no. there is zero reason to film it. that right there shows exactly what the purpose was.Macbeth wrote:
Could have been a borrowed camera. Could have been a camera from the 80's. Could have been uploaded from the library.11 Bravo wrote:
cameras cost money right? computer to upload film cost money right? you have issues.Macbeth wrote:
Bullets cost money. Guns cost money. Shooting off rounds can get you in trouble. It may not be easy to get guns.
There's just too many things we don't know to make any assumptions, especially 'zomg sociopaths' or ' evil animal torturer'
Also you didn't address the "It may not be easy to get guns.''
Also could you town down the insults. Thanks.
For what? A minute. And then it's over forever. This ain't the movies where someones last experience is played out over and over and over for eternity. How they feel in that final minute really matters? To who? Them? They're dead.SenorToenails wrote:
I don't know how the afterlife even came up...it's basically this: it matters to the creature. They have to experience it before they're dead.JohnG@lt wrote:
Since there's no afterlife, and they aren't going to be experiencing any pain or pleasure, especially not for eternity, does it even matter? Dead is dead, what they were feeling right before they die doesn't matter.SenorToenails wrote:
If you could pick how to die, which would you prefer? Drowning or a bullet to the head? Or perhaps immolation?
Why make an animal needlessly die in sheer terror if you can make its death quick? If you aren't concerned with that sort of ethics, then it won't matter anyway. It's not like I'm going to lose sleep over this unless I have some way to directly intervene. Which I obviously don't.
To be clear, it isn't the fact that the animal is dead that bothers me, but how the animal was killed.
Edit - Wasn't dismissive, it's my stock answer.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-02 14:49:02)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Rat poison is a painful death. So is getting your neck snapped in a springloaded device.SenorToenails wrote:
Throwing rats in a river like this would also be pretty shitty, but it's hard to reconcile that with the widespread use of rat poison and springloaded traps.Macbeth wrote:
Of course not.mtb0minime wrote:
If she was throwing rats in the river, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
Only the cute animals matter.
I'm sure if there was a video of her poisoning the dogs or snapping their necks there would be outrage.
To put it in more general terms, would you rather go out with no pain, or in a prolonged, painful fashion?JohnG@lt wrote:
In a ball of fire on my motorcycle.jord wrote:
I agree there is no afterlife. So how do you fancy going out john... Tortured to death or shot in the head?JohnG@lt wrote:
Since there's no afterlife, and they aren't going to be experiencing any pain or pleasure, especially not for eternity, does it even matter? Dead is dead, what they were feeling right before they die doesn't matter.
I don't care why I die, I can go out saving a baby in a fire or from a car crash. The reasons don't matter once you're dead, but whilst I'm alive I would never want to die in a process taking 10seconds+ of severe pain.
People tape all sorts of inane crap and post it on youtube.11 Bravo wrote:
no. there is zero reason to film it. that right there shows exactly what the purpose was.Macbeth wrote:
Could have been a borrowed camera. Could have been a camera from the 80's. Could have been uploaded from the library.11 Bravo wrote:
cameras cost money right? computer to upload film cost money right? you have issues.
There's just too many things we don't know to make any assumptions, especially 'zomg sociopaths' or ' evil animal torturer'
Also you didn't address the "It may not be easy to get guns.''
Also could you town down the insults. Thanks.
^^
Youtube videos uploaded by two different people of nothing more than them driving.
Meh. In the end it doesn't matter. Why is dying a slow painful death over eighty years superior to a slow painful death over ten seconds?jord wrote:
To put it in more general terms, would you rather go out with no pain, or in a prolonged, painful fashion?JohnG@lt wrote:
In a ball of fire on my motorcycle.jord wrote:
I agree there is no afterlife. So how do you fancy going out john... Tortured to death or shot in the head?
I don't care why I die, I can go out saving a baby in a fire or from a car crash. The reasons don't matter once you're dead, but whilst I'm alive I would never want to die in a process taking 10seconds+ of severe pain.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you get the pancake bunny award for this postMacbeth wrote:
People tape all sorts of inane crap and post it on youtube.11 Bravo wrote:
no. there is zero reason to film it. that right there shows exactly what the purpose was.Macbeth wrote:
Could have been a borrowed camera. Could have been a camera from the 80's. Could have been uploaded from the library.
There's just too many things we don't know to make any assumptions, especially 'zomg sociopaths' or ' evil animal torturer'
Also you didn't address the "It may not be easy to get guns.''
Also could you town down the insults. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODp0jPkX0lQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9IvpOpRLw
^^
Youtube videos uploaded by two different people of nothing more than them driving.
I just want to see it coming TBH. I would like to know death is imminent. Not of this ''randomly shot in the back of the head while going to get lunch'' crap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Meh. In the end it doesn't matter. Why is dying a slow painful death over eighty years superior to a slow painful death over ten seconds?jord wrote:
To put it in more general terms, would you rather go out with no pain, or in a prolonged, painful fashion?JohnG@lt wrote:
In a ball of fire on my motorcycle.
