime. Plus, people care more about some stupid goldfish, while people starve to death and no one helps them. I guess Goldfish>People, since a goldfish can give you 3 wishes.
Also it's cruelty to put someone into jail for eating a fish.
There was a tv show in the UK where celebrities had to eat some live magots and insects and stuff in the jungle as part of a "bush tucker trial".They got applauded for doing it and that stuff got broadcast to millions of homes. this really isnt much worse :-/
It's a goldfish.. the amount of suffering and distress it can feel is marginally above (if at all) that of an insect. It's not a cat or a dog. It's not even a mouse (that people feed alive to their snakes btw), it's a f'in GOLDFISH.
On April 23 2012 23:01 Adonminus wrote: Since when eating became a crime. Plus, people care more about some stupid goldfish, while people starve to death and no one helps them. I guess Goldfish>People, since a goldfish can give you 3 wishes.
Also it's cruelty to put someone into jail for eating a fish.
How did you come to your conclusions? There are thousands of agencies helping starving people all over the world, so how does that count as "nobody helping them." Are you just talking for the sake of talking? I can understand people being upset that this guy is getting "jailed/fined" for eating a fish, but your post is just stupid.
... The laws now a days are disgusting, jail steve-o then! he swallowed an animal and puked it back up, how in the hell is that not suffering?! he lets the damn thing live through his stomach acid and crap, this guy actually ate it and the people calling this guy cruel and fueling this punishment for him need a fucking reality check...
On April 23 2012 23:03 BigLighthouse wrote: There was a tv show in the UK where celebrities had to eat some live magots and insects and stuff in the jungle as part of a "bush tucker trial".They got applauded for doing it and that stuff got broadcast to millions of homes. this really isnt much worse :-/
According to the article, invertebrates are not illegal to eat. Apparently because it has a backbone you deserve to be punished.
Should we punish every fish that eats other fish? exactly the same fucking thing. Shouldnt everyone who has ever gone fishing be sentenced to pay 20k? Hooking a fish throught the head with a fishinghook is way more cruel then just eating it...
lol @ animal activists is all i have to say. Animals eat each other when they're alive all the time. Ever seen a snake eat a mouse? Or a pack of wolves tear into a moose? Or even a cat pounce on a bird? It's part of life. If he chooses to eat a goldfish, great, that's weird but there's nothing wrong with it.
If he ate my goldfish without asking me, I might get mad, but if he eats his own goldfish or one someone gave to him, then that's his own business.
This is just another case of someone taking someone to else to court over the smallest issue possible in order to try and get money out of it. There's no justification involved, and frankly the people who brought this up are pathetic.
I agree with the peopel who say fish get eaten alive all the time in the wild, how is this any different? Bit into it head first so it died really fast and didn't put it under any unecessary cruelty I would say. Seems to me like it is simply eating something.
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.
This post is so well written it should be in the OP. Absolutely agree with your sir. Cant stand arguing with activists who are irrational in their thoughts and behavior.
It's a fucking fish. A non-intelligent, swim in circles, fish. What a horrible way to start my morning, seriously pissed off now. Anyone in this thread who says he deserves any form of punishment, you better be a vegetarian.
On April 23 2012 23:03 BigLighthouse wrote: There was a tv show in the UK where celebrities had to eat some live magots and insects and stuff in the jungle as part of a "bush tucker trial".They got applauded for doing it and that stuff got broadcast to millions of homes. this really isnt much worse :-/
According to the article, invertebrates are not illegal to eat. Apparently because it has a backbone you deserve to be punished.
Wow.. thats a weird law :S Way to go full retard again justice system
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.
Edit - Although I very much think that jail or a 20k punishment is WAY over the top. He's basically a Youtube attention seeker who does something a bit wacky... I don't think fining him that much is appropriate. People who cause deaths get fined less ffs.
This is pure hypocrisy, complaining about eating a living goldfish but not about eating a living tarantula. Besides, what about the tourists of their country who try certain japanese or chinese specialities?
I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
By that logic you shouldn't care if comedians or movie directors get jailed for upsetting people either. Now there's a brave new (old) world.
I dont see how its a big deal. If he chopped the goldfishes head off with a rusty cleaver it wouldnt have been illegal so why is just eating it live a crime? This is blowing animal rights out of proportion I think.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
By that logic you shouldn't care if comedians or movie directors get jailed for purposely upsetting people either. Now there's a brave new (old) world.
First of all,we should make sure if he is actually Bear Grylls in disguise. That guy can eat anything and get away with it.
To be more serious, I don't see any problem with it. I would like it cooked before tho and probably many more than 1, perhaps 7-8 because you're not gonna be full with just one goldfish.
It's a fucking fish. A non-intelligent, swim in circles, fish. What a horrible way to start my morning, seriously pissed off now. Anyone in this thread who says he deserves any form of punishment, you better be a vegetarian.
Sorry but I have to alert people about this madness...This ''incident'' has made me feel like hiking into the woods and spending a good 10 years away from the retarded society we all live in.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
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.
Which is nothing that should have any effect on the legal side of a matter.
Most of the people i know think calfs are cute (some even find cows cute) bute love eating steaks, meat, ...
The problem with our society is, that most people get oh so sensitive when they see something which disgusts them, but are apparently able to turn their brain off whenever they want to. So all the disgusting stuff does not happen in a way where people see it, and commonly it is agreed upon that this makes disgusting stuff disappear somehow...
It's generally legal to catch and eat fish, is it legal to catch and eat dogs and cats in most places? I'm actually not sure, but different species definitely can have different legal consequences for killing them.
Lets be objective and a bit scientific about the issue. In my opinion there are at least 100 people that might have had the idea of eating a raw fish in a cruel and inhumane way just for the fun of it but watching that video it didn't seem much fun, did it? So I wouldn't look at that video and say "That guy killed a fish in a brutal way" but rather "That guy prevented a lot of people from actually doing this" - just like some TV shows where they put aluminum foil, CDs or other crap in the microwave - so that everyone could see it and dont try it themselves. About the topic of punishment - did you actually watch the video - the guy was gonna throw up couple of times and looked quite miserable during the eating - I would call that enough punishment.
I wouldn't do it nor would i recommend anyone else to do this, however when one looks at commercial paultry farming, that looks pretty cruel, crustaceans are cooked alive at most restaurants and thats considered fine, but an individual seeking attention eating one live gold fish deserves this? Gold fish have experiance far worse treatment at the hands of incompetent owners who receive no punishment, The law should be consistant.
lol have these ppl never watched the discovery channel it looks a 100x more painful to get eaten by a lion or croc wtf lol all the guy did was bite the fish >< how is that cruel they want him to swallow the fish n choke on it instead?
'Animal cruelty' because it's alive? How do you think we kill fish before we eat them? We don't go around to every fucking fish and deliver a nice and clean coup de grace; We pick them up by the thousands and let them suffocate on the deck of a boat.
People are too quick to forget nature. Our ancestor's didn't have time for this squabble because they were too busy hunting and killing animals - it was a fight for their lives.
On April 24 2012 00:06 Giantt wrote: Lets be objective and a bit scientific about the issue. In my opinion there are at least 100 people that might have had the idea of eating a raw fish in a cruel and inhumane way just for the fun of it but watching that video it didn't seem much fun, did it? So I wouldn't look at that video and say "That guy killed a fish in a brutal way" but rather "That guy prevented a lot of people from actually doing this" - just like some TV shows where they put aluminum foil, CDs or other crap in the microwave - so that everyone could see it and dont try it themselves. About the topic of punishment - did you actually watch the video - the guy was gonna throw up couple of times and looked quite miserable during the eating - I would call that enough punishment.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
On April 24 2012 00:06 Giantt wrote: Lets be objective and a bit scientific about the issue. In my opinion there are at least 100 people that might have had the idea of eating a raw fish in a cruel and inhumane way just for the fun of it but watching that video it didn't seem much fun, did it? So I wouldn't look at that video and say "That guy killed a fish in a brutal way" but rather "That guy prevented a lot of people from actually doing this" - just like some TV shows where they put aluminum foil, CDs or other crap in the microwave - so that everyone could see it and dont try it themselves. About the topic of punishment - did you actually watch the video - the guy was gonna throw up couple of times and looked quite miserable during the eating - I would call that enough punishment.
"Let's be objective" "In my opinion..." lolwut?
this made piss mah pants
but on a serious note,
I can't understand how people can seriously be offended by this in any means. Everyone is eating all kind of animals all over the world, and they might have suffered 100 times more than this fish. This gold fish, might have felt something for about 5 seconds, and then it was dead. Just for the information, alot of fish gets cut in pieces while it's still alive. This is just how you get the freshest fish. I don't think it's completly right, nor wrong. I don't really care.. how do you think it is going in nature, when a lion kills a deer? i feels something aswell for maybe 5 to 10 seconds, and then it's done.
srsly, some people overhere are allways making huge deals out of nothing, so is the RSCPA... srsly, a gold fish which might have suffered for 5 second? Get a life...
Yeah, because the fish you buy at the supermarket all have the greatest time before they die in a big net on a fishing boat. Whatever, law. Waste of public funds.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
On April 24 2012 00:06 Giantt wrote: Lets be objective and a bit scientific about the issue. In my opinion there are at least 100 people that might have had the idea of eating a raw fish in a cruel and inhumane way just for the fun of it but watching that video it didn't seem much fun, did it? So I wouldn't look at that video and say "That guy killed a fish in a brutal way" but rather "That guy prevented a lot of people from actually doing this" - just like some TV shows where they put aluminum foil, CDs or other crap in the microwave - so that everyone could see it and dont try it themselves. About the topic of punishment - did you actually watch the video - the guy was gonna throw up couple of times and looked quite miserable during the eating - I would call that enough punishment.
"Let's be objective" "In my opinion..." lolwut?
Yes, I think that my opinion is objective - I am not directly involved, don't have any interest in defending either viewpoint and certainly have more to say than "lolwut?".
On April 24 2012 00:06 Giantt wrote: Lets be objective and a bit scientific about the issue. In my opinion there are at least 100 people that might have had the idea of eating a raw fish in a cruel and inhumane way just for the fun of it but watching that video it didn't seem much fun, did it? So I wouldn't look at that video and say "That guy killed a fish in a brutal way" but rather "That guy prevented a lot of people from actually doing this" - just like some TV shows where they put aluminum foil, CDs or other crap in the microwave - so that everyone could see it and dont try it themselves. About the topic of punishment - did you actually watch the video - the guy was gonna throw up couple of times and looked quite miserable during the eating - I would call that enough punishment.
"Let's be objective" "In my opinion..." lolwut?
Yes, I think that my opinion is objective - I am not directly involved, don't have any interest in defending either viewpoint and certainly have more to say than "lolwut?".
Objectivity and science is a bit deeper than that. Lolwut applies.
I was under the impression that fish didnt have the nerve synapses to feel pain.. well not to the extent we understand and feel pain anyway.
anyway eating shit alive seems to be the norm for predators on this planet.
I would fucking love if all these animal rights pussys get eaten alive by prides of hungry lions. it would be a pretty well needed swift kick in the reality checker for all these tree hugging morons. The greatest part is by then it would be too late anyway. thats the beauty of nature. Its not fair in the slightest. I imagine the majority of the lions will have penetrated the stomach and started barrel rolling with entrails while 2 are clamped on the neck and 1 clamped to his face cutting off air and reducing oxygen flow to body when the fucking morons realize that they dont get to make the rules of nature.
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger(In nature science class I saw this when we dissected goldfish'). Their memory is approximately capable of 3 months. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
Congratulations on posting random facts. Goldfish are still sentient beings, and thus should be treated with some level of dignity.
On April 24 2012 00:51 Coagulation wrote: I was under the impression that fish didnt have the nerve synapses to feel pain.. well not to the extent we understand and feel pain anyway.
anyway eating shit alive seems to be the norm for predators on this planet.
I would fucking love if all these animal rights pussys get eaten alive by prides of hungry lions. it would be a pretty well needed swift kick in the reality checker for all these tree hugging morons. The greatest part is by then it would be too late anyway. thats the beauty of nature. Its not fair in the slightest. I imagine the majority of the lions will have penetrated the stomach and started barrel rolling with entrails while 2 are clamped on the neck and 1 clamped to his face cutting off air and reducing oxygen flow to body when the fucking morons realize that they dont get to make the rules of nature.
Although I love all the insulting words thrown in at random, I'd like to believe we don't live the same way as we did when we lived in caves. You think our society is natural? Is it natural for humans to eat animals alive?
Your graphic tale makes me slightly worry for you. I'm happy you have such a vivid imagination, but keep it to yourself perhaps?
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
Congrats on telling him he's not making sense when he is completely agreeing with you, read his post again.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, which is why we need to make sure we don't spend societal resources on bs like this.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in being upset about the waste of spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
@clarity: there, better?
He is saying that there are better things to spend attention on, but you can't force people to just focus on the worst of injustices all the time. You are saying that there are better things to spend attention on.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
That might be because you're trying very hard to misunderstand my point. I don't think the guy should be sent to jail, or even go to court. Chances are he won't either. At this point this event isn't newsworthy at all. It was a fluff piece by a terrible publication. Posters are saying that animal rights activists are overreacting. No shit. But so are you.
edit: Guess, I should tone it down. People have the right to be upset over whatever they want. Whether it's animal cruelty (imagined or real), restrictions on free speech (whether the content is worthwhile or by worthless by almost all standards) or even what people chose to or not to be upset about.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in being upset about the waste of spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
@clarity: there, better?
He is saying that there are better things to spend attention on, but you can't force people to just focus on the worst of injustices all the time. You are saying that there are better things to spend attention on.
You're not making any sense. At all.
re-read my post pls. You caught an early, not finished, edit.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
That might be because you're trying very hard to misunderstand my point. I don't think the guy should be sent to jail, or even go to court. Chances are he won't either. At this point this event isn't newsworthy at all. It was a fluff piece by a terrible publication. Posters are saying that animal rights activists are overreacting. No shit. But so are you.
Overreacting to nothing at all as well, and then have the nerve to edit his post saying "you're just confused" and "this better" after not even making an edit. Well he's right, I am confused.
On April 24 2012 01:07 horsebanger wrote: -vid-
I'm sorry but, this isn't a Japanese case. I don't know why you posted this here.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in being upset about the waste of spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
@clarity: there, better?
He is saying that there are better things to spend attention on, but you can't force people to just focus on the worst of injustices all the time. You are saying that there are better things to spend attention on.
You're not making any sense. At all.
re-read my post pls. You caught an early, not finished, edit.
You completely turn your point 180 degrees, and expect me to believe this is because you weren't done editing? I call you out and not even reading the post of the person you quote and then basically call in idiot, and you simply say: "nuh-uh".
On April 23 2012 18:44 reDicE wrote: I don't think he should be punished at all. It was a very quick death, and a fish being caught "humanely" probably suffers more than that fish did.
This sums it up. Cause it's so much more humane to have a hook in a fish's mouth and then bash its head in to kill it. This guy skipped the hook part and bit the fish's head off. So, cruelty my ass.
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
That might be because you're trying very hard to misunderstand my point. I don't think the guy should be sent to jail, or even go to court. Chances are he won't either. At this point this event isn't newsworthy at all. It was a fluff piece by a terrible publication. Posters are saying that animal rights activists are overreacting. No shit. But so are you.
First off, I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but the number of quotes here is getting ridiculous, and I assure you it wasn't anything intentional about it. Secondly, posting on a forum is over reacting? We're not getting people indicted here...
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
That might be because you're trying very hard to misunderstand my point. I don't think the guy should be sent to jail, or even go to court. Chances are he won't either. At this point this event isn't newsworthy at all. It was a fluff piece by a terrible publication. Posters are saying that animal rights activists are overreacting. No shit. But so are you.
First off, I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but the number of quotes here is getting ridiculous, and I assure you it wasn't anything intentional about it. Secondly, posting on a forum is over reacting? We're not getting people indicted here...
I usually just read the thread sequentially, I get confused by nested quotes too. I edited my previous post, I think it reflects my position better now. Not sure if I have anything else to say on the subject.
