If she was throwing rats in the river, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
yesJohnG@lt wrote:
Do you find eating steak pleasurable?11 Bravo wrote:
sociopaths whatever the culture. these kind of people are a waste to society.
stupid. people who kill anyhting for joy/sport/boredom/whatever are fucking idiots with a mental defect.mtb0minime wrote:
If she was throwing rats in the river, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
You find eating the flesh of an animal pleasurable, the aftermath, but anyone who takes pleasure in the actual slaughter is a sociopath.11 Bravo wrote:
yesJohnG@lt wrote:
Do you find eating steak pleasurable?11 Bravo wrote:
sociopaths whatever the culture. these kind of people are a waste to society.
"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 why she was throwing the puppies in the river or if she took pleasure in it.
Also when diagnosing mental illnesses, especially sociopathy, culture has to be taken into account. It's a rule of psychoanalysis. Many of the stuff common people would deem sociopathy today was socially accepted not too long ago.
Also when diagnosing mental illnesses, especially sociopathy, culture has to be taken into account. It's a rule of psychoanalysis. Many of the stuff common people would deem sociopathy today was socially accepted not too long ago.
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.
did you read what i said? its like talking to walls here.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.
Shoot it.Macbeth wrote:
The dog I had since I was 10 was put to sleep a few months back. It had lung cancer and was suffering blah blah.
Anyway, my dog was killed with a double dose of drugs by a Vet. Now I can understand a eastern euro country not having the ability to have each dog euthanized in a humane way. If they have problems with their dog population, it wouldn't be surprising if they couldn't get sufficient amounts of injections for killing animals humanely, at least cheaply.
Now tossing the animals into the river would have been a pretty quick death. They would have drowned in a minute or so tops, if you can think of more humane way of killing them, I'm all ears...
Hey man look at all you guys defending animals and then in another thread you talk about how awesome bacon and bbq's are and how yum KFC is. I'm not talking about regular meat-eating, cos I eat meat too, I'm talking about gloating so much about eating meat and such and how manly it is, and how bacon is the best thing ever.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
A. There's a seven second time frame between your post and mine. You posted while I was still typing out stuff.11 Bravo wrote:
did you read what i said? its like talking to walls here.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.
B. I wasn't talking to YOU or about YOU. I was making a general statement about people.
dead is not dead. would you want to be killed instantly or be raped with a broom stick first? fuck sake you people have such fucking issues.Mekstizzle wrote:
Hey man look at all you guys defending animals and then in another thread you talk about how awesome bacon and bbq's are and how yum KFC is. I'm not talking about regular meat-eating, cos I eat meat too, I'm talking about gloating so much about eating meat and such and how manly it is, and how bacon is the best thing ever.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
I essentially just said this. Quit bitin' off me.Mekstizzle wrote:
Hey man look at all you guys defending animals and then in another thread you talk about how awesome bacon and bbq's are and how yum KFC is. I'm not talking about regular meat-eating, cos I eat meat too, I'm talking about gloating so much about eating meat and such and how manly it is, and how bacon is the best thing ever.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
"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
Bullets cost money. Guns cost money. Shooting off rounds can get you in trouble. It may not be easy to get guns.SenorToenails wrote:
Shoot it.Macbeth wrote:
The dog I had since I was 10 was put to sleep a few months back. It had lung cancer and was suffering blah blah.
Anyway, my dog was killed with a double dose of drugs by a Vet. Now I can understand a eastern euro country not having the ability to have each dog euthanized in a humane way. If they have problems with their dog population, it wouldn't be surprising if they couldn't get sufficient amounts of injections for killing animals humanely, at least cheaply.
Now tossing the animals into the river would have been a pretty quick death. They would have drowned in a minute or so tops, if you can think of more humane way of killing them, I'm all ears...
If you could pick how to die, which would you prefer? Drowning or a bullet to the head? Or perhaps immolation?JohnG@lt wrote:
Only issue I see is polluting the water with excessive bacteria What's the difference between throwing it in the river or shooting it in the head? Result is the same.SenorToenails wrote:
Right, but there is a difference between recognizing what you just said and defending/justifying the disposal of live animals by throwing them in a river as a way of population control.Macbeth wrote:
Didn't the video come from some east euro country? Do you really expect humane treatment of animals out in eastern Europe?