I don't care why I die, I can go out saving a baby in a fire or from a car crash. The reasons don't matter once you're dead, but whilst I'm alive I would never want to die in a process taking 10seconds+ of severe pain.
Why? Doesn't matter.Macbeth wrote:
I just want to see it coming TBH. I would like to know death is imminent. Not of this ''randomly shot in the back of the head while going to get lunch'' crap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Meh. In the end it doesn't matter. Why is dying a slow painful death over eighty years superior to a slow painful death over ten seconds?jord wrote:
To put it in more general terms, would you rather go out with no pain, or in a prolonged, painful fashion?
I don't care why I die, I can go out saving a baby in a fire or from a car crash. The reasons don't matter once you're dead, but whilst I'm alive I would never want to die in a process taking 10seconds+ of severe pain.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I do understand, "in the end" it doesn't matter indeed. Its just getting to that end that is the problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
Meh. In the end it doesn't matter. Why is dying a slow painful death over eighty years superior to a slow painful death over ten seconds?jord wrote:
To put it in more general terms, would you rather go out with no pain, or in a prolonged, painful fashion?JohnG@lt wrote:
In a ball of fire on my motorcycle.
I don't care why I die, I can go out saving a baby in a fire or from a car crash. The reasons don't matter once you're dead, but whilst I'm alive I would never want to die in a process taking 10seconds+ of severe pain.
Change the word tape to the word film and try to again otherwise I'm reading this as you give up.11 Bravo wrote:
you get the pancake bunny award for this postMacbeth wrote:
People tape all sorts of inane crap and post it on youtube.11 Bravo wrote:
no. there is zero reason to film it. that right there shows exactly what the purpose was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODp0jPkX0lQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9IvpOpRLw
^^
Youtube videos uploaded by two different people of nothing more than them driving.
is stoning women to death acceptable to you?Macbeth wrote:
Change the word tape to the word film and try to again otherwise I'm reading this as you give up.11 Bravo wrote:
you get the pancake bunny award for this postMacbeth wrote:
People tape all sorts of inane crap and post it on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODp0jPkX0lQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY9IvpOpRLw
^^
Youtube videos uploaded by two different people of nothing more than them driving.
I know, nothing really matters anyway if you think about it.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why? Doesn't matter.Macbeth wrote:
I just want to see it coming TBH. I would like to know death is imminent. Not of this ''randomly shot in the back of the head while going to get lunch'' crap.JohnG@lt wrote:
Meh. In the end it doesn't matter. Why is dying a slow painful death over eighty years superior to a slow painful death over ten seconds?
It's just personal preference. Aside from that I'm curious as to how I would react.
Depends on the reason she is being stoned to death for. A serial killer sure, stone her. A women caught without a veil? nope.11 Bravo wrote:
is stoning women to death acceptable to you?Macbeth wrote:
Change the word tape to the word film and try to again otherwise I'm reading this as you give up.11 Bravo wrote:
you get the pancake bunny award for this post
Also what the hell does that have to do with anything?
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-09-02 14:57:41)
It's a stock answer, but dismissive none the less.JohnG@lt wrote:
For what? A minute. And then it's over forever. This ain't the movies where someones last experience is played out over and over and over for eternity. How they feel in that final minute really matters? To who? Them? They're dead.
Edit - Wasn't dismissive, it's my stock answer.
You're right. We don't need to promote humane treatment of people and intelligent animals because on a large enough time scale, it hardly matters. Your life is only what, 100 years long? In an eternity it won't matter anymore and you'll be dead, so who gives a shit. I didn't say this was like a movie so I don't know where you are getting this shit from (the bit about the afterlife included).
My point is that if you have control over the situation, why guarantee a painful protracted death if you can provide something quicker and more humane. Your logic is that it won't matter after it's done, and yes...it won't after it's done but it will matter during the execution.
i'd like to see the hague and the UN adapt these policies towards ethics
Rwandan genocide? Meh what does it matter
Holocost? Well they'd have died anyway, oh well.
Chinese violating human rights and conducting animal cruelty on a massive scale? Well the universal balance won't be altered.
Rwandan genocide? Meh what does it matter
Holocost? Well they'd have died anyway, oh well.
Chinese violating human rights and conducting animal cruelty on a massive scale? Well the universal balance won't be altered.
why? bullets cost money. guns cost money. rocks are free.Macbeth wrote:
Depends on the reason she is being stoned to death for. A serial killer sure, stone her. A women caught without a veil? nope.11 Bravo wrote:
is stoning women to death acceptable to you?Macbeth wrote:
Change the word tape to the word film and try to again otherwise I'm reading this as you give up.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-09-02 14:58:24)
I did say it would be hard to reconcile, but I think the main issue is that people set the traps/poison and forget them. They don't have to watch the animal die, which does make it a different experience. I'm not justifying the hypocrisy there.Macbeth wrote:
Rat poison is a painful death. So is getting your neck snapped in a springloaded device.