I find it kind of funny that some people have nothing better to do than to accuse this guy of torturing a goldfish and sending him to jail, when there's probably way worse shit being done to animals all over the place that no one cares about, cause you know, burgers are pretty good.
tbh, putting a goldfish in such a small glass bowl with no proper filtration or aeration is really stressful for the fish. even the live fish kept in markets for consumption are kept in tanks with the proper conditions. just sayin'
On April 23 2012 23:41 hypercube wrote: I think it's hilarious that he tries to upset people on purpose then whines when it comes back to bite him (no pun intended).
I don't care about the goldfish but I don't care about him either. People get fucked over by the law all the time. I guess when we no longer have overzealous prosecutors or lazy cops actually destroying people's lives I'll start worrying about stupid trolls getting punished a little too harsh.
A little? We're talking jailtime for eating a fish here. There's a difference between thinking it's dumb that, for example, smoking weed is illegal and can get you fined, and thinking it's dumb that someone might seriously go to jail for eating a fish.
So what, people get life in prison for stealing candy (3 strikes FTW). It might not be right, but there are 1000 times worse things happening to better people, even in civilized countries.
Why stop child molesters when there are MURDERERS running around? Sounds legit. Oh wait no it doesn't.
Our attention as a society is limited. I do believe these (essentially) non-issues are taking time and energy away from more serious problems. I guess I can't prove it, and I certainly can't force people to turn their indignation towards the worst example of injustice around them.
Yes, our attention is limited, so you see nothing wrong in spending shitloads of money, time and energy on punishing a guy who ate a fish? You're not making any sense. At all.
That might be because you're trying very hard to misunderstand my point. I don't think the guy should be sent to jail, or even go to court. Chances are he won't either. At this point this event isn't newsworthy at all. It was a fluff piece by a terrible publication. Posters are saying that animal rights activists are overreacting. No shit. But so are you.
First off, I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but the number of quotes here is getting ridiculous, and I assure you it wasn't anything intentional about it. Secondly, posting on a forum is over reacting? We're not getting people indicted here...
I usually just read the thread sequentially, I get confused by nested quotes too. I edited my previous post, I think it reflects my position better now. Not sure if I have anything else to say on the subject.
I'm sure I haven't! Cheers!
@clarity: I've tried being nice here.. if you're so cynical you can't take it at face value I'm sorry but I have nothing more to say to you.
If he does these things for exhibitionism rather than nourishment (which is, well, rather obvious), then I won't lose any sleep over whatever the verdict ends up being.
i think there is some overexageration in this. i go out and Fish and eat the Fish i catch. IM all for Animal rights and dont think animals should be treated cruely but there are other nations out there that eat Live Fish because they dont have access to Fire to cook it...lets put them in jail to -___-
On April 24 2012 01:28 sGSuperSlinkY wrote: i think there is some overexageration in this. i go out and Fish and eat the Fish i catch. IM all for Animal rights and dont think animals should be treated cruely but there are other nations out there that eat Live Fish because they dont have access to Fire to cook it...lets put them in jail to -___-
Ok, ignoring how hard it is to actually read this.
You believe people are SO POOR they don't have access to FIRE?!?!?!?! ...
On April 24 2012 01:17 helvete wrote: @clarity: I've tried being nice here.. if you're so cynical you can't take it at face value I'm sorry but I have nothing more to say to you.
Cynical....? How am I not taking things at face value....? I don't even....
On April 24 2012 01:26 momonami5 wrote: I laughed, don't see a big deal really it's just a fish. not like he eating a dog or cat while it screaming.
so beacuse the fish doesn't scream he doesn't feel pain or suffers? ignorant
who cares it's just a fish. Maybe you should go to jail for running over a animal and leaving it in the road suffering, you could atleast stop and go crush it's head in, then eat the meat to make sure you didn't kill it for no reason.
I have seen people twice chug a goldfish when the were drunk, i really cant see why people are making such big deal out of this even tho its bit cruel if you think about it but i dont see the need to make a big deal about this.
On April 24 2012 01:38 unnar wrote: I have seen people twice chug a goldfish when the were drunk, i really cant see why people are making such big deal out of this even tho its bit cruel if you think about it but i dont see the need to make a big deal about this.
Every now and then you need to make a big deal about something like this, otherwise it gets considered to be normal and that's where everything goes downhill.
If everyone just goes: "shrugs", that's the same as accepting it, which I don't believe we should. That's not to say this isn't an overreaction but I can see why it happened.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
I think you have a good heart and your intentions are good. But I think you missed my point. We as humans do not need to eat meat. In fact it is probably more affordable to practice healthy eating while avoiding meat. However I support industries where cattle are slaughtered so that I can eat meat which is more enjoyable. The life of cattle from living conditions to their inevitable slaughter is cruel. It is probably even more cruel than a goldfish being eaten alive. I have an issue seing how you find breeding of animals in cruel conditions and eventually slaughtering them isn't killing them for our amusement. There are alternatives that are healthier, but we rather eat meat because it is more "amusing".
I'm saying I find the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting. People eat because we need nourishment in order to survive. Killing of animals for food as long as you do it humanely is fine.
You're trying to put words in my mouth by trying to manipulate the word "amusement". I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the cruel conditions in quite a few cattle farms, or whatever you call them, are for our amusement the same way a circus is for our amusement. I don't think anyone who went and watched what happened in those places would find that in any way amusing. If they do, then that's a shame.
I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency in your arguement. You say it is ok to eat animals because we need nourishment. But we don't need to eat animals for nourishment. The fact that we do is to increase our pleasure. I find it hard to believe eating a goldfish alive for amusement is any worst than eating it because it tastes good. If we had to eat goldfish to survive then I could see the value of your argument, but we have alternatives to food but choose the more pleasurable one.
On April 24 2012 01:38 unnar wrote: I have seen people twice chug a goldfish when the were drunk, i really cant see why people are making such big deal out of this even tho its bit cruel if you think about it but i dont see the need to make a big deal about this.
Every now and then you need to make a big deal about something like this, otherwise it gets considered to be normal and that's where everything goes downhill.
If everyone just goes: "shrugs", that's the same as accepting it, which I don't believe we should. That's not to say this isn't an overreaction but I can see why it happened.
yeah other things that actually important not about a gold fish. Seems like nobody cares about the important things just dumb things like this gold fish lol Then people go around calling others ignorant for not caring about gold fish there is way bigger things to worry about in the world.
He caused unneeded harm to the animal? Fish are eaten alive in the oceans all the time. I guess by that logic, all fish in the ocean that eat other fish should be considered criminal offenders. What a stupid claim to make against this guy
What's the difference between cutting the fish with a knife or smashing it against something to kill it or putting it in your mouth and cutting it with your teeth to kill it?
Also comparing eating a dog alive and a goldfish alive is stupid because of the point above. Dogs are bigger so if you start eating it alive it would live longer and suffer, it would be unnecessary and prolonging it's misery for no reason. Putting the entire goldfish in your mouth and chewing it kills it pretty fast.
I am saddened that anyone actually cares that this man ate a goldfish.
I went to a sushi resturant where they serve live lobster sashimi and they serve the lobster as it is still moving; the only thing about that that upsets me is that I am not wealthy enough to afford live lobster sashimi.
Also, wtf, why not outlaw fishing or hunting or trapping for any kind of game if this is an issue? So beyond stupid
I can take my 12 year old out hunting to shoot a deer but I can't eat a damn gold fish? Give me a fucking break.
Retarded, once again proof of how stupid laws can be abused by animal freaks and quite sad that someone who would sentence him can be called a judge... so yeah, normal for the EU or USA justice system i guess. As a side not from someone who hates eating most cooked fish and find there meat horrible i am shocked by someone eating a live one, also someone should really get on trying to sue Bear Grylls for that sort of stuff, would be a damn funny case to watch, but Discovery and him got way to much money for that to happen i guess.
On April 24 2012 01:28 Blackhawk13 wrote: It's pretty gross and I'm sure theres something that says people cannot buy animals from pet stores with the intention of doing them harm..
I don't see anything wrong with this guy. It's just like eating sushi. I don't think someone will go to jail for eating a damn fish even if it is alive. He paid for it, he cared for it, he ate it like a boss. Leave him alone. Go arrest some real criminals, not a guy who ate a goldfish. ffs, its a damn fish. Grow up.
wasnt in oldboy that guy eats a live octopus or something? besides if this trend continues pretty soon they are going to have cameras on the sidewalks and if you step on a ant you could go to jail.
On April 24 2012 02:07 WniO wrote: wasnt in oldboy that guy eats a live octopus or something? besides if this trend continues pretty soon they are going to have cameras on the sidewalks and if you step on a ant you could go to jail.
yes ( amazing movie ) and is something that actually happens a lot?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore, these people realize that we are only a live because of cruelty to other animals, and people pretend that didn't happen, for F#*k's sake its a goldfish people not your sister grow up.
It would involve discussing how slow of an acidic death it is for the goldfish, and to what degree it feels pain. Anything else isn't remotely fine-worthy. Applying law to the biology of a goldfish. . .
Feel free to have at it, dear lawyers; I'd rather spend my time doing something else.
Non-issue. It was for entertainment/financial purposes but he still ate the goldfish and gained some nutrition from it. It's not like he simply chewed it to death and spat it back out.
On April 24 2012 02:22 Sinensis wrote: I am tempted to post one of my fishing videos where we eat a live tuna right on the boat BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO TO JAIL SO I WON'T.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
I think you have a good heart and your intentions are good. But I think you missed my point. We as humans do not need to eat meat. In fact it is probably more affordable to practice healthy eating while avoiding meat. However I support industries where cattle are slaughtered so that I can eat meat which is more enjoyable. The life of cattle from living conditions to their inevitable slaughter is cruel. It is probably even more cruel than a goldfish being eaten alive. I have an issue seing how you find breeding of animals in cruel conditions and eventually slaughtering them isn't killing them for our amusement. There are alternatives that are healthier, but we rather eat meat because it is more "amusing".
I'm saying I find the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting. People eat because we need nourishment in order to survive. Killing of animals for food as long as you do it humanely is fine.
You're trying to put words in my mouth by trying to manipulate the word "amusement". I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the cruel conditions in quite a few cattle farms, or whatever you call them, are for our amusement the same way a circus is for our amusement. I don't think anyone who went and watched what happened in those places would find that in any way amusing. If they do, then that's a shame.
I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency in your arguement. You say it is ok to eat animals because we need nourishment. But we don't need to eat animals for nourishment. The fact that we do is to increase our pleasure. I find it hard to believe eating a goldfish alive for amusement is any worst than eating it because it tastes good. If we had to eat goldfish to survive then I could see the value of your argument, but we have alternatives to food but choose the more pleasurable one.
Mz, "We kill animals in a way that leaves them feeling little pain, so we can eat them for nourishment" is not the same as "we swallow animals alive to let them boil in our stomach's acid."
So putting words in his mouth is exactly what you are doing :p, by interpreting the first part in whichever way you want, and ignoring the second part.
On April 24 2012 01:52 wunsun wrote: How come they didn't charge him regarding the live tarantula, but are over the live goldfish?
It says why in the article. It's a legal difference between invertebrates and vertebrates. If it doesn't have a backbone, feel free to chew on it.
You have GOT to be kidding me. I'm a legal scholar and have been teaching/researching at the university for 3 years now - and this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard
Is this guy an idiot who tries to get attention because he's too stupid to find something other than post videos of him doing disgusting things? Yes, absolutely, he's a dumb fuck who wants to ride on the youtube explosion. But such over reaction is even dumber. So as long as we dont see all the cruelty in the food industry it's fine right? Even if documentaries are available etc. I mean, makes me think of the idiots that go on facebook and whine about animals dying around the world, when they wouldnt even look at a guy dying of hunger at the corner of their street... I guess homeless people arent as cute as pandas, so they deserve to die. Ban the guy youtube account and put warnings about that kind of videos to avoid a potential multiplication of it, done, but put the guy in prison? rofl
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.
A gold fish brain is smaller then the size of the diameter of the nail of your lilfinger(In nature science class I saw this when we dissected goldfish'). Their memory is approximately capable of 3 months. Sources : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish
Congratulations on posting random facts. Goldfish are still sentient beings, and thus should be treated with some level of dignity.
On April 24 2012 00:51 Coagulation wrote: I was under the impression that fish didnt have the nerve synapses to feel pain.. well not to the extent we understand and feel pain anyway.
anyway eating shit alive seems to be the norm for predators on this planet.
I would fucking love if all these animal rights pussys get eaten alive by prides of hungry lions. it would be a pretty well needed swift kick in the reality checker for all these tree hugging morons. The greatest part is by then it would be too late anyway. thats the beauty of nature. Its not fair in the slightest. I imagine the majority of the lions will have penetrated the stomach and started barrel rolling with entrails while 2 are clamped on the neck and 1 clamped to his face cutting off air and reducing oxygen flow to body when the fucking morons realize that they dont get to make the rules of nature.
Although I love all the insulting words thrown in at random, I'd like to believe we don't live the same way as we did when we lived in caves. You think our society is natural? Is it natural for humans to eat animals alive?
Your graphic tale makes me slightly worry for you. I'm happy you have such a vivid imagination, but keep it to yourself perhaps?
I seem to learn something ridiculous every day. I'd like to see them bring a bear to trial for eating a salmon or something. Wonder how long it takes to become desensitized to the retarded things people seem to want to stand up for.
I want him to be punished because I think it would be funny . This is ridiculous though and he shouldn't have to pay any fine or go to jail. That said I still want him to be punished because I think it would be funny .
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Did you not read the article or watch the video? Both would tell you that the fish died when he bit it.
Being killed by being crunched seems no more inhumane to me than dragging a fish up from the sea in a net and dropping it on a deck to die slowly of asphyxiation. We try too hard to pretend the things we eat were peacefully put to sleep as if they were someone's beloved pet.
It's a little silly that he tapes himself eating, but he does no more net harm than someone who sits down at a nice restaurant and orders a delicious salmon. If it were actually his pet, there might be something to this. But it wasn't.
People have lost their minds, whats the difference between eating a live goldfish and then going to red lobster and ordering a fresh lobster from the tank where they then cook them alive? Can someone explain the difference to me. I dont hear of people complaining about that. and if that is so cruel then what level is this?
Mz, "We kill animals in a way that leaves them feeling little pain, so we can eat them for nourishment" is not the same as "we swallow animals alive to let them boil in our stomach's acid."
So putting words in his mouth is exactly what you are doing :p, by interpreting the first part in whichever way you want, and ignoring the second part.
ffs people, HE CHEWED THE FISH AND IT DIED IN HIS MOUTH. Why is everyone stuck on the idea that he swallowed it alive (not that I would care if that was the case either, personally). Seriously, reading threads like this always annoys me how hard people work to not read the damn OP. Like half the posts end up arguing about something completely unrelated because its not what happened at all. Reading comprehension ftw.
On April 23 2012 18:31 Sapp wrote: No tortureing and no live eating so it's like salmon on christmas.
@SolHeiN ur a hypocrite.
You missed the fact that I stated that I find torture or animal cruelty for your own amusement disgusting. I have nothing against the consumption of meat products, and I eat meat every day.
Whatever happens in the food industry happens, and if a person goes to work in the food industry (whatever that may be) and thinks his job is fucking amazing because he gets to kill animals for a living, then I find that individual disgusting, not the collective "food industry" possey.
Define amusement. I am sure an acceptable definition would have to be derived from pleasure. I eat meat instead of healthier/cheaper alternatives because of the pleasure I get from the food. How is that different from eating a goldfish? If you think it's because I am eating it for reasons that are not primarily for nourishment, then should I go to jail if I am full and I eat a meaty snack for my amusement from an animal that suffered.
If you go and butcher an animal while it's still alive where your primary reason of butchering the animal is because you think that's a fun thing to do, and you don't give a shit about eating it because hunger is not the reason for killing it, that is what I mean. I mention the torture and cruelty of animals for your own amusement to be disgusting an inhumane.
If you kill an animal quickly and do not let it suffer, then that's alright. But if you let an animal die an agonizing death because you think that's fun, then you're a disgusting person.