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.
Then I guess the river is your only option, though why someone would record it is beyond me...Macbeth wrote:
Bullets cost money. Guns cost money. Shooting off rounds can get you in trouble. It may not be easy to get guns.
No mek the animal doesn't care what reason its killed for, iimagine it cares in what manner it is killed. Eating meat doesn't invalidate anyones opinion or make them hypocrites, that sentiment is moronic.Mekstizzle wrote:
Hey man look at all you guys defending animals and then in another thread you talk about how awesome bacon and bbq's are and how yum KFC is. I'm not talking about regular meat-eating, cos I eat meat too, I'm talking about gloating so much about eating meat and such and how manly it is, and how bacon is the best thing ever.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
Seriously how cheap is soviet ammunition in the east bloc? It's the quickest, most humane way that is also cost effective. Anyone who drags the death out of an animal for no reason deserves the same fate.
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?JohnG@lt wrote:
Only issue I see is polluting the water with excessive bacteria What's the difference between throwing it in the river or shooting it in the head? Result is the same.SenorToenails wrote:
Right, but there is a difference between recognizing what you just said and defending/justifying the disposal of live animals by throwing them in a river as a way of population control.
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.
"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
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.SenorToenails wrote:
Shoot it.Macbeth wrote:
The dog I had since I was 10 was put to sleep a few months back. It had lung cancer and was suffering blah blah.
Anyway, my dog was killed with a double dose of drugs by a Vet. Now I can understand a eastern euro country not having the ability to have each dog euthanized in a humane way. If they have problems with their dog population, it wouldn't be surprising if they couldn't get sufficient amounts of injections for killing animals humanely, at least cheaply.
Now tossing the animals into the river would have been a pretty quick death. They would have drowned in a minute or so tops, if you can think of more humane way of killing them, I'm all ears...
Have you seen half the crap that gets posted on youtube? Why any of it is on there is beyond me.SenorToenails wrote:
Then I guess the river is your only option, though why someone would record it is beyond me...Macbeth wrote:
Bullets cost money. Guns cost money. Shooting off rounds can get you in trouble. It may not be easy to get guns.
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.SenorToenails wrote:
If you could pick how to die, which would you prefer? Drowning or a bullet to the head? Or perhaps immolation?JohnG@lt wrote:
Only issue I see is polluting the water with excessive bacteria What's the difference between throwing it in the river or shooting it in the head? Result is the same.
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.
Whatever. The animals that are grown for food almost always lead shitty lives, too. These dogs led a short life, a shitty death, it's all the same really. I'm not a fan of this river throwing shit at all, I just don't gloat about meat though like you guys always do. Makes things seem stupid afterwards if you rage about animal rights one day, talk about how awesome meat is another.11 Bravo wrote:
dead is not dead. would you want to be killed instantly or be raped with a broom stick first? fuck sake you people have such fucking issues.Mekstizzle wrote:
Hey man look at all you guys defending animals and then in another thread you talk about how awesome bacon and bbq's are and how yum KFC is. I'm not talking about regular meat-eating, cos I eat meat too, I'm talking about gloating so much about eating meat and such and how manly it is, and how bacon is the best thing ever.
If you're going to hop on the poor animals band wagon then don't gloat about how awesome it is to hunt and have bacon and bbq's and all that shit.
Yes, you're killing them for food rather than fun or to appease psychopathic tendencies, but dead is dead, alright? The animal isn't going to care if you killed it for fun or food because it's still god damn dead.
Maybe not you specifically, but on the internet in general people act like that. Always talking about bacon, fried chicken and steak and shit. And every time a topic about vegetarianism comes up, it's always like "yeah meat is manly, fuck vegetarians i hate vegetables, humans are supposed to be carnivores" etc etc... same old shit.
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.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.
"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
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.
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.SenorToenails wrote:
Shoot it.
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.
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.
Riiiight. A dismissive answer if I ever saw one.JohnG@lt wrote:
In a ball of fire on my motorcycle.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-09-02 14:47:45)