I'm sure if there was a video of her poisoning the dogs or snapping their necks there would be outrage.
Um reread it again. I don't have a problem with stoning women to death if the punishment of execution is legitimate. If the punishment doesn't fit the "crime" then I do not support an execution. The method matters little to me.11 Bravo wrote:
why? bullets cost money. guns cost money. rocks are free.Macbeth wrote:
Depends on the reason she is being stoned to death for. A serial killer sure, stone her. A women caught without a veil? nope.11 Bravo wrote:
is stoning women to death acceptable to you?
Also I still don't see where you are going with this.
And my point is that while it's certainly ok to condemn people, speak out against them, or protest them for doing things you disagree with, jailing them is an entirely different matter. Why is it ok to kill an animal one way, but another way will land you in jail or with a fine? The end result is the same.SenorToenails wrote:
It's a stock answer, but dismissive none the less.JohnG@lt wrote:
For what? A minute. And then it's over forever. This ain't the movies where someones last experience is played out over and over and over for eternity. How they feel in that final minute really matters? To who? Them? They're dead.
Edit - Wasn't dismissive, it's my stock answer.
You're right. We don't need to promote humane treatment of people and intelligent animals because on a large enough time scale, it hardly matters. Your life is only what, 100 years long? In an eternity it won't matter anymore and you'll be dead, so who gives a shit. I didn't say this was like a movie so I don't know where you are getting this shit from (the bit about the afterlife included).
My point is that if you have control over the situation, why guarantee a painful protracted death if you can provide something quicker and more humane. Your logic is that it won't matter after it's done, and yes...it won't after it's done but it will matter during the execution.
I don't like seeing animals suffer myself. I once shot a mouse one of my mom's cats was playing with for a good hour, just to end its terror. Did I punish the cat? No, it is its nature. Did the actions the cat was taking sicken me? Enough to make me do something about it.
It's all well and good to take a moral stand and say that people should humanely put down animals, it's an entirely different realm to actually go out and legislate it. You can not and should not legislate emotion.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-02 15:01:57)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think it's more callous to leave a trap or poison to do the killing because you don't want to get your hands dirty or see the effects of your actions.SenorToenails wrote:
I did say it would be hard to reconcile, but I think the main issue is that people set the traps/poison and forget them. They don't have to watch the animal die, which does make it a different experience. I'm not justifying the hypocrisy there.Macbeth wrote:
Rat poison is a painful death. So is getting your neck snapped in a springloaded device.
I'm sure if there was a video of her poisoning the dogs or snapping their necks there would be outrage.
Are soviet weapons and ammunition really that expensive in the eastern bloc?
Do they not have animal centres?
Even if its a no to both, one strong blow from a blunt object is more humane than drowning. Or can they not afford blunt objects in this backwards states?
Do they not have animal centres?
Even if its a no to both, one strong blow from a blunt object is more humane than drowning. Or can they not afford blunt objects in this backwards states?
I can agree with this. It removes the consequences from the action in a way.Macbeth wrote:
I think it's more callous to leave a trap or poison to do the killing because you don't want to get your hands dirty or see the effects of your actions.SenorToenails wrote:
I did say it would be hard to reconcile, but I think the main issue is that people set the traps/poison and forget them. They don't have to watch the animal die, which does make it a different experience. I'm not justifying the hypocrisy there.Macbeth wrote:
Rat poison is a painful death. So is getting your neck snapped in a springloaded device.
I'm sure if there was a video of her poisoning the dogs or snapping their necks there would be outrage.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Again we don't know the overall circumstances to make any assumptions.jord wrote:
Are soviet weapons and ammunition really that expensive in the eastern bloc?
Do they not have animal centres?
Even if its a no to both, one strong blow from a blunt object is more humane than drowning. Or can they not afford blunt objects in this backwards states?
Also to kill a baby seal it sometimes takes two or three whacks...
What circumstances would condone someone choosing to drown animals rather than smply hit them with a blunt object? I can't think of any and I have somewhat of an imagination.Macbeth wrote:
Again we don't know the overall circumstances to make any assumptions.jord wrote:
Are soviet weapons and ammunition really that expensive in the eastern bloc?
Do they not have animal centres?
Even if its a no to both, one strong blow from a blunt object is more humane than drowning. Or can they not afford blunt objects in this backwards states?
Also to kill a baby seal it sometimes takes two or three whacks...
2,3,4,5 whacks, its always going to be quicker. Blunt trauma to the head is less painful than drowning.