I think you have a good heart and your intentions are good. But I think you missed my point. We as humans do not need to eat meat. In fact it is probably more affordable to practice healthy eating while avoiding meat. However I support industries where cattle are slaughtered so that I can eat meat which is more enjoyable. The life of cattle from living conditions to their inevitable slaughter is cruel. It is probably even more cruel than a goldfish being eaten alive. I have an issue seing how you find breeding of animals in cruel conditions and eventually slaughtering them isn't killing them for our amusement. There are alternatives that are healthier, but we rather eat meat because it is more "amusing".
I'm saying I find the torture of animals for your own amusement disgusting. People eat because we need nourishment in order to survive. Killing of animals for food as long as you do it humanely is fine.
You're trying to put words in my mouth by trying to manipulate the word "amusement". I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the cruel conditions in quite a few cattle farms, or whatever you call them, are for our amusement the same way a circus is for our amusement. I don't think anyone who went and watched what happened in those places would find that in any way amusing. If they do, then that's a shame.
I am not putting words in your mouth at all. I am simply pointing out an inconsistency in your arguement. You say it is ok to eat animals because we need nourishment. But we don't need to eat animals for nourishment. The fact that we do is to increase our pleasure. I find it hard to believe eating a goldfish alive for amusement is any worst than eating it because it tastes good. If we had to eat goldfish to survive then I could see the value of your argument, but we have alternatives to food but choose the more pleasurable one.
Mz, "We kill animals in a way that leaves them feeling little pain, so we can eat them for nourishment" is not the same as "we swallow animals alive to let them boil in our stomach's acid."
So putting words in his mouth is exactly what you are doing :p, by interpreting the first part in whichever way you want, and ignoring the second part.
How can I be putting words into his mouth if I am not trying to reword what he is saying, but instead bringing up a new way to look at the situation that I am not giving him credit for? Nowhere in the above quotes do I ever try to credit him for saying that cruelty committed by eating animals and cruelty to animals for amusement are similar in thought. It is an idea that was introduced to the discussion that I might be presenting horribly if neither of you can undertand it!
One last try at rephrasing:
What I think he is saying: Being cruel to animals is wrong unless they are being used for nourishment.
What I am saying: Eating animals is NOT a necessity. It is a pleasure we obtain from eating animals. Eating animals may be a necessity if other foods of equal nuitritional value are not available at a similar cost (they are available and are even cheaper). So the idea of necessity is simply not true. Therefore the act of eating animals is derived from pleasure. One cannot hold the moral highground by judging someone who is committing cruel acts for pleasure when they also support acts of cruelty for their own pleasure.
Is it clear now? Basically my issue with his arguement is that his exception for cruelty is based on the necessity of nourishment from animals but that simply is not true!
I'd say this is pretty cruel and unnecessary, but I'd be a pretty big hypocrite considering I eat and love meat. I wouldn't promote animal cruelty but before we start caring about goldfish, we should probably care about the thousand of endangered, intelligent species of animals that get butchered every day.
he already ate a live tarantula, now he ate a live gold fish and it's a problem? everyone should just chill down, he's probably gonna die soon anyway from all the bacterias he ingested from all the raw stuff.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs.
Nonsense ...
Haha you narrow-minded fool...
Why don't you read about it ? Or study fish yourself?
Saying nonsense without any reasons or research yourself is weak
I just did a study recently where i tested the intelligence of goldfish so not only have i read countless of studies of the subject but i also have personal experience of this.
On April 23 2012 18:52 Zorgaz wrote: Tons of scientific research has proven that fish have great cognitive skills and are atleast as intelligent as cats/dogs. And it is proven that fish can feel pain.
Source? This is the kind of claim that needs to be backed up. And since you're the one presenting it, it's on you to provide some source material.
Okay if you guys are to dumb to use google I'll guess I'll do it.
Nowhere in your links does it say fish are at least as intelligent as dogs or cats, you made that one up.
Fish showing awareness of their surroundings is what I would expect form a neuronal net of that complexity, but comparing it to the level of intelligence in mammals is still pretty far-fetched. Too bad people in intelligence research often seem to mistake some simple algorithms for problem-solving with complex intelligence.
I just want to say this : that fish got cut in half. He died in a more humane way than all the fishes that end up on my stomach who have been left to flap on some boat's deck until overcome with asphyxia. Wanting him to be fined or even jailed would make me a hypocrite as i'm not a vegetarian. However if he was fined for posting this kind of stuff on youtube for everyone to see, i would find it more logical.
I thought it was a bit inhumane. Would have thought doing crap like that would be socially unacceptable. Its not even tasty, like he didnt enjoy it, the fish obvously didnt enjoy it. So why do it? seems really stupid. It should be punished, it serves no purpose than to ammuse a few people and upset a whole load more. Or maybe putting a live fish with its tail bit flapping about in my mouth then looking at the camera like something really cool is about to happen is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
a) If the animal is not the legal property of another individual (owner has an appropriate license, or is recognized by a governing body and/or shelter for ownership); or b) If the animal is considered under conservation or endangered by governing bodies (such as the IUCN) or a government-enacted law (such as the Endangered Species Act), excluding independent entities with no credentials such as PETA; or c) If the animal is a major contributor, or is paramount to the survival of an entire group or family of animals, whereas said group or family would not be able to thrive further without its presence, unless said animals are considered a nuisance to humans and/or the greater local habitat, or degenerates its surrounding environments
It should be fair game; for consumption, hunting for the sake of pleasure, scientific research, exhibition, taxidermy, YouTube entertainment material, whatever; assuming the animal isn't put in prolonged, unnecessary harm that is not justified by the purpose(s) of the action, whether slaying, capturing, isolating, or any tampering with its natural lifestyle.
As for the video, the guy did nothing wrong. The goldfish went from dead to alive in a span of one minute, maybe slightly more? I'm not going to argue here, just stating my opinion on what I think about this ridiculous 'investigation'. It's a complete and utter waste of donations (the RSPCA runs completely on volunteer donations, not the state) to go through this process. There are dogs and cats in the streets going hungry, but instead let's focus on this guy eating a goldfish. It's obvious that the extreme proponents of the Animal Welfare Act or animal rights in general are using his popularity to advocate their issue.
On April 24 2012 04:26 Littlemuff wrote: I thought it was a bit inhumane. Would have thought doing crap like that would be socially unacceptable. Its not even tasty, like he didnt enjoy it, the fish obvously didnt enjoy it. So why do it? seems really stupid. It should be punished, it serves no purpose than to ammuse a few people and upset a whole load more. Or maybe putting a live fish with its tail bit flapping about in my mouth then looking at the camera like something really cool is about to happen is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Doing things that upset people are no basis to send people to prison. There's a lot of things in a modern society that you are allowed to do legally that offend a lot of people.
He killed the fish in a more human way that any fish you have ever bought at a store. But apparently because you can't see them dying and because you like the way they taste it's not a problem or? The only potentially valid argument you can make is that he puts it out there for other peoples enjoyment and potentially benefits from it but it's still a pretty weak argument.
On April 24 2012 04:05 logikly wrote: [spoiler]People have lost their minds, whats the difference between eating a live goldfish and then going to red lobster and ordering a fresh lobster from the tank where they then cook them alive? Can someone explain the difference to me. I dont hear of people complaining about that. and if that is so cruel then what level is this? + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkAqdh_kLbs
What he says. (difference is food and entertainment I gues) But still; does anyone remember that TV show fear factor where they would eat alive stuff all the time. Jackass, Steve O swallows a gold fish and barfs him back up again. Those 2 spring to mind and i am pretty sure there must be more examples out there of people eating living pets for no other purpose then entertainment. Would be kinda fun though if he's convicted for it. So many "cruell animal abusers" could and should get charged then.
On April 24 2012 03:37 OptimusYale wrote: O shit my pet cat is totally going to jail forever......
jail? my cat is going to get the chair for the sick things it does to rodents and gophers......toying with it so it thinks it can get away like 50 times before eventually eating it face first
This reminds me of the Jackass segment where Steve-O ingests a live goldfish and pukes it up. Being punished for being at the top of the food chain is pretty ridiculous. These animal cruelty people have gone too far.
so you cant eat a live fish but you can cook crabs, lobsters, and octopus right? there needs to be a bomb handed to the person who comes up with these silly rules and laws.
On April 24 2012 04:39 dUTtrOACh wrote: This reminds me of the Jackass segment where Steve-O ingests a live goldfish and pukes it up. Being punished for being at the top of the food chain is pretty ridiculous. These animal cruelty people have gone too far.
If you can be punished you're not really at the top of the food chain LOL.
On April 24 2012 04:39 dUTtrOACh wrote: This reminds me of the Jackass segment where Steve-O ingests a live goldfish and pukes it up. Being punished for being at the top of the food chain is pretty ridiculous. These animal cruelty people have gone too far.
If you can be punished you're not really at the top of the food chain LOL.
Even funnier if they sentenced him to be eaten. To the sarlacc pit with you!!
On April 24 2012 05:20 urashimakt wrote: Some facts about this story:
He ate a fish
It wasn't his pet, the statement that it was his pet was the April Fool's joke
It died in his mouth, not in his digestive tract.
This is a pretty humane method of killing compared to how humans normally farm meat.
He did not eat the fish out of necessity.
Lots of people eat things even when it's not necessary.
He video taped it and posted it on YouTube.
And now we see why he may go to jail.
I see why he should get a fine for like 150 bucks or something, just to keep people from doing stupid stuff like this... (lets admit it, it was pretty stupid) But jail is to overdoing it WAY too much....
On April 24 2012 05:20 urashimakt wrote: Some facts about this story:
He ate a fish
It wasn't his pet, the statement that it was his pet was the April Fool's joke
It died in his mouth, not in his digestive tract.
This is a pretty humane method of killing compared to how humans normally farm meat.
He did not eat the fish out of necessity.
Lots of people eat things even when it's not necessary.
He video taped it and posted it on YouTube.
And now we see why he may go to jail.
I see why he should get a fine for like 150 bucks or something, just to keep people from doing stupid stuff like this... (lets admit it, it was pretty stupid) But jail is to overdoing it WAY too much....
He should get nothing. He posted a video titled "I eat my pet goldfish" and someone who cares about animals either didn't realize that it wasn't his pet or didn't care, so he got reported for animal cruelty. He'll be investigated and nothing will come of it.
It would be absurd to punish someone for eating a live animal and labelling it cruelty. Better stop boiling/cooking alive, suffocating, or cutting the throats of all the animals we eat every day.
Is killing the fish with his teeth particularly different from how fish generally are killed? I always had the impression they were slowly killed after being fished out of water just because of the lack of water. At least that's what it seems like when I see videos of fishing boats.
But even if they were all killed with like a knife or something, isn't that pretty much the same as teeth biting through them and killing them? If seconds before he had cut the fish's head off, would it have been okay then?
It sounds gross to me, but I'm having trouble putting my finger on a moral issue here. It seems like we kill endless amounts of fish daily in much for painful ways, why pick out this one instance?
Well as said 2 pages ago, this kid needs to get 36x the sentence to be fair.
That made me cringe a little, the fact that they would be swimming around in your stomach for a little while before dying of the acid...
you know thousands of years ago I'm pretty sure we ate way worse things, and I'm pretty sure people in our lifetime have resorted to cannibalism in other countries. Why don't they freak out over that?
this shit is retarded, he shouldn't get ANY jail time. There are so many cruel things that go unpunished MUCH worse than eating a goldfish.
As an example boiling fresh lobster and crab ALIVE mind you.. i would take a swift clean death by getting my head bitten off any day of the week to getting boiled alive.
Don't kid yourself, of course he isn't going to jail, the likelyhood is quite small I think its stupid and unnecessary shit he does though, wouldn't mind him paying some fines.
I don't even know why this thread exists, it's pretty obvious that any judge will laugh this case right out of court.The guy might be investigated because it's required but nothing will come of it, since this doesn't even define animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is when someone deliberately traumatizes animals, such as using them as a punching bag when they're having a bad day or starving them because they misbehaved. In these cases, the individual doing the animal abuse is doing so to deliberately cause pain and suffering in the animal. This case is nothing of the sort, the guy is just eating his fish, big deal.
Plus he kills it in the most humane possible way for a fish that's about to be ingested. In fact, when I would go fishing with my dad for trout for dinner, we would kill them by putting our fingers in the gills and pulling the head back to break the spinal cord/neck. That method sounds more inhumane than what this guy did, even though my dad assured me that the fish didn't feel any pain. People who complain that this fish suffered make me lol, especially since even the most suffering-inducing methods of slaughter for the meat we eat everyday are less suffering inducing than the way predators in the wild capture and kill prey. Imagine being eaten by a lion, first you get mauled to the ground by an enormous animal with the strength of a bear, next the back of your neck is punctured and crushed by their dagger-like teeth and massive jaws, and you slowly suffocate while the other lions start tearing your stomach apart to get at your innards while you're still alive. Any method of killing animals now is definitely less gruesome than that.
Also, I remember seeing a show where some guy was eating weird food in Japan for show and entertainment purposes, just like this guy. He was showing the way some Japanese people go drinking, where they cut open a live frog, pull out it's still-beating heart, and drop it into some spirit. What that frog experienced is probably a hundred times more painful than whatever that goldfish experienced. Yet I don't see that guy getting thrown in jail, despite the fact he broadcasted it to families nation-wide on television. In fact, he probably made lots of money because of it.
On April 24 2012 05:20 urashimakt wrote: Some facts about this story:
He ate a fish
It wasn't his pet, the statement that it was his pet was the April Fool's joke
It died in his mouth, not in his digestive tract.
This is a pretty humane method of killing compared to how humans normally farm meat.
He did not eat the fish out of necessity.
Lots of people eat things even when it's not necessary.
He video taped it and posted it on YouTube.
And now we see why he may go to jail.
I see why he should get a fine for like 150 bucks or something, just to keep people from doing stupid stuff like this... (lets admit it, it was pretty stupid) But jail is to overdoing it WAY too much....
If it's suddenly illegal to do stupid things then a lot of people should go to jail.
If we can aggree it's not illegal to simply do stupid things then I don't see any reason he should be punished at all.
On April 24 2012 05:57 VPCursed wrote: i eat fish all the time... How is a goldfish somehow more valued then the other fish? i cannot logically come up with an answer.
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.
You realize people cook crab and lobster alive right? I guess we should round up all the restaurant owners and chef's and arrest them.
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.
you want your tax dollars spent to put this guy in jail and support him in jail? no one said it was ok to eat fish and not dogs. i think u just wanted to rant a while.
Whats the difference between eating a live gold fish and going to a restaurant and ordering lobster? they put the live lobster in boiling hot water while its alive, if anything thats animal cruelty.
I actually understand the people complaining actually. Very admirable.
Their strong emotions are probably elicited due to a strong feeling of empathy and brotherhood towards the fish. Just as you and me are attached towards dogs due to shared values such as loyalty, commitment and compassion, these people feel a common bond with the victimized fish due to common traits such as a short term memory of 5 seconds and an IQ of seven.
On April 23 2012 18:36 Tanukki wrote: I guess the problem is how he makes a spectacle out of eating strange animals. Not that I really care. Goldfish are pretty dumb anyways, they will even kill each other and eat their own babies if you once forget to feed them correctly. So I guess if you forget or are unable to feed your pets for some reason, you should go to jail too.
In that case and the pet suffers or dies because of it then yes they should be punished somehow by a fine and stuff since they have made they choice to have a pet and take care of it. If they can't feed it any longer they should give it to a shelter or find a better home for it.
However with the goldfish it's stupid. People feed their pet snakes, spiders, piranhas, turtles etc. live fish and bugs and mice even. In some cases it's because the animals won't eat dead food but not always and you don't and shouldn't get fined for that. This isn't too different.
Ridicule? Sure, he just strikes me as an attention whore. Jail? Hell no. It's a damned goldfish, animals get eaten alive in nature all the damn time. This just further solidifies my belief that most animal rights organizations are useless circlejerks.
It's a fish. You call out someone for animal cruelty when they do horrible shit to their own pet, typically larger animals like large snakes or dogs or cats. This is a fish! THOUSANDS of people starve their fishes to death due to forgetfulness, a death, by the way, that is much more painful and slow than being eaten alive, and are not charged with animal cruelty. Also, this fish wasn't even his pet in the first damn place! This is perhaps one of the most retarded legal shitfests I have ever seen. It would actually make more sense to charge the RSPCA with stupid in the first degree.
The guys who are squeamish at the idea of eating a live goldfish would REALLY get their panties in a bundle over reanimated octopus legs
Basically the utmost cruelty to kill something then make it seem like it's still moving... Btw, it's the sodium in the soy sauce/sauce in general that reanimated the tentacles. Pure htai stuff right there...
It's not like he tortured the fish. Also, some animals are eaten alive.
On April 24 2012 07:09 Half wrote: I actually understand the people complaining actually. Very admirable.
Their strong emotions are probably elicited due to a strong feeling of empathy and brotherhood towards the fish. Just as you and me are attached towards dogs due to shared values such as loyalty, commitment and compassion, these people feel a common bond with the victimized fish due to common traits such as a short term memory of 5 seconds and an IQ of seven.
while "getting eaten alive" is litterarily a synonym for a painful death I don't think getting a giant hook stuck in your throat, getting pulled out with all your weight on the tip of same hook then slammed against a rock while suffocating is better.
The problem is that he's putting that stuff on youtube. I can't say I'm behind the guy but jail would be too hard of a punishment.
I would assure you that Bear Grylls would not consume a goldfish when it's alive. He would kill it first. And he's not doing it for his own amusement, he is making an educational documentary series on survival. He doesn't eat a goldfish alive and then put it on youtube for shits'n'giggles.
Bear Grylls would never eat a goldfish anyway.
Hope this hasn't already been said and I missed it, but let me get this straight. You're fine with Bear Grylls eating things live (such as the episode where he does it with a much bigger fish than a gold fish) for the entertainment of thousands, but somebody that isn't famous does something along similar lines and he should be jailed. I fail to see your logic here fine sir.
you know... . most people in the world.... eat fish...
the fact this is going on shows how disconnected people are with the reality of the world. They should go on a crusade putting anything that eats a fish behind bars, which is ironically also fish.
On April 24 2012 05:57 VPCursed wrote: i eat fish all the time... How is a goldfish somehow more valued then the other fish? i cannot logically come up with an answer.
Gold = valuable.
Also, if we consider the Great Chain of Being then: Gold = Lion = King = the Sun.
there are delicates where u eat a fish alive. Because of the term delicate doesn't make this or eating a gold fish any different. Eating an octopus alive? Where if its not for the sake of survival, then why would they bother taking this to court.. He did it for the sake of attention and a cool stunt video while the people who eat octopus do it for fun. Those people are retarded
Thank you OP, because I've never heard of "FoodForLouis" but it's pretty entertaining, and extremely nasty at the same time.
To be honest, he drank 10 blended mice, I seriously don't see how that stacks up to eating a live Goldfish. While I do question his reasoning behind eating this stuff, it's alright. People are doing a lot worse out there, and they aren't putting it up on youtube for people to see and criticize.
had he swallowed the goldfish it would be cruelty. He was nice enough to give it a couple comps to put it out of its misery. How is this any worse then someone catching a fish in a stream bopping it on the head with a rock and having a snack ?
Its a goldfish.... those don't like very long any ways. By the time this case is closed it would have died from natural causes. (if he didn't eat it of course)
This reminds me a bit of something that happened like 3 years ago. This kid (Kenny iirc?) posted a youtube video of him and his friend beating a cat, throwing it around in the shower, and being terrible to it for like 3-4 minutes. The internet exploded, turned it into a huge deal, and the kids basically ended up with a slap on the wrist from the local sheriff's department. For people to be more upset about some guy eating a goldfish on youtube, than people brutally beating and quite literally torturing a cat while laughing their butts off, seems absolutely ludicrous. The two are obviously different, it just really, really bugs me that even national organisations are up-in-arms over this, yet they weren't about the cat...
In New Zealand (I lived there for a couple of years), it's quite common for the native maoris to eat fresh fish they just caught (yuk!). I've also eaten live spiders before just for lulz. I hardly see how a goldfish is different to a regular fish, or a spider or similar insect.
Not to mention boiling crabs alive, one of the most common ways of cooking them, surely that's "animal cruelty"? People need to grow a dick, we're omnivores, eating meat (fresh or cooked, dead or alive) is what we do.
This is dumb... killing fish and then eating it is completely normal, but just directly eating a live fish (that even has an incredibly short lifespan) is against the law? Unbelievable.
How on earth could eating a fish be considered animal cruelty. People literally do it all the time. Whether it dies from from a knife or teeth, I doubt the fish knows the difference.
A lot of replies have compared eating a goldfish to eating live octopus or eating live scorpions and spiders. I'd like to point out a clear distinction on why a goldfish is not allowed to be eaten this way.
The animal cruelty law that the man is charged for is focused on the animal group of vertebrates, which are creatures with spines. A creature's ability to feel the pain stimulus rests in the spinal column. The evolutionary purpose of it is to give certain creatures a faster reaction time to immediate danger, since there is less neural distance between your spine and your nerves. Creatures without spines are not able to feel the same pain stimulus, instead they have different mechanics of stimulus. These different mechanics of stimulus, as far as scientists can tell, do not cause any suffering to the creature. For example, when you eat a live octopus, the octopus knows it's being eaten, but it does not suffer from physical pain, nor does it have the mental capacity for emotional suffering either, so legally we are allowed to eat an octopus alive. A goldfish does have a spine, and therefore is able to suffer from the pain of being eaten, so that's why there's a law in place against animal cruelty for vertebrates.
Just make it clear, I do not support the charges laid against this man for eating a goldish, I just needed to clarify that there is a clear distinction between eating a goldfish, and eating other things alive.
This is just stupid people punishing stupid people, who cares? Other than the stupid guy who bit the head off his fish ofc. If they start punishing fishermen or scientists who perform experiments on mice then there will be cause for concern.
Edit: I'd just like to point out that this guy caused pain and death for literally no reason. So there should be some punishment, if being that stupid isn't enough of a punishment already.
Interesting that YouTube removed it. That means animal cruelty is against their terms of use? I guess goldfish are arbitrarily more important than mice and bulls and everything else he ate, huh?
If this even gets to a judge, never the less prosecuted i will have absolutely zero faith in England's legal system. This is the kind of pointless lawsuits that drain taxpayers money and does nothing but show off hippie ignorance.
On April 24 2012 10:54 UmiNotsuki wrote: Interesting that YouTube removed it. That means animal cruelty is against their terms of use? I guess goldfish are arbitrarily more important than mice and bulls and everything else he ate, huh?
I'm not even sure if this should be ONLY about animal cruelty. I'd actually say that he's harming himself and trivializing certain dangerous things in the process. I don't see much of a difference between cutting your skin open (which is not allowed on youtube) or eating a rotten apple / cockroaches / wasps when it comes to that.
So, I was under the impression lobster tasted best when boiled alive. But now I must assume this is illegal? I mean, being boiled alive is one hell of a shitty way to go if you ask me.
He needs to say ... FUCK OFF what I eat has nothing to do with you at all...how I eat something has nothing to do with you also. RSCPA needs to stop the dog fights happening in the ghetto and leave this guy alone... geezuz
He shouldn't be punished, the vid should be removed from YouTube. At most he has a beef with YouTube not the law. You can eat small freshwater fish np. Anyone watch Man vs Wild? Jainists cant make laws anymore than christians can.
There shouldn't be a punishment/fine at all. Eating a fish at the market that was caught and made to suffocate without water or getting its gills slashed to death is no different from eating a live goldfish.
I want to throw it out there that I have a few friends (won't say what school) who have told me a frat (won't say what frat) includes eating live fish as part of initiation (which is totally voluntary and not hazing).
AHHHHH I hate it! I just searched this guy out and watched his youtube homepage for 10 sec and I already feeling extremely sick of the videos and pictures there. Can NOT unsee! His videos are just GROSS!
For those of you don't know what I mean and feel it's not appropriate to use so many caps, go watch his youtube for a sec. WARNING: can not unsee so watch at your own risk!
I'm sorry, not gonna read the whole thread but unnecessary pain? As I recall from biology (could be mistaken), fish do not have a cerebral cortex so it would be unlikely that they are able to feel "pain" or anything else for that matter. And it goes to show just how rudimentary creatures they are. The can't be compared to mammals.
is possibly gonna go to jail or have to pay 20k pounds
Guys, he is not there yet. And I dont think that any judge will send him to the jail.
But this make me think. If I eat somethink alive (Kitty, chicken...) its sick I get it. who does that. But octopus is OK right ? I dont know guys we have to go deeper. Im against eating dogs because they are kept in bad conditions, but I get it why people do it. in the past it was OK and very tasty / cheap. Pigs are killed everyday. makes it difference if we kill it with knife or use chainsaw or just chop its legs off and eat it alive ? Arent we all guilty of mass murders because we all kinda kill living beings ? I DO think that eating that fish was better idea than keeping it in the small aqvarium. my mind is sick. Im sorry for your time.
As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Wait did he just swallow that shit whole? I thought he would like actually eat it, not just inhale it lol
Also, are goldfish brains large enough to register pain? I thought they were too small to feel actual pain and only have sensory input (like pressure).
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
But say you catch a crab or something. You have to keep it alive until you cook/eat it so wouldn't boiling it alive be considered mistreatment by the owner?
lmfao what a joke, government or whatever just wants money. That's nasty as hell, but there's a lot of people who eat things that are alive. If he's fined for that, rather just go and fine every other slaughter house there is.
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
thank you for this post. tired of pages of kneejerks
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
But say you catch a crab or something. You have to keep it alive until you cook/eat it so wouldn't boiling it alive be considered mistreatment by the owner?
"A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state"
not domesticated, is wild. is fair game for eating, as is not explicitly protected (endangered, yada yada)
-
this is an important law for snake keepers to consider in the uk. feeder mice must be properly cared for etc, and mature live mice are only to be used if 'necessary'
On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote: Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.
@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?
Wait did he just swallow that shit whole? I thought he would like actually eat it, not just inhale it lol
Also, are goldfish brains large enough to register pain? I thought they were too small to feel actual pain and only have sensory input (like pressure).
I think its an ongoing scientific debate as to whether fish feel pain. As far as I can tell from brief internet research its been confirmed that there is neurological response to physical damage (in this case bee venom) to the lips as well as to electrical impulse. As creatures that live in a highly conductive environment I'm not surprised that they react to electricity (its Super Effective! or whatever). At the same time I would guess that most (if any) pain reception is centered around the lateral line and perhaps head area. In this case it would seem that the fish died almost instantly to severe head trauma. I don't think the fish suffered.
Is the guy sick? Maybe.
Is it the government's job to step in? In this case, probably not. I think the main issue here is publicity. Like I said before - I think his beef is with YouTube. In my opinion - it wouldn't be out of line for YouTube to say, terminate his account. Other than that, unless he starts eating people alive I think its not for us to say what happens to him. YouTube can certainly remove that shit though.
Eating a live animal for the sake of entertainment is just disgusting. I won't lose a night of sleep if this guy does end up serving jailtime. I'm not calling for it, but I won't find it much of an issue if it happens regardless.
If it was a bear eating a live goldfish, or a cat eating a live goldfish, I am very certain that it wouldn't recieve jail time or a $20,000 fine; they don't even have opposable thumbs so how could they write a cheque! Where is the equality there RSPCA/ PETA?!?!?You sold out your own species for the betterment of the other one, the one that would gladly eat you in the same position.
The equal yet seperate rhetoric they spew sounds a little bit like a certain era in US history.
On April 24 2012 15:51 Terrafros wrote: Hurting an animal for the sake of entertainment is just disgusting. I won't lose a night of sleep if this guy does end up serving jailtime. I'm not calling for it, but I won't find it much of an issue if it happens regardless.
On April 24 2012 16:10 Ravenimus wrote: This is so very sensationalist.
If it was a bear eating a live goldfish, or a cat eating a live goldfish, I am very certain that it wouldn't recieve jail time or a $20,000 fine; they don't even have opposable thumbs so how could they write a cheque! Where is the equality there RSPCA/ PETA?!?!?You sold out your own species for the betterment of the other one, the one that would gladly eat you in the same position.
The equal yet seperate rhetoric they spew sounds a little bit like a certain era in US history.
Does a cat or bear eat a live goldfish to make money and gain publicity? Certainly not.
At SOME point there has to be a line drawn. Is it okay to eat a live cockroach? A live cat? A live octopus? A live goldfish?
As some other poster pointed out earlier the law draws the line at vertebrates. If that's the line, he definitely crossed it and should be dealt with accordingly.
Here's the explanation of WHY it's drawn at vertebrates:
On April 24 2012 10:31 Chairman Ray wrote: A lot of replies have compared eating a goldfish to eating live octopus or eating live scorpions and spiders. I'd like to point out a clear distinction on why a goldfish is not allowed to be eaten this way.
The animal cruelty law that the man is charged for is focused on the animal group of vertebrates, which are creatures with spines. A creature's ability to feel the pain stimulus rests in the spinal column. The evolutionary purpose of it is to give certain creatures a faster reaction time to immediate danger, since there is less neural distance between your spine and your nerves. Creatures without spines are not able to feel the same pain stimulus, instead they have different mechanics of stimulus. These different mechanics of stimulus, as far as scientists can tell, do not cause any suffering to the creature. For example, when you eat a live octopus, the octopus knows it's being eaten, but it does not suffer from physical pain, nor does it have the mental capacity for emotional suffering either, so legally we are allowed to eat an octopus alive. A goldfish does have a spine, and therefore is able to suffer from the pain of being eaten, so that's why there's a law in place against animal cruelty for vertebrates.
Just make it clear, I do not support the charges laid against this man for eating a goldish, I just needed to clarify that there is a clear distinction between eating a goldfish, and eating other things alive.
On April 24 2012 15:51 Terrafros wrote: Hurting an animal for the sake of entertainment is just disgusting. I won't lose a night of sleep if this guy does end up serving jailtime. I'm not calling for it, but I won't find it much of an issue if it happens regardless.
FYP. That's what it boils down to imo.
How the fuck do you eat anything without hurting it? :s
Do you think your steak or your bacon was grown in a lab? Do you think sushi and lobster grows on trees? Animals suffer far worse than this goldfish did every single day, and no one gives a shit because it's just animals.
I'd say getting your head bitten off is far more human than getting boiled alive or put on a conveyor belt into the death machine or having your throat slit. Yet the former earned a guy a lawsuit while the other earn corporations a ton of money.
I wouldn't worry for the guy though. It's just some nutcases having a fit. He won't actually be punished in any way (other than having his videos removed from Youtube.)
On April 23 2012 18:24 SolHeiM wrote: Where do you draw the line when it comes to eating things alive?
Personally, a developed frontal lobe.
What exactly do you mean?
A developed frontal lobe is generally considered to be the criterion for self-awareness. Disclaimer, if anyone's going to start arguing about the philosophy or semantics of self-awareness on account of my post, leave me out of it please.
On April 24 2012 15:51 Terrafros wrote: Hurting an animal for the sake of entertainment is just disgusting. I won't lose a night of sleep if this guy does end up serving jailtime. I'm not calling for it, but I won't find it much of an issue if it happens regardless.
FYP. That's what it boils down to imo.
How the fuck do you eat anything without hurting it? :s
Do you think your steak or your bacon was grown in a lab? Do you think sushi and lobster grows on trees? Animals suffer far worse than this goldfish did every single day, and no one gives a shit because it's just animals.
I'd say getting your head bitten off is far more human than getting boiled alive or put on a conveyor belt into the death machine or having your throat slit. Yet the former earned a guy a lawsuit while the other earn corporations a ton of money.
I wouldn't worry for the guy though. It's just some nutcases having a fit. He won't actually be punished in any way (other than having his videos removed from Youtube.)
First of all I said "for the sake of entertainment". While I don't accept or approve how things work when it comes to the ways in which most people get their food from animals, I can understand and tolerate it to a certain degree.
Second of all, which steak or bacon? I'm a vegetarian since like 6 years. =P
On April 26 2012 18:37 Thylacine wrote: So you're not against him eating the goldfish alive?
My reaction is pretty much "meh" to the whole situation (i.e. I couldn't care less). I wouldn't condemn him, but I also don't know why the fuck he does stuff like that, other than being an obvious attention whore.
Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
On April 26 2012 18:41 r.Evo wrote: Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
Dogs HAVE a developed frontal lobe. Self-awareness doesn't necessarily mean "capable of philosophical thinking". But I'm doing the same thing I said I wouldn't 3 posts ago (arguing about what self-aware means), so consider myself recused from further discussion, because the whole "issue" of the OP is honestly not important whatsoever (IMHO). There's also a whole other discussion about what "feeling pain" means as well. (for example, you could say that a tapeworm "feels pain" because it has a nervous system, yet to say that they actually feel PAIN would be stupid to say, considering how underdeveloped it is in comparison to even birds, let alone mammals).
On April 26 2012 18:41 r.Evo wrote: Drawing the line at self-awareness instead of the ability to feel and suffer from pain is a pretty damn thin line.
If your definition of what is okay and what is not is "If it isn't able to be self-aware it can be eaten alive" you just successfully legalized eating dogs or human babies alive. u srs?
Dogs HAVE a developed frontal lobe. Self-awareness doesn't necessarily mean "capable of philosophical thinking". But I'm doing the same thing I said I wouldn't 3 posts ago (arguing about what self-aware means), so consider myself recused from further discussion, because the whole "issue" of the OP is honestly not important whatsoever (IMHO). There's also a whole other discussion about what "feeling pain" means as well. (for example, you could say that a tapeworm "feels pain" because it has a nervous system, yet to say that they actually feel PAIN would be stupid to say, considering how underdeveloped it is in comparison to even birds, let alone mammals).
There is not much arguing to do if you want the current point of science which would be what some theoretical law you're suggesting would use.
If it passes the mirror test it's self aware. Plain and simple. You just said "developed frontal lobe" = "self-aware". To my knowledge no scientifical background exists on that thesis. ---> If you take what's currently accepted as the basis for what is self-aware and what is not, you suggest that eating babies and dogs alive is fine.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there..
Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
So I m not quite sure theres multiple videos on youtube of people actually eating their goldfish, a gold fish, those tiny fish you keep in ponds (guppies i think?) - why aren't they all being arrested or hassled? :|
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
thank you for this post. tired of pages of kneejerks
On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote: As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:
9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include— (a)its need for a suitable environment, (b)its need for a suitable diet, (c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular— (a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and (b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal. (4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
4 Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if— (a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c)the animal is a protected animal, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if— (a)he is responsible for an animal, (b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:
32 Imprisonment or fine
(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section. (4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.
(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
But say you catch a crab or something. You have to keep it alive until you cook/eat it so wouldn't boiling it alive be considered mistreatment by the owner?
"A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state"
not domesticated, is wild. is fair game for eating, as is not explicitly protected (endangered, yada yada)
-
this is an important law for snake keepers to consider in the uk. feeder mice must be properly cared for etc, and mature live mice are only to be used if 'necessary'
In addition, the crab is not a vertebrate. But most importantly:
59 Fishing
Nothing in this Act applies in relation to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing.
Half of this thread just makes me sick. People are getting upset about a dude eating a fish? Thousands of people around the globe are starving to death, getting blown up, raped, and sold into slavery, and this happens every day, but people are really, legitimately angry and disgusted about the eating of a STUPID GOLDFISH? really? This is what makes you outraged?
this is stupid. steve-o did this years ago. well, he did much more. but that was stupid too. people complaining about these childish attention-stunts, well, i think in some case they are stupid too.
The interestign question here is where do you draw the line for which animals it's okay to hurt and which it's not. For instance, plenty of people have been toying with ants, litterally setting them on fire with the use of a magnifying glass. I've never heard of snybody recieving punishment for that. On the other hand, if you set a dog on fire, most would agree that you deserve som kind of punishment for severe animal cruelty and murder.
Ants and dogs are probably on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but in which camp does the goldfish go?
Edit: Also, the fact that this is his goldfish adds another layer to the discussion. It's his responsibility to keep the fish alive, yet on the other hand it's possession so can he then do as he pleases? Oh, and what about those who have plenty of fish and "let" some of them die by simply forgetting/neglecting them. Punishable?
On April 26 2012 18:37 Thylacine wrote: So you're not against him eating the goldfish alive?
My reaction is pretty much "meh" to the whole situation (i.e. I couldn't care less). I wouldn't condemn him, but I also don't know why the fuck he does stuff like that, other than being an obvious attention whore.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
There are many cultures that eat LIVE fish, sehng-nakji is a traditional korean dish that is live octopus.
I really can't comprehend why this incident has been singled out. I don't condone the eating of live goldfish, I think it'd be rather painful, and unpleasant, but I think it's a double standard when we all eat meat that comes from animals that are factory farmed and put in no better condition than that fish.
On April 26 2012 22:30 LaughingTulkas wrote: Half of this thread just makes me sick. People are getting upset about a dude eating a fish? Thousands of people around the globe are starving to death, getting blown up, raped, and sold into slavery, and this happens every day, but people are really, legitimately angry and disgusted about the eating of a STUPID GOLDFISH? really? This is what makes you outraged?
Do people have any priorities at all?
1) People are upset about a dude eating a live fish.
2) Do you say that eating a live cat is fine? Eating a live cow? If no, why not? A live mouse?
As it stands, the law about animal cruelty comes into place as soon as we're dealing with vertebrates. It probably would make sense to educate yourself on the story behind this before you come in here and bitching about how stupid people must be in your world who consider this an actual reason to get angry.
As for the what & why the law draws the line at vertebrates, please refer to this post:
(@OP: Mind adding this one somewhere in the OP? It's probably one of the best posts in this thread and people keep charging in here without an understanding as to WHY the line is drawn there.)
On April 24 2012 10:31 Chairman Ray wrote: A lot of replies have compared eating a goldfish to eating live octopus or eating live scorpions and spiders. I'd like to point out a clear distinction on why a goldfish is not allowed to be eaten this way.
The animal cruelty law that the man is charged for is focused on the animal group of vertebrates, which are creatures with spines. A creature's ability to feel the pain stimulus rests in the spinal column. The evolutionary purpose of it is to give certain creatures a faster reaction time to immediate danger, since there is less neural distance between your spine and your nerves. Creatures without spines are not able to feel the same pain stimulus, instead they have different mechanics of stimulus. These different mechanics of stimulus, as far as scientists can tell, do not cause any suffering to the creature. For example, when you eat a live octopus, the octopus knows it's being eaten, but it does not suffer from physical pain, nor does it have the mental capacity for emotional suffering either, so legally we are allowed to eat an octopus alive. A goldfish does have a spine, and therefore is able to suffer from the pain of being eaten, so that's why there's a law in place against animal cruelty for vertebrates.
Just make it clear, I do not support the charges laid against this man for eating a goldish, I just needed to clarify that there is a clear distinction between eating a goldfish, and eating other things alive.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
I guess it could be considered callous, killing the fish in that manner simply for shock entertainment value, but still, rising to the level of a crime seems a bit silly.
On April 27 2012 00:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: I guess it could be considered callous, killing the fish in that manner simply for shock entertainment value, but still, rising to the level of a crime seems a bit silly.
I was going to say this, but then this fine gentleman did it for me.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
Kind of disgusting but to punish him with jailtime for it? Really? Should go see what goes on in Asian countries.
Something like (disgusting/gruesome story in spoiler): + Show Spoiler +
I remember my Chinese friend (originally from China) said there was this delicacy thing where you had a live monkey, put his head through the middle of the table, used a chainsaw to cut his head open, and poured hot oil on its brain and ate it while it was screaming.
On April 27 2012 00:50 TangYiChen wrote: Kind of disgusting but to punish him with jailtime for it? Really? Should go see what goes on in Asian countries.
Something like (disgusting/gruesome story in spoiler): + Show Spoiler +
I remember my Chinese friend (originally from China) said there was this delicacy thing where you had a live monkey, put his head through the middle of the table, used a chainsaw to cut his head open, and poured hot oil on its brain and ate it while it was screaming.
Just slap him on the wrist with a warning, maybe they just really want that 20k from him. Economy in disarray and whatnot.
I think it's kind of disgusting that this guy would eat a goldfish for shock value in an attempt to get attention, but I guess I'm just a softie.
And for all the people going "fish get eaten all the time" just... please... you and I both know this guy wasn't eating the fish for its nutritional value, so don't make it like that. I love fish, I love sushi, I love to eat many animals... that doesn't mean I'm okay with someone eating a live gold fish just to go "hey everyone! pay attention to me, I'm doing something shocking!" It's immature and childish.
I guess no one has ever heard of sushi :[ People are seriously getting retarded, I can't imagine what kind of dumb twat would see that video and say to himself " he deserves jail time for that" There are types of sushi that you eat the fish alive, nothing new here.
On April 27 2012 01:21 Tewks44 wrote: I think it's kind of disgusting that this guy would eat a goldfish for shock value in an attempt to get attention, but I guess I'm just a softie.
And for all the people going "fish get eaten all the time" just... please... you and I both know this guy wasn't eating the fish for its nutritional value, so don't make it like that. I love fish, I love sushi, I love to eat many animals... that doesn't mean I'm okay with someone eating a live gold fish just to go "hey everyone! pay attention to me, I'm doing something shocking!" It's immature and childish.
Type in 'UK fear factor' (or maybe you'd like to watch the US version) in google. Go watch the videos and see what people eat on that show for entertainment value. Now go tell the UK to arrest every person who participated in that show and organised it. Its absolutely immature and childish but people have been doing stupid shit for entertainment for thousands of years.
Just gonna say this now, I see a lot of people coming up with responses like "it's fine as long as people do it for survival and not for amusement, like in the meat industry" but let me tell you, this argument is completely stupid. Animals are not butchered and prepared in cruel conditions for our survival specifically. It is done for a profit. As others have said, there are healthy alternatives out there which we could easily use for our survival, and not cause suffering (or at least not significant) to animals. The meat industry exists to make money from the sale of meat items, and do not have the idea "we are only doing this so that everyone has something they can eat, because without this, they wouldn't be able to". I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't delude myself into thinking that what I do is any worse than what he does (he eats a goldfish live, I support an industry that provides mass suffering to animals). Hell, what are we going to do next. What's your argument for not going to jail after hurting say, a ladybug? It's not smart enough? It doesn't feel pain? The first point brings up a scary thought where intelligence is the base for value, and I'm pretty sure that insects are not immune to pain. Sure, it can't bring us the morning paper or lick our hands, but that's a pretty poor argument.
They published this article before the actual trial because they're pretty sure the article will be a crapload less exiting if the kid will recieve X hours of community service or is aquitted for shit not making sense. The key word is "possibly" here. The BBC looked at what the worst possible sentence for this crime is and put that in the article.
If any sentence is given, it would not be for killing the fish but for doing stupid shit like that on youtube.
On April 27 2012 00:46 TwilightStar wrote: I guess we should arrest larger fish for eating goldfish, just like this man has.
How can people be so stupid..
It's a fish.
This logic is beyond stupid.
That's like saying that it's okay to hunt an endangered species just because other animals do it.
it's a fish. only reason you care is cause the media. you probably continue your day like all humans selfish and uncare I doubt you go to any dog pounds or rallys to try and save animals from cruelty.
Hey guys! Lets grab our torches and pitchforks and storm Bear Grylls' house! It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that if you eat live fish for ANY REASON you ARE A WITCH! I can't emphasize this enough. We MUST burn him at the stake, its the only way.
On April 27 2012 02:38 Xpace wrote: Why are people linking Fear Factor videos? They always say in every start of the show that you should not attempt anything you see. Geeez.
On April 27 2012 02:38 Xpace wrote: Why are people linking Fear Factor videos? They always say in every start of the show that you should not attempt anything you see. Geeez.
On April 26 2012 19:17 brum wrote: Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frf-1tNcdWg Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
On April 26 2012 19:17 brum wrote: Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frf-1tNcdWg Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
On April 27 2012 02:38 Xpace wrote: Why are people linking Fear Factor videos? They always say in every start of the show that you should not attempt anything you see. Geeez.
Animal cruelty, like most things, exists on a spectrum. As a consumer of farmed meat products it is easy to become largely indifferent to these subjects as a matter of practicality yet I find it hard to believe that even the most hardcore carnivores believe there should be absolutely no standards. If this man was literally torturing the fish, inflicting the most pain possible over the longest time possible without killing it, would that be okay? Most people would say no and based on that premise there has to be some sort of rule. Once you accept that regulation is necessary, you accept that there has to be a hard line that falls on one side or the other of matters such as these and cultural traditions like those shown in this thread. I dont personally feel that this is serious enough to warrant legal action but I understand why others would. I consider it a regulatory failing that so many lack an understanding of the finer points of this issue.
TL/DR: We need clearer guidelines to prevent arbitrary litigation in animal cruelty cases.
What a bunch of hypocrites. The majority of these people giving him shit are probably carnivores themselves. Are they saying it's more humane when they slice a fish's belly, remove the guts and clean it before consuming?
On April 27 2012 01:50 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys! Lets grab our torches and pitchforks and storm Bear Grylls' house! It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that if you eat live fish for ANY REASON you ARE A WITCH! I can't emphasize this enough. We MUST burn him at the stake, its the only way.
what i cant understand is how people hate on a guy for eating a fish, while they eat their hamburgers, fried chicken and milkshakes... those animals you eat lived their entire lives in horrible conditions before getting shot in the head and their throats slit.
accept it or go vegan. otherwise you just look like an idiot.
I see no problem with this. Although it is disgusting for a human, what is the difference between eating a gold fish and eating a live minnow (as is not unusually in Japan and I have done)?
Also, over the years I've had a lot of animals (frogs, snakes, lizards, etc). So what is the difference between feeding a FEEDER goldfish (sold for the purpose of being given as food to pets) to an animal or person? The way the frogs I've had eat the fish is MUCH more gruesome than the way a person would.
Sometimes I think some people treat animals too much like people. If humans didnt have tech, we would be eaten too. It is simply the food chain and the nature of all living things.
On April 27 2012 02:38 Xpace wrote: Why are people linking Fear Factor videos? They always say in every start of the show that you should not attempt anything you see. Geeez.
Louis' videos have that too... point?
Exactly...
My sarcastic joke obviously failed ><
My ''exactly'' was aimed at the fact that there is warning signs on both fear factor + louis videos and people should therefore stop saying it's bad to compare fear factor because ''they the only ones with warnign sign derp''. Didnt misunderstand you in any way.
After reading 19 pages, the only justification for eating the live gold fish is, "Other animals are eaten alive also." or some form of appeals to nature. I would suggest that these people pick up a book on logical fallacies; you need it.
The issue that most people today have a hard time understanding is the issue of well being. We are animals too, but we are different in the idea that we have the ability to view that the retraction of well being is a bad thing--however insignificant the life. Most here have argued that "It's just a goldfish. It's brain capacity/memory/sentience/etc... is miniscule." While this is a factual statement, let me propose the logical inconsistency behind it. What if, on scale, a race of aliens from another world were so intellectually advanced that we appeared to be that of a goldfish's intelligence in comparison to theirs? Quickly we can realize the moral (not talking to you nihilists) dilemma at hand. There obviously is a problem, but to these aliens, we are mere "goldfish" in a pond that will do well in nourishing their bodies. It isn't illegal to them to eat things from other worlds. The pain we feel isn't on the scale of pain that they are capable of feeling--which is much higher. However, I--and I hope you-- would find issue with being eaten, despite being apart of nature and being so insignificant in brain intellect, and maybe even size.
While there may be a line that could be drawn as to what is below the point of "what we shouldn't care about" we should not draw this line arbitrarily on the claim of moral ignorance until we find a better answer. We should care about everything that can feel--any--pain, love, attraction, loyalty, and happiness--among others--until, if ever, we find the best suited answer.
On April 27 2012 06:07 Competent wrote: After reading 19 pages, the only justification for eating the live gold fish is, "Other animals are eaten alive also." or some form of appeals to nature. I would suggest that these people pick up a book on logical fallacies; you need it.
The issue that most people today have a hard time understanding is the issue of well being. We are animals too, but we are different in the idea that we have the ability to view that the retraction of well being is a bad thing--however insignificant the life. Most here have argued that "It's just a goldfish. It's brain capacity/memory/sentience/etc... is miniscule." While this is a factual statement, let me propose the logical inconsistency behind it. What if, on scale, a race of aliens from another world were so intellectually advanced that we appeared to be that of a goldfish's intelligence in comparison to theirs? Quickly we can realize the moral (not talking to you nihilists) dilemma at hand. There obviously is a problem, but to these aliens, we are mere "goldfish" in a pond that will do well in nourishing their bodies. It isn't illegal to them to eat things from other worlds. The pain we feel isn't on the scale of pain that they are capable of feeling--which is much higher. However, I--and I hope you-- would find issue with being eaten, despite being apart of nature and being so insignificant in brain intellect, and maybe even size.
While there may be a line that could be drawn as to what is below the point of "what we shouldn't care about" we should not draw this line arbitrarily on the claim of moral ignorance until we find a better answer. We should care about everything that can feel--any--pain, love, attraction, loyalty, and happiness--among others--until, if ever, we find the best suited answer.
Just to make things clear, you are arguing in favor not eating any animals, right? Because killing it the way he did is no worse then any other 'humane' way to kill a fish.
On April 23 2012 20:35 frontliner2 wrote: I think what he did is cruel to the gold fish (drowning in acid example) and just retarded. Should he be punished? meh. How about a 500 dollar fine and a last warning?
Jail Sentence is too severe for this case. And I'm saying that as a vegetarian
500 dollar fine? Are you kidding me? If you think he should be fined, then what about all those people out there who has ever cut a fish's head off or sliced open a fish's belly?
Yeah, this is totally ridiculous. Guess people have forgotten that when other predators eat fish by the trillion in the ocean it's using the same method.
My uncle went fishing the other day and caught a few fish. He hooked them up on a sharp hook and then pulled them up into the boat, where they flailed around and couldn't breathe for a bit. He then killed them. Why did he do this? Because fishing is fun! And because he wants to eat them, yum! I'm pretty sure he should be imprisoned though, because what he did to these poor fish was way worse than this Louis Cole fella did.
The only way I can see an argument against this is if you pull out the, 'no animal should ever be killed for any reason, including consumption by humans' card, because this is faaaaaarrrrr more humane than the living conditions of most animals raised for human consumption.
Dang, I guess every time I gut a trout when I go fishing I should have actually been fined and/or gone to jail, I guess going fishing should be illegal now T_T I'll never do it again judge, I swear!
if there was a "human" way to kill animals, it still wouldn't imply that it is the proper way. Most fish are eaten alive. Therefore the "natural" (now what does that mean??) way to die for a fish, is to die being eaten alive.
People just have no clue what they're talking about sometimes...
but seriously, this is silly. I can't believe they're going to this extreme, and even deciding to remove it. This is so extremely silly, and has gone on for far too long.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
Lulz. By that definition a ton of fishermen deserve to go to jail. They fish for their own entertainment, and to eat the fish later. And especially those guys that catch and release. They cause the fish pain solely for their own entertainment.
This guy ate the fish then for other peoples' entertainment. (and maybe his own) The line definitely shouldn't be 'drawn' by people like you anyway.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
Lulz. By that definition a ton of fishermen deserve to go to jail. They fish for their own entertainment, and to eat the fish later. And especially those guys that catch and release. They cause the fish pain solely for their own entertainment.
This guy ate the fish then for other peoples' entertainment. (and maybe his own) The line definitely shouldn't be 'drawn' by people like you anyway.
By people like me you mean the people who made this law in the first place? Who exactly are people like me? Like, people who point out why a system works the way it does? -_-
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
Wrong. This doesn't even make sense within the context its coming from.
1) People hunt for entertainment, remember? Legally.
2) People fish for entertainment, remember? Legally.
3) People eat for entertainment as well as nourishment remember? Legally.
4) People waste food, remember? Legally.
First of all, by your logic, one could argue that people who waste food frivolously are causing animals unnecessary pain for the sake of entertainment. I say by your logic because you're willing to overlook the fact that whatever else he was doing, he was also eating. This is the monkey wrench in your argument, an argument that also assumes goldfish are even capable of feeling pain (as we understand it), or being aware of their own existence.
It's approaching nihilism to deny 1) differences in animal complexity and 2) degrees of cruelty so that you can turn this into a flatland where killing any animal is cruelty, and where we don't have to consider the animal or the degree of cruelty. It's almost comical nihilism. It's generally speaking a postmodernist deconstructionist mindset that is so ass backwards it can't even reconcile the difference between eating a live goldfish and torturing a sentient animal, so it throws the perpetrators of both actions in the slammer (something which is worse than the offense itself in this case). Sorry, but just because you and the other postmodernists can't reconcile these differences for yourself doesn't mean a man (stupid though he may be) deserves to have his life plunged into turmoil and put into prison. His "crime" just doesn't merit that punishment.
To the other nihilists in this thread:
You can't use the notion of all life being sacred as a logical basis to make irrelevant the nature/complexity of the lifeform that died, or to make irrelevant the degree of cruelty.
Even if this guy did it just for entertainment, killing and eating a goldfish for entertainment isn't sufficient basis for punitive actions, when eating a goldfish for nourishment is fully reasonable. Sorry, but the slight difference in intent on something that is ordinarily legal, common, and has a staggeringly large precedent in nature isn't sufficient to jump something from "meh" to prison time, especially in a society where people regularly hunt for entertainment.
Even if he "tortured" the goldfish (lol), torturing a goldfish isn't the same as torturing a dog or a monkey. And before the postmodernists in here cry that's just my opinion and it has no basis in reality, consider that that very reply is your opinion just the same, except that your opinion ignores the hierarchy of complexity that is nature and makes irrelevant how sentient a lifeform is (and is willing to put a highly sentient lifeform in prison (a torturous experience for a sentient lifeform) for "torturing" something that likely doesn't feel pain as you know it, is barely sentient, and is probably not self aware). If you're going to argue that goldfish are sentient and self aware, then putting them in a tiny-ass aquarium would be torture beyond anything someone could additionally do. In other words, the reason it's appropriate to keep a goldfish contained in a tank is the same reason killing it isn't a big deal.
And on that note another question for the nihilists in here: why do the very people accusing this poor guy of murder (lol) find it acceptable to keep a goldfish in a small tank, but now consider it cruel to put a dog in a travel case? Could it be because there are varying degrees of complexity and sentience?
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
There is literally no difference at all between cutting it's head of with a knife and biting it clean off the way he did in the video.
You keep making posts about "causing the animal pain" while you clearly didn't even watch the video. He killed a fish with his mouth and then ate it after it was dead. Removing a fish's head and then eating it shouldn't be illegal as long as the fish doesn't suffer. No matter what tools are used to remove the head.
Edit: Also, 100% agree with pretty much everything sevencck just said
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Since when do people fish only for the food? Most people I know that like fishing do it for entertainment. If you truly believe the bolded part then, as I said, a large group of people in the world would be doing something illegal. And he caused the fish less trauma than many of said people when they fish. As I also said in my post, the underlying nature of this have nothing to do with him eating the fish alive or "casuing the fish pain" as you now turned to. It's about him doing it for entertainment which is a completely different matter, which was my original point.
And turning it into that direction, how do you feel about fishing programs on television?
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Since when do people fish only for the food? Most people I know that like fishing do it for entertainment. If you truly believe the bolded part then, as I said, a large group of people in the world would be doing something illegal. And he caused the fish less trauma than many of said people when they fish. As I also said in my post, the underlying nature of this have nothing to do with him eating the fish alive or "casuing the fish pain" as you now turned to. It's about him doing it for entertainment which is a completely different matter, which was my original point.
And turning it into that direction, how do you feel about fishing programs on television?
I'm against fishing for entertainment as well, but that's no view that's supported by law since, I assume, it's considered part of culture. For example I also am completely against bullfighting and find it completely barbaric and cruel, but that's also protected by "culture". There would be no point arguing for punishment if the headline would be "Matador kills bull".
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
Again, as I just said this stuff is sadly protected by calling it "part of our culture". Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Those personal believes of mine however have not much to do with this case. In this case, there is no way in hell he can get away with saying "Butbut, everyone eats goldfishes alive since hundred of years, it's part of our culture!", that is why I consider the comparisons to fishing/hunting etc. to be completely unvalid.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it.
Did you just argue that animals are members of society? That's about as valid as saying "corporations are people"
On April 27 2012 08:43 r.Evo wrote:
Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Thousands of years of human history have already proven you wrong. I'll go use the Spanish as an easy example.
Or I can go ahead and bring this one home since you're from Germany and point out that "tomcat poking" and "goose clubbing" are German traditions which have existed for hundreds of years (so far civilzation hasn't ended...has it?).
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Since when do people fish only for the food? Most people I know that like fishing do it for entertainment. If you truly believe the bolded part then, as I said, a large group of people in the world would be doing something illegal. And he caused the fish less trauma than many of said people when they fish. As I also said in my post, the underlying nature of this have nothing to do with him eating the fish alive or "casuing the fish pain" as you now turned to. It's about him doing it for entertainment which is a completely different matter, which was my original point.
And turning it into that direction, how do you feel about fishing programs on television?
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
I can't quite say I'm a vegetarian, because I very rarely eat meat. I also agree with you that hunting for fun is deplorable. Believe me when I say I love animals and respect all life. But that includes human life, it isn't just reserved for those life forms I arrogantly feel need my personal "protection" (that's a shot at PETA, not at you). You can't claim to love and respect life yet apparently have such an utter disdain for the well being of humans. The complexity of human consciousness lends itself to often quirky and stupid behavior as that individual grows and unfolds and matures. In a society where hunting is fine, fishing is fine, and eating meat is fine, what he's done is simply not even remotely enough to "slam a hammer on his head," particularly if you're claiming to be a steward of animal life (since that includes humans).
Frankly, you are wrong. You can't be so shocked and outraged over a goldfish's life that you're willing to destroy a human's life. You need to rethink your hierarchy of values because you're putting alot of things higher in importance than this guy's life and emotional well being.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it.
Did you just argue that animals are members of society? That's about as valid as saying "corporations are people"
No, he's saying you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power, members or not, something I agree with quite strongly. He's simply forgetting that you can equally judge a society by how it treats those who have the "most" power.
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Also, 100% agree with pretty much everything sevencck just said
On April 26 2012 18:52 Zerg.Zilla wrote: So nowdays ur ass is going to jail for eating a fish?!... Yepp this whole world is going down the crapper...jesus christ...
a LIVE fish.
So what's the difference between using a rock to bash a fish's head in or leaving it on the ground to suffocate before you eat it or using you teeth as he did (he didn't swallow it alive) to kill it? It's certainly more gruesome but it's not like one is more humane than the other and as far as I know it isn't illegal to catch fish and eat in however you feel like. Is it because it's a pet? Is it because he did it for entertainment? Neither of those reasons are directly tied into the actual eating alive part. If it's actually the way he killed it you think is illegal that would make a whole bunch of the worlds population criminals.
Causing an animal pain if you want to use it as a source of food is unavoidable, but, in theory, should be kept to a minimum.
Causing an animal pain for entertainment can and should not be acceptable. Period.
I'm freely quoting Kundera here, but I agree with the premise that you can judge a society by how it treats those who have the least power in it. Do you think a society which says that causing an animal pain to show it off on your youtube channel (which you even make money from) is completely fine is one you want to live in? Are you fully aware of what possible consequences such a statement can have?
Since when do people fish only for the food? Most people I know that like fishing do it for entertainment. If you truly believe the bolded part then, as I said, a large group of people in the world would be doing something illegal. And he caused the fish less trauma than many of said people when they fish. As I also said in my post, the underlying nature of this have nothing to do with him eating the fish alive or "casuing the fish pain" as you now turned to. It's about him doing it for entertainment which is a completely different matter, which was my original point.
And turning it into that direction, how do you feel about fishing programs on television?
In this case however, I don't want it to become "accepted culture" that doing such a thing is okay. That's why I'm hoping some judge slams a hammer on his head, stating it is indeed NOT okay. That's why I also am arguing in the first place since, judging from this thread, some people think it's completely fine what he did and should happen on a daily basis.
I can't quite say I'm a vegetarian, because I very rarely eat meat. I also agree with you that hunting for fun is deplorable. Believe me when I say I love animals and respect all life. But that includes human life, it isn't just reserved for those life forms I arrogantly feel need my personal "protection" (that's a shot at PETA, not at you). You can't claim to love and respect life yet apparently have such an utter disdain for the well being of humans. The complexity of human consciousness lends itself to often quirky and stupid behavior as that individual grows and unfolds and matures. In a society where hunting is fine, fishing is fine, and eating meat is fine, what he's done is simply not even remotely enough to "slam a hammer on his head," particularly if you're claiming to be a steward of animal life (since that includes humans).
Frankly, you are wrong. You can't be so shocked and outraged over a goldfish's life that you're willing to destroy a human's life. You need to rethink your hierarchy of values because you're putting alot of things higher in importance than this guy's life and emotional well being.
Um, sorry I probably have presented that wrong but you just misunderstood me. I'm not "willing to destry a humans life" because he hurt an animal, especially because what you pointed out about PETA is what annoys the hell out of me and is most of the reason I can't find myself aligning with them.
"slam a hammer on his head" wasn't meant literally, more like the hammer of justice and all that. =P ... Since I actually find myself agreeing with your entire post I'd say we're pretty much on the same page.
Personally I believe that any culture which considers the suffering of animals for their entertainment part of their culture is barbaric in that regard and will fail as a society at large in the long run.
Thousands of years of human history have already proven you wrong. I'll go use the Spanish as an easy example.
Or I can go ahead and bring this one home since you're from Germany and point out that "tomcat poking" and "goose clubbing" are German traditions which have existed for hundreds of years (so far civilzation hasn't ended...has it?).
They didn't prove me wrong. Society at large IS in fact still failing when it comes to showing compassion and empathy for other human beings OR animals. The step from "I'm superior to this animal and that's why I can do with it whatever I want to" to "I'm superior to this person I can do with him whatever I want to" is incredibly small.
If you are able to accuse hurting an animal with the argument that you're a superior being that argument isn't far from what caused most of the suffering and bloodshed in the history of mankind. The reason for this is because this type of argument exploits the same in both cases: Lack of empathy and lack of compassion.
Don't get me wrong, I definitly do understand that we, as a society, are currently inable to actively display such values because of the way we think, act and have done so for thousands of years. - But that doesn't mean we have to take a step backwards and make something acceptable that's been off the table already due to advance as to how we think about ourselves and our role in the environment.
On April 26 2012 19:17 brum wrote: Seriously...? May as well sue millions of asians, since there is a live fish dish there.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frf-1tNcdWg Also, gold fish are considered to be one of the stupidest pets you can get your hands on. Going by this logic you could sue people for trampling on ants. At which size of animal does it become possible to sue someone, lol?
There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
They're not vertebrates, that's why the law sees it as something different.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
On April 27 2012 09:36 Flamingo777 wrote: There's a video out there (I just spent 10 mins on youtube and can't find it) of Tasteless eating some live Octopus with some of the GSL staff in Korea. I don't see how it's all that different, especially seeing that octopuses are on par with human intelligence.
On April 27 2012 06:07 Competent wrote: After reading 19 pages, the only justification for eating the live gold fish is, "Other animals are eaten alive also." or some form of appeals to nature. I would suggest that these people pick up a book on logical fallacies; you need it.
The issue that most people today have a hard time understanding is the issue of well being. We are animals too, but we are different in the idea that we have the ability to view that the retraction of well being is a bad thing--however insignificant the life. Most here have argued that "It's just a goldfish. It's brain capacity/memory/sentience/etc... is miniscule." While this is a factual statement, let me propose the logical inconsistency behind it. What if, on scale, a race of aliens from another world were so intellectually advanced that we appeared to be that of a goldfish's intelligence in comparison to theirs? Quickly we can realize the moral (not talking to you nihilists) dilemma at hand. There obviously is a problem, but to these aliens, we are mere "goldfish" in a pond that will do well in nourishing their bodies. It isn't illegal to them to eat things from other worlds. The pain we feel isn't on the scale of pain that they are capable of feeling--which is much higher. However, I--and I hope you-- would find issue with being eaten, despite being apart of nature and being so insignificant in brain intellect, and maybe even size.
While there may be a line that could be drawn as to what is below the point of "what we shouldn't care about" we should not draw this line arbitrarily on the claim of moral ignorance until we find a better answer. We should care about everything that can feel--any--pain, love, attraction, loyalty, and happiness--among others--until, if ever, we find the best suited answer.
Just to make things clear, you are arguing in favor not eating any animals, right? Because killing it the way he did is no worse then any other 'humane' way to kill a fish.
I do not eat animals. I do not condone eating animals. The only thing I would condone would be dairy and/or eggs, and ONLY if nothing is done to the animal that could shorten its life or trespass on it's well being.
Such examples would be: -Dairy cows are outside at all times unless the need to be milked. -No hormoes/cages/branding
Same for chickens, and don't over complicate my words please. Let's all use common sense and understand these are not the only two methods. This was a very very brief example that probably could go under more revising.
On April 27 2012 06:07 Competent wrote: After reading 19 pages, the only justification for eating the live gold fish is, "Other animals are eaten alive also." or some form of appeals to nature. I would suggest that these people pick up a book on logical fallacies; you need it.
The issue that most people today have a hard time understanding is the issue of well being. We are animals too, but we are different in the idea that we have the ability to view that the retraction of well being is a bad thing--however insignificant the life. Most here have argued that "It's just a goldfish. It's brain capacity/memory/sentience/etc... is miniscule." While this is a factual statement, let me propose the logical inconsistency behind it. What if, on scale, a race of aliens from another world were so intellectually advanced that we appeared to be that of a goldfish's intelligence in comparison to theirs? Quickly we can realize the moral (not talking to you nihilists) dilemma at hand. There obviously is a problem, but to these aliens, we are mere "goldfish" in a pond that will do well in nourishing their bodies. It isn't illegal to them to eat things from other worlds. The pain we feel isn't on the scale of pain that they are capable of feeling--which is much higher. However, I--and I hope you-- would find issue with being eaten, despite being apart of nature and being so insignificant in brain intellect, and maybe even size.
While there may be a line that could be drawn as to what is below the point of "what we shouldn't care about" we should not draw this line arbitrarily on the claim of moral ignorance until we find a better answer. We should care about everything that can feel--any--pain, love, attraction, loyalty, and happiness--among others--until, if ever, we find the best suited answer.
Just to make things clear, you are arguing in favor not eating any animals, right? Because killing it the way he did is no worse then any other 'humane' way to kill a fish.
I do not eat animals. I do not condone eating animals. The only thing I would condone would be dairy and/or eggs, and ONLY if nothing is done to the animal that could shorten its life or trespass on it's well being.
Such examples would be: -Dairy cows are outside at all times unless the need to be milked. -No hormoes/cages/branding
Same for chickens, and don't over complicate my words please. Let's all use common sense and understand these are not the only two methods. This was a very very brief example that probably could go under more revising.
Homo Sapien Sapiens evolved to eat both flora AND fauna. In science this is called an Omnivore.
It is commonly posited that humans took the great intellectual step forward in Africa then - travelling northward along the coast - spread across Southern Asia to India, Australia and the rest of the globe. Guess what kind of meat was most commonly consumed due to this coastal journey? If you guessed "gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits" then you are correct - also you just read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on "Fish."
That being said, the common Goldfish lives in a freshwater habitat. Oddly enough - humans for some reason have evolved to be able to eat any small freshwater fish as raw dog as a dude who forgot his Trojans. In fact, of all the meat we consume, fish is probably the most gastronomically acceptable in terms of our intestinal evolution.
If you don't believe in eating animals - I really don't give a shit. If its for religion, fine. If its because you don't like how the animals are treated, I'm right there with you. Unfortunately - you can no more tell humans to stop getting their healthy and essential nutrients from the most natural source than you can tell a carnivore that it has to get its protein from peanuts and cheese. And you will NEVER, I repeat NEVER be able to remove the DNA evidence which incriminates you and your ancestors in the googles of fish homicides committed by your species.
And indeed - for the majority of our history - the murder weapon was our molars.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
Dear False Dichotomy,
I don't agree with your last statement. It may be cruel, but eating food shouldn't be punishable by law.
On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote: Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law.
Why does it matter whether you bought a mouse in a pet shop to feed it alive to your snake, or eat it alive yourself?
On April 27 2012 11:08 Hollow wrote: If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet."
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.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet."
Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Or are you really that short-sighted? 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?"
So, is that your argument as well? 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. If you don't, then make an actual point.
On April 27 2012 00:47 liberal wrote: I had a snake that would only eat live fish. I fed the snake lots of goldfish. I guess that means I have dozens of counts of animal cruelty on my hands.
When I read stories like this and then see people in TL actually getting angry about it I always picture a crowd on south park yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" It's just childish.
THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
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?
The only thing that you can possibly argue is at which animals the line is drawn. Currently, it's defined as any vertebrate. If you want to suggest another line, fine by me. Which one? It get's really tricky beyond that definition.
A friend of mine went hunting the other day... he killed a large deer. Caused it much pain. He had fun. He's in his house right now, not jail.
My personal opinion: he's an idiot, and so are you. But let's stick to the "this is the same thing" argument. It's not. Your friend didn't buy it in a pet shop. Everything you buy in a pet shop you buy as a pet, not as food, unless it is food for your pet. If you purposefully cause pain to an animal you bought in a pet shop for entertainment, you are cruel, and should be punished by law. If you do not agree with this last statement you are subhuman, the scum of the Earth.
Weirdly enough, what you can buy in a pets story in one part of the world is often eaten in another part. But please go on to explain why one group of people is the scum of the earth based on the label "pet."
Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Or are you really that short-sighted? 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?"
So, is that your argument as well? 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? Make a point.
Nobody is misrepresenting you. We are just taking offense to your false dichotomy which condemns all those who disagree with you to the status of "subhuman scum of the earth."
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?
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?
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?
Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick.
On April 27 2012 12:20 bjornkavist wrote: Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick.
Apparently the fact that a fish has a spine makes all the difference. I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders.
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.
On April 27 2012 12:20 bjornkavist wrote: Seriously... He has a video of him eating a live spider, you can hear it pop and crunch in his mouth, but he eats a goldfish and they want to send him to jail? There's a real double standard here that makes me a little sick.
Apparently the fact that a fish has a spine makes all the difference. I really think its just because fish are cuter than spiders.
Remember that super long post regarding shark fin soup? the destruction of our oceans eco system, dolphin slaughter, shark genocide.........................................
this srsly made me lol. I have been a vegetarian my entire life, my parents raised me that way. The life of this goldfish did not bring me pain.
whats the difference in buying a goldfish to feed your baby shark? my friends have snakes and sharks that probably eat pet stores worth of cuddly little animals.
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.
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. You're just assuming a lot of things here.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
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.
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?
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 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?
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 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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
My thoughts? Who cares its a goldfish...my middle school had a lock in and they had some weird mini "Fear Factor" thing set up there and one of the challenges presented was to swallow a live goldfish and no one gave a damn and that was back when I was in a private Catholic middle school...
I agree with the OP, people need to get a grip on reality and go spend some time in the wilderness.
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 times
no 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
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.
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.
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.
I just told a friend to check some of this guy's videos out especially the one where he ate a fucking tarantula, only to find out it was already blocked, and now I see this on TL. It's all good IMO and they should just let him be. His stuff is a lot more entertaining than the others out there even though it's disgusting and crazy, really, and it s funny once you realize how bored he and his friends must be (too much money and nothing to do?)
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?
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.
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.
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.
Additionally, when does consumption not result in death? Would it have been better if he were to have swallowed it alive after dressing it in some kind of Stomach Resistant Fish Explorer Suit? But, surely that in itself would be animal cruelty and deserving of at LEAST a death sentence.
Don't ever buy a lobster because boiling it alive is causing unnecessary pain and everybody in the lobster/crab/craw fish industry should be imprisoned and put on the same pedestal as rapists and murderers.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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[/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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways.
I was at a boy scout camp as a kid the first time I went fishing. I hooked one and my group leader took it, placed it in a plastic bag, and repeatedly whacked it against a wooden fence. I never went fishing again after that. This is mercy compared haha.
I don't even know why people bother trying to ruin someone's life over something so silly...
I understand why people argue both sides, but you have to understand... there are cultures out there that eat live animals as delicacies. I can think of live seafood, monkey brain (with a living monkey, yes), off the top off my head
Now, even though I don't personally agree with eating the goldfish, I don't think he should be punished (at least not so severely) just because his ethics/beliefs differ from those of others
The high tech fishing boats should instead be sent to prison. Fish have no chance vs high tech and soon our oceans are empty.
Whoever sued the guy should go to prison instead for wasting peoples time. Wake up people not only are silly amounts of animals killed for eating and other goods, but to top it it often involves cruel methods. The meat you buy in a supermarket surely has seen a worse life and death than the fish.
Instead of him you should go after the meat industy but of course the big meat industry has money and you dont fuck with those guys.
I havent seen the video but if he just eats the fish he has dont the most normal thing in the world. If he made the fish suffer before eating it then he must go to jail.
On April 28 2012 06:42 Teejing wrote: The high tech fishing boats should instead be sent to prison. Fish have no chance vs high tech and soon our oceans are empty.
Whoever sued the guy should go to prison instead for wasting peoples time. Wake up people not only are silly amounts of animals killed for eating and other goods, but to top it it often involves cruel methods. The meat you buy in a supermarket surely has seen a worse life and death than the fish.
Instead of him you should go after the meat industy but of course the big meat industry has money and you dont fuck with those guys.
I havent seen the video but if he just eats the fish he has dont the most normal thing in the world. If he made the fish suffer before eating it then he must go to jail.
Out of curiosity, why are you and other people with the same statements incapable of making a distinction between "he did it for the sake of gaining publicity" and "he did it to eat it and tried to minimize suffering"?
How is putting a live goldfish in your mouth and starting to chew it NOT causing him suffering?
On April 28 2012 06:18 JerKy wrote: I understand why people argue both sides, but you have to understand... there are cultures out there that eat live animals as delicacies. I can think of live seafood, monkey brain (with a living monkey, yes), off the top off my head
Now, even though I don't personally agree with eating the goldfish, I don't think he should be punished (at least not so severely) just because his ethics/beliefs differ from those of others
But that's not what it's about and that's why people are getting butthurt about it. They're having misplaced anger and misunderstanding what the issue is.
Ask yourself a very simple question:
Is it ok to kill something for the entertainment of others?
Ignore culture and the fact that he killed an animal or how he killed it, the issue is explicitly why he did it. Things die regularly for a myriad of reasons that are perfectly legitimate, but this isn't one of those cases. He killed it explicitly for the entertainment of others. It has absolutely nothing to do with his ethics / beliefs. People say that he shouldn't be punished yet have a tremendously difficult time actually saying the words "It is ok to kill something for fun." to themselves, which is what you have to believe to not think he deserves some kind of punishment. Either that or "Killing something for fun is not deserving of punishment" which to me is tantamount to the same thing.
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.
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?
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.
No dude - you can't boil down my argument to something I am not arguing. If I wanted to say "But come on man, it's just a goldfish, who cares?" I would have. But I didn't.
There is a difference between something being morally reprehensible and something being legally reprehensible. Therefore - saying that I don't necessarily condone the act, but that I don't think he is at fault legally is not contradictory.
I said that I don't necessarily condone eating live feeder goldfish, but that this guy can if he wants to. I did not say that I think its ok to kill things for the enjoyment of others.
My defense thus far could be summarized as -
The goldfish would have been eaten no matter what. Whether this is acceptable or a major breach of goldfish rights is not for me to say. In my opinion, if you really wanted to prevent this from happening, you wouldn't sell goldfish as food. If you sell goldfish as food - you have to expect them to be eaten. If you are expecting the goldfish to be eaten, you also have to expect them to be killed.
My argument has little to do with what kind of animal it is - but rather for what purpose the animal was being sold.
It would be different if he was just killing fish on his YouTube channel, but he ate a goldfish that was sold to be eaten. In order to be in violation of the laws posted - he would have to be killing a pet (something he was charged with taking care of). When the pet shop owner sold him the goldfish - he was doing so with the full knowledge and understanding that it would be killed and eaten.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways.
I think you're grasping at straws here. Fishing is an established "sport". They have TV shows dedicated to fishing for entertainment; they win big money prizes as well. This guys' hobby is eating weird stuff. I doubt the amount of money he gets from YT ads is very much at all.
A few more points:
-He decapitated the fish very quickly, it felt little to no pain. -Fish are at the bottom of the food chain. -This guy digested the fish, he received sustenance from it.
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.
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."
You're right and I veered off what I was trying to say.
What I should have said is that people cause more harm fishing than what was done in the video and the vast majority of people who fish don't do it out of necessity to eat. They do it because they enjoy finishing and it entertains them. So imo fishing is the same as the video, entertainment with the extra bonus of some food.
You don't hurt/kill the fish for shock value though, and you certainly aren't hoping to make money out of causing them pain. I would say that you likely enjoy fishing because of the environment, camaraderie, and the excitement of battling a fish. And yet simultaneously throughout all of that, I would say that the thing people dislike most about fishing is that it does cause pain to the fish or occasionally kills them and that's certainly not the intention. I think few would say they enjoy the pain they cause.
I believe that if you were to ask someone who enjoys fishing, if it were possible to fish (catch and release) without causing any harm whatsoever to the fish, they would unanimously say yes--that if they could have the experience and cause virtually no pain to the animal they would do it in a heartbeat.
Eh, I'm not so sure many fisherman care about the well being of the fish they catch. Though, I will agree that they don't do it so they can kill the fish(usually, but there is stuff like shark fishing). And there are tons of commercial fisherman who make a lot of money by causing fish lots of pain. I guess in the end its a philosophical difference on the ends vs the means.
I'm talking about recreational fishers. People who aren't recreational fishing are fishing for profit in some way. But this is fairly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
This topic is about whether it is alright to publicly kill something for entertainment. When I say entertainment I'm speaking about a crowd and money being involved. I didn't get to see his viewing numbers but I assume he crossed the threshold (which is surprisingly little) in which he was making a profit. People were misinterpreting what I meant by entertainment previously, taking it to mean entertainment for himself, which isn't the case. If he took any joy in what he did he's likely disturbed anyways.
I think you're grasping at straws here. Fishing is an established "sport". They have TV shows dedicated to fishing for entertainment; they win big money prizes as well. This guys' hobby is eating weird stuff. I doubt the amount of money he gets from YT ads is very much at all.
A few more points:
-He decapitated the fish very quickly, it felt little to no pain. -Fish are at the bottom of the food chain. -This guy digested the fish, he received sustenance from it.
This is just crazy since the fish you buy in the store goes through much more agony than that goldfish did. Stuck in a fishingnet for hours. Do you think they break the neck of or decapatiates all the thousands of fish they get onto the fishing boats?
I do however consider fish being the animal i sympathise the least with except for insects and spiders, since they seem to have close to no intellect/emotions/memory.
I don't think the law is very clear on how animal cruelty is defined. I don't think it's fair to charge him when he wasn't aware of the potential consequences of this seemingly harmless act. A friend of mine ate a live goldfish as a stunt to get elected onto student council and he didn't hear from the authorities.
If he killed it by biting it (rather than eating it whole), how is this any different than killing a bass with a knife. When you fish for food, you will typically cut off the fish's head while it is still alive. Fishing is a pretty common activity and I don't hear anybody getting arrested for that.
Goldfish are also known as "feeder fish" by people who own bigger fish. If you own eels, you may buy goldfish and feed them (alive) to eels. I don't understand how this is any different from the goldfish's perspective than being eaten by a human.
Animal cruelty is a very serious issue, but I think this is a major distraction from real instances of animal cruelty. Goldfish are not intelligent creatures, unlike dogs or cows. Horses are often killed using slaughterhouse machinery made for cows. This causes the bolt to miss the brain if the horse moves its head and the horse lives until it bleeds out or is manually put down. I find the Youtube videos to be very distasteful, but I don't issue any real animal cruelty issues in them.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
To me the defining line is how quickly the fish is killed. At first, I thought he swallowed it whole and alive so it would be left to die painfully in his stomach acid. But it looks like he kills it by chewing on it, which would be rather quick. That's essentially how most animals die in the wild anyways. I can't see how this death is much worse than any of the other thousands of deaths that occur with farm animals every day. I guess the only thing weird about it is that he's kind of glorifying it.
I agree itkovian - funnily enough - in both cases I linked in the post above - the goldfishes involved were swallowed whole - therefore leading to the excruciating death you describe. I wonder - if Louis were say, raising money for a charity, if anyone would have cared at all.
On April 29 2012 14:42 Arghmyliver wrote: I agree itkovian - funnily enough - in both cases I linked in the post above - the goldfishes involved were swallowed whole - therefore leading to the excruciating death you describe. I wonder - if Louis were say, raising money for a charity, if anyone would have cared at all.
Haha, that's a good point. I think the sources you linked above point out how sensationalist this whole situation is. There are really much worse things that happen to animals at the hands of humans, the only thing that makes this occurrence such a big deal is the fact that it went viral on youtube and it happened explicitly on camera.
People... its a freaking gold fish. How can meekness be running so rampant in society? Its becoming so bad its almost a disconnect from reality. Perhaps our modern age is simply too coddling.
Do the people who support fining or putting this guy in jail realize, that the fish isn't thinking to itself, "Oh man this is gonna suck, OWWWW this hurts, HOLY CRAP", because it doesn't EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO?!? Stop thinking for the fish you idiots.
The only reason it's sad at all, is because you make it sad by attaching YOUR thoughts about what YOU think the fish is "thinking".
On April 29 2012 15:00 smokeyhoodoo wrote: People... its a freaking gold fish. How can meekness be running so rampant in society? Its becoming so bad its almost a disconnect from reality. Perhaps our modern age is simply too coddling.
what sort of statement is that to make, he broke the law and should be punished for it. How does chewing up a live goldfish make you more of a man? The guy's is an ass, and should be treated as such.
Would it be more or less ok to eat a live kitten?
Where do you draw the line?
In a civilized country, anything that feels pain (ie anything with a spinal cord) should be killed in the most humane way possible.
To quote Ghandi, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. What does it say about you that you think its ok?
It's pretty sick to kill something for your own amusement. Let's say that instead of eating the goldfish, he would just film himself slamming it on a table and then throwing it in the garbage can. This is the same thing. He took a life totally without a purpose. Sure, he might have gained some nourishment, but that wasn't his intent.
I don't view animal lives as equal to human life, but when you're killing an animal for other reasons than for food, it's just sick.
On April 30 2012 03:39 ninini wrote: It's pretty sick to kill something for your own amusement. Let's say that instead of eating the goldfish, he would just film himself slamming it on a table and then throwing it in the garbage can. This is the same thing. He took a life totally without a purpose. Sure, he might have gained some nourishment, but that wasn't his intent.
I don't view animal lives as equal to human life, but when you're killing an animal for other reasons than for food, it's just sick.
On April 30 2012 03:39 ninini wrote: It's pretty sick to kill something for your own amusement. Let's say that instead of eating the goldfish, he would just film himself slamming it on a table and then throwing it in the garbage can. This is the same thing. He took a life totally without a purpose. Sure, he might have gained some nourishment, but that wasn't his intent.
I don't view animal lives as equal to human life, but when you're killing an animal for other reasons than for food, it's just sick.
On April 30 2012 03:39 ninini wrote: It's pretty sick to kill something for your own amusement. Let's say that instead of eating the goldfish, he would just film himself slamming it on a table and then throwing it in the garbage can. This is the same thing. He took a life totally without a purpose. Sure, he might have gained some nourishment, but that wasn't his intent.
I don't view animal lives as equal to human life, but when you're killing an animal for other reasons than for food, it's just sick.
what if its for scientific research?
he said "amusement"
"I don't view animal lives as equal to human life, but when you're killing an animal for other reasons than for food, it's just sick."
try reading his post next time, before telling me what his post said.
furthermore, scientific research is often times conducted as amusement. should scientists not enjoy what they do?
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
Do you even know what omnivore means?
Its got nothing to do with nourishment, guy was trying to make money off ad revenue on his youtube channel by being an idiot. How can you even think that its ok to chew up a live goldfish for entertainment but not ok to have two dogs fight? how is it even different? If he was hungry he should have killed it first, THATS THE POINT HERE but he wasn't hungry - he's just a knob trying to make money from being such. Unnecessary cruelty and suffering is how its phrased in UK law, and that's what he did.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with plants having rights, it's a ludicrous link to make in this scenario.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
Do you even know what omnivore means?
Its got nothing to do with nourishment, guy was trying to make money off ad revenue on his youtube channel by being an idiot. How can you even think that its ok to chew up a live goldfish for entertainment but not ok to have two dogs fight? how is it even different? If he was hungry he should have killed it first, THATS THE POINT HERE but he wasn't hungry - he's just a knob trying to make money from being such. Unnecessary cruelty and suffering is how its phrased in UK law, and that's what he did.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with plants having rights, it's a ludicrous link to make in this scenario.
lol, so you're telling me that it's less cruel to kill the goldfish BEFORE you eat it? That doesn't change anything. Whether you kill it first or don't, you still kill the animal.
And wait, are you suggesting that the point here is that if you eat something for any reason than for getting nourishment, that's a crime? I eat all the time just because I like to eat. Should I go to jail for that?
And yes, this DOES have to do with plants having rights - because suing someone over eating a goldfish should be a serious concern for where our society is headed, as it is just as silly of an idea. This is simply a case of someone trying to get money from someone else for doing something innocent.
You have to remember that people are bored, and freak out over dumb shit. Didn't jackass do something similar? I also remember when PITA started flipping out because Obama killed a fly during an interview (in a most awesome fashion btw). There are far worse instances of animal cruelty, and people eat live things all the time, this idiot just put it on youtube.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
Do you even know what omnivore means?
Its got nothing to do with nourishment, guy was trying to make money off ad revenue on his youtube channel by being an idiot. How can you even think that its ok to chew up a live goldfish for entertainment but not ok to have two dogs fight? how is it even different? If he was hungry he should have killed it first, THATS THE POINT HERE but he wasn't hungry - he's just a knob trying to make money from being such. Unnecessary cruelty and suffering is how its phrased in UK law, and that's what he did.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with plants having rights, it's a ludicrous link to make in this scenario.
lol, so you're telling me that it's less cruel to kill the goldfish BEFORE you eat it? That doesn't change anything. Whether you kill it first or don't, you still kill the animal.
And wait, are you suggesting that the point here is that if you eat something for any reason than for getting nourishment, that's a crime? I eat all the time just because I like to eat. Should I go to jail for that?
And yes, this DOES have to do with plants having rights - because suing someone over eating a goldfish should be a serious concern for where our society is headed, as it is just as silly of an idea. This is simply a case of someone trying to get money from someone else for doing something innocent.
the manner of death has a huge impact on laws concerning animal rights. thats why when fishermen catch fish they tend to hit the fish in the head very hard which instantly kills it - they don't just open it up while its still alive because its just an asshole thing to do.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
Do you even know what omnivore means?
Its got nothing to do with nourishment, guy was trying to make money off ad revenue on his youtube channel by being an idiot. How can you even think that its ok to chew up a live goldfish for entertainment but not ok to have two dogs fight? how is it even different? If he was hungry he should have killed it first, THATS THE POINT HERE but he wasn't hungry - he's just a knob trying to make money from being such. Unnecessary cruelty and suffering is how its phrased in UK law, and that's what he did.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with plants having rights, it's a ludicrous link to make in this scenario.
lol, so you're telling me that it's less cruel to kill the goldfish BEFORE you eat it? That doesn't change anything. Whether you kill it first or don't, you still kill the animal.
And wait, are you suggesting that the point here is that if you eat something for any reason than for getting nourishment, that's a crime? I eat all the time just because I like to eat. Should I go to jail for that?
And yes, this DOES have to do with plants having rights - because suing someone over eating a goldfish should be a serious concern for where our society is headed, as it is just as silly of an idea. This is simply a case of someone trying to get money from someone else for doing something innocent.
the manner of death has a huge impact on laws concerning animal rights. thats why when fishermen catch fish they tend to hit the fish in the head very hard which instantly kills it - they don't just open it up while its still alive because its just an asshole thing to do.
should we send assholes to jail? seems a bit over the top. also biting the head of a fish is a quick death, as it immediately severs the spinal cord. like the guillotine. crushing the head with teeth is also very quick as it destroys the brain in a second. so he wasnt even being an asshole - just a guy eating a fish.
So like - gutting a fish frequently consists of cutting off its head. The head of the fish actually contains the heart - (or as near as you can get while still cutting off the head) which as I recall from my dad teaching me how to gut fish when I was child (none of my family are hunters, they fish at the beach on vacation maybe once a year) still beats for like 5-10 mins at the very least. Basically my point is, there is no way you can kill a fish faster than how this guy did it. I watched his other videos, this is not a psychopath who is killing animals for fun, this is a guy who gets together with his friends and eats gross shit and then posts it on YouTube. You can see the evolution of his channel from just a nobody eating gross shit to a popular YouTube star (gets better camera work and an intro/jingle made by an audience member). This guy seems fairly normal otherwise, probably a really nice guy.
Yes, nice guys sometimes eat meat. Sorry for evolution yo.
On April 29 2012 11:04 Arghmyliver wrote: Hey guys - thought I'd share this with you.
Not only did I find multiple videos on YouTube of schoolteachers eating live goldfish as part of fundraising efforts and as incentive for kids to turn in homework;
but also, goldfish swallowing was a fad in the late 1930s - where people swallowed dozens of goldfish in rapid succession. In fact - a UCLA professor determined that a grown male can swallow up to 150 goldfish safely - warning people not to exceed that number.
Haha, that's awesome. But I guess the difference is, this is America, where eating a goldfish isn't punishable by law, whereas the guy in the OP did it in UK, where apparently it's illegal to be an omnivore.
Soon we'll start having cases where people argue for plant rights, and before too long we'll have people suing people for eating at all... after that, I guess the only ethical thing will be to die off?
Come on people, this whole thing is a joke. Eating something does not fall under "animal cruelty" - making a bunch of dogs fight in a ring while people place bets on it IS, as well as other forms of animal TORTURE. There's a difference.
Do you even know what omnivore means?
Its got nothing to do with nourishment, guy was trying to make money off ad revenue on his youtube channel by being an idiot. How can you even think that its ok to chew up a live goldfish for entertainment but not ok to have two dogs fight? how is it even different? If he was hungry he should have killed it first, THATS THE POINT HERE but he wasn't hungry - he's just a knob trying to make money from being such. Unnecessary cruelty and suffering is how its phrased in UK law, and that's what he did.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with plants having rights, it's a ludicrous link to make in this scenario.
lol, so you're telling me that it's less cruel to kill the goldfish BEFORE you eat it? That doesn't change anything. Whether you kill it first or don't, you still kill the animal.
And wait, are you suggesting that the point here is that if you eat something for any reason than for getting nourishment, that's a crime? I eat all the time just because I like to eat. Should I go to jail for that?
And yes, this DOES have to do with plants having rights - because suing someone over eating a goldfish should be a serious concern for where our society is headed, as it is just as silly of an idea. This is simply a case of someone trying to get money from someone else for doing something innocent.
You're clearly just not very intelligent, and I feel less so for having conversed with you.
You're clearly just not very intelligent, and I feel less so for having conversed with you.
Ah, good old ad hominem, the perfect solution when lacking a proper argument.
---
I think this entire ordeal is straight out retarded.
1. Fish caught in nets are squeezed together for hours before getting their arteries slit, resulting in exsanguination. This doesn't seem preferable to a quick death by decapitation and/or a bath in highly concentrated acid to me.
2. The 'pet' and 'brain size' arguments are worthless as they are completely arbitrary. People's objections seem to be originating from a notion that unnecessary infliction of physical and mental pain should be kept to a minimum. I therefore suggest that you stick to your own words and create two categories; one for organisms that perceive pain and one for organisms that don't. Arbitrarily putting the limit at cats/dogs/whatever is nonsensical. It would also be wise to assume that anything with a nervous system can perceive pain until proven otherwise, instead of the other way around.
3. A person risks legal repercussions for eating a goldfish. Fuck this gay earth.
On April 30 2012 08:38 Arghmyliver wrote: So like - gutting a fish frequently consists of cutting off its head. The head of the fish actually contains the heart - (or as near as you can get while still cutting off the head) which as I recall from my dad teaching me how to gut fish when I was child (none of my family are hunters, they fish at the beach on vacation maybe once a year) still beats for like 5-10 mins at the very least. Basically my point is, there is no way you can kill a fish faster than how this guy did it. I watched his other videos, this is not a psychopath who is killing animals for fun, this is a guy who gets together with his friends and eats gross shit and then posts it on YouTube. You can see the evolution of his channel from just a nobody eating gross shit to a popular YouTube star (gets better camera work and an intro/jingle made by an audience member). This guy seems fairly normal otherwise, probably a really nice guy.
Yes, nice guys sometimes eat meat. Sorry for evolution yo.
So because he's a nice guy he should be immune towards animal cruelty charges? Ppl are stupid, sometimes they don't think about what they're doing. Don't kill a animal unless you have a purpose for doing it. Doing it for kicks and giggles doesn't count as a purpose. Also, do it in the most humane and respectful way possible. Killing something by chewing on it is not very humane, and it's definately not respectful.
On April 30 2012 05:07 ScaryGhost wrote: You have to remember that people are bored, and freak out over dumb shit. Didn't jackass do something similar? I also remember when PITA started flipping out because Obama killed a fly during an interview (in a most awesome fashion btw). There are far worse instances of animal cruelty, and people eat live things all the time, this idiot just put it on youtube.
On April 30 2012 05:07 ScaryGhost wrote: You have to remember that people are bored, and freak out over dumb shit. Didn't jackass do something similar? I also remember when PITA started flipping out because Obama killed a fly during an interview (in a most awesome fashion btw). There are far worse instances of animal cruelty, and people eat live things all the time, this idiot just put it on youtube.
They didn't prove me wrong. Society at large IS in fact still failing when it comes to showing compassion and empathy for other human beings OR animals. The step from "I'm superior to this animal and that's why I can do with it whatever I want to" to "I'm superior to this person I can do with him whatever I want to" is incredibly small.
If you are able to accuse hurting an animal with the argument that you're a superior being that argument isn't far from what caused most of the suffering and bloodshed in the history of mankind. The reason for this is because this type of argument exploits the same in both cases: Lack of empathy and lack of compassion.
Ugh. Logically Fallacies - Here's the one for you and everyone else arguing that mistreating animals is somehow going to degrade civilization back to the stone-age (also the site that hosts these makes me laugh)
On April 30 2012 08:38 Arghmyliver wrote: So like - gutting a fish frequently consists of cutting off its head. The head of the fish actually contains the heart - (or as near as you can get while still cutting off the head) which as I recall from my dad teaching me how to gut fish when I was child (none of my family are hunters, they fish at the beach on vacation maybe once a year) still beats for like 5-10 mins at the very least. Basically my point is, there is no way you can kill a fish faster than how this guy did it. I watched his other videos, this is not a psychopath who is killing animals for fun, this is a guy who gets together with his friends and eats gross shit and then posts it on YouTube. You can see the evolution of his channel from just a nobody eating gross shit to a popular YouTube star (gets better camera work and an intro/jingle made by an audience member). This guy seems fairly normal otherwise, probably a really nice guy.
Yes, nice guys sometimes eat meat. Sorry for evolution yo.
So because he's a nice guy he should be immune towards animal cruelty charges? Ppl are stupid, sometimes they don't think about what they're doing. Don't kill a animal unless you have a purpose for doing it. Doing it for kicks and giggles doesn't count as a purpose. Also, do it in the most humane and respectful way possible. Killing something by chewing on it is not very humane, and it's definately not respectful.
My points here are not that anyone should be immune to animal cruelty, but rather that in this case - there is little to justify an animal cruelty charge.
I would say that mastication is at least as humane as decapitation (considering the size of the human jaw in relation to the goldfish's spine) - and probably more humane than the electric floors they use to kill pigs/sheep.
Considering we treat most of the animals we eat for food with holocaust level conditions, somehow it seems to me that at least this fish's death had more purpose than - "Welp, you're fat now, time to be food - BRRRRZZZAP"
EPT
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly31neukgm1rnx17uo1_500.jpg)
